What do you want from your audio system? (The big question!)

[CDMC]

I selected 3 for a few reasons. For me, my system is to enjoy the music, not to make a few test songs sound good. The problem is that a lot (I used to say majority, but streaming has brought me worlds of new types of music) of rock, of which a fair amount I am sure was mixed by engineers who blew out their eardrums at some point. For that, a bit euphonic is good. It was one of the factors that led me to recently replace my Schiit Freya and DAC with an RME. Having tone controls and the ability to use different eq curves (from a remote) is wonderful.

I will say that my listening levels have decreased over the years for two reasons. First, for reference listening I have adopted using the levels that Bob Katz suggests for mixing, which is hopefully close to the level the music was mixed at (so on my desktop 74db per speaker with a -20dbfs 500-2k pink noise, for my larger system it is 77db). Second, as I am aging my tinnitus has gotten worse (not helped by a German Shepard that likes to bark) and listening at higher levels makes it worse.

 

[RayDunzl]

Since I don't know what the live event may have sounded like (if there was one), and don't know what the producer intended (except, usually, to make money), I shape (DRC) the sound in the room to permit the playback to approximate (as closely as paossible) what is provided to me on the disk or in the file, as is measurable at the listening position (flat test response) and comparable to the source, which seems to give me the greatest enjoyment.

I think I touched all the poll options except "None of the above..."

In deference to my imagination of what may have been recorded, low distortion and ample power are two necessary attributes of the playback system.

I don't change any settings on a per-recording basis, except in extreme cases. I can think of only two commercial recordings I have that need some repair, and there are many old "recorded on a boombox" things that benefit from some tweaking, be it frequency response or even speed adjustmen..

 

[Kouioui]

Number 4 here as I use mine for mixing personal recordings along with general audio/video duties. I feel room EQ is very important, a firm believer in the 1dB tilt per octave house curve, and using speakers with a flat on-axis response with wide, even dispersion..some sidewall reflections included. Basically, I want to eliminate the 'circle of confusion' on my end but won't shy away from using bass and/or treble controls to fix bad sounding recordings made by others.

 

[MediumRare]

Thanks for posting the question. I want two things that aren't necessarily always aligned in the choices you provided.
1) Highest fidelity to the artist/producers intent. I want to hear the music as the artist and producer wanted me to experience it. The underlying reason for this is more closely aligned with my second answer. I want the full emotional experience the artist is trying to convey. I don't want reproduction hardware getting between me and the music and reducing that emotional experience or distorting it.
2) In my experience live music is how I get the best emotional experience from the music. So I seek to recreate the energy and emotional responses I get when I'm at a live music venue. Whether that is answer 1 or 2 in your choices above I'm not sure. But the underlying reason is the same for me.

I would say #2 fits what you are saying, and I feel exactly the same. Because while live sound has excellent dynamics, especially bass slam (and that gets me emotionally engaged better than anything), there is often very poor imaging of the soundstage. I also often hear standing waves and a general treble smear in rock venues. So there's where studio recordings and even recordings of live performances can be very rewarding. That's why I left #1 and #2 separate. Some folks crave the live experience but it's different than transparency IMO.

 

[MediumRare]

I selected None of the above.
I would have selected: To hear recordings exactly as the producer made them.
Give me that and, if I need to, I can impose my will on them.

Fair enough, I like your version better too, Kal.

 

[Vasr]

#6: None of the above

I prefer hearing the type of content I like to hear in a way that makes me appreciate that content without the equipment inducing fatigue (even if the producer's mix will induce fatigue) and in the equipment available within the budget I have (which varies over a lifetime).

I have succeeded if frequently I say/think "that was nice" or "wow" or "cute" or some other appreciative response to what I am hearing bringing a smile to my face as I listen.

That can be achieved in more than one way in the audio set up. Equipment is means to an end not the end.

 

[pozz]

Since we're talking goals, I'll pull no punches. I'm not being facetious with my answers. Really.

1. For acoustic instruments, this is impossible without reproducing instrument directivity (which is very frequency-dependent). This would require very different speakers.
2. Intent is a construct of convenience. We can infer some things, but mostly it's a prop. With electronics this can be cast aside: the signal should be untouched. With speakers? Well...
3. Enjoyment is second to knowledge. It's more important to know what a speaker does and how that relates to what I perceive.
4. This shouldn't be up to me. The ideal speaker will actively to adjust to my specific thresholds and physiology.

I have to live with the fact that the box-type speaker has certain characteristics that are inescapable:

1. Directivity is only partially controllable and largely static. The most I can expect from imaging is that it is stable and precise, if somewhat flat.
2. They are different from those used in the production environment (and there may have been many such environments: the bedroom, the mixing studio, the mastering studio).
3. I can't expect one set of speakers to do everything (one pair for parties, one pair for the listening room, another for the desk).
4. I'm mostly limited to EQ.

As such, the only goal I can think of is predictable, consistent behaviour. Technical perfection within the confines of a monopole.

Taking all that stuff aside, I think the real goal would be precise, manipulable acoustic holography. This seems to conflate all four choices in one. Choosing just one is a kind of compromise, in my mind.

