2. misc-audio
  3. 186655-129831

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
mapman's avatar
mapman
21,921 posts
 

Accuracy is way overrated.  Out the door and who needs it?  Long live inaccuracy and all its faults. 

larsman's avatar
larsman
1,788 posts
 

I do know what sounds better to me.

I do not know how true it is to what the artist, the producer, the mixer, and the mastering engineers laid down, as I was not there for any recording sessions so cannot make a comparison. 

stuartk
2,432 posts
 

@larsman

I do know what sounds better to me.

I do not know how true it is to what the artist, the producer, the mixer, and the mastering engineers laid down, as I was not there for any recording sessions so cannot make a comparison.

+1

It is an all-too-human trait to try to come up with objective rationales for subjective behaviors, tastes, etc.

 

stuartk
2,432 posts
 

@inna

As for the concept of "good enough", it’s an interesting one. No system is good enough for me because it is still far from real. Problem is not only the system but the recordings, most of them. So I just do one or two significant upgrades every few years and don’t think much about it.

Right. I wasn’t suggesting "inherent dissatisfaction" is a problem for everyone. 

Nor is the issue of whether a system sounds "real". There are far too many variables involved in live sound to identify a single, baseline for "reality". But if you enjoy chasing this chimera, have at it. Enjoyment is what we're all aiming for, right? 

 

mijostyn's avatar
mijostyn OP
8,245 posts
 

@knownothing ,

You know more than you think. Flat sounds awful, way too brite and no bass.

@rsf507 ,

I am a bit of a socialist in that regard. The money that gets spent on luxury HiFi should be spent on subsidizing private grade schools. There are many amplifiers that are sonically as good or better than any Boulder Amp. An amplifier does not need a $10,000 CNC machined chassis to sound good. Same goes for speakers.

No, I am not going to tell people what to buy. It is still a free country, at least up until 3:39 today.

@mahgister 

That was me with the tongue in cheek comment. 

@stuartk 

People could easily see me as "inherently dissatisfied." As you suggest this may be true for some, but I look at it as a challenge, making a system sound the way I want, then doing it reliably. The only time I look at it negatively is when something fucks up or blows up. 

More to discover