Are you a tone guy or a details-retrieval guy?

[Macca]

And that is before you start on weird speaker cables, weird interconnects and all the other gubbins that they sell to try and tame the bright and harsh sound that doesn't need to be there to begin with. Don't get me started. As you say the punters are to blame, as are the reviewers and the magazines for all the bullshit over the years. The manufacturer just has to sell what is wanted or go broke.

[magiccarpetride]

I'll take that as you've been pissing about with software.
Have you done anything fundamental, such as changing the PSU?

Yes, of course. Threw away the original PSU and replaced it with a linear PSU at 5.00 V.

[magiccarpetride]

What SUT might that be? Denon MC's definitely need a decent one.

It's the SUT that a local TT enthusiast hand made (hand-wound) for me. Sounds thunderous with the MM stage of Emotiva!

[magiccarpetride]

A good indication that a systems a real good 'un to me is when the sound changes markedly with each different recording played, ie it's an open window on the recording rather than the system imprinting its own sound on everything played through it.

YES! And that's why I'm thinking that tone is king. If I'm listening to two systems, where one excels at detail retrieval, while the other excels at tone, the first system will make every recording sound as if cut from the same cloth, while the second system will reveal how utterly different each recording is. Awesome conclusion, Jez, nail hit right on the head!

[RobbieGong]

I don't see them as in any way mutually exclusive personally... I design equipment to give both

A personal bugbear is systems which are rounded off at both ends, especially the top end, to give that "this system ain't going to sound anything other than smooth and lush no matter what's on the recording" effect..... not for me!

A good indication that a systems a real good 'un to me is when the sound changes markedly with each different recording played, ie it's an open window on the recording rather than the system imprinting its own sound on everything played through it.

Absolutely spot on Jez !! the times i've said it too.

It was a light bulb moment for me and something I realised when I'd reached a certain point along the upgrade path.
So much 'crap' had been removed that my system had reached a stage where I could clearly hear that it was the recorded music that was playing and not the system
- evidenced as you've perfectly and simply expressed with each recording sounding different and individual which made total sense.
Everything we play isnt recorded or mixed the same way or in the same studio and so on and so on and therefore......................................... ..........

[magiccarpetride]

If I may summarize, this thread taught me some vitally important lessons:

We have reached the audio technology peak several decades ago. The advent of 'wearable listening' (walkmen, iPods, smartphones) signalled the end of the era of 'dedicated listening'. As the younger generations embraced the much maligned earbuds and lossy mp3 formats, the sales of high quality audio equipment started plummeting.

Add to that the thinning of the hi fi aficionados herd (old hippies tend to die, or at the very least, go deaf), and the manufacturers of high quality audio components were forced to invent sneaky new techniques for staying afloat. As Marco mentioned, instead of honouring the time proven approach of building quality components that retain the natural quality of the recorded sound, they started grooming their ever thinning audience to go after the fool's errand -- chasing the unicorn of that ever elusive 'sound of the walls of the recording venues'. Now instead of focusing on the tone and the natural timbre of the instruments and vocals, the newly minted audiophile crowd is straining to hear the "score pages being turned", or trying to catch those elusive tiny sounds that reveal how the instruments are being placed back on their stand. Of course, to be able to dig that deep into the recorded signal, you need to at least quadruple your budget. But that's okay, because now the tech is progressing, and we can indeed now enjoy intricate details that losers back in the '70s could never even dream of.

That's why going back to the quality vintage equipment reintroduces us to what music is all about -- NOT the sound of the walls, NOT the rustling of the music scores as the violinists are turning them, but the SOUND of the instruments as they are being played!

[Barry]

On balance, more a tone than details guy. I tend to listen almost exclusively to CDs these days for reasons of a) laziness and b) knowing most of my vinyl collection off by heart. When I do compare formats, I don't think one is markedly superior to the other. What does surprise me is how good the relatively basic 'upstairs' vinyl system sounds: (AR turntable, Rega TB250 tonearm, Ortofon MC10 cartridge). It majors on 'presence' rather than detail, but is always great fun to listen to.

Presence should never be confused with detail, especially as presence is a far more elusive quality and, for me, the more desirable: I want, if possible to be transported to the recording venue. That's not the same as "it's as if XXXX was/ playing in my listening room": I want to hear (again if possible) the walls of the recording venue.

The Decca cartridges have this sense of presence in spades, as well as superb attack so one can hear the start of notes clearly, but I would not describle them necessarily as tonally accurate. They are also "fun" to listen to, not that is sine qua non, but they can, if set up with care, be extremely enjoyable to listen to.

[Barry]

I don't see them as in any way mutually exclusive personally... I design equipment to give both

A personal bugbear is systems which are rounded off at both ends, especially the top end, to give that "this system ain't going to sound anything other than smooth and lush no matter what's on the recording" effect..... not for me!

A good indication that a systems a real good 'un to me is when the sound changes markedly with each different recording played, ie it's an open window on the recording rather than the system imprinting its own sound on everything played through it.

Good post Jez.

regarding the curtailment of frequency extremes, a good rule that used to be followed by traditional speaker designers, is that the product of the upper and lower frequency -3dB points should be 400,000Hz²: that is ideally 20Hz - 20kHz, but if that cannot be achieved then 40Hz - 10kHz is better than, say, a speaker that has a frequency response of 40Hz - 20kHz or 20Hz - 10KHz.

Your last sentence is spot on. I would much rather have a system that exposes recordings 'warts and all', than something that airbrushes out the faults, and is a 'nice comfortable listen'.

[YNWaN]

And is that what you get off on, when sat at a concert listening to live music?

I'm being facetious, of course, and I value those things too and consider them important, in terms of achieving realism, but the accurate portrayal of tone (and timbre) is *vital* if ultimately a guitar is to sound like a REAL guitar, and a piano like a piano, etc, as opposed to a cardboard cutout of such - and there is no getting away from that fact either.

Marco.

Err yes, that is precisely what I enjoy when listening live. Musics tonality is an ever changing scale modulated by the acoustic the instruments are being played in. Even worse, once an instrument is amplified all bets are off as you then introduce the character of the speakers, amplification and room acoustic - and that's assuming no further effects are applied. In short, there is no tonal accuracy/neutrality to pursue.

[Marco]

Indeed, but in this instance I'm referring to concerts involving acoustic instruments, nothing that's amplified through a PA system.

Anyway, I get where you're coming from and agree to an extent, as what you're talking about is fundamental to music sounding real, but the fact is, all the wonderful "subtle interplay, counterpoint and dynamic contrast" in the world, would mean nothing if, tonally, your system made a bass guitar sound more like an acoustic guitar, or a kick drum more like a snare drum...

Accurate reproduction of tone, therefore, is vital.

Marco.