Real or Surreal. Do you throw accuracy out the window for "better" sound?

Recordings are terrible.

Speakers are terrible.

Rooms are terrible. 

Electronics are fantastic relative to recording and speakers. Different, but relatively fantastic. 

Everyone has different sensitivities, preferences, and goals. 

Such is life on this planet. Laws of physics, being human etc. 

So, do we want the cleanest most accurate? Do we want various, unfortunately not quantified, added distortions to mask the above imperfections?  Do we want to impress our friends with what it costs?  You decide. 

Most of my music is older. Lots analog mastered, some early horrible digitally mastered, some very good, some new that is the worst I have heard.  Source is source, we have to deal wit it. 

My room is only as well tuned as "domestic distortion" allows.  It is our living room, not some dedicated uber-ego perfect listening room. A little too bright but my Lokius deals with that very well.  Even if I had the bucks, I would not want to shut myself up in a hole to listen to music. Personal choice. Others will disagree.  But in any case, a limit. 

My speakers are very articulate; very good IMHO.  I have hauled them around and really surprised shop owners as a lot of DIY they have heard is pretty bad. It did take me about 30 years to get here. A significant step up costs more than I am willing to pay. I have heard some in the 5 to 8K range I would like, but won't pay for them.   I have heard ones for a lot more that I would pull my Elac's out of the workshop first! Again, choice.

So, clean or euphonic?   Choice.  I think the biggest mistake is thinking things like cables or feet will make that last huge difference when the differences are tiny relative to everything else. In order:  Source ( fixed, stuck with it). Room (we can do within limits) Speakers ( pay to play), Electronics, small differences, even ss to tube is small in relation. Tweaks, tiny tiny tiny.  Fine when you get the above as far as you can but a big pit of squeaky snakes awaits. 

I go first to make sure nothing bothers me, or my wife with really sensitive hearing.  Do no harm first.  That has actually been very hard.  After that, it is easy to ignore most things and just enjoy music. Your brain will adjust really quickly if there is nothing "bad" going on.  Only when I am looking to do a change to I switch hats and pick apart details that may make a tiny difference.  

Of all the DAC's I have heard, of the ones that "do no wrong" from $100 to $15K, heard in quick A/B yes there are differences. Some good, some bad and they don't track price!   But if heard in isolation, those differences are so small, I could be happy with any of them.  Still looking for that one I can afford that is clearly better.  The last audition /comparison was through Hegel on Watts of 24 bit streaming so don't give me any "not good enough" system excuse.  Example, which makes a bigger difference?  Listening to the original D-G VonKarjan Beethoven through a Holo DAC, or the later Ozawa with my JDS?   I'll take the latter any day.  If anyone wants to give me a Holo, well I'll take it. Or a Hugo. 

I am leaving out all the lies your brain tells you. Sound is real, hearing is mental.  If you believe, consciously or not does not matter. If it is better to YOU for the price, then well, it is better.  Maybe not for me, but for you. Go ahead and buy a $400 power cord to bring out those micro details.  I'll go buy another box of CD's. For us, more music matters most.  

This seems to be a continuation of a recent thread on a "French" sound.  Isn't hyper-detail another equipment design aesthetic?  It's not my cup of tea, but it certainly seems to be a design goal valued by some manufacturers and their customers.  They appear to have gotten quite successful in achieving the design goals, too.

If one accepts hyper-detail as a design aesthetic, then it can't be "wrong."  For example, I don't think much of Cubism, but it's a valid artistic aesthetic.  In the audio world, however, some hold natural reproduction as a non-relative gold standard.  I suppose that it is at least feasible to set up a blind a/b test for someone with good ears in Orchestra Hall in Chicago.  With a suitable high-end system, could they distinguish which was the real thing and which the reproduction?  With a really good system, maybe not.  However, as @mahgister points out, even if the audio system passes this acid test once you take it out of Orchestra Hall all bets are off.

My search is for equipment designers who have a certain approach or goals that I share.  Along the way I hope to discover the alternatives - most of which I will reject but not disparage.  Finding the right ones for me will be very rewarding.

Is it real or is it Memorex?

This is an interesting thread so I will jump in.

