[EthanH]

I guess I tune my system with tube rolling.  When I feel like listening to crappy recordings I dig up the most rolled-off, warm, bloated tubes in my stable and pop 'em in.  I have some CDs that I'm sure would sound ugly on any system, so being able to put on "beer goggles" comes in handy.

[Nuance]

I did kind of answer it earlier. Given that you have a budget, and that all systems are compromises, you just align the compromises with your preferences.

If I listened to a lot of electronica, I might have beefy subs - I don't  so I can have 3 smaller subs in a sort of Geddes random placement and get tight articulate bass, but not a lot of air movement or pressurization.  I listen to a lot of harsh/bright music, so having tubes adds some warmth and harmonics (i.e. - probably distortion, but it sounds better to me).

I like a large soundstage, but since most rock albums aren't recorded in a single acoustic space or even time -having pin point imaging isn't something I care about, so I might go with bipolar, OB, or omnidirectional speakers. With multitracking, and artificial panning, I prefer a somewhat nebulous yet broad soundstage.

The music I listen too and my personal preferences mean I don't need a ton of dynamics, and prefer what sounds to me as a more accurate tone or timbre, so I prefer relatively low efficiency sealed speakers over horns.

Just like I would consider the room and how I prefer to listen (not tied to the sweet spot) when considering gear, I also think it is foolish to not use your knowledge of what you listen to to guide your decisions. I too listen to all kinds of stuff, but I definitely listen to certain things far more often. So I get good sound with everything and really good sound with my favorite types of music.

There is nothing wrong with preferring accurate sound, it just isn't my main focus, and there is no reason why the pleasing sound can't be the most accurate, but "accuracy" just isn't the criteria I'm using when I judge something. Just like I'd probably prefer a Photoshopped image with beautiful color correction, compared to an accurate one that looks dull, I like my sound to be pleasing.


Jim C

Now that was an answer!    Thanks for satisfying my curiosity. 

[James Romeyn]

They "nays" have it, so far! 

Interesting discussion!

Good on all! 

Happy Resurrection Sunday! 

[James Romeyn]

Well, it's fairly unlikely that you're going to audition equipment with music that you don't like or don't listen to, right...?

Brilliant!  So obvious yet so not. 

[James Romeyn]

I listen to a lot of electric jazz and Hard rock/metal. I really don't think you need to spend any money on gear if all you listen to is metal...

First available chance hear Ozzy on member Duke LeJeune's AudioKinesis speakers (circle here).  They aren't necessarily expensive but they do cost some money.  Member/Ozzy lover Bill Berndt will be happy to accommodate you.  Duke will be at RMAF 2010.  The SPL and inaudible distortion give new meaning to "wall of sound"; more like something 6' tall x 3' wide.  Wear snug fitting clothing...and trim your hair/mustache.

[mfsoa]

I got a good taste of this topic yesterday-
A friend came over to audition a tube amp I was selling. The music he brought over included Red Hot Chillis and Metallica, and man did my system sound bright and edgy with this music. I then played some of my stuff (mostly jazz and classical) and we agreed on the gorgeous natural tone of the acoustic instruments.

If I intended to listen to Matallica on this system, I would not accept the sound I heard - Too bright for me. I would need a much different sonic perspective to satisfy. OTOH, a system I would optimize for Metallica (in the broadest sense, sonically) would never sound as good with classical as what I have now.

IMO while it's possible to have a do-it-all-OK system, it by definition won't be able to extract the most from any particular genre.

(of course any single genre can have sonics all over the place- I'm speaking in broad term here)

My take, at least.

-Mike

[James Romeyn]

Only if you find "accuracy" pleasing. I think accuracy is highly overrated, I'd much rather have enjoyable.

There is also the debate over what accuracy means, every link in the recording chain colors the sound you hear, many intentionally -  at which point is the sound "accurate". I see no reason that as part of that chain I shouldn't tailor the sound to make listening a more enjoyable experience.


Jim C

Accurate vs. enjoyable has a corollary in flat top guitars.  Taylor tend toward "accurate" and "low distortion" with high rate of sample consistency.  Many players obviously love them; it's not one of my favorites, though one must admire sample consistency.

