For me, listening to music is all about making informed choices guided by science and supported by the right equipment/placement. It’s about creating an environment where I can get as close as possible to an optimal listening experience, even if it's still far from replicating a live, unamplified performance. In the end, it’s about accepting compromises and making personal decisions based on what sounds best to me.
Most modern music (thats on your CD Vinyl) is professionally recorded and mixed in high-end studio control rooms. These rooms are meticulously designed, typically with a 70/30 investment split around 70% dedicated to acoustic treatment and 30% to gear like mixing consoles desks, amplifiers, monitors, cables etc etc .
Most studio control rooms aim for neutrality. That means low reverberation times (usually around 0.5 seconds), linear frequency response (within 2 a 3 dB don't pin me on the numbers
), and careful control of external noise and seismic interference (e.g.,from traffic). Absorbers and diffusers are used to create a visually and acoustically balanced space. This scientific approach sets the benchmark for how recorded music is meant to be heard or could sound in a optimal acoustic condition.
As we know not all music is recorded/masterd neutrally. Some artists or labels deliberately choose a compressed or colored sound. Just listen to some early Adele albums beautifully sung, but heavily compressed in production/masterd. Probably a commercial or artistic choice.
That brings me to a key point: Making choices. You either accept your current setup acoustics, or you measuring/optimize it using science adjusting room acoustics (room treatment) and or using DSP to get the best (subjective) personal result from your system using a linear output and or using a personal target cuve(s).
I chose the latter. I specifically tailored my setup both acoustics and gear to suit neutral/linear recordings. I’ve created a dedicated audio space treated acoustically and enhanced with DSP. The result: reverb time well under 1 second and a frequency response within 2 a 3 dB of flat.
What I’ve found is that linear recordings shine in this environment. Labels like Telarc, Chesky, Audio Fidelity and others consistently sound excellent. I naturally gravitate toward these types of recordings, because they benefit most from awell-tuned, neutral system.
But there’s a trade-off. My setup also makes poorly mixed or compressed recordings stand out for the worse. That means I tend to avoid certain albums, not because the music is bad, but because the production choices don’t align with my system’s strengths. IMO this i noticed for quite some recordings from the'70s, which IMO by average often sound flat compared to today’s high-resolution digital productions. Like Hiromi Telarc. However most of my (well recorded/masterd ) music does not come from a audiophile record labels like Morphine 1993 Rykodisc.
Thats why i'm looking for remix- remasters who could lifting up such recordings IMO for the better. The 2019 remixed-remasterd Beatles – Abbey Road album for instance. An yes some remasters are dreadful..
In the end, reaching an optimal audio experience is a personal journey. It involves a balance between science, gear, and subjective taste. I’ve made my choice to aim for neutrality and accuracy, and it’s enhanced my appreciation for neutral well-recorded/masterd music. But I’m also aware that this choice influences what I listen to an that’s part of the experience too.
Science in Audio
Most modern music (thats on your CD Vinyl) is professionally recorded and mixed in high-end studio control rooms. These rooms are meticulously designed, typically with a 70/30 investment split around 70% dedicated to acoustic treatment and 30% to gear like mixing consoles desks, amplifiers, monitors, cables etc etc .
Most studio control rooms aim for neutrality. That means low reverberation times (usually around 0.5 seconds), linear frequency response (within 2 a 3 dB don't pin me on the numbers
), and careful control of external noise and seismic interference (e.g.,from traffic). Absorbers and diffusers are used to create a visually and acoustically balanced space. This scientific approach sets the benchmark for how recorded music is meant to be heard or could sound in a optimal acoustic condition.Gear
While the room is crucial, the remaining 30% gear still plays a key role. Think of high-quality amplification, well placed monitors, far field speakers, DACs and other components. But having expensive gear doesn’t guarantee by far a great sound if your room acoustics are lacking.As we know not all music is recorded/masterd neutrally. Some artists or labels deliberately choose a compressed or colored sound. Just listen to some early Adele albums beautifully sung, but heavily compressed in production/masterd. Probably a commercial or artistic choice.
Making Choices
That brings me to a key point: Making choices. You either accept your current setup acoustics, or you measuring/optimize it using science adjusting room acoustics (room treatment) and or using DSP to get the best (subjective) personal result from your system using a linear output and or using a personal target cuve(s).
I chose the latter. I specifically tailored my setup both acoustics and gear to suit neutral/linear recordings. I’ve created a dedicated audio space treated acoustically and enhanced with DSP. The result: reverb time well under 1 second and a frequency response within 2 a 3 dB of flat.
The Impact of a Neutral Setup
What I’ve found is that linear recordings shine in this environment. Labels like Telarc, Chesky, Audio Fidelity and others consistently sound excellent. I naturally gravitate toward these types of recordings, because they benefit most from awell-tuned, neutral system.
But there’s a trade-off. My setup also makes poorly mixed or compressed recordings stand out for the worse. That means I tend to avoid certain albums, not because the music is bad, but because the production choices don’t align with my system’s strengths. IMO this i noticed for quite some recordings from the'70s, which IMO by average often sound flat compared to today’s high-resolution digital productions. Like Hiromi Telarc. However most of my (well recorded/masterd ) music does not come from a audiophile record labels like Morphine 1993 Rykodisc.
Thats why i'm looking for remix- remasters who could lifting up such recordings IMO for the better. The 2019 remixed-remasterd Beatles – Abbey Road album for instance. An yes some remasters are dreadful..
Conclusion
In the end, reaching an optimal audio experience is a personal journey. It involves a balance between science, gear, and subjective taste. I’ve made my choice to aim for neutrality and accuracy, and it’s enhanced my appreciation for neutral well-recorded/masterd music. But I’m also aware that this choice influences what I listen to an that’s part of the experience too.
Last edited:
