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

You are a gentleman indeed..

But no need to be offended it seems i am not as yourself an audiophile either.. I thought i was one but it seems no...my research for the optimal ratio soundfield quality/price is a renunciation to be a member of this selected club for the OP it seems ... The most important members must had the biggest wallet it seems.. Perfection had a cost in gear price... 😊

Anyway i listen music without being bother by sound gross defects with my low cost well embedded system ..

And i smile reading some "audiophiles" lost in their "perfection" quest...😁

This hobby for me is about optimization methods and tools in the embedding working dimensions, electrical, mechanical and acoustical for the goal of reaching a minimal acoustic satisfaction threshold at the best price ; not about price tag race and "perfection" dead end in most case ...

Anyway anybody owning a demi million bucks system in a living room is fooling himself if he think he has reach "perfection"... It is not even optimal yet for the system quality he own here ... The costlier component in a really "perfect" system is the acoustic dedicated room for a specific system by far...Then i am afraid that most self title awarded "audiophiles" are simply in delusion when upgrading to very higher cost some of their component... 😁 But there is a price to pay to play in a very selected club indeed.. 😊

If i was knowleadgeable enough  i will prefer to be member of the acousticians or musicians club....Alas! i am not even an "audiophile" now it seems...

 

This person is not an audiophile. He enjoys music like the rest of us, but that is a different subject. Being an audiophile is all about building a high performance audio system. The question is what do we mean by high performance. Is it the accurate reproduction of timbre and space or just a system that sounds good to the owner.

 

@yesiam_a_pirate

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

Dissatisfaction/satisfaction is a choice -- you needn’t be dragged along on an unending path of unquenchable craving. It’s up to you to decide when your system is "good enough" . This is not only true in audio, BTW.

@mahgister refers to a "MINIMAL acoustic satisfaction threshold".  Perhaps think in terms of achieving that, rather than getting caught up in the belief you must  constantly upgrade in search of some holy grail that you may or may not ever reach. A system can simply be an enjoyable way to enhance listening for those who, first and foremost, love music -- it doesn’t have to be all-consuming.

I throw out everything for 'smoother'. Every major upgrade has made my system smoother.

Better electronics for my ESL's - smoother.

Better electronic components, battery power, continuous power - smoother.

Air tonearm, turntable - smoother.

Koetsu - smoother. Grado Epoch - smoother yet.

Smooth is my lodestone - it gets me ever nearer to the grand piano upstairs.

 

The opposite of smooth is harsh...

Then your choice of word reflect a past audiophile post traumatic stress disorder : wounded by harshness...

But there is way more to upgrading and optimizing than just reaching smoothness...

I throw out everything for ’smoother’. Every major upgrade has made my system smoother.

Better electronics for my ESL’s - smoother.

Better electronic components, battery power, continuous power - smoother.

Air tonearm, turntable - smoother.

Koetsu - smoother. Grado Epoch - smoother yet.

Smooth is my lodestone - it gets me ever nearer to the grand piano upstairs.

 

Smoothness is a word that I use for systems with a very characteristic sound. One of the smoothest sounds I’ve ever heard came from an old VW van that some guy had restored and put a big sound system in. I was just walking by and he had the doors open and the music turned up. Somehow that system took the edge off everything without seeming to lose any detail. Not what I typically hear from real live acoustic instruments indoors, but very pleasant on account of sounding so, so, smooth! It may have had something to do with being outside. I’ve heard that same sweet smoothness from the US Marine band playing on the deck of the USS Nimitz with hundreds of us sailors standing around them. The trumpets were bright and clear, but there wasn’t a significant surface nearby for the sound to reflect off of, not even a reflection off the deck because our bodies were absorbing it all.