solderdude
Grand Contributor
From a signal fidelity point ... sure.So when it comes to any part of the reproduction chain, the most "musical" component has to be that which delivers the source in the most accurate way without debate.
Any time we let any regard for "sounds good to me" enter the evaluation, without concern for the science of the products actual performance in the chain, we've lost all hope for "musicality" in the reproduction. It all becomes just a fun house mirror that reflects an image that makes us smile.![]()
For electronics ... also sure that would be preferred. Coloration and effects or compensations are easily added and are not permanently in the chain.
That said ... some people prefer to always have the same 'sauce' pored over everything and they may enjoy it and say it 'sounds' better where it is merely a preference they have and not actually 'better' in a signal fidelity way.
After that it becomes fuzzy as into play come transducers and the circumstances they are used under. There is a wide range of variables and influences here.
The most 'die-hard' signal = everything purists will certainly be using DSP, room conditioning and WAF unfriendly speaker positioning in rooms to do that.
They will pick a 'target' that suits their needs/preference and may well use microphones or measurements from others.
What they hear is what they 'know' is the purest way (regardless how many errors or wrong choices have been made) and crappy recordings will sound crappy because they are crappy.
That said... a lot of audiophiles and audiophools will choose not to go this route and go for maximum enjoyment by the endless search for 'good sounding components' and 'synergy' and maybe compensate 'tone' a little with speakers, slight change of placement, auditioning (also with headphones) and it may well be that they prefer 'colored' gear while getting the 'sound' they want and preferably 'spice up' the crappy recordings this way a little for maximum enjoyment. Signal fidelity is not the goal but enjoyment is. Tonal accuracy as they prefer and not how it is determined in a studio (which may or may not be done well anyway).
Totally different use cases and as long as it sounds great it 'sounds better' to them where the 'purists' want the sound replicated from the available signal and when the studios 'effed up' the sound should show that and not gloss things over.
For this reason the debate will never end.
People like @genesisaudiorack and even @MattHooper will look at things in a different way than 'signal purists' and the words 'sounds better' has a different meaning.
It should be clear that ASR is about optimal signal fidelity where other people look at this differently.
I would say .... be careful with the words 'better' in relation to sound... preferred would be a better choice of words and may result in less aggressive back and forth-s.
Last edited: