Yes, the guy I bought my preamp and amp from is the same way.
http://www.dsachsconsulting.com/custom%20line%20stage.html
http://www.dsachsconsulting.com/custom%20kt88%20tube%20amp.html
A main issue is what is accuracy? I’m curious how many systems are tuned towards a live performance vs. hyper detail.
I expect systems tuned for live music accuracy to translate well across genre’s while the whiz bang hyper etched systems will be awful.
It comes down to a person’s reference… is the reference hi fi systems or live performance / live instruments. Live instruments are far less attention grabbing than whiz bang HiFi tuned systems.
I suspect first that systems which translate poorly across genre’s are not in fact tuned for accuracy but for “detail.”
Another question… when have you ever heard someone say that classical music sounded awful thru a HiFi system? Cheese grater? There can be many more versions of ok or good versions of classical music tuning IMO before someone finally gets down the right path. With rock music you know much quicker whether you are going the wrong direction or not. It’s much less tolerant to hyper detailed artificial tunings.
Yes, hyper detail is dreadful as well as unmusical. I have a friend with large Magnepans, excellent source components and amplification, and high-end DSP. He is a classically trained musician. Performs both chamber music as well as full orchestra.
Ever time I hear his system it is more constricted, tighter, smaller sound stage, more detailed than before. It sounds vastly better without DSP - but he is exceedingly pleased. It gives me a headache.
Yes, live music is not whiz bang, be it acoustic instruments or amplified. It also does not possess the precise pinpoint instrument locations as does recorded music.
I have heard plenty of poor classical recordings. Often the issue is screeching strings.
1 Like
@Elk
Hyper detail IMO completely masks the beauty of Cello and Violas. Rich but balanced midbass is the name of the game in my book.
3 Likes
Thanks for the nudge. I am in contact with Decware to make sure the ZRock 2 will integrate well into my system’s topography. Once that’s sorted, I plan to order one, even though as @lonson notes, it may take a long time to ship.
Yes, this is a common audiophile philosophy. The standard and goal is “accuracy”. To reveal what is actually there in a recording. That honesty is what matters most. That if music sounds somewhat unpleasing, it means something is wrong with the system itself, not the music.
I understand this line of thinking. For me, it’s linear and simplistic.
I am not a recording engineer. My goal is not to have a system that reveals the unvarnished truth of every recordings, the good, the bad and the ugly. My goal is far more simple, to have a pleasant experience listening to music. As in in real life, unfiltered honesty often does not lead to a pleasant experience. While certainly necessary at times, hot searing honesty is not always pleasing. It reminds me of the Geico commercial with Honest Abe Lincoln in which his wife asks him “does this make me look fat?” The honest answer would be that she’s obese, but that’s not the peaceful answer.
Real life has enough battles, I turn to music for a pleasant escape.
In my experience, on the hardware side, it’s possible to tailor a system to be particularly good at certain types of recordings. A system that plays super high quality DSD albums in revealing fashion, is not going to do a great job with average to mediocre recordings. And vice versus, a system that handles the mediocre stuff well, is not going to reveal the magic of DSD in full glory.
There are simply too many different types of recordings in the world for any one fixed system to do everything well. I don’t see how that’s possible. The variables are literally exponential. To my logic, only something like Decware’s solution, or computer based EQ’s, can give one the practical flexibility to adjust the sound for individual recordings. How else can it be done?
If have tried many different computer based EQ’s and have had engineer types for Audiophile Style help craft EQ formulas. It helps some, but it’s not enough to fix what I’m talking about. A few years ago I tried a Jolida product called the Fosgate something or other. It was a little black box with 1 tube. It had bass control, and some sort of soundstage enhancer knob, got it from Music Direct. It sounded better for sure, but died in less than a week with a little plume of smoke.
I believe the Decware to be on a completely different level and I’m eager to give it a try. This thread has helped me in an unexpected way. Elsewhere I have explored the notion of a tube preamp getting me there. And now here, a different DAC. This thread has helped me understand that neither of those are likely to help for me stated purpose.
The fate of the free world now rests at Decware’s doorstep 
Accuracy as a goal is not simplistic in the least, neither in concept nor execution.
So which approach is “simple?” Both? 
