Merciless or Merciful- System 'Accuracy' vs Listenability

[James Edward]

Do you consciously strive to make your music collection sound better via equipment choices, or do you buy music/audiophile recordings to make your system sound better?

I had been to a listening demo with a friend, and on the ride home discovered that we are on opposite ends of the spectrum on this- he prefers the most revealing system, and would look for recordings to make the system shine. I have a couple of thousand CD's and want at least most of them to sound good.

I am on my way to ordering Zu Audio Definition Mk2 speakers- my feeling is that full range large drivers may have a less clinical sound more to my liking. If not, they have a 60 day audition policy.

Anyway, I am curious as to what other members think.

[Carlman]

Welcome, James!  This is a good topic and is considered a general audio discussion so I moved it here for all to discuss.

I used to buy the best equipment and then let the chips fall as to music.. but now I heavily consider how my music was recorded, and the styles of music I enjoy before making decisions.  I can then balance the compromises of what makes folk and hard rock sound good on the same system.

-C

[Bigfish8]

Do you consciously strive to make your music collection sound better via equipment choices, or do you buy music/audiophile recordings to make your system sound better?

James:

You definitely enjoy music per your comment of owning a couple thousand CDs.  I don't believe there is an easy answer to your question.  I have been active in this "Audiophile Hobby" for a little less than 3 years and the hobby is incrediably addictive.  Many of us (a majority, I think) purchase and upgrade our gear in the never-ending pursuit of making the sound coming from our speakers seem more live-like.  The big issue is that it is impossible to "clone" systems in various price ranges because no two of us have the same hearing capabilities or like the exact same music.  I departed from topic and to get back to your question I think CD recording quality is extremely variable.  You will find that most of your music will sound fine on a I Pod or on a simple play-back system.  As you improve the quality of your gear you will have some CDs with music that so compressed it will not be very enjoyable to play with the new system.  If you pursue this hobby as I have chosen to do you will likely find yourself preferring certain CDs that are better recorded, at least that has been what I have done.

Welcome to AN and good luck with your journey into this great hobby.  I am looking forward to reading all the responses you receive.

Ken

[mdconnelly]

James, welcome to AN!   A great question with actually a quite simple answer - both!   Setting aside the quality of the music & performance itself, the sonic quality of each recording varies quite a bit and so striving to find music that a) you love and b) is recorded well is a challenge.  I like that Stereophile and TAS rate recording quality in their reviews.  It helps.

But, if you're reading AN, then there is the nervosa part of this hobby - to strive to make your system sound as good as possible...equipment, wires, power, room treatments, various and strange tweaks - you name it, we've all tried it.

Of course, Ken is right - there is no simple answer to how to get there, but certainly the answers must entail both the recordings as well as the playback environment.   And this is a great place to explore both!

[bpape]

Agreed.  Kind of both.  I have recordings that I listen to and use as tools for evaluation.  I also have lots of relatively poorly recorded music that I just enjoy listening to.  My goal is to have a system that lets a good recording shine but doesn't drive me out of the room when listening to something that's not very well done.

Bryan

[bacobits]

Both here too. I have good and bad CD's.
You can't control the quality of the recordings.
I buy what I like and let it fall where it is. If I want to be uplifted I will put on something moving.
f a system has that synergy it will more than likely not offend in too many ways. 
A good system will do that and you don't have to spend a lot of money.
This is probably the biggest thing I finally learned over many years in this hobby.

Welcome to AN and above all enjoy.

Den

[BobM]

I listen to most of my music on my commute to and from work, on CD's and sometimes cassettes (lots of vintage stuff that I recorded over the last 30 years).

On the Walkman I care less about quanlity and more about the music, although something that sounds good is more enjoyable.

On the home system I tend to reach for decent recordings more often. But this could also be because I can hear the less than decent music on my commute if I want to and not because I am only trying to optomise or showcase my system. I still do listen to things that are not perfect on it, just not as often as the other way 'round.

[_Scotty_]

I think the sad fact is that much of the best pop music recorded over the last 40 years or so was poorly done. If you expect flawed recordings to sound as listenable as the best of the new stuff you are bound to be disappointed. If you dumb your system down in an attempt make the flawed recordings more pleasurable you will miss out on hearing the extraordinary sound of that some of the latest recordings bring to the table. I think as our system resolution improves we have to adjust our expectations when it comes to older recordings, especially flawed ones. In my own case when I went to playback from a harddrive and external DAC, my collections of Van Halen and Journey dramatically changed their character. I could hear more of what was in the recording but it sounded harmonically thinner. I still enjoy the music but there are limits to what I expect of from poorer recordings. I will soon be getting a new custom amp in the next three weeks and a prototype preamp board probably before the end of the year. These two pieces of gear will greatly increase my systems resolution. I will most likely have to revise my expectations again but thats OK because the the good stuff will get better in ways that I can hardly imagine. To borrow a phrase "the future's so bright I gotta wear shades".
Scotty

[tmazz]

Do you consciously strive to make your music collection sound better via equipment choices, or do you buy music/audiophile recordings to make your system sound better?

Unfortunately, like most things in this hobby, it's just not that simple. A more accurate system by its very nature will not only accentuate the positive qualities of a given recording, but also reveal and in many cases magnify and flaws. On the other side of the coin, it is rare indeed when a great piece of music (or great performance of a given peeve of music) happens to occur on a great recording. All too often great music is poorly recorded and great recordings are made of uninspired musical performances. So where does that leave us? To dumb down our equipment so the bad recording don't sound quite as bad, or to upgrade our equipment to the point that many of our favorite recordings are no longer listenable severely limits the breadth of the musical experiences that we can get from our hobby. (And as our de4arly departed friend Earl F. used to tell us "Guys, it's all about the music.") One compromise I have learned to make over the years is to segregate my music library. Anything that will stand on its own two feet from a sonic perspective gets play time in the big system. However this leaves a bunch of cherished recordings that just don't have the goods to be enjoyable on a high res system. These have been relegated to being played on lower resolution equipment (car, ipod boombox etc.) that is more "merciful" to the lower quality of these recordings. This way I get to enjoy the musical qualities of these recording without being annoyed by their lack of audio quality.

One other thing that can go a long way to maximizing the sound reproduction of your music collection is to design your audio system around the types of music that you most often play. There is no golden ticket to good audio sound. Every equipment choice you make will be one of compromise. There is nothing out there that does everything right. While a given piece of hardware may excel at some aspect of reproduction (dynamics, inner detail, imaging timbre, etc.) they all also fall behind the curve on other aspects as well (of course the better (and usually more expensive) a piece is the more things it will to right and the less things that it will do wrong). The trick is to find a combination of equipment that in total excels in aspects that are important to the types of music you prefer and falls behind in areas that really weren't all to important to you in the first place. For example, planar loudspeakers, like Magnepan or Martin-Logans, have fantastic detail resolution and imaging, but generally do not handle large dynamic swings as well as a traditional cone based system. So someone who listens mostly to small chamber music or acoustic jazz, both of which have relatively small dynamic shifts would do be very happy with a pair of planars as opposed to someone who listens to mostly large orchestral or loud rock music who would more likely choose a dynamic cone loudspeaker, which would be more comfortable dealing with the large volumes and volume shifts that occur in that type of music. Remember, there is no one best piece of equipment or system. Best is an individual decision. The best system for you is the one that works best to your ears, in your room, playing your music.

By choosing your compromises to optimize the characteristics of your system around the types of music you are most likely to play and then matching the recordings you own to the type of playback equipment that is most likely to get the most out of them you will be able to get the most out of your current music collection and also give yourself the most flexibility in choosing new music to add to that collection

Tom

[Phil]

I like a system that plays well-recorded music as realistically as possible and plays "good-bad" discs well (unedited limited dynamics and less than realistic resolution) but doesn't cover up "bad-bad" discs (shrill or totally lacking in resolution).

Still breaking in an upgraded source with the hope that this goal will finally be realized. 

[AcidJazz]

I think a decent audio system should be able to play back any type of music, I don't buy the argument of different systems for different kind of music bit. If one was into all types of music, just how many systems would one need?
The enjoyment part of the equation is solely in the realm of the listener. Some days I may not like the sound of my system, other days its just beautiful...big time wow.

I do consciously try to find places for improvement in my system, there is always room for improvement, right?    Makes for increased enjoyment of the music.
I don't actively seek out 'audiophile music', because in most cases the type of music thus labeled are bland and/or sterile/lifeless.
Unless its a remastered classic....something that has stood the test of time.

[_Scotty_]

I have to agree with AcidJazz. A stereo system shouldn't be designed for a single genre of music,in fact given the variability I've seen in recording quality even within a single genre I'm not sure how successful this approach would be. The designer of my speakers hated the idea of voicing a loudspeaker. He viewed this concept as unfortunate audiophile myth. His position was that a speaker should sound good reproducing any type music and should be as true to the source as possible.  Like wise if your preamp or power amp is unable to deal with some recordings or entire genres without falling on its face then something has gone extremely wrong with the design.
Scotty

[JLM]

I'm a "both" kinda guy too.  I have two audio systems (and a HT system).  Hey, its my only hobby and you might as well keep the old stuff, right?   

This is the old question about living on a desert island and having to choose between a great system with only 5 great recordings or a pile of records with a crummy system.   

