How do you prefer to hear your music?

[Snarfie]

In my subjective opinion the ideal is to hear music as intended and mastered in the studio control room perfectly faithful to the original recording.

However, that ideal is often hard to achieve at home without proper room treatment and/or DSP.

So, how do "you' like to listen and adjust your sound given your environment and preferences? Or do you care less regarding as "intended and masterd"

Feel free to explain your choice! in how you balance accuracy versus enjoyment in realworld listening spaces.

 

[IPunchCholla]

I voted that I do whatever I want, artistic intent isn’t important to me. However, it is more that I have no way of measuring intent, only the source that I am using. I don’t even know what happened in the studio. Aside from perhaps vocals, I don’t even know if recording happened. Much less where it happened, in what manner.

Pleasure is my primary point and I prioritize that. However, in practice that has turned out to be number one in the poll. Doing everything I can to remove room modes through DSP and correcting anechoic issues of the speakers (where possible) while leaving the rest alone.

 

[chervokas]

I choose option 1, because I just want the playback gear to playback what's on the recording, but not because I care about "ideal studio reference" or "artistic intent" -- who knows what that was? In commercial art, there are so many different factors that influence production choices, I don't really worry about "artistic intent" and "studio reference"? If you've every been in recording and mixing studios over the decades, you know there's a lot of variation.

I just want the playback equipment to playback what's on the recording because I just want to hear what's on the recording and because I don't want to really be bothered chasing my different moods, or how I wish X recording would have been made more like Y recording. I just want to hear the recordings and have the playback equipment kind of get out of the way and become something I don't really need to think about while I'm listening. And yes, I did shoot the room to get set up as flat in frequency response even in decay times at the listening position as I can, I do use room treatments. The more I make the room and the playback equipment something I don't hear or have to worry about, the easier and more enjoyable music listening is.

 

[respice finem]

Room treatment yes, DSP also, at least for the "main" setup. Loudness (and for headphones) crossfeed mostly too.
But, if a specific recording still sounds "off", I don't hesitate to "tune" it by B/T shelf filters.
I'm not a composer or sound engineer, so...

 

[Robin L]

I don't have room treatment or DSP. I've got floorstanding speakers, elevated a little over a foot off the floor in a small room, one is on top of a subwoofer, the other on a MDF, painted, box filled with "coffee table" books. I've also got multiple headphones but usually default to Drop 6XX 'phones. I sit close to the speakers; there is limited room interaction. The wall opposite the speakers is covered by a thick quilt. I've very happy with the sound quality I'm getting—it's easy to listen "into" orchestral recordings, I listen to those often. If I had a ton of money I'd get better speakers, though the Infinity Primus 250s I'm now using suit my requirements well. Really have no complaints with what I'm using.

 

[bluefuzz]

I choose option 1, because I just want the playback gear to playback what's on the recording, but not because I care about "ideal studio reference" or "artistic intent" -- who knows what that was?

Yes, same here. I use DSP to get an objectively neutral response in my room compared to what is on the recording (or rather what the measuring software can hear). Whether it bares any resemblance to what anyone heard in the studio, the concert hall or the mastering suite is irrelevant and unknowable anyway. Second guessing 'artistic intent' is likewise a fools game.

I find a big part of the enjoyment of listening to music on such a setup is how it lays bare the so called 'circle of confusion'. Being able to hear the inconsistencies, inadequecies and downright errors in various recordings is all part of the fun of listening to recorded music ...

 

[Somafunk]

As I pretty much only listen to electronic music I doubt I have to worry about “ the ideal is to hear music as intended and mastered in the studio control room perfectly faithful to the original recording.”

 

[Flaesh]

as intended and mastered in the studio control room

What are they even doing there? Intended for cell phones and 100Hz speakers?
Let them upload tracks without using compressors and high-pass filters ..

 

[Chrispy]

Hard to know if the recording even reflects "ideal studio reference". I set up close to reference (not studio but rather as clean a reproduction as I can) and then tweak to preference.

 

[Barrelhouse Solly]

All 3. Geek me wants option 1. Options 2 and 3 relate more to my hearing. I'm moderately impaired in the right ear and, uh, more so in the left. I wear hearing aids so what I hear, even with the hearing aids, is not what a "normal" person hears. I've loved music all my life and have sung and played it for most. I have definite ideas, even if I can't verbalize them in objective terms, about how music should sound. Room correction often makes things good for me, but sometimes I need to fool around with the controls till I get what I want. I know I'm doing it and don't expect that others will think I'm doing a good thing. BTW, sometimes I disagree with how a recording was shaped in the studio.