For me, an accurate portrayal of what the artist put on the recording is by far the most rewarding. I have no interest in being lied to, even it is a pleasant falsehood.
Also, while one may avoid some of the lows in this fashion, one is guaranteed to not experience the absolute highs. Everything is mushed to a middle common denominator.
Such a trade off holds no magic for me. But I can understand the appeal for others.
There is no right or wrong - as long as each individual enthusiast extracts the maximum musical enjoyment for him.
Please let us know what Decware says about your incorporating a ZRock into your system. I am exceedingly curious if this will work for you.
4 Likes
I think mine system does exactly that! My system plays high quality DSD extremely well. I don’t experience what you experience. Yes, I have some CDs that are not the best, but they still sound better on my 2 channel system than they do in my car…
Maybe it’s the tube preamp and amp. Maybe it is the Tekton Double Impact speakers. Whatever it is, my 2 channel system doesn’t have the problem your system has.
1 Like
I just realized that the cymbal I thought was warped was just the sound engineer putting his Diet Coke can on the board. He was diligent, but I got him.
2 Likes
I like big soundstage. Pianos wider and taller than they are in real life. Voices that present as “on stage”. Amplified vs. natural in-room instruments (this is true for orchestras as well). Reason for all this is almost all of my “live” experiences have been live amplified. This is very different then if you’ve had the opportunity to listen to, say, a quartet with no amplification in a small room (which I have and prefer larger venues). “Audiophile” recordings capture the space as well as the instruments. That space can be the room, a dead studio, individual tracks overplayed on each other, or multiple close-mics/tracks recorded at once. A good recording will reveal all of this and an accurate system will reproduce this.
My favorite recordings put me in the studio with the 4-5 members of a band playing together. Or it puts me the middle of a medium size hall mid-way back. There is a common “Rock” recording of the 70’s and 80’s which sounds like open studio space with exaggerated highs and less emphasis on bass. As we move into the 90’s and 00’s that space becomes extremely compressed, highs are reduced, and bass is boosted. Partly because of the move to (mediocre) headphone listening on devices but also because of MP3 encoding. Additionally, this recording style sucks the live out of the room and the band becomes tiny and confined within the soundstage. Additionally, the ability to self-publish had bands recording to handheld tape players in their basement (a unique but, again, small sound). This recording style is boring with no dynamics, a very small/narrow soundstage, with no depth, and everything in the recording is simply stacked on itself. Not very listenable when you’ve dialed-in your imaging and now a 5 member band sounds like they all hugging each other within a 1 foot wide space between your speakers.
I can name specific recordings I do not listen to on my main system for this reason. It’s not because I don’t like the music but its specifically because it sounds “weird”. I have headphones I prefer for these recordings or I can listen outside the “sweet spot” in my secondary system.
Anyway, thanks for reading. A lot of people asked someone to describe a “bad” recording. That’s my attempt to do so. I will mention that the tide is changing. There are a number of self-publishing indie artists that have released some really nice “big” recordings over the past few years. I think the era of tiny and constrained and mastering for “MP3” is behind us.
As far as hardware goes… I don’t think a DAC will fix this. It’s speakers and listening space. I can “diffuse” my sweet spot in my listening room to make these recordings listenable but then I lose the sense of what seat I’m sitting in the venue for which the recording was obtained and how the strings and percussion are arranged when listening to a proper recording.
5 Likes
Nicely explained! Thanks, I enjoy understanding how others approach the hobby.
Please provide an example or two of recordings which exhibit the weirdness you describe. I would like to take a listen to full appreciate what this is like.
1 Like
I would agree.
I demo’d a pair of Wilson Benesch about 12 or 13 years ago. The sound was hyper-detailed and layered and rather unnatural. I assume it was due to the carbon fibre enclosures they pioneered a few years earlier.
1 Like
I agree with your commentary and its quite interesting. I too have run into the issue of veering off my path, tuning off of different music to separate out pieces; then went back to rock music and it sounded awful. Rock music is not meant to be teased apart the same way “audiophile” music can tolerate this approach.