[Nuance]

So you guys would rather re-buy an all new system tailored towards a specific genre than just implement an EQ or use tone controls with crappy recordings?  That's the impression I am getting from some of you.  Let me make note that there is a difference between tuning your system towards a specific genre (as in singular) and tuning it for all of the genres you listen to.  The topic of the thread does say "a particular type of music," meaning one, though...

[roscoeiii]

There are many qualities to music that an EQ or tone controls just can't affect, and need to be addressed by component choices.

[Nuance]

There are many qualities to music that an EQ or tone controls just can't affect, and need to be addressed by component choices.

What component choices will effectively fix a flawed recording?  By the way, I'll just assume we're talking well made components, not something that is itself flawed.

[roscoeiii]

Well fixing a flawed recording may be asking a bit much, but components can differ in the presentation of the flawed recording. Some components ruthlessly exposing the flaws, others may make flawed recordings more listenable than they otherwise might be.

[*Scotty*]

The most common way to fix flawed recordings is to use progressively lower resolution components until enough masking has been added to conceal the recordings flaws. This approach almost always results in a more enjoyable experience for most listeners and is the easiest to implement. I have taken a different approach to building a system than most and I have had fair success in rendering 80s rock more palatable by upping my resolution and lowering the distortion
added by the reproduction chain. I don't think most audiophiles expect this result from pursuing a higher resolution system and my results probably could not be considered typical.   I have had to revise my understanding of what the recording actually sounds like and re-evaluate what I expect from older rock recordings. I uncovered some surprising gems,for example,Black Sabbath,Paranoid is a much better recording than I thought it was and actually has very little compression or distortion. Iron Butterfly,In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida is also a pretty good recording and the drum solo is very enjoyable. Van Halen,Journey and Foreigner are listenable. TOTO is in another league compared to the first three groups,it has the most natural sound. Foreigner has the least compression and the best frequency extension compared to Van Halen and Journey, neither have similar extension or bass weight. 
I think that often there is as big a problem with the listeners expectations regarding what recordings should sound like as there is with what are commonly regarded as flawed recordings. I do not include modern recordings or remasters that have been destroyed by the misuse
of digital compression or limiting and too hot a recording level that exceeds the digital ZERO ceiling.
Scotty

[Nuance]

Well fixing a flawed recording may be asking a bit much, but components can differ in the presentation of the flawed recording. Some components ruthlessly exposing the flaws, others may make flawed recordings more listenable than they otherwise might be.

An EQ would do the same, add more custom-ability and cost far less. 

The most common way to fix flawed recordings is to use progressively lower resolution components until enough masking has been added to conceal the recordings flaws. This approach almost always results in a more enjoyable experience for most listeners and is the easiest to implement.

In my experience this works, but then it greatly lessens the enjoyment of good recordings.  Where is the balance?  It makes no sense to me; enter the EQ. 

I understand what you guys are saying, but it is not for me.  Using crappier components to enjoy crappier recordings is not an option, for so many reasons I don't want to begin to list.   

To stay true to the topic of this thread, if I had to pick one genre of music to tune a speaker to, it would be classical.

Cheers!

P.S.  Great thread, by the way, Pez.  I love a topic that really gets the mind working. 

[tfroncek]

When I started out I was going for natural and neutral but I also knew I had speakers which were more Rock oriented than neutral even though my components were targeting neutral.

The twist to the question is what did you end up with.  In my case it seemed that I had built a system optimized for Pink Floyd.  I am not necessarily a super fan of Pink Floyd but it was pretty hard to overlook that Pink Floyd just seemed to take my system to another level compared to any other music I ever played on it.

My system has changed since then but I was surprised that I was targeting neutral and then ended up with something I would have expected with Def Techs not Paradigm Studio 100's.   

[doug s.]

well, there is a difference between tuning a system for a type of music, and tuning a system for good vs bad recordings.  scotty is correct, imo, when he says that, to tune for bad recordings, you simply reduce the resolution enough to conceal the flaws.  (maybe that's how some folks can tolerate listening to sirius/xm outside a car.    ) in this respect, you cannot have it both ways, imo - a highly resolving playback set-up may make poorly recorded software sound a bit nasty.  personally, i go for as much resolution as possible.  let the quality of the recordings fall where they may.

but, re: tuning for different types of music, i am firmly in the camp that if you have done your homework, you can set up a system that plays everything well.  i will counterpoint off of bunnyma's post to illustrate:

If I listened to a lot of electronica, I might have beefy subs - I don't  so I can have 3 smaller subs in a sort of Geddes random placement and get tight articulate bass, but not a lot of air movement or pressurization. 

i want subs that will prowide a lot of air movement & pressurization - when it's there on the software.  i also want tight articulate bass.  yes, you can have both.

I listen to a lot of harsh/bright music, so having tubes adds some warmth and harmonics (i.e. - probably distortion, but it sounds better to me).

tubes done right will give you warmth and harmonics, but not at the expense of transparency & detail.  if the "distortion" of the software leads to a more accurate presentation of the actual ewent, is it really distortion? 

I like a large soundstage, but since most rock albums aren't recorded in a single acoustic space or even time -having pin point imaging isn't something I care about, so I might go with bipolar, OB, or omnidirectional speakers. With multitracking, and artificial panning, I prefer a somewhat nebulous yet broad soundstage.

i also like a large soundstage - when it's there on the recording.  i also like pinpoint imaging, w/the same caveat.  imaging/soundstaging is the first thing that hooked me to "hi-end" audio many years ago.  so, i want a speaker that can do both.   which is why i have never been too fond of bipolar/dipolar speakers, for example.  i don't want that huge soundstage for everything; sometimes it sounds way too unnatural, imo.

The music I listen too and my personal preferences mean I don't need a ton of dynamics, and prefer what sounds to me as a more accurate tone or timbre, so I prefer relatively low efficiency sealed speakers over horns.

again, there is no reason why you cannot have a ton of dynamics along with accurate tone/timbre.  horns are not the only dynamic speakers.  and not all horns have poor tone/timbre.

Just like I would consider the room and how I prefer to listen (not tied to the sweet spot) when considering gear, I also think it is foolish to not use your knowledge of what you listen to to guide your decisions. I too listen to all kinds of stuff, but I definitely listen to certain things far more often. So I get good sound with everything and really good sound with my favorite types of music.

regarding sweetspot, i have heard speakers excel at the sound in the "sweet spot", while sacrificing the soundstage elsewhere.  some speakers, however, can sound great outside the sweet spot w/o sacrificing anything when you are in the main listening position.  (much of this, however, is room dependent - depending on your room/size, you may have to make compromises here.)

There is nothing wrong with preferring accurate sound, it just isn't my main focus, and there is no reason why the pleasing sound can't be the most accurate, but "accuracy" just isn't the criteria I'm using when I judge something. Just like I'd probably prefer a Photoshopped image with beautiful color correction, compared to an accurate one that looks dull, I like my sound to be pleasing.

as i said prewiously - if the "distortion" of the software leads to a more accurate presentation of the actual ewent, is it really distortion?  regarding the foto-shop analogy, if the original subject had "beautiful color", that's what i want the foto to look like; if the subject was dull, i also want that.  if it's a cloudy grey day, that's what i want the foto to look like...

i think i get really good sound in my rig w/all types of music, not yust some.  (yes, i am biased - i have it set up for me!    )  but, i also get less-than-really-good sound w/all types of music - if the recording sucks... 

ymmv,

doug s.

[woodsyi]

I hear you doug but all around good may not be the best in all situations.  A decathlete may be the best overall athlete but he would be hard pressed to win any specific event against a top single event athlete.  Likewise in music.  For example, there is magic in SET/Single Driver combo for voices in a cappella or accompanied by small acoustic ensemble.  This combo somehow resonate with voices in just the right way.  I assume that the speaker driver behaves (driven by SET amps) in such a way to match the attack and decay pattern of natural sounds. By natural I mean acoustic instruments and voices.   But this is not a full range speaker and is not good with large symphonic music or "sythesized" sounds. 

[doug s.]

