Disturbing "Sonic Trend" showing up on SOTA audio



Exaggerated high frequencies and etch = "details"

Biting unnatural attacks = "fast transient response"

Unnaturally dry bass = "taut" and “tight”

This is what I hear at shows, homes, and stores, over the last several years!

Have "new" audiophiles lost their way, in relation to what "natural sound" of "non-amplified acoustic" music sounds like?

This "type" of sound is increasingly selling as current "State of Art".

Audio has more BS, and nonsense, than any hobby that I know of!

And as "Crazy" becomes acceptable, it drives more "Crazy".

I have been in this hobby since the 70's and heard it all.

Maybe those that kept their older systems, and got off the "marry-go-round", of latest and most expensive is best, are the most intelligent!
don_c55
Tgrisham, what you say is so.
But, time and again I go to hear Minnesota Orch. live and come home and play recording version of same music they played and, save for ultimate volume, there is very little
difference .
The difference between halls is more than the recording difference to me. Of course like anyone, I could just be hearing what I want to hear.
Tgrisham, Well said! My view exactly. FWIW, using an absolute, such as a live performance, sounds of instruments, halls, etc, as a measure of the merit of an audio system, is so flawed, that the only purpose it really serves is the wallet of the purveyors of audio equipment.

Even if the equipment and environment existed where the true sounds of a live performance might occur (and IMHO, it doesn't and can't) the end result would still be determined in the creation of the recording on the mixing console by the recording engineer. A major dam in the flow of live music to its reproduction in the home.
I've learned that once you hear a relatively flat frequency response out to 20Khz and beyond, it's not at all etched or tizzy. At first blush, it seems a tad recessed but after extended listening it flows so naturally, almost like a live, unamplified event.

All the info is there; it's just not in your face, as it should be.

All the best,
Nonoise
In Harry Pearson's day, The Absolute Sound decreed that the sound of a live acoustic space is the sonic holy grail. But that type of sound is now a niche industry. I'm 51, and I didn't grow up listening to that type of thing. 99% of my peers would say the same.
True Psag. The WWII generation heard unamplified orchestras, both Big Band and Classical, the Korean War generation heard folk singers and acoustic guitars in coffee houses, on college campuses, and at parties, but the Vietnam War generation forward has heard live music amplified only. Non-audiophiles like loudspeakers that sound like PA's, have you noticed?! Perhaps if I hadn't grown up hearing some music acoustically (R & R bands sit down with a couple of acoustic guitars when the songwriter/s teach a new song to the band members, plus I've played with stand-up bass players. And when recording in the studio, the singing is au-naturel. I now listen to a lot of bluegrass, which is of course acoustic) I too would have no reference point.

But the flaw in HP's logic is that it assumes the sound contained in recordings is that of the original acoustic event as a listener present at the recording would have heard it. That's a mighty big assumption!