What determines where overboard begins?

[Ducatista47]

For those of us who are not solely constrained by not being billionaires, how do we individually find our place where either the law of diminishing returns or the importance of other audio factors negates going further up the technical reproduction food chain? I mean this as a question of the dominance of factors outside our control rendering further refinement of our system and listening area unimportant or even below audibility. More of a technical question than an aesthetic one. This is not a "if you are happy with the sound then it is the right system for you" discussion.

I may usually set the line of demarcation lower than some. For me, my gear can only strive to present what is on the recording as resolved and euphonia free as possible. (If you seek a particular presentation that deliberately deviates from what is on the recording, feel free to join the discussion, but that is a separate inquiry. So please state your position up front. I am very interested in how one could reconcile purposefully deviating from the recording while still seeking to improve the accuracy of the system.) I see a fork in the road even at this beginning, because one might not see the recording process as a limiting factor, but rather another "instrument" that is played to get a particular sound or presentation. Myself, I think of my audio reproduction system's job as giving me the most accurate version of the recording. So I don't concern myself with that.

So...Where I see the demarcation is where the limitations of recording, which do vary in each example of it, become large enough to render further attempts to refine the reproduction of it unproductive or even useless. Certain to contribute only inaudible or less accurate differences.

But here I see another fork, sort of. You have probably experienced that some systems that are very revealing get the very last bit of information to you but end up at some point being a catalog of warts, while others seem to be quite forgiving as they offer more resolution while still seeming to mine every last nit on the recording. While the latter situation is probably the product of some frequency anomalies, it can enhance the listening experience compared to using lesser systems. I happen to have representatives of both types here and am not inclined to get rid of either. The extreme here would be a super system that only sounds good on a handful of recordings. I have always believed that tailoring your listening to recording quality rather than how good the music is, is a fundamental cart before the horse result. Listening to the equipment instead of the music. My goal is to get the best I can out of all the music I want to listen to, not to hear how great my gear sounds with perfect recordings. This in itself indicate a possible stopping place beyond which "going overboard" exists.

So that is where I stand, still with choices that have nothing to do with having different gear for different genres of music, but rather to cater to two different Weltbilder. At this point I am very satisfied with the way things sound. Really satisfied. But with my speaker systems, my quandary is since I heard the presentation of the MBL system in Chicago at AXPONA, I might just value that as highly as other definitions of what a "better" speaker is.

[NickH]

I alway though the point was to make the gear so as to not hear it, or as little as possible.



But I think this could go both ways with a lot of people. Most just want to enjoy any music they play rather the pursue that never ending perfection that's never in reach.

I for one tend to be a bit in the good is good camp. That being said I still enjoy tweeking things to get a few extra horse power.

Nick

[Ducatista47]

I see a fork in the road even at this beginning, because one might not see the recording process as a limiting factor, but rather another "instrument" that is played to get a particular sound or presentation. Myself, I think of my audio reproduction system's job as giving me the most accurate version of the recording. So I don't concern myself with that.

If this seems esoteric, I know that it is on the minds of some members.

Originally Posted by cooky1257
Don't kill me.....but virtually everything you play these days will have gone through DAW's in the recording/production stage(probably several).
Awareness of what the 'original' should sound like is sketchy at best so I'm curious just how important is it to wring out the very last gasp of subjective transparency in the DSP when it will in effect be modifying the output as part of it's function....

Replies timc:

It's a fair point. The way i see it we have two options.

1: Just assume that what is on the record is the "answer". That means that our system must bring that into the room as uncolored as possible. Then absolute transparency is the goal.

2: Realize that we can't know the exact conditions in which the mastering was done. We can also assume that the monitors used were not perfect. Then we can follow your reasoning and just tune it to our subjective liking.

Imo both methods have their merits. Personally I am in camp number 1 for the time being.

In other words, is one's goal to reproduce the recording or to fudge it in the supposed direction of reproducing the performance to a greater extent than the recording did? I say good hunting, but what a can of worms. Perhaps Pandora's Box is a more apt description. Attempting to improve the recording would truly be the bleeding edge of the audiophile universe. I'll pass.

[hsosdrum]

In other words, is one's goal to reproduce the recording or to fudge it in the supposed direction of reproducing the performance to a greater extent than the recording did? I say good hunting, but what a can of worms. Perhaps Pandora's Box is a more apt description. Attempting to improve the recording would truly be the bleeding edge of the audiophile universe. I'll pass.

I agree. Attempting to "improve" recordings is a bottomless rat-hole. Every recording is different and would require almost endless experimentation just to determine exactly what "improvements" are required and how to achieve them.

There's no such thing as a perfect audio reproduction system because:

1) Audio reproduction is an illusion that human musicians are performing the music in the here-and-now.

2) Each and every recording presents a different version of this illusion.

3) Each of us hears with their brain, and each person's brain is satisfied by a different illusion.

4) No single reproduction chain (recording>audio system) can deliver a perfectly satisfying illusion to all people.

The best one can ever hope for is to assemble a system that creates the most satisfying illusion to them on the greatest number of recordings. No one will never be satisfied with the illusion created with all recordings. The sooner we accept this the sooner we can spend the rest of our lives enjoying music instead of engaging on an endless quest for non-existent perfection.

[Wagner]

What

It's the what do you like, the sound of "Hi-Fi" as defined by magazine copy and EQing to satisfy current trends, via components, or the accuracy of a well designed no nonsense sound system?

Les than perfect recordings? Hell, less than perfect ANYTHING?

That's what tone controls were made for.

It's not all that complicated really (or some spiritual dilemma) to contemplate along with that lint in your navel.

[Ducatista47]

Of course, but notice how rare tone controls are in contemporary gear. Same with balance controls. I installed an analogue parametric equalizer in my system and in some quarters I have committed sacrilege. In my view, it sounded good before and now it sounds better.

I also note that everyone here chiming in about this "issue" of tampering with the recorded result has rejected it. I would like to hear from any who embrace it. For the record, my sound modifications are to tame frequency response in my transducers, not to massage the recording. I do like to preserve the integrity of it.

So where is your line beyond which things go overboard?

[macaroonie]

The Cello Audio Palette ( Levinson ) is a hugely interesting component to play with. Utterly transparent and with the most gentle of adjustments. It does not sacrifice any of the subtleties for the EQ changie it makes , a remarkable piece of kit.
Mucho dinero of course but you know , in the context of a big bux system , tweakability is kinda nice if the original recording is out of whack.
Can DSP do this right ,