I hear you doug but all around good may not be the best in all situations.  A decathlete may be the best overall athlete but he would be hard pressed to win any specific event against a top single event athlete.  Likewise in music.  For example, there is magic in SET/Single Driver combo for voices in a cappella or accompanied by small acoustic ensemble.  This combo somehow resonate with voices in just the right way.  I assume that the speaker driver behaves (driven by SET amps) in such a way to match the attack and decay pattern of natural sounds. By natural I mean acoustic instruments and voices.   But this is not a full range speaker and is not good with large symphonic music or "sythesized" sounds.

rim, i agree w/you in theory.  but, a decathlete will still crush 99 out of 100 others in any of his ewents.  yust, as you say, not the top ones who specialize in a single ewent.   

and yes, i agree w/you about the magic in set/single driver combo for voices in a cappella or accompanied by small acoustic ensemble, etc.  but, it doesn't have to end there:  actively cross it over to s/s-driven woofers/subs; add a supertweeter if needed, and get it all.  the magic of acapella and small acoustic ensembles; and blast yourself out of the room w/rock, electronica or symphonic thunder.  or as close to it as you're gonna get, given the nature of of the beast we all are trying to tame.  mebbe that's why i cannot bring myself to unhook my horns, presently run full-range from 300hz on up.  subs below 80hz, woofers from 80-300hz, horn extension to 22khz...   

doug s.

[bunnyma357]

think i get really good sound in my rig w/all types of music, not yust some.  (yes, i am biased - i have it set up for me!    )  but, i also get less-than-really-good sound w/all types of music - if the recording sucks... 

ymmv,

doug s.

I don't really disagree with you, but in looking at your components in your gallery, I would guess you have several components that individually cost more than my entire system. I think at my price point compromises are more a fact of life, so aligning those compromises with my musical tastes, room, and personal preferences for sound presentation has gotten me a system that works well for all genres, and very well for my favorite genres.

Sometimes the lack of budget, time and DIY skills does mean that you can't have it all.

Also I think there are vast differences in how individuals hear and process music. I know from talking to my wife when we attend a concert, that she will hear the individual distinct instruments and I tend to hear the music more as a whole piece.

I also think economics might skew the live "absolute sound" perspective, I am used to a more back of orchestra, or balcony listening position, so that has probably added to my perceptions of what dynamics and imaging should sound like. I imagine if I was front row center, I would have a different idea of what it should sound like.

Either way, I'll still take enjoyable over accurate, as I've found that I don't really enjoy the music on a lot of high quality recordings, but love the music on a lot of average to poor quality recordings. The great thing is we can each tailor our systems to our priorities.


Jim C

[TheChairGuy]

I think everybody builds or tunes their system for a or several types of music...whether they are consciously aware of it or not.  But, the confluence of your listening environment and listening habits and likes/dislikes weigh equally in the process.

In my case, I don't tend to listen to music loudly...so maximum spl is not a concern (which means amps and speakers are not large).  'Naturalness', that is like a performance itself in tone and timber, strikes highest on my priority list - so I listen to less amplified music these days. 

So, my choice in front end is analog - not digital. As most unamplified instruments can be fairly well replicated (in my opinion, only) by a reasonably priced turntable/cartridge/phono preamp chain...it's only piano that is difficult to get right and natural (again, my opinion only)

I found that among that I know is available....only Grado cartridges, dual mono preamps and amps, either a direct drive or well regulated belt drive player and a longer-than-9" tonearm (the longest I've tried is 10.5") gets piano acceptably right.  Longer arms track with less distortion...most things being equal between arms.

So, hell yes, I've built my system tuned to music I like and that adequately portrays it as it would be heard live  

Everybody hears differently and has broadly differing likes and dislikes....so, in the end, once you rid yourself of others impressions of music and gear and focus on what you like - how could you not build a system tuned to what music you like to listen to?

Great topic choice Pez/Jason 

[doug s.]

bunnyma, you make a good point.  while most of the stuff in my present system was bought used, it is true, the cost still adds up.  while i do not have >$2k inwested in any single piece of equipment, i know that many don't have that much in their entire rig.  it is certainly true, that w/$2k in your complete rig, compromises must be made...

tcg, as i like different types of music - small acoustic presentations, electronica, classical, both small & large jazz, both electronic & acoustic; world music, etc, etc; it is really not possible for me to do anything but try to tune my system to do everything well.  and, i don't have the luxury of having more than one main rig.  or even secondary rig, in my present living situation...

doug s.