Ptah
pfm Member
That one was, yes.That Thores system at Leamington was expensive and exciting.
That one was, yes.That Thores system at Leamington was expensive and exciting.
I am more and more doubtful as to whether the concept of “accurate reproduction of the original sound” actually means anything useful. We are trying to reproduce a sound that is recorded or created in a venue that is wholly unlike the domestic environment we want to hear it in, by sound engineers who may have a quite different take than us on what it should sound like, using a huge range of equipment using different design philosophies and and hugely varying price points. I think the best we can aim for is the sound that most accurately represents what we think the original should sound like. And accept that won’t be the same for everybody.I don't know how you square the circle....or is it circle the square....?
I have three pairs of decent headphones, & I can easily set these up so that they are all playing the same thing:
Stax Lambda Nova (very ancient), Philips Fidelio X2 & Oppo PM-3.
All well reviewed items. All sound completely different. What happened to the straight wire principle or ....hifi should reproduce the original sound as accurately as possible?
The most annoying thing is I can't really decide which I prefer. In use the Oppos are great when travelling (closed back). But away from these specific practical application, at home, the clarity of the Stax is superb...but can be a bit bright and a tad bass light. The Oppos have a nice tonal balance but just a tad 'enclosed' sounding and maybe slightly tonally light at both ends of the scale. The Philips are bass heavy but great otherwise tonally, if not quite as clear as the Stax. Aaarghh!
But as recordings change I do find I prefer the sound of one over another.
Is that because specific phones reproduce that particular type of recording better i.e. closer approach to the original sound? Or is it just personal preference? No idea.
If I had the where-with-all to set up a choice of amps, speakers & source, I'm sure I'd find the same.
I am more and more doubtful as to whether the concept of “accurate reproduction of the original sound” actually means anything useful. We are trying to reproduce a sound that is recorded or created in a venue that is wholly unlike the domestic environment we want to hear it in, by sound engineers who may have a quite different take than us on what it should sound like, using a huge range of equipment using different design philosophies and and hugely varying price points. I think the best we can aim for is the sound that most accurately represents what we think the original should sound like. And accept that won’t be the same for everybody.
More money spent, the higher one's expectations. I would never go for a unrevealing system to make poor recordings sound acceptable! I also dispute the idea that throwing money will automatically enhance fidelity - it doesn't.
The most annoying thing is I can't really decide which I prefer.
I was trying to remember an example of this from my listening (my take only).But if music which is "fun" etc. on some equipment is not on others, despite good measurements, what then?
Damn Doggy... You rockin' dem crocs!Really.
I think half the problem is that it’s easy when you are listening very closely to your very carefully selected and upgraded system for every nuance of sound stage, sound quality, prat, call it what you will, it’s rather easy to forget to enjoy the music.