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
When it circles around to money, the issue is not sound. :(
Douglas_schroeder

Tru dat.
Schubert is exactly right. Few owners of high end systems are devoted concert goers; consequently, the notion of what is truly natural sounding becomes distorted. The idea that the sound of live music is the best standard for judging the fidelity of any audio system has been debated countless times. In my opinion there is an obvious logic in using the sound of live as the standard. However, arguments are made against this idea and the "unpredictability" of the various contributors to the final recorded sound is pointed out. In a way, this objection to the idea smacks of the "all cables sound the same" argument. To some listeners there is obvious value in using the sound of live when putting together a system that strives for naturalness; assuming , of course, that there is substantial exposure to the sound of live. So, why are some so quick to dismiss the idea? One goal of this hobby is to assemble a system that sounds good to the listener; that is fun to listen to, neutrality be damned. No apologies need be made for wanting that. Another approach is to have a system that reproduces as much as possible of what was recorded. No matter what some may think, it is a valid approach to system building. Being very familiar with the sound of live definitely helps in assessing naturalness in a component in spite of all the unknowns that seem to invalidate this approach for some. How could it not help? It's not easy and requires dedication; but, to suggest that there isn't a lot of merit to the idea is silly.
I feel you are giving vintage gear a tough time. I use some vintage gear and can assure you that it has all the air, attack, timbral color, and transparency you could ask for.
Frogman, I feel it is incumbent upon one to show up and pay up when serious music artists that have given me countless hours of joy over the years show up in town. I have heard leaders say its a joy for them to perform for audiences that are both knowledgeable and attentive .
To me not go to is something like receiving a wonderful gift and throwing it back in the givers face.
Going to hear Kings College Cambridge Choir recently after decades of hearing the Christmas broadcast of "Nine Lessons and Carols" is about as good as it gets .


I agree with shubert. You can nitpick the details case by case all you want.
If you have the right setup and a good recording what you hear at home
should sound like the real thing playing in your room though not wherever it
was recorded.

If that is not the case then there are many possible reasons. But it's totally
ridiculous to say it's because it's not possible. Time to go back to the
drawing board maybe. Or maybe reassess what it is you think live music
really sounds like and why.