Vote

Do I want a nice lovely sound eminating from my speakers that still provides me with clear vocals and all the musicians? Or do I want to listen to the closest reproduction of what actually took place in the studio? Duh! Gee George, what about the rabbits George?Come on, what is the basis for Stereophile, again? If I just wanted sound reproduction, I would have subscribed to Sound and Vision and been made to believe that $350 is too much to spend on a CD player. Then, I could have been convinced to get one of them there multi-disc players that make a "clankety clunk" sound when I open the drawer to put in my Jackson 5 boxed set all at once!

Tampering with the sound requires an artist's touch, not a built in system bias. Let the recording engineers or venue acoustics provide the lushness. I want my system to be honest to the recording.

I prefer "absolute accuracy", however, since I have yet to find a perfect system, I'll settle for erring on the euphonic side.

I find the equipment that is most accurate produces the most beautiful sound.

Honesty is the only way to get enjoyment over time. Lush sound tends to sound a bit always the same—even if that "same" is good—and can be eventually fatiguing or boring. Faithful reproduction can indeed be hard sometimes, but if you just turn the volume a bit down, it'll be okay…

I hate it when I purchase a CD (or SACD, or whatever) with good songs in it but the moment I play it on my system what I hear is unbearable sound! My idea of an ultimate system is something that tends to make all my favorite music come alive in my living room. If it would have to mask aspects of a bad recording, fine—as long as it keeps all the good character of good recordings intact. This might be wishful thinking, but I'm talking about the "ideal" here. But since, in reality, I need to accept compromises, I'd rather that my system err toward being euphonic than annoyingly honest. For me (and I do mean personal view here), this audio hobby is about getting the best sound out of recordings even if it means hearing something better-sounding that what's actually on the source. Well, that is as long as it gives us the illusion of an actual event happening in right front of us. Let's leave the audio truth part to the professional monitoring done by recording engineers and equipment manufacturers.

by that i want MUSIC!!!!!!!! m a baroque freek and if it dosent sound convincingly real i dont want it

Silly question. I've never atteneded a concert and found myself uncomfortable with the level of detail, tonality, or "honesty" with which the music is presented, and there aren't any hi-fi's with that same fidelity. Simply accept that music reproduction is flawed and that you have a choice as to how and to what degree it is flawed.

Someday we will learn to make perfect recordings on a perfect medium. When that happens, I'll be ready.

You think I can tell the difference? ROTFL

So "absolute accuracy" is possible?!? That's news to me.

The lushness of the sound is the proper domain of the collaboration of the musician and the recordist. Audiophiles must respect that and not try to get into the act.

If the sound isn't enjoyable, what's the point of listening to it? The destruction of any form of reference to the original sound begins with the microphone. Anything a system can do to recreate the "feel" of the event—even if it isn't totally realistic—is better than a totally accurate rendition of the recording because that recording is nothing like the musical event.

I prefer a SLIGHTLY elevated bass & midbass. Also a slight decrease in , I believe, the midrange to cut down on the sibilances. Maybe if the recording companies didn't stick their mikes down the singers throats, I wouldn't have to do this! Oh, for tone controls!

how could it represent and playback the music if the system couldn't play it back the way the artist intended too.

I have always attempted to improve the acuracy of my system. As a lover of strings I have never been satisfied with what I hear in Quartet sound at home. Althought my VT 100 is more acurate, I still go back to my Futterman otl 4 for listening to a new Beethoven set.

Getting BOTH from your system is what High End is all about!! There seem to be different ways to achive this and everybody has to find out which suits him/her best .

I primarily like honesty. However, given the recording quality of most of the music I listen to, complete honesty would quickly grate on my nerves and remove the reason I listen in the first place - to relax!

Fidelity stands for honesty, faithfulness, and accuracy. Artists and recording staff do their best to get the music on your LPs, CDs, or whatever. You now have components in your playback chain that add information in form of coloration or distortion. You may like it, but that's not the rule of the game called "hi-fi." You should not consider playback equipment as music instruments that have to be voiced in order to please. There are lots of components out there, in particular transducers (read phono cartridges and speakers) that do not even fulfill that very basic and simple requirement : fidelity.

…and this above all, be honest to thy self (or thy fidelity), and all else will follow…

I just got back from flying (I'm an airline pilot) my first trip after the attack on the US. Flying into Newark, the smoke plume was visible from 100 miles away, it was heartbreaking. I was able to sneak a few minutes in the listening chair when I got home and felt some of the anger, frustration, and stress relieved. I don't know what the hell kind of sound that is, but it works for me.

I work to try and keep a system that is "True", but I think that one should concentrate on a system that provides the most enjoyment of the music itself. If teh system is too sterile, it tends to get in the way a bit.

The purpose of an audiophile's system is to reproduce, as accurately as possible, what was recorded on the master tape or hard drive. It's goal is to neither add to the recording nor to subtract from the recording. The recording and playback chain should be as transparent as technology allows.

What is the point of listening to music, when accuracy starts to equal lack of enjoyment and even pain?

I want to hear what was intended in the artist's mind. I also want to recreate that "being there" sound. An aural masterpiece will stand on its own and should not be touched up or colored by the equipment.

Any recording should always be as true to the source as possible. I personally admire the simple honesty of labels such as Mapleshade, DMP, New World Records, etc.

Honesty, of course. If a recording is bad it's bad, period. I just won't listen to it.

Accuracy is important in music, but if its not put together to produce an overall pleasing effect, whats the use?

Just the facts, please. (horns, digital & solid state)

I like to hear what's there. Some stuff is terrible but you have to allow for that and just enjoy the music.