I can't say that I'm a good enough of an audio shopper to know exactly where adding a particular piece (or shopping an entire system) is going to put me on this scale.  But both extremes are pointless IMO.  I don't equate crummy with cheap, so if you have a crummy system by choice you're not an audiophile.  OTOH if your listenable music library is tiny (we'd all like bigger libraries)  you're not enough of a music lover to be an audiophile either.

My approach is to get as close to ultimate detail as possible without sacrificing musical/non-fatiguing presentation.  As an audiophile you just have to be able to listen for hours.  I've found that "excessive" detail (Lowthers instantly come to mind) "force" my brain into "data absorption overload" which fatigues and drains the emotive enjoyment from listening.  I bring my favorite audiophile recordings and a couple of nasties (those 20 year old pop recordings mentioned above) when auditioning.  And I agree, it seems like there are precious few great recordings of great music.

[rollo]

Good post Tom. An interesting perspective. We are at the mercy of the program source. Quality of the recording can vary as we all know. For me a system [ neutral ] to the source is hard to determine since we were not present during the recording session to verify or have a reference to such. Our memory of live recorded sound is our reference. At least IMO it should be. Now if one plays an instrument its a bit easier to discern tonality, harmonics etc.
  So what type of system would be for me ? Both actually. I like a full bodied presentation with weight and force. Does not highlight any part of the spectrum or favor any frequency range.
  For me my favorite music wether it be in the car or played on a lesser system than the main rig brings emotional impact. Why? Cause its my favorite. I can enjoy it on any system. If it happens to be well recorded it will sound even better on the main rig.
   Since I listen to mostly Jazz and Classical I have tailored my system for that type of playback. Meaning for my system that the extreme bottom say 35hz and below does not have to be state of the art. If I was a techno or rock guy that bottom would be a concern. So instead of investing in a expensive sub the money went elsewhere.  For the occasional rock or Organ LP it is what it is. Good enough for me. I do believe though that a fine system should play all types of music because if the tonality and harmonic structure is right the rest is to subjective to get in to, its moot. 
  It is our individual preference of reproduction so for me both. We are all correct in our choices here, why cause its a subjective kind of hobby.


charles
 

[rlmacklin]

My "system" philosophy - trying to balance my system on that subjective "knife edge" highest level intersection of "detail" and "musicality."  To me if you are losing any details you are obviously losing part of the music.  But, if the detail you are not losing, is not presented musically, that is also shifting ones system off that "knife edge" in a wrong direction. 
Certainly there are lots of other qualities/characteristics of a system to consider, but those above are two biggies for me --- assuming you maintain accurate tone and timbre and linearity, excellent attack, sustain and decay, macro- and micro-dynamics, imaging and soundstaging.

Currently my source is Matt Anker custom sacdmods Denon 3930CI
http://www.sacdmods.com/DVD3930.htm ,
go to bottom of page to see mine (with pictures):

"DVD-3930CI Dual ZapFilter Mod-  This machine was built at the request of a customer who wanted both the stereo outputs and multichannel front outputs modified with a ZapFilter output stage since Denon runs a mixdown on the stereo outputs.  This way the customer can take advantage of the parallel DACs for his stereo listening, and a clean output stage for his multichannel material.  The ZapFilters are powered with an external power supply in this setup, but with 12 power lines running through the same umbilical cable, and with both power supplies installed in the same enclosure as the normal 3930 mod.  The digital output board has been removed to accommodate the additional XLR outputs, but could be relocated in a different installation.  Inquiries are welcome. "

For 2-channel and f l/r of multi-channel, Modwright SWL 9.0 Signature tubed linestage running Bendix 6900s and 1957 Philips metal base GZ34/5AR4, with Modwright capacitor and power supply upgrades,
to Odyssey Mono Extremes power amps (with "Klaus's special boards" at the time), to Polk SDA-SRS2 speakers.
Tel-Wire power cords on Denon source and Modwright linestage, Black Sand Silver Ref MkV on Odyssey power amps and PS Audio Premier power conditioner (for front end components).  Power conditioner and power amps are from Oyaide R1 outlets.  Speaker cables and 2-channel ICs are Grover SX (non-teflon dielectric with aluminum incorporated).
 
For recordings, I try to listen to samples and check other listeners' reviews to find the best perfomances of classical pieces and other genre music albums I wish to purchase.
My "retired" B&O turntable apparently has some wires broken in the tonearm which were said to be non-repairable at the time many years ago.
So for recent years tend to go for SACD if available, followed by DVD-A, then CD or DVD-V.
Some few Blu-Ray audio (from 2L as they came paired with the SACD),
but no blue ray player at this point (maybe Modwright-modded Oppo BDP83 in future?)