1. Home
  2. analog
  3. 1177862451

Musicality vs Transparency & Detail

I would like to get the opinions of forum members on this topic. As I work to develop my audio system I wonder if the goal of extreme detail retrieval will sacrifice musicality. How have you been able to achieve excellent detail retrieval without getting an etched fatigue inducing sound. As an example when I have read about Shindo equipment I have always come away feeling that it was not noted for detail retrieval but was high on the list of emotionally satisfying.
Jean Nantais who frequently post here seems to feel that ultimate desire for detail has sacrificed musicality. On the other hand Arthur Salvatore of high-endaudio feels that the ultimate goal is the retrieval of low level detail as his first priority.

Can one go to far in the quest for ultimate transparency and low level detail retrieval? Have you ever retreated in system development to equipment or cables with less detail because of listening fatigue? Look forward to your comments.
montepilot
rushton's avatar
rushton
2,430 posts
 
Bear in mind that bad recordings will sound bad, but you won't be adding insult to injury.
I'm reminded of the story about a well known reviewer who vastly preferred a given set of cables because they made one well-treasured recording sound wonderful. Unfortunately, that well-treasured recording was really a sonic disaster with sharp, edgy sonics. The cables smoothed over all the edginess, added a mid-bass boost, rolled off the top end, and made that one record very listenable. For this reviewer, there was no question but that this cable was far superior to another cable on hand that had made some outstandingly well-recorded orchestral LPs sound wonderful in the reviewer's same system just hours earlier, but allowed the "well-treasured" LP to sound like it's true self.
.
piedpiper
753 posts
 
The other issue I didn't quite cover is that some components, most easily speakers, can editorialize the frequency response by being simply brighter or less bright, etc., by adding or subtracting frequency amplitude without necessarily adding edginess, boominess, or other distortions. A component that is simply brighter, or one that lacks bass, can seem more detailed but is not, of course.
jcarr
341 posts
 
I agree that true transparancy and true detail has nothing to do with an exaggerated sense of edginess or brightness. As the detail resolution and transparancy of my components increases, I find that the number of sonically "bad" recordings has gradually but surely diminished, while the number of musically worthwhile performances has steadily increased.

However, components are only tools in the hands of the person setting up and maintaining the audio system, and if he does not do a good job, good components will likely be a waste (or even counterproductive).

Regarding speakers that are developed for monitoring purposes, I agree that there are some that are quite good, but then there are also clunkers like the Yamaha NS-10m. I've heard studio sound that was quite good, but I've also heard obnoxiously bad sound in a recording studio. Once again, it's not about what things are called, but the individual component - and the person using them.
piedpiper
753 posts
 
I agree with Jcarr regarding studio monitors. Audio engineers, with many exceptions (I'm one), are notorious for their ingnorance of, and sometimes scorn for, audiophile products. They respect workhorses that help them get their job done in short order with a minimum of fussiness.
montytx
136 posts
 
It's easier to excuse a lack of detail if you aren't aware that it exists in the recording. Once you know it's there, it becomes much harder for your brain to continually "fill-in" the missing detail.

Some music loses its appeal without those low level details or transients.

I am quite fond of both tubes and transistors, but I certainly prefer certain music through SS and other music through valves.
More to discover