Yes, not everyone wants it presented like that, with all the visceral impact, and that's understandable even if it does make them a bit odd ;)
Printable View
Yes, not everyone wants it presented like that, with all the visceral impact, and that's understandable even if it does make them a bit odd ;)
We have been to a couple of gigs at the Robin 2 very recently, JCM and a Dire Straits tribute called Money For Nothing.
Everything was miked through the PA and didn't lack any visceral impact but it was too loud.
The venue is quite a reverberant space with hard walls and domed ceiling and I think it would sound better turned down a notch.
Afterwards I asked the sound engineer what the max rating of the PA was, for interest, and he said it was 6kW. It is an old Peavy installation and had been running at 1kW output so he said.
Lol... I think Tony Sallis (Coherent) is on record saying something along the lines of people have a 'realism scale' that they want (and can handle) from their systems, from 1-10.
Me? In that respect, I'm a 10, whereas some folks may only be a 6 or 7... I think it's a valid point, and obviously based on his considerable experience of selling all manner of different systems to his customers!
Plus, you can want to be a 10, but simply not possess the knowledge or necessary experience to build such a system, or indeed have the wherewithal to buy it in the first place.
Marco.
I want to be an 8.
Dynamically, I often want the music at a bit less than full throttle.
In terms of transparency and detail I want to be a 12.
Mrs J has been known to say (critically) that you can hear more of what's going on with my system than at a typical concert.
So maybe I average out at 10.
Cool... As far as I'm concerned, nothing can ever sound 'too real', so I want it, warts and all! I would never deliberately 'tone down' a recording. It simply is what it is.
However, whether I've actually achieved a 10, in the respect, with my system is another matter. I've certainly striven for it :)
Marco.
P.S You can have dynamics, transparency AND detail. They aren't mutually exclusive!;)
But, if you can, why not try and have it all...? I would never knowingly trade one for the other. For me, that's a sure way of turning a system into a one (or two)-trick pony!
Marco.
Because I don't usually want to be slammed against the wall.
It can be fun, but mostly not. It's not what I am really into music for.
I prefer it to be a bit toned down dynamically, to be just a bit relaxed - I can hear a bit more of what is going on then in other respects, imo.
Fair enough, it's your system. I just don't do any deliberate tailoring. I want to hear the maximum amount of musical information any recording, and my system, will allow.
When you're at a live classical concert, you don't ask the musicians on trumpet if they would mind toning it down a bit. You enjoy the sound as it is... And depending where you're sitting in the hall concerned, it could take your head off!:eyebrows:
I seek to achieve the same type of realism from my system at home, based on the recording I'm forced to work with. For me, that's what hi-fi is all about :)
Marco.