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


I visited a friend recently who has an estimated $150,000 system. At first listen it sounded wonderful, airy, hyper detailed, with an excellent well delineated image, an audiophile's dream. Then we put on a jazz quartet album I am extremely familiar with, an excellent recording from the analog days. There was something wrong. On closing my eyes it stood out immediately. The cymbals were way out in front of everything. The drummer would have needed at least 10 foot arms to get to them. I had him put on a female vocalist I know and sure enough there was sibilance with her voice, same with violins. These are all signs that the systems frequency response is sloped upwards as the frequency rises resulting in more air and detail.  This is a system that sounds right at low volumes except my friend listens with gusto. This is like someone who watches TV with the color controls all the way up. 

I have always tried to recreate the live performance. Admittedly, this might not result in the most attractive sound. Most systems are seriously compromised in terms of bass power and output. Maybe this is a way of compensating. 

There is no right or wrong. This is purely a matter of preference accuracy be damn.  What would you rather, real or surreal?

128x128mijostyn

mijostyn,

You mentioned a "bright" system imaging the cymbals "10 feet in front of the snare." Well, there are more egregious imaging manipulations, especially with drums, that are a deliberate artifact of the original mastering. The drums on Tool’s "Fear Inoculum," for instance. The drum set seems HUGE, spanning the entire width of the (reproduced) soundstage and even indulging in moving back and forth across the breath of the stereo image! It has been remarked on this forum before that, in a jazz ensemble, the drums "should" be in the center rear, as they would actually be on stage, and they should STAY there. But that exaggerated effect with Tool is undeniably exciting—and not at all uncommon in rock, where a simulacrum of a live club performance is not what the engineers were going for. Think of the drums (again, just for instance!) on any Rush album. During the instrumental section of "Tom Sawyer," the drums start on the left and move across the "stage." This is NOT "realistic," but it is kind of thrilling.

All I’m saying is that, although I also go for "realistic" audio reproduction, and consider the "real" sound of acoustic instruments a kind of benchmark (given the many remarks in this thread already about the questionable status of "the real"), heavily produced music is obviously not bound by this principle. And that doesn’t make such music somehow a failure.

None of which is meant to suggest that you’re not right to want to restrain the frequency response of your system so that a not-intended effect of foregrounding certain frequencies is defeated as much as possible.

In my opinion you are right...

All I’m saying is that, although I also go for "realistic" audio reproduction, and consider the "real" sound of acoustic instruments a kind of benchmark

Add to that all the information lost in stereo system by crosstalk , about spatial aspects of sound... A subject very well studied by Edgar Choueiri...

For me "realistic" dont refer to the gear but to acoustic and psycho-acoustic controls about real acoustic instrument in a real acoustic space... Heavily processed music is not the benchmark with which we can judge a system ... We speak about acoustic here not about taste in music or taste in gear ...😊

@snilf 

Funny, I was just listening to UnderTow. Sober is my favorite Tool song. 

Studio recordings are art, anything is permissible. Jimi Hendrix loved panning back and forth. In my experience, systems that can accurately portray a good live recording are more exciting to listen to when it comes to studio recordings.  Take Roxy Music's Avalon or Carina Round's Tigermending, they are sonic paintings. Every little detail is suspended in space. 

My audio system sounds the closest to the original music. That makes my system the most accurate sound system.

All your speakers behave like a left speaker in below. Only my speaker sounds like a right one. Alex/Wavetouch

Killing me softly - Natural vs. Un-natural sound, PA speaker comparison.

mahgister

my sound too is now as natural as yours ...I can explain why and how...

What are your explanation ? You never gave one and then you claimed to be the only one with a natural sound in the world ... It is a bit too much claim....Synergy, modifications , and acoustic optimization can be done ... I did them with complete success ...it was not easy to figure it out... Most will not...

=====================

JBL, other big companies, and individuals have invested much money and their life times to figure out the natural sound in 150 years of audio history. If you’ve got it, use it for something good.

I am selling my products to churches, concert halls, and event DJs now. Billions of people are suffering with bad sounds. I probably don’t have the time for the hi-end audio business in my life time. If I have a time after I am satisfied with PA speakers business (in 5 years?), I’ll be in recording equipment business. Making the natural sound mic and recording machine is same thing as making a natural sound audio and speaker. The perfect natural sound recording comes 1st, then the natural sound audio and speakers are next. Alex/Wavetouch

It seems the better my gear the more disappointing the recordings. 
 

The inherent problem with the HiFi journey is that it’s build on dissatisfaction.