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
Practically, it doesn't really matter what pinpoint imaging or anything really sounds like. Only what each person thinks things sound like. Its all in the ears and mind. Live or Memorex. One chooses to be satisfied or not for reasons that only matter to them.

Of course nobody ever accused an audiophile of being practical. Or satisfied, for that matter.
I guess what I am trying to say is if there is a "Disturbing "Sonic Trend" showing up on SOTA audio " then its the observers problem since they are the one disturbed.

It may be BS or something concrete. If enough people buy into it, there is probably something to it. Otherwise it is most likely expensive BS.

"Exaggerated high frequencies and etch = "details"

Biting unnatural attacks = "fast transient response"

Unnaturally dry bass = "taut" and “tight”"

I have no problem with details, fast transient response and taught or tight bass. Others might disagree certainly.
Well said Frogman. I agree with your thoughts. A deliberate blending of sounds occurs naturally in live performances, and is likely to be purposely engineered into many recordings.
I don't think there is any particular virtue in complete isolation of different instrumental lines unless the mix is so dense as to nearly obscure a particular instrument almost completely, making the listener strain to hear it.
"Pinpoint" imaging is possible live or in a studio as in recordings but not likely in most cases. So its resaonable to expect it is possible but not resaonable to expect it as a genral attribute of all or even most recordings.

The blending mentioned above, not pinpoint imaging, is the norm and its extent is based on many factors case by case.
I said this before on a very old thread: I sat in a small church not five rows back
and dead center to listen to a period piece played with period instruments. There
were only three instruments. It was impossible to discern any kind of distinct
imaging. The sound was homogenous. The acoustics were really great though.
Lots of hall ambiance, tone and presence.

The only thing that was certain was the tone, timing, and ambiance. It was
emotional and uplifting, but not at all what I hear on my system, save for the
tone, timing and ambience.

For those reasons alone that's all I look for in my system and it succeeds
admirably. I would even go so far as to say that most systems here on A'gon
achieve that purpose but folk are obsessed with imaging, which can only be
appreciated when done in a studio.

All the best,
Nonoise