 

[pozz]

#6: None of the above

I prefer hearing the type of content I like to hear in a way that makes me appreciate that content without the equipment inducing fatigue (even if the producer's mix will induce fatigue) and in the equipment available within the budget I have (which varies over a lifetime).

I have succeeded if frequently I say/think "that was nice" or "wow" or "cute" or some other appreciative response to what I am hearing bringing a smile to my face as I listen.

That can be achieved in more than one way in the audio set up. Equipment is means to an end not the end.

This is very practical and I admire it.

 

[carlosmante]

"exactly as the producer intended". How do We know the Producer objective intent?

 

[valerianf]

For a sound recording, the last one that tune it is the sound engineer in his laboratory.
He uses some studio monitor speakers.
At home, you can try to get a sound as close as possible as the sound studio.

 

[MediumRare]

#6: None of the above

I prefer hearing the type of content I like to hear in a way that makes me appreciate that content without the equipment inducing fatigue (even if the producer's mix will induce fatigue) and in the equipment available within the budget I have (which varies over a lifetime).

I have succeeded if frequently I say/think "that was nice" or "wow" or "cute" or some other appreciative response to what I am hearing bringing a smile to my face as I listen.

That can be achieved in more than one way in the audio set up. Equipment is means to an end not the end.

Can you explain why #3 doesn't fit what you described?

 

[MediumRare]

"exactly as the producer intended". How do We know the Producer objective intent?

I suppose I intended that to be transparency to the source, assuming a source capable of transparency to its input as well.

 

[Duke]

I would like my system to create the perception of listening to live music (whether or not the recording was ever performed live). The reason is, I think that would give the most enjoyment.

So I waffled between 1 and 3, and settled on 1, because I think it actually sets the bar higher.

 

[Vasr]

Can you explain why #3 doesn't fit what you described?

"Most" is an elusive and pernicious goal that can be and very often is counterproductive to enjoyment in a material world.

Also "enjoyment" is ambiguous. Some enjoy the recording more when they have the latest equipment, or the most expensive, the best specs, or the best looking or other things that have nothing to do with how the music itself makes them feel.

Striving to feel the music is my goal whether it is live or recorded. Whether I am hearing what the producer/artiste intended people to hear the sound as is irrelevant. For an artiste, it is far more important that people feel what they are communicating not whether they are hearing the tonal balance that their producers wanted or that the only way to feel the music is to reproduce the exact sound as recorded. Sometimes, I think we have lost the plot in the pursuit of equipment.

My philosophy of audio equipment is to avoid things that come in the way of that goal in tangible ways when I listen (not when I read spec sheets which of course helps prune out things), and not confuse that goal with the performance of the audio equipment. I don't need the cleanest or the most transparent or the flattest or any "est" for that enjoyment. So, I stated what made listening enjoyable for me. Anything that allows me to do that within my budget will do. Not that anything will do because there is a lot of crap out there.

 

[StevenEleven]

Great topic!

For me:

To hear recordings as if they were live events.--In most instances that would sound like dreck, so no.

To hear recordings exactly as the producer intended.--I doubt the producer intended the recording to sound any exact one way, so no.

To hear recordings in a way that gives me the most enjoyment.--I don't have an accurate and efficient enjoymentometer, and I don't have all day for each recording to worry about the particulars of the sound of that recording, so no. Hopefully the recording and mastering engineers have done a decent job.

To be able to shape the sound as I please or as a creative process.--I do want to stay fairly close to the intended result of the recording, so no. Again, hopefully the recording and mastering engineers have done a decent (or better) job in terms of the creative process of shaping the sound so that the recording is pleasing.

So my answer is kind of a "none of the above" mishmash--To be fairly close to what is represented in the recording as a recording, molded marginally by my listening preferences, and with flexible enough DSP that I can adjust my system fluently as a hobbyist as part of a learning process, with the end goal being to open-mindedly pursue some highly enjoyable amalgam of audio accuracy and personal taste.

 

[dasdoing]

yesterday I saw videos about audio compression. especialy on the compression examples on drumkits showed me that I actualy prefer them uncompressed (and EQd instead). SO my (impossible) ideal system would play what the producer intended, while removing what the mixing engenier messed up lol

 

[maverickronin]

None of the above.

A system that I don't hear any flaws in so that I don't get distracted and can enjoy the music more.

 

[pozz]

There's an interesting divide. Maybe it's based on the way the choices were phrased. Everyone who has answered "none of the above" seems to focus on technical elements rather than personal ones.

 

[sergeauckland]

I voted 'None of the above' as in my case, I want my system to measure as accurately as is sensible from input through to anechoic on-axis response, and decent enough off-axis.

That way, I know that what I'm getting out of the system isn't getting in the way of what I'm hearing. Everything is then dependent firstly on the recording, for good or ill, and secondly on the room and my ears.

All other criteria, like the pleasure I'm getting or imagining I'm hearing what the producer intended are fictions I can work out for myself.

S.

 

[SIY]

"All of the above." It depends on the recording.