Hypothetical situation: measure good/sounds bad vs. sounds good/measures bad (1 Viewer)

[Saurav]

I would actually pick the one with a wider soundstage and precise imaging, because to my ears these are easy to detect and vary widely from one good system to another, while the smoothness of midrange and treble is very subtle for me to detect. But then that could just be me.

Interesting. I would probably choose differently.

 

[Jon W (NoVA)]

The question is impossible.

My goal would be to want to hear the music the way it was intended to be recorded. ie how the sound engineer heard it in his mixing room.

This can only be achieved by having a neutral room, accurate speakers, and a flat receiver -or- by having equipment that compensates for the deficiencies of the others.

While I might enjoy a particular track enhanced various ways, I'd rather hear it the way it was really meant to be heard, and it's impossible that a system that distorts the original sound can do this yet still sound like the original.

 

[Saurav]

The question is impossible.

Which question? My original specs vs. sound question, or the current soundstage/imaging question?

 

[Joe Casey]

While I might enjoy a particular track enhanced various ways, I'd rather hear it the way it was really meant to be heard, and it's impossible that a system that distorts the original sound can do this yet still sound like the original.

Funny you should say that. I can agree with that statement to the extent that I do not like 2-ch mixes bastardized into 5 or more channels of echo. But when it comes to recording engineers who employ SS in the entire signal path, I tend to wonder who they are catering to (the answer is obvious). That being the case, the so-called 'distortion' of tubes adds warmth and body i.e. musicality to sterile recordings, IMO. It does not add white noise, as is the common misconception of the average sterile-o-phile. I guess that's what separates gear-heads from music-lovers.

EDIT: And I'd love to meet the person who can hear the difference between 1.0% THD vs 0.5% THD, within the same design topology.

 

[Jon W (NoVA)]

The original question.
Now if we truely do want to consider the complete system, and I don't think your question can be addressed without doing so, we also need to take in to account people's hearing response.
For instance, as we get older we lose the ability to distinguish high frequencies. But there's nothing esoteric about that. If the receiver which sounded better simply was brighter, I'd think that could be compensated for by equalizing or boosting the treble of the one with better specs.
So after treating the entire system, I don't see how the unit which distorts the sound, could possibly sound better (ie more like the source) then the unit with better specs.

 

[Karl Englebright]

Like why are tubes easy on your ears in spite of the huge amounts of THD, while SS with minute amounts of THD sounds dry and analytical and why do tubes of same output power sound louder than SS of equivalent output? There is more than one answer to this and none entirely right.

There is distortion that is usually deemed to sound "bad" while there is distortion that is deemed to sound "good". Why is distortion from a tube guitar amp sound so appealing?
I suspect the same reason...

I don't get your last sentence. What does that mean?

 

[Saurav]

So after treating the entire system, I don't see how the unit which distorts the sound, could possibly sound better (ie more like the source) then the unit with better specs.

So if I understand you right then, your response is that you believe that you would always prefer the sound of the unit with the better specs.

 

[Aslam Imran]

I don't get your last sentence. What does that mean?

In my last sentence I meant, for example, that a 50W tube amp sounds louder than a 50W SS amp. I believe the answer is somehow tied to the even ordered distortion of the tube amp but I dont know how.

 

[Aslam Imran]

So if I understand you right then, your response is that you believe that you would always prefer the sound of the unit with the better specs.

There you go Saurav, you found the lone candidate you were lookin for.
And to the lone star, why are you so obsessed with the 'right' sound. We humans are hedonists and more so than often we indulge ourselves in things that (we know) are not right. So why should that change in sound. I like to indulge my self in sweet sound even when I know its not accurate. But thats just me

 

[John Corkery]

My goal would be to want to hear the music the way it was intended to be recorded. ie how the sound engineer heard it in his mixing room.

Ideally, that would be my goal also, but it seems to me that the only way to *really* achieve this would be to possess the same equipment that each sound engineer used.

I want equipment that will accurately reproduce original recordings, but it doesn't seem like the hi-fi audio and recording industries have created enough standards to define "sonic accuracy." And from what I've seen, it doesn't seem like they have any real desire to, either. Or maybe the complexity of such a thing makes it extremely difficult to standardize within real world environments.

 

[Aslam Imran]

Ideally, that would be my goal also, but it seems to me that the only way to *really* achieve this would be to possess the same equipment that each sound engineer used.

and be in the same room or a room with same dimensions/layout/treatments etc that the original recording took place in.
Having said that I think it would be a good idea for the sound engineers (SE) to start selling tickets for live recording events for AA (anal audioholics). This would be a win-win situation for all as the AAs wont have to buy any gear and can use the money for tickets and the SEs can use that money to buy their gear for home listening.
P.S. Ignore the text in red as it was only meant for humor that is sick I might add

 

[John Corkery]

I don't think wanting to hear recordings the way they were originally meant to sound is "anal." After all, music is an art form. I think most people probably want their visual art reproductions to look as similar to the original as possible. I don't know why that should be different with music...

 

[Saurav]

Well, to me the 'music' is different from the 'recording', but many people I know don't draw such a distinction. I do, and I care about accurate reproduction of the music, and I don't really care about accurate reproduction of the recording.

 

[John Corkery]

Yes, but what you listen to on your home system is a recording, not live music, so whether you like it or not, you're dealing with a recording.

 

[Richard Burzynski]

I would go with what sounds best. When we're all done responding, please let us know what 2 pieces of gear prompted your query.

Thanks.

Rich B.

 

[Saurav]

Yes, but what you listen to on your home system is a recording, not live music, so whether you like it or not, you're dealing with a recording.

Absolutely. But there's music in there, and you can focus on the recording, or you can try and get to the music. In my opinion, anyway

 

[Saurav]

When we're all done responding, please let us know what 2 pieces of gear prompted your query.

It was prompted by something I read somewhere else, and past discussions on many internet forums. Not by any gear in particular.

 

[Sebastien David]

The one that sounds best.
I'm going to listen with my ears, not with measuring equipment.

As far as the discussion about hi-fi above, Saurav, I can relate. For me, what sounds good and what is truest to the original aren't necessarily the same. I've alwys been into audio, never into hi-fi. Which could explain my concentrating on the Home Theater side of things.

I want to be shaken, stirred, and impressed by the sound coming out of my system. I don't care if it really sounds like the original, if it sounds better, more impressive, cooler, I like it better. I'm no audiophile I guess...

 

[Saurav]

I want to be shaken, stirred, and impressed by the sound coming out of my system. I don't care if it really sounds like the original, if it sounds better, more impressive, cooler, I like it better. I'm no audiophile I guess...

I think I know exactly what you mean. Kinda like the difference between admiring a picture of a beautiful woman, versus having her pounce on you and tackle you to the ground.
Or something like that

 

[John Corkery]

Absolutely. But there's music in there, and you can focus on the recording, or you can try and get to the music. In my opinion, anyway

In a previous post you said you care about "accurate reproduction of the music." Unless we have very different definitions of the word "accuracy" in general, the accuracy of "music" reproduced on any stereo system is entirely dependent upon the accuracy of the recording.

In other words:

Accurate Recording + Accurate Playback System = Accurate Music

I don't know how this equation can possibly work:

Inaccurate Recording + Inaccurate Playback System = Accurate Music?

Or even:

Inaccurate Recording + Accurate Playback System = Accurate Music??

I know there are many "audiophiles" out there who insist that their particular hi-fi system is adding a "breath of life," a magical "je ne sais quoi" to the recordings they play on them, but in that case, we're not talking about "accuracy" at all; we're talking about subjective opinions on what "sounds good."