What is "better" sound to you?

[Paul R]

Why is the sound of one device better than the other? Is it because it has more detail? Less distortion? Better frequency balance? Something else? That is a much tougher question to answer than it would seem to be on the surface.

 

In one of the threads I have been reading, SAL1950 posted:

Dynamics and low distortion = detail.

God is in the details.

Paul Klipsch had it 90% right by 1946

 

That resonated with a lot of people.

 

Personally, I don't like the sound of Klipsch speakers, and have not since around 1977 when I first heard them. (Okay, they did and still do sound great in movie theaters...) But the point is, to me, whatever KlipschHorns do to the sound - for me, it does not make the sound better. But it is not arguable that for a lot of people, Klipsch horns do produce much better sound.

 

Then there is Chris' review of the Aurender W20 has engendered discussion of what makes for better sound. I am still considering his findings on that one, though I am sure they are both accurate and torturously honest.

Listening to Doug MacLeod's There's A Time at 24/176.4 from the Aurender W20 enables one to hear this recording to the fullest. The recording space, air around Doug's voice and guitar, and sense of realism that can be heard in this wonderfully engineered album are astounding.

 

Chris points out in his review that the Aurender W20 shows up the limitations of the C.A.P.S. music server as a source. Given that the C.A.P.S. is not only good as a music source, it is very good, that is saying something. I am not sure exactly what he is hearing that makes the W20 sound better though.

 

Finally, Paul McGown published an interesting take on voicing equipment in his blog today. Coincidentally or not, it echoes a lot of the subjects being discussed on CA now. One point in particular resonated with me. In talking about a PreAmp they designed, they accidentally discovered that putting a bigger power supply in it improved the sound. Exactly how it improved, I do not know.

In later years we discovered it was the lower impedance of the thicker wire that made the improvement to the sound, but even to this day we’ve not been able to measure anything performance wise that displays a difference.

 

It certainly resonated with me, and made me ask once again, what makes the sound better?

 

Feel free to post your thoughts on the subject here, and certainly there is no "right" or "wrong" answers about what makes you like or dislike a particular sound!

 

-Paul

[Paul R]

Wow.......lots of views and no replies? Hmmmmmmm

 

Well let me break the ice here.

 

'Better' sound? Not a subjective question really so I'll avoid a subjective response.

Full frequency spectrum is essential....flat +/- 3db from 20hz to 20khz.

Low distortion products across the board

A noise floor of the system that's below the ambient noise floor of the space

Dynamic capabilities to 110db peaks when called for.

Constant directivity from 500hz and up.

A controlled reverberant field.

Balanced power response.

Good recordings to feed the above.

 

(Grin) I forgot to add the poll I intended to add.

 

Can you expand just a little on what you mean by a controlled reverberant sound field? Are you talking room acoustics or the design of the speaker?

 

Yours,

-Paul

[Paul R]

(grin)

 

I might have to put up my shotgun, that was for the most part, really well thought out Bunny.

[Paul R]

Paul, I have never liked the Klipschorns either.

 

So, there are two of us in this world! Sweet!

 

Great story about those Altecs too. I had an opportunity to grab a double pair of those, but I was still living at home with my parents and had no place to store them. Dad would not even consent to let me store them in the barn. I think they made him a little nervous...

 

-Paul

 

 

I remember the Western Electric sound systems, and I may be mixing those us with Klipsch. Did they have the big old honking horns too?

 

-Paul

[Paul R]

...

...

...

Now I had my own "apartment" and I only had to come downstairs for meals! I was able to play with placement of the A7s in that second room, and eventually found an arrangement that sounded the best, but I have to tell you, I would have traded those behemoth A7s for a pair of AR3ax's in a heartbeat!

...

...

...

Yea verily, I hear thee!

 

I came *this* close to picking up a set of AR3a's from E-Bay the other day. Only thing that stopped me was paying $600 + shipping for a set of speakers that sold for $250/each new, and were in unknown condition. I remember seeing the price tags and grimacing at my local stereo store. (grin)

 

I have definitely been bit by the "heritage" "vintage" "old stuff sounds good" bug. It is part of what is making me reexamine what I think "good sound" really is. It really is both an easy and a fiendishly difficult question to answer, isn't it?

 

-Paul

[Paul R]

Listening to music is one of the things I allow myself to do without being analytical. IMO there is no aspect of listening to music that can be made better by listening analytically.

 

Insightful - does this suggest there might be different measures for "better" when listening to music as opposed to listening to equipment? Or are they the same thing? Or some blending of both?