The subjectivity and variables in recorded music is inherent in the entire creation process from the capture to the audio engineer’s bias to the equipment used to listen to it to the ears and brain of the listener. Take most recording of the 50’s and into the 60’s were mono then stereo was simulated by the audio engineer. Miles Davis “Kind of Blue” is an example, What was the audio engineer’s bias, do you like the mono or the stereo version or both? Now time travel ahead to Steely Dan’s Aja album, one of my favorites for the music and the audio engineering. To say that a live recording is more “Real” that “Surreal” may somehow start out at the capture point but then the number of fingers in the pie is extremely large from the capture to a person’s listening session. In the end it is all a degree of “surreal”

So, what is real? What is surreal? I like them both….. if I like them!

The more i read audio threads the more i realized people are unsatisfied in many cases and frustrated...

This had nothing to do with price tags or branded name choices very often...

Synergy between components at any price and embeddings of components at any price is necessary...

But it was almost impossible for me to figure out ways to do it with my components before studying general acoustics concepts and i dont speak about only specialized small room acoustic here but about acoustics in general, what is crosstalk or what is an Helmholtz resonators for example among other acoustics questions, or what define TIMBRE acoustically and how can i use that ?...What is listener envelopment ? What is the sound source width ? Etc...

People dont study acoustics and pick their experience with gear changing one after the other pieces...They became consumers slaves of marketing...They must read acoustics articles to understand their experience FIRST not the owner of gear manual...

Am i deaf if i claim to be happy with low cost components well embedded ?😊

Am i delusional?

Am i someone who claim happiness because i decided to live with a relatively bad sound pretending the opposite ? Delusional people exist by the way...

Why am i not envious of any system here and most if not all other system are costlier and better than mine in design especially compared my actual speakers choice?

No...

I am happy because i optimize my system till i reach this minimal acoustic threshold where details and musicality became ONE and did not impose on me mandatory "taste" choices...

There is no tastes choices forced upon us in well done acoustic environment , only factors under control... And without any mechanical and electrical embeddings controls no system can be optimal...

And there is also "necessary "tweaks" for me of my own i used without which my soundfield dont please me...

All that cost me NOTHING or peanuts but it must be experimented and learned, it takes time...

Or pick your choice and call me delusional...

I dont care listening my music...

Acoustics , synergy, and the rightfull embeddings controls rule in audio not the gear pieces and the price tag ...Sorry but i am not the one delusional...😊

 

Without experiments we cannot embed our system rightfully...

Anyway almost nobody will put a bundle of different straws of different volume and lenght behind their speakers in the porthole to increase bass depth and extension as i did knowing that any vented speakers is an Helmholtz resonators often badly designed in his ratio volume/ neck section and lenght ...Most people will upgrade this low cost speakers instead of experimenting and learning  to a very costlier one giving more bass... Me i did it at not cost and now instead of 85 hertz i enjoy 50 hertz on my 4 inches driver and 50 hertz very clear and punchy with even taste under is ENOUGH  for most music instrument save deep organ note ...And i also introduced other changes to decrease crosstalk mechanically to some degree with success it was possible because i listen near field and the small speakers are on my desk......

It look "nuts" yes... I even increase the tweeter directionality in my near listening field with success..

It look as some laughing ignorant will call "tin foil hat" system but i am not frustrasted with beautiful unsatisfying costly speakers with no acoustic optimization as many are  ... Thats my point...

We dont need money we need experimenting and learning in acoustics...And we need to control a bit the EMI and electrical noise floor ... Etc...

By the way there is no "surreal" concept of sound in any acoustics book...These distinction had no meaning for me at all they are gear focussed metaphor not grounded in acoustics ... It is a metaphor not an acoustic concept... Natural TIMBRE sound is an acoustic concept and experience well defined by at least 5 characteristics in acoustics with which we can play  and experiment...

 

@tvrgeek 

Very good. Several points. Euphonic can be clean as in low distortion levels. That says nothing about amplitude response which is generally where the euphonic comes from. As you pointed out most distortion comes in the form of loudspeakers. There are speakers which are uniquely better in this regard, true ribbons and ESLs. Rooms effect amplitude response, clarity and imaging. 

As you suggest where the eyes go goes the hearing, if it looks good it must sound better. Just the way we are wired. The more expensive the better the sound, expectation bias. False beliefs, again expectation bias. We are ruled by our minds whether we like it or not. Being aware of this is the first step in countering it.