How rock is supposed to sound is BIG, not compressed. The main way this is accomplished is the guitars. They are supposed to span from left to right. Bass and drums are almost always in the middle with the vocalist. Amps are directly mic’d, its not recorded in a room. Guitars are almost always multi-tracked on top of each other. This started in large part to my knowledge with Nirvana Nevermind (1991). The effect here is to thicken the guitar. If one has a system that artificially pulls apart things for imaging in a system, it may be the multi-tracked guitars that really get jacked up. It’s killing the magic that was intended; they are supposed to sound big going left to right… not separated in the depth domain.
When we look at speakers I’m not sure there are currently do all speakers out there… hopefully PS Audio can narrow the divide. The GoldenEars that i’m ditching I believe truly belong in the imaging realm for classical and maybe jazz. They do not do Rock justice. Rock is about the dynamics and huge thick meaty guitars. I want to feel the palm muting, not just hear where it’s coming from. I want the kick drum to knock me in the chest. The best things in Rock are not imaging… they are impact. I am moving to Zu as I feel they handle modern music the best and one of the main reasons is they aren’t focused on imaging… but on dynamics, impact, and Tone. Rock music sounds huge 
2 Likes
An alternative strategy for @dancingsea to deal with his bad recordings is not to get another DAC, but to put a couple of blankets over his speakers when he plays them.
3 Likes
Yea, I have come to just accept bad recordings as they are. Still disappointing. I have been looking for a MOFI CD of Little Feat Dixie Chicken as that is supposed to be better…197$ on eBay!!!
Anyone have one to lend me?
But mostly, bad recordings, or at least original digital transfers are too bright. That is why I wish for a decent tone control that can be switched out. Sometimes I just have to dial down that treble.
Dixie Chicken is just compressed and muddy… Noting but an equalizer and expander can bring that back to life.
Anywho… that is why I moved to tube equipment a long long time ago… takes the edges off that bad chit.
If you want a DAC for that edgy stuff, then look at older DACs circa 2000. The good ones had a beautiful “dark” sound that really took the edge off without being dull. I still own an Accuphase DP-55v CD player with digital ins… wow it still sounds good but they don’t play tons of formats.
Peace
Bruce in Philly
2 Likes
Even when I was a young teen with a Sony Discman, I noticed the big SQ difference between R.E.M. CD’s from the early 80’s compared to my early 90’s discs. The sound improved dramatically in the 90s despite lower dynamic range. Those 80s songs just sound strange then and now… they really don’t sound good on any system regardless of format unless you can EQ the things a bit.
If anyone goes back and compares… everything on Tidal has been Remastered with REM. The Murmur album DR has been squashed but doesn’t sound awful… sounds like they boosted the bass… it used to be so anemic. Maybe I should track down the 1983 CD and compare to the remaster.
Side comment here… not applying to hifi systems necessarily but it speaks to the belief that as the DAC gets better - modern music sounds worse.
Just upgraded from AQ Red to AQ Cobalt for my mobile iphone listening and its much better. Guitar distortion is thicker… more meat on the bone… everything is much more natural. Better DACs are required for better listening of everything!
Electric guitar is DISTORTION… therefore it has to be reproduced in the most accurate way possible. DACs with worse performance will kill the musicality of electric guitar… if you layer distortion on distortion… the magic is dead.
Electric guitar, and bass guitar, is also lots of compression. All the wrong things we say we do not want.
When I hear electric guitar on better systems… my mind does not think of compression… its thinking wow that sounds like a real guitar amp. Compression is not by itself a bad thing in recordings. Its an art. I argue that worse DACs kill the tone of the guitars… the better ones breathe life into the guitars. I could argue that poor DACs compound with the compression to ruin the guitars. Better systems do not reveal “compression,” they let the guitar go free. Better DACs also better distinguish original CDs / masters from all of these remasters. Tidal is really bad about all these MQA remasters and they all sound bad not because I hear “compression,” I hear Toneless guitars.
@Elk
An alternative phrasing or point of view, is simply I hear more Tone from guitars as the Quality goes up. Who wants less Tone from electric guitar? What guitarist goes into Guitar Center and says give me your cheapest solid state amp and think that is the standard? This is what cheap systems and DACs make all guitar sound like! The better ones reveal the natural character of the gear which is Marshall and Mesa Boogie Tube Amps
I should have been more specific. Sustain on an electric guitar is compression.
1 Like
@Elk
Sustain is beautiful !
Can I get some Electric Violin with some sustain ?
Electric instruments have always spoken more to me than acoustic…