Age old question for me , but curious on the standing of the forum.

mantis

Hey guys,
Yes I have asked this question a few times before but I'm curious where everyone stands on it.

QUESTION: What does it take to replay music? I know thats a loaded question but I'll go further to elaborate. So this will be a multi question question.
So I for one just want to hear what was recorded, Nothing more , nothing less. What does it take? How does one pull this off? Can it be done?

So lets add some factors. I take the time to hire a Acoustician who's skills exceed my own and I build a solid room for me to sit in and enjoy sonic perfection. This room is acoustically sound with the right amount of absorbent and reflective properties to experience music naturally. Think about concerts , shows , Live music is general , small clubs ,sitting in your room playing an instrument etc. The human voice , the emotional connection you get when someone plays a Piano and it moves you , etc.

With that being the given , now you have to design a system in this room to be able to replay all those things and more. Do you design a 2 channel system? Can that achieve sonic perfection? Or do you have to design a multichannel system to capture the experience ?

Over the years some have thought as I do and came up with technologies to achieve this. Think about mono , then stereo pair , then Quad , then 5.1 . Think about all those formats and the end goal.

Now what about the pieces that make up this given system? What speakers out their can achieve sound the way it's supposed to sound? Like a Piano sounding like the real thing that has been recorded?

Just for a minute lets consider no budget. Lets say one has limitless funds and is willing to spare no expense BUT doesn't want to over spend on any one thing IF no perfection is being achieved by doing so. Building a perfect as possible system with no excess spending. Honestly it comes down to achieving the goal , nothing more , nothing less. Keep that in mind when thinking about building such given system.

Now think about all the pieces. What does it take to get this job done. Example. Sending amped signal to a speaker. What speaker wire will achieve this goal? How do you know it's getting the job done by not adding or taking anything away? Source? What do you use? This question comes from my new experience with the ability to achieve many sonic benefits using a computer over a disc. Is digital the right choice? Is analog better but what about the degrading factors over time? One less conversion but at what cost? Is Tape the best? But again what about the degrading?

I'm sure we as a group collectively probably can come up with a system that might achieve this goal. It doesn't matter if any of us can afford to own it , but just knowing it exists would be comforting. In my personal and Professional experiences , I have not been able to answer all these questions. I've talked to so many different people who are highly respected in this replay industry and I never been able to get a truly honest answer. I'm assuming many factors have been in the way which during this journey we can all discover.

What do you think?

tonyb

Your never going to get a specific answer Dan, too many variables. Duplicate the recording studio down to the room and gear and still it won't sound the same....even if you hire the same guys mixing it all. You say you want to hear the recording as is, well that includes the bad too yes ? Your questions have all been discussed to death over time here. Follow your own path, with your own ears and don't rely on a million opinions. Thats the journey my friend, only limited by your wallet.

Talk to Rich, Scomp......he'll put you on a path with digital.

Is anything recorded actually the truth in music ? Nope, just someones version of it. Is live music ? Nope, that too is colored in preamps,amps, accoustics,speakers and wire. We all don't hear the same so it is impossible to say X is the way to go.

mhardy6647

I buy cheap stuff or (even better) find it at the dump. I fix it and fiddle with it until it works. I DIY as much as I possibly can. I hook stuff together when I have some spare time (New England winters are ideal "spare time" creators - as life as we know it can survive for only a few minutes out-of-doors in a typical midwinter in Northern New England). Some of it sounds pretty good. Some of it sounds really good. Once in a while, it sounds like real life. When I get there, I stop - at least for a while.

These sound like real life for many kinds of music.

sucks2beme

tonyb wrote: »

Your never going to get a specific answer Dan, too many variables. Duplicate the recording studio down to the room and gear and still it won't sound the same....even if you hire the same guys mixing it all. You say you want to hear the recording as is, well that includes the bad too yes ? Your questions have all been discussed to death over time here. Follow your own path, with your own ears and don't rely on a million opinions. Thats the journey my friend, only limited by your wallet.

Talk to Rich, Scomp......he'll put you on a path with digital.

Is anything recorded actually the truth in music ? Nope, just someones version of it. Is live music ? Nope, that too is colored in preamps,amps, accoustics,speakers and wire. We all don't hear the same so it is impossible to say X is the way to go.

I've invited Diana Krall to sit on my lap and sing "peel me a grape" so I can compare.
So far, no response.

bmbguy

This is like a guitarist asking how he/she can re-create the sound of some artist's guitar on a recording. Well, you might be able to come close if you're willing to play through 2 or 3 different amps at the same time (Eric Johnson, SRV, Joe Bonamassa), and then combine the signals from 2, 3 or more microphones placed in various spots both near and away from the amp. It's not just ONE sound.

Heck, the artists themselves can't even re-create the sounds they have on record a lot of the time. Not even in the studio - with the exact same equipment.


http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/may06/articles/classictracks_0506.htm

"Later on, a lot of people asked me how I got the sound on the record, but it was just one of those happy accidents that have not happened to me very often. I don't know if something was broken, but we could not recreate that sound again. All I know is, it was the sound of Mark playing, using his fingers instead of a pick, together with the Laney amp. It felt and sounded so good that I just had him do five or six passes and later comped something together and wound up using a couple of the passes in the final mix, putting a double in at certain points even though that wasn't something he normally did.

dkg999

Dan - that made my brain hurt! The end result is the sum of all the parts. I'm not sure there is an answer to your question.

BlueFox

mantis wrote: »

What do you think?

Personally, I think you are over thinking the issue. As you note, it all matters, and the better the components the closer the sound is to the original. But at some point you need to let it go, and just enjoy the music.

I also think you really need to learn the difference between 'there' and 'their'.

mantis

Good deal , lets break it down.
Lets talk about Analog signal transfer. Lets keep it even simpler , lets send a Cd 16 bit 44.1 over to a preamp. What analog cables will pass the entire signal without coloring , changing or adding to the signal? Then can that same Cable send analog audio from a preamp to a amp with the same abilities? At what level is this done and when does getting a better or more expensive cable yield no results?
After that lets talk about speaker wire , How can I get this done? I got an amp with 200 watts of power , I got to go 8 feet from bind post to binding post , speakers are 4 ohm load and lets say 88 db. I just need a speaker wire to do that job and do it correctly. Pass the signal , not take in anymore and not lose any on the way. Thats it.

I don't care who makes it , I don't care what it costs to do this , I just want to know if it can be done correctly.

Systems

I think (at least) I hear more differences in digital cables than you Dan (from past posts).
That said, for me, in my system it boils down to analog IC's.
That is where my "center" begins.
I work around that, power cables, speaker cables.

To me at least, and strictly IMHO, speaker cables would be lower down the totem pole.
They DO offer a pretty big variable in the equation, but I find I can get really good sound myself, with mid-priced speaker cables, when everything else is where it should be.

Again, just me,and you guys have alot better equipment than I do, so I am sure YMMV.

Having read quiet a bit about the subject, you may want to search for "Crimson Cable".
No affiliation, but the reviews are pretty impressive considering the price.

The speaker cables are more expensive, but alot of "gushing" reviews online.

BlueFox

Wire is easy. Measure the DTCD and square wave response, and you have an idea as to how well the cable can provide instantaneous current, frequency response, and distortion.

Other than my MIT S1.3 XLR inter-connects, I have everything else with Shunyata. Except for the two amp power cables, the rest is with Ztron technology. Eventually, the MITs will be replaced, and the amp cables upgraded to Ztron.

There is a lot of useful, technical information on their web-site.

http://www.shunyata.com/Content/technical-SignalTech.html
http://www.shunyata.com/Content/DTCD.html
http://www.shunyata.com/index.html

Systems

There is a lot of useful, technical information on their web-site.

On my last hearing test it turned out, I was 100% blind in both ears.:cheesygrin:

Systems

mhardy6647 wrote: »

I buy cheap stuff or (even better) find it at the dump. I fix it and fiddle with it until it works. I DIY as much as I possibly can. I hook stuff together when I have some spare time (New England winters are ideal "spare time" creators - as life as we know it can survive for only a few minutes out-of-doors in a typical midwinter in Northern New England). Some of it sounds pretty good. Some of it sounds really good. Once in a while, it sounds like real life. When I get there, I stop - at least for a while.

These sound like real life for many kinds of music.

I have seen you downplay it in another thread, but that is a REALLY cool room man!
Really nice!

I am sure there are alot of people who would pull a tooth for a room like that!:cheesygrin:
Hell, I have one or two teeth that I don't use!

mhardy6647

It will be when it is finished, I hope - it's more or less immaterial in this case - just wanted to throw in a gratuitous photo of the Duplexes - speakers that "get the midrange right" enough for me :-)

Systems

mhardy6647 wrote: »

It will be when it is finished, I hope - it's more or less immaterial in this case - just wanted to throw in a gratuitous photo of the Duplexes - speakers that "get the midrange right" enough for me :-)

Be honest, did you vacuum just for that pic/us?

Not a single strand of copper in that carpet?

You do not walk through my house without shoes on, trust me!:cool:

I'm just ribbing ya alittle.

treitz3

To achieve a realistic perceived approximation of the real or live event is possible. To achieve perfection is not. Regardless of the medium, format or amount of money spent.

Tom

mantis

treitz3 wrote: »

To achieve a realistic perceived approximation of the real or live event is possible. To achieve perfection is not. Regardless of the medium, format or amount of money spent.

Tom

Ok lets take that at face value. lets say it isn't possible but how close can one get? What does it take my man?

mhardy6647

I don't think that 'perfection' is the right goal - listen to real, live music in a real, imperfect space. It's not perfect; it does sound real - because it is.

I've certainly heard impressively reproduced audio that lacks emotion (for lack of a better word) - kind of sterile. Probably why, over decades, I've gravitated to high-sensitivity classic theatre speakers and/or their cousin studio monitors (the aforementioned Duplexes - the Beatles were monitored and mixed on Duplexes, e.g.) and single-ended amplifiers using direct-heated triodes. There's nothing remotely close to perfect in the performance of this stuff - frequency response isn't particularly wide, distortion isn't too low, output power is very limited, damping factor is low (sensitivity to reactive loads is high); the speakers aren't extended at either end of the spectrum and the midrange won't measure flat at all... but you wanna talk about sounding like flesh and blood musicians playing instruments made of metal, wood, or animal skins... yeah, we can get a remarkable (EDIT - let's call it convincing) facsimile of that.

mantis

It's nutty but I love it.

mhardy6647

oh, I just saw the 'no expense' part - I know some guys...

Systems

Crazy.......questions.

You could have a $1Million dollar system and a month from now not be entirely happy with it.

I'm pretty happy with what I have, and everytime I hear it I thank the lord I have it.

Not nearly the best, but it sounds real, 3 dimensional, and lifelike.

I could pick apart the best system in the world if it came down to it.

Ferrari's are a dime a dozen on the used market.

Instead, I enjoy what is being played, the actual "Art" in the equation.

The music.

Systems

PS: Those blue horns gave me a woody!:cheesygrin:

Very nice!:razz:

treitz3

mantis wrote: »

Ok lets take that at face value. lets say it isn't possible but how close can one get? What does it take my man?

That depends on one's preference. There are many types of listeners out there, many preferences as well. Here are but a few types of listeners....

Casual listener - This person typically can listen to anything on any type of reproductive medium anywhere. They could care less about sitting in the sweet spot and may or may not even know what an SACD is, nor could they care less. They listen to music as they cook and they could care less about whether the source is from the TV, computer, a rig or I-pod. They just enjoy the music no matter what and they couldn't be happier.

Image freak - This person has obviously furthered their audio journey a bit from just the casual listener. They have discovered somewhere along the road that speakers not only reproduce music but a reproductive quality that has eluded so many of the general public. Once they have discovered that a rig can actually produce something other than the left to right imaging, imaging becomes an obsessive goal that they strive to achieve, even at the expense of other attributes that a rig can bring. The gear they buy must image well or it's out the door quickly to find something else that can distinguish the passages in music he or she considers vital to perfect the imaging of.

This includes but is not limited to spacial locationality cues, the size of the venue, where every single instrument and singer is along with associated reflections within said venue, whether or not you can tell whether said singer is looking left while performing into the microphone or looking right while not even moving on stage. Maybe the singer is walking across the stage as they look left or right but this type of listener demands such detail with complete accuracy as they move across the stage. The image freak wants this in extreme detail with no fluctuations with regards to this type of reproduction. They want to know that the source of the sound within the image is laser pin-pointable on the sound stage. Not only that, it seems that they want to break out the measuring tape and tell you down to the inch how far away the source of the sound is coming from the listening position.

The depth, height, width and spatial location cues are more important to this type of listener than anything else and they will sacrifice some other outstanding attributes from the gear they swap in and out in order to get the perfect image. Yes, sound is important but no where near as important as the image to this type of listener.

Bass head - This is typically a person that is in the beginning of their audio journey but for some folks, the pursuit of bass is the most important part of the reproductive effort and this is where they tend to concentrate no matter where they are along their audio journey. It may stop at dual [or more] subs the size of a small Volkswagen along with room correction devices or even the rotary woofer or two but this is what is most important to this type of listener. The bass and mid bass regions are what they concentrate their efforts on, sometimes disregarding anything else within the reproductive arena.

Detail oriented listener - This type of listener concentrates on the utmost of details. The texture within voices, the impact of a drum strike and the natural decay of said strike. They concentrate on the roll off of chimes or a cymbal. They want to hear the lips smack and they want to hear and seemingly feel the wetness of the singers lips as they perform. They are not happy unless they extract every slide of the hand on a guitar and they yearn to hear as someone walks in on the back of the recording studio and accidentally steps on a pencil breaking it, not even knowing that it would be noticeable in the final cut. This type of listener will go to the extremes to seek out every last ounce of detail out of a recording whether or not it was intended, accidental or otherwise. They just need to hear it no matter what, good or bad.

Omitted listener - This type of listener may have given up on the reproduction of things they either can not reproductively get right or just flat out don't hear. They may consider a floor stander or full range speaker to be sub par to a bookie in terms of the reproductive qualities due to resonance issues, coherent abilities or transparency. Whatever the case may be, they tend to omit things that they deem less than stellar to enjoy what it is they consider audio bliss.

Loudness listener - This type of listener listens to audio reproduction as loud as they possibly can get it. They want the neighbors to know they are listening and they are typically not too concerned with overall reproductive qualities. They listen so loud that their is no hope for any kind of sound stage at all because it collapsed 30 or 40 Db's ago. So long as it's loud and the rig is pounding your chest and the state seismograph's are off the chart, that's all that matters.

Audiophile listener - Simply put, this person is a listener who is enthusiastic about the reproduction of an effect (as sound or an image) that is very faithful to the original sound reproduction.

Empirical listener - This person typically loves everything that measurement may deem great to sub par but due to empirical evidence, believes no matter what they listen to is all that just based upon empirical evidence. Sometimes more. Typically this type of listener has done hours or days of research on a particular upgrade and will yearn to hear all that has been written about said unit. They fail to actually enjoy the upgrade but tend to over evaluate said product to the point of losing track of why they got it in the first place. They tend to believe so much in what other folks are reporting about said product that they actually tend to believe what the expect to hear, regardless of whether they hear what they are expecting to or not. As much as they hate to admit it, they follow the crowd at chow time and never cook a meal for themselves. None the less, they are happy with their sound until experience shows them otherwise.

Music aficionado - Much like the casual listener, the source of the music may or may not matter. Sitting in the sweet spot may or may not matter. The reproductive qualities of his rig or the live concert they attend mean little to nothing. What they care about is that they are one with the music. They typically can tell you things folks would never know in three lifetimes. Things like where Mic Fleetwood's hometown was and where he was discovered for the first time, along with what he was eating at the time he was discovered. Typically, this type of listener has more albums or has listened to more albums than folks couldn't catch up too if they tried listening for 14 hours a day for the rest of their lives. They just flat out love music and everything that brings it to them, history and all.

Tone listener - This type of listener usually has a bit of background revolving around music. They can pinpoint if a tone is off from a different room. Very quick to pick up on tonal qualities that are extremely important to them, whereas a vast majority of folks could either care less or just don't know what it is that they are supposed to be picking up on. To them, if the tone of a system is off, it becomes difficult to listen to the bigger picture because they have the hangup of an off tone reproductive quality of a rig that they might consider substandard. This is not to say that they can not enjoy the music but because of the tonal qualities not being up to snuff, it becomes somewhat of a personal struggle to fulfill the enjoyment of the listening experience in its entirety. Whether they admit it or not.

treitz3

Accuracy listener - This person is extremely fanatic about the accuracy of the reproduction. No additives, no coloration, no distortion whatsoever. Everything about the aspect of reproduction must be as accurate as possible, damned the consequences. Things may not be musical to the point of where folks tap there toes to the music but the reproductive quality is so accurate, quiet and clean that it almost becomes cold or sterile but this provides the best reproductive quality for said person because it's accurate.

Gear head listener - This person has typically had so much gear throughout their audio journey that they forgot what even real music sounds like. They have it in their head that they know what they are looking for and they need more gear than anybody else to find it. This person usually has a list of gear owned, borrowed or auditioned in their rig that would purchase a castle in England but is still not satisfied with what gear they have had. If they had ever stopped to smell the roses with some of the gear they had, they might have discovered through a bit of tweaking that they had what they wanted many times but got so caught up in the latest and greatest that they never listened to the big picture and discovered what they had in the first place many times over. Gear heads are just that. Gear heads. It's a disease that may or may not be cured.

Judgmental listener - This person typically loves their system and typically will not accept criticism of any kind toward their own rig but at the same time, will throw out a multitude of deficiencies when listening to another system. They feel there system is complete and whether it's a money issue preventing them from moving along on their audio journey, a wife that may have restrictions on what this person can or can not do or some other unknown factor...they have basically shut the door to accept any other input while at the same token are more than willing to point out anything they can when listening to another rig that is judgmental. Sometimes they use their own rig as a reference point or maybe they might use a system they have heard in the past that they are using as reference. Regardless, this type of listener is very quick to judge another rig and internally dismiss it as inferior to his or his perceived version of what he considers audio bliss.

Volume listener - This type of listener is usually a well refined listener who wants the reproductive qualities to exactly match the performance. They listen to a concert at concert levels so long as the reproductive qualities match in their listening room what they would typically expect at said concert. They adjust the volume level to precision levels to achieve the perfect level of a string guitar solo, harpist, choir or quartet. Just a little bit too loud will ruin the entire performance for said listener. All reproductive qualities across the spectrum must match as close as possible to what you would expect not as if they were playing in your living room but what would match what would be as if you were there at the venue they were performing at to begin with, the live performance. To this listener, nothing else is acceptable or may be considered sub par regardless of whether or not it is admitted.

Frequency listener - This is a listener that has to absolutely reproduce every single frequency at whatever level they deem appropriate. This could be at normal listening levels or this could be at concert levels. Regardless, every single frequency must be reproduced with the utmost of precision, realism and authority. There can be no attenuation or accentuation of any frequency at the listening position whatsoever. This type of listener becomes obsessed with reproducing the entire spectrum of frequencies, from well beyond the threshold of human hearing at both ends of the extended frequency range to flat lining the entire frequency curve across the spectrum to achieve what to them is audio bliss.

Realistic listener - This person may or may not be completely fulfilled with his or other rigs. He understands that true realistic sonic perfection will not be realized within our lifetime. They understand this, accept this and achieve whatever sonic perfection that reproduced audio can offer them to date, no matter where they are along their audio journey. They realize that there is no way a real drum sitting in the living room where they reside can be perfectly duplicated and they accept that fact. They realize a cymbal or a set of chimes may come close in terms of reproductive qualities. In reality, this listener understands that in this lifetime, it ain't gonna happen. We can come close but the fat lady ain't singing any time in the near future.

The Relaxed Listener - This type of person is fully content with what they have. They have read up upon and researched what it is they have so extensively that no matter what else is brought to their knowledge...or even their own rig, what they have is the absolute best. Why? Because it's relaxing. They want no more detail, texture, dynamics, clarity or betterment toward there system. They are perfectly content with what it is they have. Nothing, no matter how it changes their system for the good or bad can change their mind. They are set in their sound and will not waver. Technological advances mean nothing to this person because they are set in their ways. Though the sound to them may be bliss, to others, it may be equated to others as an out of focus picture [if you will] that needs focusing or a high definition print but to them? It's perfect. No need for change.

Now, take the type of listener and their preferences and add to that the box type speaker listener, the open baffle, the active crossover, the ribbon, the panel, the bar, the multi-channel, binaural or headphone listener and many more that I could add to this list and add them to the different types of listeners and their individual preferences? How close one can get will always boil down to where certain folks are along their own audio journey, the type of listener they are, the experience they have within the hobby, exposure to mid/high end gear, geographic regions of listening exposure, personal preferences and most importantly...

The recording and type of medium to be played back with. That in itself would require a 300 page novel that I won't even begin to address.

So, to answer your question as to what it would take? My answer would simply be this...

It depends on so many things and so many listening preferences and opinions, formats and mediums, experience and other factors that I do not think that this will ever be answered the way you would like it to be, Mantis.

Tom

Systems

Tone listener - This type of listener usually has a bit of background revolving around music. They can pinpoint if a tone is off from a different room. Very quick to pick up on tonal qualities that are extremely important to them, whereas a vast majority of folks could either care less or just don't know what it is that they are supposed to be picking up on. To them, if the tone of a system is off, it becomes difficult to listen to the bigger picture because they have the hangup of an off tone reproductive quality of a rig that they might consider substandard. This is not to say that they can not enjoy the music but because of the tonal qualities not being up to snuff, it becomes somewhat of a personal struggle to fulfill the enjoyment of the listening experience in its entirety. Whether they admit it or not.

And I will NEVER ADMIT IT!
NEVER!

LOL!
Nice post Tom!

sucks2beme

And that's why this is such a hard question. We all are listening to something different
in the same music and gear. It's why people have such polarized reviews of better gear.
Go look. Cheaper gear can get 4 stars on most reviews. Better gear can get 5 stars
and 1 star reviews right next to each other. One guys loves it, the next guy can't find his
hot must have and pans it. Welcome to audio.

BlueFox

And HT is right behind audio in terms of how good can you make it. We are doomed. :eek:

schwarcw

Most recording studios have 24, 48, 72 or 96 tracks (sync'ed). They can be either analog or digital, then they may or may not be equalized, then mixed down to two tracks (stereo). To say you want to hear the music just as it was played by the musicians will never happen. It get's touched many times before it get to your CD, LP or download. It only matters what it sounds like to you. Everybody listens differently or want to hear it a certain way in a certain space.

michael1947

"Is it live or is it Memorex?" I saw and listened to an original Edison phono drum about 50 years ago. It was a cylinder covered with some kind of a waxy material and the styles followed the little groves and we had music. Pretty cool stuff for the day. I have had 78 45 and 33 rpm records and for the day they all sounded "live."

Next week-end I'm going to Chicago to see & listen to Andrea Bocelli. My brother poped for some $500 floor tickets and it will be a fantastic performance....live...singing into a microphone wired to a stack of "pro" amps probably some Crowns and run into miles of copper wire to some JBL concert grade speakers as big as a mini-van. I wonder what it would cost to wire the United Center with MIT cables. Just saying...love the stuff you got while you still got it.:eek:

headrott

treitz3 wrote: »

That depends on one's preference. There are many types of listeners out there, many preferences as well. Here are but a few types of listeners....

Casual listener - This person typically can listen to anything on any type of reproductive medium anywhere. They could care less about sitting in the sweet spot and may or may not even know what an SACD is, nor could they care less. They listen to music as they cook and they could care less about whether the source is from the TV, computer, a rig or I-pod. They just enjoy the music no matter what and they couldn't be happier.

Image freak - This person has obviously furthered their audio journey a bit from just the casual listener. They have discovered somewhere along the road that speakers not only reproduce music but a reproductive quality that has eluded so many of the general public. Once they have discovered that a rig can actually produce something other than the left to right imaging, imaging becomes an obsessive goal that they strive to achieve, even at the expense of other attributes that a rig can bring. The gear they buy must image well or it's out the door quickly to find something else that can distinguish the passages in music he or she considers vital to perfect the imaging of.

This includes but is not limited to spacial locationality cues, the size of the venue, where every single instrument and singer is along with associated reflections within said venue, whether or not you can tell whether said singer is looking left while performing into the microphone or looking right while not even moving on stage. Maybe the singer is walking across the stage as they look left or right but this type of listener demands such detail with complete accuracy as they move across the stage. The image freak wants this in extreme detail with no fluctuations with regards to this type of reproduction. They want to know that the source of the sound within the image is laser pin-pointable on the sound stage. Not only that, it seems that they want to break out the measuring tape and tell you down to the inch how far away the source of the sound is coming from the listening position.

The depth, height, width and spatial location cues are more important to this type of listener than anything else and they will sacrifice some other outstanding attributes from the gear they swap in and out in order to get the perfect image. Yes, sound is important but no where near as important as the image to this type of listener.

Bass head - This is typically a person that is in the beginning of their audio journey but for some folks, the pursuit of bass is the most important part of the reproductive effort and this is where they tend to concentrate no matter where they are along their audio journey. It may stop at dual [or more] subs the size of a small Volkswagen along with room correction devices or even the rotary woofer or two but this is what is most important to this type of listener. The bass and mid bass regions are what they concentrate their efforts on, sometimes disregarding anything else within the reproductive arena.

Detail oriented listener - This type of listener concentrates on the utmost of details. The texture within voices, the impact of a drum strike and the natural decay of said strike. They concentrate on the roll off of chimes or a cymbal. They want to hear the lips smack and they want to hear and seemingly feel the wetness of the singers lips as they perform. They are not happy unless they extract every slide of the hand on a guitar and they yearn to hear as someone walks in on the back of the recording studio and accidentally steps on a pencil breaking it, not even knowing that it would be noticeable in the final cut. This type of listener will go to the extremes to seek out every last ounce of detail out of a recording whether or not it was intended, accidental or otherwise. They just need to hear it no matter what, good or bad.

Omitted listener - This type of listener may have given up on the reproduction of things they either can not reproductively get right or just flat out don't hear. They may consider a floor stander or full range speaker to be sub par to a bookie in terms of the reproductive qualities due to resonance issues, coherent abilities or transparency. Whatever the case may be, they tend to omit things that they deem less than stellar to enjoy what it is they consider audio bliss.

Loudness listener - This type of listener listens to audio reproduction as loud as they possibly can get it. They want the neighbors to know they are listening and they are typically not too concerned with overall reproductive qualities. They listen so loud that their is no hope for any kind of sound stage at all because it collapsed 30 or 40 Db's ago. So long as it's loud and the rig is pounding your chest and the state seismograph's are off the chart, that's all that matters.

Audiophile listener - Simply put, this person is a listener who is enthusiastic about the reproduction of an effect (as sound or an image) that is very faithful to the original sound reproduction.

Empirical listener - This person typically loves everything that measurement may deem great to sub par but due to empirical evidence, believes no matter what they listen to is all that just based upon empirical evidence. Sometimes more. Typically this type of listener has done hours or days of research on a particular upgrade and will yearn to hear all that has been written about said unit. They fail to actually enjoy the upgrade but tend to over evaluate said product to the point of losing track of why they got it in the first place. They tend to believe so much in what other folks are reporting about said product that they actually tend to believe what the expect to hear, regardless of whether they hear what they are expecting to or not. As much as they hate to admit it, they follow the crowd at chow time and never cook a meal for themselves. None the less, they are happy with their sound until experience shows them otherwise.

Music aficionado - Much like the casual listener, the source of the music may or may not matter. Sitting in the sweet spot may or may not matter. The reproductive qualities of his rig or the live concert they attend mean little to nothing. What they care about is that they are one with the music. They typically can tell you things folks would never know in three lifetimes. Things like where Mic Fleetwood's hometown was and where he was discovered for the first time, along with what he was eating at the time he was discovered. Typically, this type of listener has more albums or has listened to more albums than folks couldn't catch up too if they tried listening for 14 hours a day for the rest of their lives. They just flat out love music and everything that brings it to them, history and all.

Tone listener - This type of listener usually has a bit of background revolving around music. They can pinpoint if a tone is off from a different room. Very quick to pick up on tonal qualities that are extremely important to them, whereas a vast majority of folks could either care less or just don't know what it is that they are supposed to be picking up on. To them, if the tone of a system is off, it becomes difficult to listen to the bigger picture because they have the hangup of an off tone reproductive quality of a rig that they might consider substandard. This is not to say that they can not enjoy the music but because of the tonal qualities not being up to snuff, it becomes somewhat of a personal struggle to fulfill the enjoyment of the listening experience in its entirety. Whether they admit it or not.

It could be said that for the experienced listener, said person is an amalgam of many or even most of the different types of listeners. I know I am. Depending on the type of music I am listening to, the quality of recordin/mastering I am listening to and my mood I can be a certain type of listener or most types of listeners. I am not sure one can be "all types" at once as some are contrary to others.

I would be interesting to hear what type(s) people on the forum consider themselves. How about you Tom? What type(s) do you consider yourself?

Nice post.

mantis

I think everyone missed the actual question but it's cool I'll break it down.
So lets make this a super simple question. At what level IC meaning analog Interconnect do you get the job done? At what point are you wasting you money are you are no longer getting sonic benefits.
Here's the deal with analog Interconnects , You have a signal to pass from lets say a Preamp to an amp. I don't care what pre and amp , it makes no difference at this point. Who has found a IC that can fully pass the entire signal coming out of the preamp to the amp? Is is possible in a single ended RCA? Or would one choose to use Balanced due to it's superior Noise canceling abilities?
What level of either cable is the job done and now your buying better materials , cooler looks , bragging rights etc? Would lets say $500.00 bucks get it done? Length will change price so lets keep it at 3 feet or 1 meter.
lets start there shall we?

Let me add something to it. There are many Kimber , Audioquest , MIT guys on this forum fans , what cable in those respected lines get the job done? Is only their flagship cable the only one in the entire line that can fully pass the signal correctly? Wouldn't everyone like to know which cable is the best for the job?

cnh

I understand where Dan is coming from. Don't really have an answer to it, because I'm not that "kind" of listener. I might be in some other category listed by Tom above, who has provided a rather exhaustive list, IMO.

Frankly, I'm not sure exactly what "I'm" looking for; I only know when I hear it. And it is NOT necessarily to reproduce what is a live or a recorded performance exactly as it was recorded, because, after all, even in a recording studio the FINAL mix is NOT listened to on one set of speakers (monitors) alone. A number of setups, and speakers are used to reference how the "music" might sound on "real" world home listening systems. Because, even the engineers realize there is NO ONE sound they have captured--it has to be "played" through something?'

So the simple answer is: have a friend who is in the recording business and bring your CDs to his studio when it's not working and play away. lol

cnh