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

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. 

If your speakers are anyone of Thiels, Dunlavys, Vandersteens, etc.,  with first-order crossovers and time/phase aligned, then you cannot throw away accuracy. These speakers give an accurate reproduction of music. So, you have to throw away the speakers. If you are going to do such a thing, please contact me ahead of time, I have a dumpster near my house that will accept any one of the above speakers. But do please call me ahead of time (LOL).