Johnnyb53 stated:
"1. Flat frequency response is overrated in the sense that it is the distortion that we listen through the most easily. Think about a live concert. Between concert room interactions to the sound guy doing EQ boosts and dips, live music is never flat, yet it is the gold standard for fidelity because it is real. We are more used to listening past frequency nonlinearities than any other type of distortion."
I hope I'm not to late and the overall thread thought hasn't passed, but here my take on this point, FWIW. It's not directed at or intended to pick on anyone, just a thought!
IMHO, this is where "reference point" becomes more distorted and open to interpretation. I can speak best for myself, but I would assume the purpose behind the chase for system fidelity, is to achieve/preserve the integrity of content. Meaning, if I'm listen to a recording of Bach and the engineers intend for the recording to sound a certain way (be it hard, balanced, warm, etc), the mode of playback SHOULD be design and setup to play the recording back as intended. In order to achieve this goal, I am unaware of any other way it can be achieved, outside of the end user portion being as close to neutral as possible; no characteristics to infer signature.
Keeping this in proper perspective, it's very difficult, at best, to build a system only to reach and maintain this absolute. When coupled with many other factors (room treatment, specific component selection, etc.), this absolute is within the scope of possibility. However, this should not deter from the attempt to reach this goal. Its a relevant goal; and the key to fidelity.
Now, throwing live recordings into the mix. No live sound is not flat. Yes, the engineers do tweak the frequencies and such to achieve a certain sound. But, you must keep in mind, this is the sound and feel the artist/production team intend for the material to be presented to the audience. For example, if the bass playback is muddy and the material calls for full bass, but not muddy, the engineers are trained and informed enough to know: 1. the bass is not supposed to be muddy, and 2. the bass needs to be corrected at a certain frequency/ies in order for the bass to sound full, not muddy. When you play the recording of the concert back, an audiophile grade system should play the bass back to sound full. Its the way the recording is supposed to sound, full bodied bass. It's double work to tweak the tweak to fit your taste unless it's done specifically to fit your taste. Otherwise, you're correcting the correction, which more than likely requires an EQ, which is a sore subject to most audiophiles. Some thing about the integrity of the playback, who knows!
Taste is one thing; that's the purpose of an EQ, give it more this or less that. Great! Fidelity and true reference is another. Taste no longer becomes a factor. Interpretation is obsolete; recording preservation is saved.
+/- 0db or bust!!! (It's a joke)
Bob has his eye on the prize and will get it far faster that most audiophiles who have been at it 6x longer. Keep at it, Bob, and good luck!!
"1. Flat frequency response is overrated in the sense that it is the distortion that we listen through the most easily. Think about a live concert. Between concert room interactions to the sound guy doing EQ boosts and dips, live music is never flat, yet it is the gold standard for fidelity because it is real. We are more used to listening past frequency nonlinearities than any other type of distortion."
I hope I'm not to late and the overall thread thought hasn't passed, but here my take on this point, FWIW. It's not directed at or intended to pick on anyone, just a thought!
IMHO, this is where "reference point" becomes more distorted and open to interpretation. I can speak best for myself, but I would assume the purpose behind the chase for system fidelity, is to achieve/preserve the integrity of content. Meaning, if I'm listen to a recording of Bach and the engineers intend for the recording to sound a certain way (be it hard, balanced, warm, etc), the mode of playback SHOULD be design and setup to play the recording back as intended. In order to achieve this goal, I am unaware of any other way it can be achieved, outside of the end user portion being as close to neutral as possible; no characteristics to infer signature.
Keeping this in proper perspective, it's very difficult, at best, to build a system only to reach and maintain this absolute. When coupled with many other factors (room treatment, specific component selection, etc.), this absolute is within the scope of possibility. However, this should not deter from the attempt to reach this goal. Its a relevant goal; and the key to fidelity.
Now, throwing live recordings into the mix. No live sound is not flat. Yes, the engineers do tweak the frequencies and such to achieve a certain sound. But, you must keep in mind, this is the sound and feel the artist/production team intend for the material to be presented to the audience. For example, if the bass playback is muddy and the material calls for full bass, but not muddy, the engineers are trained and informed enough to know: 1. the bass is not supposed to be muddy, and 2. the bass needs to be corrected at a certain frequency/ies in order for the bass to sound full, not muddy. When you play the recording of the concert back, an audiophile grade system should play the bass back to sound full. Its the way the recording is supposed to sound, full bodied bass. It's double work to tweak the tweak to fit your taste unless it's done specifically to fit your taste. Otherwise, you're correcting the correction, which more than likely requires an EQ, which is a sore subject to most audiophiles. Some thing about the integrity of the playback, who knows!
Taste is one thing; that's the purpose of an EQ, give it more this or less that. Great! Fidelity and true reference is another. Taste no longer becomes a factor. Interpretation is obsolete; recording preservation is saved.
+/- 0db or bust!!! (It's a joke)
Bob has his eye on the prize and will get it far faster that most audiophiles who have been at it 6x longer. Keep at it, Bob, and good luck!!