We audiophiles throw around a lot of terms in an attempt to convey meaning and describe the sound of systems. Each of us may have our own priorities and specific sonic attributes which we value, and we may value some more than others. I am interested in learning what sonic attributes people value most and how they rank them in importance in terms of musical involvement, sense of realism, or for whatever it is they want to get out of their listening experiences.
Recently, the terms “musical” and “resolving” were used to describe two components that most people agree sound very different. I found it interesting that the components fell into one of these two camps, but that no one thought either was both musical and resolving. This got me thinking about how we describe what we hear and what we value in our components and systems. Most people with whom I spoke clearly liked one of these components more than the other, though few direct comparisons were actually made. I also found interesting the notion that if one component is more resolving, it meant that it must not be as musical. It is curious to me that these two attributes are considered distinct and that they carry different values for people. This general categorizing of components and systems with particular sonic attributes is perhaps what allows us to form camps or schools of audio, whether it is tube or solid state, digital or analog, or whatever.
Jim Smith suggests that Tone, Dynamics, and Presence, are the three sonic attributes that make a system “musically involving”. I agree with him but feel strongly that only with high resolution can a component or system reach a higher level, allowing the listener to be convinced of a system’s ability to reproduce the sound of the real thing. The real thing is both musical and natural sounding, but for me it is also highly resolved.
The sonic attribute which I most value is clarity. This is based on my years of hearing live orchestral music at the BSO. The one descriptor that comes to mind every time I leave a concert event is “clarity”. I can not believe just how clean the sound at the BSO is. And this is where most systems that I have heard have problems. I value Tone, Dynamics, and Presence, and they are all necessary for a system to be enjoyable. But, for a system to be truly convincing and sound similar to the real thing, it must be resolving and reach high levels of clarity. Then, the experience is musical, and the sound is natural. In other words, for me, the system must have clarity above all else, but not at the expense of tone, dynamics and presence.
What are your sonic priorities, and how would you rank them and why?
Recently, the terms “musical” and “resolving” were used to describe two components that most people agree sound very different. I found it interesting that the components fell into one of these two camps, but that no one thought either was both musical and resolving. This got me thinking about how we describe what we hear and what we value in our components and systems. Most people with whom I spoke clearly liked one of these components more than the other, though few direct comparisons were actually made. I also found interesting the notion that if one component is more resolving, it meant that it must not be as musical. It is curious to me that these two attributes are considered distinct and that they carry different values for people. This general categorizing of components and systems with particular sonic attributes is perhaps what allows us to form camps or schools of audio, whether it is tube or solid state, digital or analog, or whatever.
Jim Smith suggests that Tone, Dynamics, and Presence, are the three sonic attributes that make a system “musically involving”. I agree with him but feel strongly that only with high resolution can a component or system reach a higher level, allowing the listener to be convinced of a system’s ability to reproduce the sound of the real thing. The real thing is both musical and natural sounding, but for me it is also highly resolved.
The sonic attribute which I most value is clarity. This is based on my years of hearing live orchestral music at the BSO. The one descriptor that comes to mind every time I leave a concert event is “clarity”. I can not believe just how clean the sound at the BSO is. And this is where most systems that I have heard have problems. I value Tone, Dynamics, and Presence, and they are all necessary for a system to be enjoyable. But, for a system to be truly convincing and sound similar to the real thing, it must be resolving and reach high levels of clarity. Then, the experience is musical, and the sound is natural. In other words, for me, the system must have clarity above all else, but not at the expense of tone, dynamics and presence.
What are your sonic priorities, and how would you rank them and why?
Last edited: