Are you a tone guy or a details-retrieval guy?

Actually, I don't think it's "easier said than done." I think they're mostly unrelated.

People seem to assume that more treble = more detail. But in my experience, increasing retrieval of inner detail is almost always associated with reducing noise, distortion, spurious ringing, midbass bloat, etc, that is, getting stuff out of the way that's masking detail. You might not even know it's noise, you might not even hear it as noise it might be hashy power supply grit, motor vibration breaking through on a turntable, a tonearm resonance in the 200 Hz region, even RF noise maybe or triobelectric noise ( I didn't want to believe it, but I swear ERS paper inside my CD player opened up more detail, and mechanically damping interconnect connectors at the inputs and outputs increased image focus), but it's in the way of low level detail. Clear that out and you hear the damper pedal going up and down on Thelonious Monk Alone in SF, or the bass creaking as Dave Holland is playing on One's All. Janos Starker's breathing as he's playing jumps out and startles you like he's sitting in your room.

There are definitely tweaks that will increase detail at the expense of tone, altering the frequency balance to scoop out the low mids and upper bass, or driving up treble to create more emphasis on transient attack. But I think one of the problems is that people are listening for detail in all the wrong places, so to speak. Forget transient attack as a measure of detail, listen for micro dynamics of say Heifetz's playing a solo line, listen for the detail at the bottom end of the dynamic range when the music is the quietest, listen for the suddenness with which music emerges from blackness, listen for a sense of contentiousness of the recorded space. Of course that means listening to music recording in a way designed to capture this stuff -- not pan-potted, mostly overdubbed and highly edited rock records. But you know, listen for the room decay on the symbols and the way Sonny Rollins is moving off mic, and the difference between what little room decay is on the recording and the obviously added reverb on the sax mic on Way Out West. That's detail unrelated really to cranking treble or lowering low mids/upper bass.

Also, I know this is controversial among audiophiles, but the truth is, you can't always trust your ears and brain. Take some measurements of your system and your room -- using a cheap mic that's been calibrated and free realtime software, it will cost you less than $100 to set yourself up to do this. Establish a baseline that you know is "right" -- not full of big peaks and nulls in the frequency response. And compare changes and tweaks to something you know is right. The truth is, maybe the recording you're using to test is "glassy," or "greasy." Start from a known accurate good baseline. Otherwise you're just comparing things with too many variables.

Honestly, I think, the better one analog and digital rigs are, the more they should sound alike, with the caveat of course that the source material of each is different. And the better the set up is, the better it should be able to retrieve detail AND deliver timbral realism.

 

Well, I'm referring to the criticism I get for using my treble & bass knobs, that I'm adding frequencies that the band/producer never intended to be there. Maybe they did, but my budget system can't reproduce them accurately.

 

Tony! Toni! Toné!

 

Like I mentioned in another thread of yours, add lush tone to your digital chain with a high end receiver from Pioneer or Yamaha and you should get the details and also tones.

You already adjust the tonality of your analog chain with different combination of stylus/tonearm/preamp, why not doing that to your digital chain using something that could adjust the tone to your liking?

 

After getting this old Pioneer SX 750, I'm gonna have to say tone? Man the sound is addictive. Musical...whatever that may mean.

 

Good point. I just don't have the budget at the moment for the high end receiver.

I've been experimenting with my digital transport (Logitech Squeezebox Touch). It's a Linux computer, meaning you can program it to your heart's content. I've been disabling the screen, disabling the wi fi antenna (to reduce the interference and the noise), killing various jobs on the box, modifying buffer sizes, reprioritizing threads. Many of those mods do alter the sound, almost similarly to how you can modify a photo in Photoshop by applying some filters. But it's a never ending job. Endless dicking around, endless tweaking, after a while I get tired of it and just go back to listening to music.

 

I wasn't thinking about it that way. There is impact, lower bass extension and imaging to name a few.

 

This thread begs a definition of "tone". I will define it as "musicality" for purposes of responding.

That out of the way, I think that for the most part I want to hear a high level of detail, with the least amount of compromise to the musicality of the record and playback.

The balance of this is determined by the artist, the producer and the quality of the recording/mix and mastering.

Upon playback, this balance is often changed by the quality and capability of the equipment used. For me, I want my equipment to be as transparent and true to what the artist wanted me to hear.

 

With a warm-sounding SS receiver like a vintage Pioneer and a pair of Klipsch speakers, you can have both

 

Good points. One way to define 'tone', for me, would be the quality of sound that makes an impression if you leave the listening room and leave the doors open. Listening to your system from another room, you lose most of the spatial cues, imaging and such, as well as finer details and nuances in the performance, but can still hear the overall 'tone'. Is it sweet, or harsh, or warm, or silky, or brutal, etc.?

 

What does detail mean to you in a recording?

 

Yeah, keep in mind that your Linux box is still limited in its ability. I got the Pioneer mostly for its MCACC Pro capabilities and dual independent sub control ability. You should search up MCACC if you have not heard it. Playing stereo with my 5.2 setup is just great! Big coherent sound field with plenty of energy. I adjust my subs a little hotter for my taste so that I could feel the bass kick.

So yeah, when you have the opportunity and fund, give it a try. I think Bestbuy have 2 weeks satisfaction guarantee. So you can always try out and return if not satisfied. But, I would only suggest going with the top three Pioneer models and not anything lower.

 

The trouble is I'm using Magnepan planar speakers, and they're very demanding when it comes to amps. Also, they're super fast, so any attempts to pair them with subwoofers end up sounding extremely comical.

 

No problem with amp side as high end receiver typically have preouts. You should be able to use your external high power amp.

Having the tweak abilities of a high end receiver will significantly help with integrating subwoofers. My Pioneer has full band phase control abilities to match the phase of all speakers. You can also manually tweak the crossover, distance, eq, volume, etc., of your subwoofers to match your speakers. I think the ability to tweak the distance, thus the timing of sound arrival to match your speakers, is paramount and a receiver gives you that ability.

 

Wow, that sounds like some badass high tech stuff!

My problem is that any subwoofers I've tried to match with my speakers were significantly slower, resulting in comical sound (as if the musicians are drunk). Not sure how can the receiver speed up subwoofers?

 

My thinking as well (couldn't have said it this well though).

 

The slowness of sub is typically due to late arrival of sound.

By increasing the distance of sub in the receiver settings, the receiver would send bass signals to subwoofers earlier, thus make the subwoofer's sounds arrive faster to your ears. You can adjust the distance by inches, thus slowly adjust the timing of bass sound arrival, to finally sync with your speakers. Then, you will have a well blended sub.

Of cause, you also need high quality powerful sealed sub like those from JL Audio or SVS.

 

I really think the difference between 'tone and detail' is just made up.

 

You hit onto something very important here -- spurious noise. I've realized that once you manage to assemble a decent, average audio system, the biggest improvements in the quality of sound reproduction can be gained by reducing spurious noise. Instead of upgrading components in your chain (which could cost you thousands of dollars), you're possibly better off chasing after those pesky sources of noise. Once you start playing the whack-a-mole with noise in your system, you'll start realizing what kind of spectacular improvements can be had for a fraction of price.

For example, one of the biggest leaps in the sound quality on my system happened when I replaced the switched power supply unit on my DAC with the Ankaka battery. And since the battery is much, much quieter, suddenly all those tiny sounds, previously masked by the noisy power supply, emerged and contributed to the enhanced enjoyment of music. So instead of spending thousands of dollars upgrading my DAC, a few hundred bucks pushed it into the true audiophile territory.

 

Depends on what stylus I'm using. I like both.

 

I thought it was this

 

I would argue that those 3 elements are up to the musicians, and if one's system affects any of them, then something is seriously wrong!

 

Yeah, that should be taken care of in the source. Personally, I don't want to pursue detail as the objective because it can turn out to be a musically unsatisfying system unless you have lots of $$$ and really know what you are doing. Improvements in detail are good, so long as it does not result in an overly bright system

 

BOTH!

 

I like detail and it's fun to pick out new details in a favorite recording, however, for me, tone wins. Though, I wouldn't want to live with gear that doesn't perform reasonably well in detail retrieval. My Parasound Halo has a very sneaky way of producing detail. It seems to resolve it, but I don't find myself focusing on the details as I do with other amps.

My Maggies might not remain long term, because while they produce nice detail, (in a strange way) I think I prefer the tone of my other speakers, even if only a little.
I think my favorite speakers in regards to tone are my Epos Epics. Unfortunately, they're not up to the task of filling my current room.

I suppose the rare beasts are the ones that produce perfect tone, PRAT, and detail to our own ears. I think that's what many of us are searching for within our budget constraints.