 

[kemmler3D]

I at least want a frequency response that is plausibly flat comparable to what was used in the studio, because I care about artistic intent at least as a concept. And I consider neutrality as the goal of a hi-fi system.

I understand that actually matching what was heard in the studio is conceptually impossible for most recordings, but starting from a baseline of flat on-axis, smooth off-axis, with room problems dealt with as much as I can seems like the obvious choice to me. Starting with some other intent seems a bit LOL, YOLO to me.

If I, or anyone else decides to adjust for taste away from neutral from that point on, that's fine.

To put it another way, I want to taste my food BEFORE I salt it. And to do that I need a neutral system to start with.

 

[Chrispy]

I at least want a frequency response that is plausibly flat comparable to what was used in the studio, because I care about artistic intent at least as a concept. And I consider neutrality as the goal of a hi-fi system.

I understand that actually matching what was heard in the studio is conceptually impossible for most recordings, but starting from a baseline of flat on-axis, smooth off-axis, with room problems dealt with as much as I can seems like the obvious choice to me. Starting with some other intent seems a bit LOL, YOLO to me.

If I, or anyone else decides to adjust for taste away from neutral from that point on, that's fine.

To put it another way, I want to taste my food BEFORE I salt it. And to do that I need a neutral system to start with.

Then there's the matter that many recordings are simply made from various contributions, not necessarily as a group and recorded as such. That many recordings are made to sound "good" on a variety of playback systems, meh

 

[Flaesh]

I didn't vote.
Item 1 confuses room treatment and EQing, and I expressed my doubts about studio processing above.
Item 2 I don't use, although I prefer to listen to the sounds I like best.
Item 3 would get about 30-45% of the vote if it were possible. I do what I consider hi-fi. While artistic intent may or may not match personal preferences

 

[Chrispy]

In my subjective opinion the ideal is to hear music as intended and mastered in the studio control room perfectly faithful to the original recording.

However, that ideal is often hard to achieve at home without proper room treatment and/or DSP.

So, how do "you' like to listen and adjust your sound given your environment and preferences? Or do you care less regarding as "intended and masterd"

Feel free to explain your choice! in how you balance accuracy versus enjoyment in realworld listening spaces.

I might add that "as intended and mastered in the control room" may not have a lot to do with "perfectly faithful to the original recording". Let alone original performance, if there was even one. Let alone the artist's intent unless you count the artists' producers, hangers-on, etc.

 

[Soandso]

My aged reality is that are so many differences between my left and right ears in regards to the degree of hearing loss (even the exact same frequencies of the other ear) that I no longer focus on anything other than trying to enjoy what I get from Deezer 'premium' streaming service's best audio setting through my various headphones or the remaining pair of small room speakers (a mellow playlist of mine is playing right now off to one of side and I got no complaints).

 

[WXfreak]

I voted for number 3. I am not sure why anyone would want a completely flat playback system unless it will be used to compare with someone else's flat playback setup. I assume the mixing and mastering process is designed for mass consumption, which is different from someone building a home system for a relaxed listening experience in the living room. I just want a good pair of speakers and an amplifier that sound right to me, and that I can adjust by listening with my own ears until I am happy with the sound.

 

[tomiso838]

I just go with what sounds good to me. Studio precision is cool and all, but if a bit of bass makes it more fun, I’m fine with that.

 

[kemmler3D]

I might add that "as intended and mastered in the control room" may not have a lot to do with "perfectly faithful to the original recording". Let alone original performance, if there was even one. Let alone the artist's intent unless you count the artists' producers, hangers-on, etc.

Yes, we have to treat "the artist" as a sort of black box including everyone that worked on the record. Food analogy maybe holds - "the chef" maybe didn't put the final touches on your fancy meal, but they at least wrote the recipe and picked the people who actually cook the food on your plate. Whether or not "the chef" (or someone working for them) seasoned the food, it still doesn't make sense to salt it before tasting it.

 

[Jokke]

I only use DSP EQ for my subwoofer. Main speakers run without EQ.
So, I did not vote.

 

[Snarfie]

I might add that "as intended and mastered in the control room" may not have a lot to do with "perfectly faithful to the original recording". Let alone original performance, if there was even one. Let alone the artist's intent unless you count the artists' producers, hangers-on, etc.

There are many stages between recording, mixing, and mastering. But in the end, the final product the CD, LP, or high-res digital file is the actual reference point. That’s what the artist and producer have approved as the definitive version. For me, that’s the benchmark I try to keep my playback as close to as possible.