Vote

How loaded can a question be? There will be lots of people that say this hobby is only for those who want honesty and then insult vinyl and SETs. However, accuracy, in the most clinical of definitions, must mean that measured improvements in fidelity to the input signal is an improvement in accuracy. Many people that I've known think they have extremely accurate systems because they can hear all the faults in the recording process thereby making it easy to identify good and bad recordings. This means that very few pieces of recorded music can be listened to without pain. I've even read in the pages of Stereophile how everyone should avoid products that make everything sound good as that is an obvious clue that the product adds coloration. Music is supposed to sound good though, isn't it? Just because certain components excentuate particular frequencies that make recording edits more obvious does not mean that equipment is more accurate than another component that doesn't do that. For all of the nay-sayers that categorically state that all pop music is garbage, that nothing but off-beat jazz if worthy of true hi-fi equipment, and then go on to say, "It's all about the music", I say take a good look in the mirror. Likewise, there are many happy people out there with Cary SETs, Jadis anything, Wilson Audio speakers, or god-forbid Krell speakers that get real enjoyment from their systems. Who are we to tell somebody who has a Linn LP12, C-J Art, Wavac monoblocks, and Wilson X-1s that if they want accuracy they should sell that stuff and buy a Mark Levinson integrated amp, CD player, and a pair of Dunlavy Cantatas? After all, guess which set-up is more accurate?

I want a system that produces the recording exactly as it was intended to sound, and I want recording engineers to record performances in a way which captures as closely as possible the real sounds. If this occurs, I believe the sound will be neither lush nor unlistenable—it will just be "right".

Same for slam versus finesse. I've only been at this for a couple of years/upgrades/tweaks and have found it to be tricky business. Outside of a couple of references, every change seems to make some recordings sound better and some worse.

WIthout fidelity, we completely lose sight what is important in audio reproduction. It would be come totally subjective and chaotic. Musical fidelity is what unifies the pursuit and keeps us sane.

Since there will be aways a discussion about *what* we actually want to reproduced in a audio reproduction chain, I think it is no problem if audio equipment 'adds' to the experience we are looking for (eg Musical Exctasy).

Since I spend a lot of time listening critically at high volumes with my eyes closed, I can't stand the overy bright sound that can occur in a CD-based system. It's just too fatiguing. For this reason I chose components that are known for being "warm" . . . the heart of which is a McIntosh C20 tube preamp. It does wonders for CD sound, trust me! Accurate speakers are a must to hear that bouquet of sound. That's why I use B&W CDM9NTs. They can have an aggressive treble though, so I have inserted cotton between the tweeter and metal grill. Anyone else try this for theirs? I think it works wonderfully.

I think the honest truth is that most recording are pretty bad. A very accurate system accenuate that fact

Lush sound and "honest" sound need not be mutually exclusive. I, for one, having lost two people in the World Trade Towers catastrophe, am literally living and breathing because of my music—not because of the voicing of my sound system. Music is the great soother and healer. Without music, I would sink into a state of depression that I have never known in my 60 years on this earth. As a studio musician and instructor, I can attest to the therapeutic effect of music. At this point, sound, as such, really doesn't matter.

I listen to rock, and it is usually not mixed well.

Isn't absolute accuracy euphoric?

I do not nead a system signature. I prefer to hear what the source material sounds like, which is very enjoyable, by the way.

Tonal accuracy and evenness are the most important qualities for me personally, but with so much program material that has mediocre performance and engineering characteristics, a little "lush"ness can ease the tension in my soul

Unanswerable question. Who's to say what is "accurate", or what is actually recorded on the disc, or what the original performance actually sounded like? There is no "absolute" reference, either for a source or for a human ear.

The main goal of ANY system should be to grant the listener the most pleasure when hearing music. It is agreed that the most resolving systems are fun to listen to, and a worthy goal to aquire, but if you cannot listen to certain recordings because of your system, then you need a new system.

I want honesty but sometimes a little white lie is okay. Wish there was a way to "dial" in the amount of lushness you want.

It makes sense to be able to hear the minutest of details in certain circumstances, while it makes sense just to hear beutiful music in others. Beauty can be found in harsh sounds, as well as in lush harmonies. Why else do we love the sound of a gentle breeze or the sound of a blaring trumpet? The beauty of music is blending a full spectrum of the adible palatte into a balanced (or off balance - depending on intent) work of art.

Honesty. Lack of coloration. I go a lot to classical concerts. I prefer sound reproduction getting as close to the real thing as possible. Lush sound, hmm, it may sound nice on a few recordings, but in the long run I prefer the truth.

As long as honesty equals a faithfull musical reproduction.

I would prefer a system that produces an honest sound over a system that renders a recording into something akin to audio-mush.

As I've improved my system, in the direction of sonic accuracy, I've had to resign myself to the fact that I can only enjoy some CDs in my car, and some of my LPs are unplayable. On the other hand, the additional detail and rhythmic drive on good sources makes it all worthwhile.

First and foremost, it has to be involving. If it's not, then what's the point? But being accurate and revealing has its merits and a system needs both to be truly wonderful.

What one really wants is to be able to reproduce the emotional impact of a performance—I don't think that a "warts and all" performance really helps with that. But some of the emotion WILL come from a legitimate edginess that a lush sound will mitigate against.

You can do no better than to hear exactly what the recording engineer gives you. If you cannot stand bad recordings put an equalizer in your tape loop and play engineer.

It's all fake, so make mine fake with tubes.

i run everything flat -- i hate the way that some people make their bass real boomy and overpowering

I prefer appropriately beautiful sound that can honestly deliver the intended musical message.

Make mine beautiful, but not so much that it can't rock.

I think a true audiophile system must have a honesty that does not intrude in musical enjoyment. I think this is perhaps the most difficult thing for any system to achieve.

Recently bought the entire collection of electronic music by Michael Garrison. Being that his master tapes were lost, it's a shame that two of his CD's (Prisms and In Regions Of Sunreturn) were recorded onto CD blocking the static pops heard on vinyl leaving the listener with an unclear copy. Of coarse lush sound is desirable, but if clear sound is sacrificed, I'd rather stick with honesty.

I want total honesty, lush-sweet-warm sound should come from the record, and not be added by the reproduction gear.