[geowak]

I've been wondering what is good sound to other people?. We hear and read the audiophile words like wide soundstage, airy highs, articulate bass, natural midrange and so on and so on. But can you share with others here at AC what kind of sound you like on your audio setup? What kind of sound are you getting that you like.

Here is what I am hoping to get from my system; Natural sound, not artificial sounding. Tone that is natural to the sound of the instrument, The piano sounds like a piano. The alto sax has a deep bass sound, not unlike the real sound of an alto sax. The midrange and treble is not shrill or harsh. Vocalists give the illusion that they are there in the room, live singing in front of you. Separation of instruments, so that I may distinctly hear each one, not muddied together. Dynamics... in the range of loudness and softness of volume.  I tend to like a more laid back sound, rather than forward sound. But musicality is really what I am after. Much like others, I like very tight bass....but not too much.

So how about others. I would be curious to know what is really good sound to you!

[jarcher]

I think you've pretty much summed it up for me.  I'd only add good rhythm / pace.  There's just some gear that really seems to nail it, and other that don't. 

[WGH]

For me it is impossible to describe but I know it when I hear it. Probably everything you said plus affordability. For my ears and budget it comes down to just a few brands: Salk, Fritz, Odyssey, and Van Alstine, they get the job done with minimum nervosa. I love the big expensive systems but with all that is involved the hobby then veers very close to obsessive compulsive behavior.

[DaveC113]

I am after high fidelity, I want it to sound as close to real as possible. The closer you can come to believing it is real when you close your eyes the better.

There are many factors that lead to this result such as tone, dynamics, low distortion,  etc...  but as a whole that is the goal for my system. Sometimes it's not something you can pinpoint, but like WGH said, you know it when you hear it.

[paul79]

All that you said, but I'll share my thoughts;

Image height is important as well as a nice rectangular (not technically rectangular, but I want to hear depth and width realistically) and deep soundstage, like live music... So many components produce a conical soundstage that has depth between the speakers, and not in the far corners of the soundstage. This makes all performances kind of the same IMO. I want to hear it as it was produced, not what some equipment designer thinks is ideal.

Inner detail and image focus are also important to me, but should be naturally displayed. The artists should naturally bloom and be easy to discern location and what they are doing. I also want to be able to pick out any artist, even in a heavily populated ensemble, and tell what they are doing. I want it all with realistic dynamics.

When you close your eyes, and very easily and instantly picture the event, you got it.

[srb]

What audio-related item are you offering up?

(I choose #11 if you're drawing numbers)

Steve

[charmerci]

What audio-related item are you offering up?

(I choose #11 if you're drawing numbers)

Steve

 

I seem to recall this question being asked in another thread. (I looked in Personal Touch and it's not there.)

[bladesmith]

Good signal to noise ratio and lots of separation.

[Photon46]

There's a big problem when asking for literary descriptions of subjective aesthetic experiences. We all agree ( I imagine) with Geowak's list of the features of good sound. However, each listener's ears, brains, and neural processing are unique and different and so we end up like the proverbial blind men describing the elephant. Two listeners agree they love accurately reproduced cymbals, glockenspiels, and triangles. Listener A says "listen to those crystal clears high frequencies" and listener B says "how can you tolerate listening to those over emphasized highs." Language is imprecise in this case, so it only goes so far when defining what we value in the arts.

[geowak]

There's a big problem when asking for literary descriptions of subjective aesthetic experiences. We all agree ( I imagine) with Geowak's list of the features of good sound. However, each listener's ears, brains, and neural processing are unique and different and so we end up like the proverbial blind men describing the elephant. Two listeners agree they love accurately reproduced cymbals, glockenspiels, and triangles. Listener A says "listen to those crystal clears high frequencies" and listener B says "how can you tolerate listening to those over emphasized highs." Language is imprecise in this case, so it only goes so far when defining what we value in the arts.

That is a very good point. Yours is an excellent observation. I like the quote, "we see what is behind our eyes, not what is in front of them".

[Guy 13]

Hi all.
What is really good sound for me is:
To discover in all my CDs and LPs micro details that I did not know existed.
That a big part of me enjoying the music.
Clarity is another important part of me enjoying the music.
Music that is not aggressive to my ears and mind, because of a component that have a peak, for example my Audio Nirvana extended range drivers that had a big peak between 2 – 5KHz.
Good dynamics, of course the recording play a big part into that.
I know that in my system, the Decware SE84C+ with his 2wpc is a big limited factor, but it does a very good job at reproducing the music that it compensates of the lack of dynamic.
Reasonable distortion, no need to have 0,000005% of distortion if the distortion is in the odd harmonics.
The right tone, especially when it comes to voice, female or male.
 Haaaa… The sound stage, that’s an important part of music played as it was recorded.
I never had in the past any sound stage until I set up my Decware/Omega with well recorded CDs.
Now I don’t have a HUGE sound stage, but never the less
I do have one.
Its 1 feet outside each speaker and 5 feet behind the speakers, not much, but enough for me, of course I will experiment in moving around my speakers.
Now the disappearing speakers won’t happen with my system, for that to happen, the sound stage would have to be H U G E…
I don’t think that will have soon.
For me real good sound needs to have good bass, with lots of impact, go down to 35Hz are enough for me.
I have set-up the system that bring me joy and hopefully will last until I kick the bucket.
With years adding up quickly, revenue shrinking and my ears blocking extreme low and hi frequencies, I am less demanding from my system.   
The areas where my system could improve to make it even more enjoyable would be:
A little less aggressivity in the mids and highs.
Wide/deeper sound stage.
For now, my CDs give me the best sound quality however, the Radio Internet even if the sound quality is less, they have continuous (No commercial, no get up to change or flip LPs) music.
All the above apply to me and that’s why I have that system for me only.
I don’t care if someone tell me he don’t like my system, because is not living with it, I am.

Guy 13
 

[FullRangeMan]

For me its a 3D soundstage and the harmonics as the Carver Amazing.
The Amazing soundstage made me hate all monopole speakers, they all sound as 2D or very thin ST.
The harmonics from cone speakers all laughably poor, very bad indeed, Iam talking from the best cone speakers.
Never heard a speaker better than the Amazings.

[DaveC113]

FRM, that sounds....   AMAZING!   

[lokie]

First...  spooky real midrange. I have only found that with high efficiency set ups which is fine because that is copacetic with my second most important quality- DYNAMICS!.

And then everything else which never seems to stop evolving/struggle.

[FullRangeMan]

FRM, that sounds....   AMAZING!   

However it must be well setted:
- No toe in.
- No tilt back, must be near vertical position.
- Not in contact with the floor, it must be with some kind of spikes, I used soft rubber blocks.

[paul79]

To get great results with no toe in, you must have a really spectacular speaker, that has great off axis response. Joseph Audio comes to mind

[Vapor Audio]

I could write a novel about what I consider to be 'right', but can also boil it down easily. 

I need a speaker that disappears completely into the room, and when combined with resolution that takes you layers deep into the recording, creates a completely convincing illusion that people are in the room with you.  The other thing I need is a speaker that's balanced and capable enough to sense the mood I'm in - if I want to chill the music should rock me to sleep, and if I want to be engaged the speakers need to keep me on the edge of my seat. 

For me that covers all the bases, creating a palpable sense of realism and being able to convey emotions the artists intended.

[paul79]

I really gotta hear some of your speakers Ryan. I will be heading to Kansas in about 3-4 weeks. I'll have to stop by. Prolly should not bring a wallet full of cash though.

[Wind Chaser]

Really good sound begins and ends with the music. The more I like the music, the better it sounds.

In contrast, there is some music I'd rather not hear, regardless of the playback system.

[JLM]

Beauty and the beholder...

My priorities:
 - Natural/musical versus artificial/"hifi" sound (most speaker fail this test IMO)
 - Speakers disappear in a large 3D soundstage (wasn't that the purpose of stereo?)
 - Flat/extended/balanced frequency response, so the music "makes sense" (for music and this old fart, 30 - 15,000 Hz)
 - Image/tonal density (palpable) vs pale/flat cartoonish sound (where tube amps seem to excel)
 - Dynamics in terms of instant response and range (the very nature of sound)