I was considering the tabanqui, and I didn’t enjoy it as much as the kassandra ii ref lol
1 Like
I mean. What is good enough for me is apparently not good enough for 90% of users on this forum, you’ve been warned. 
Yeah… chasing accuracy is a bit pointless… IMO. The only way you would REALLY get that is by having the same exact room and setup as the mastering engineer who mastered whatever song. And you would need a specific setup for every song in your library…
Having a perfectly “flat” frequency response seldom really means you’re hearing whatever the artist heard or even intended.
They sit there and they “fuck” with it so much with analog compressors and other tools and reshape it to an “ideal” sound rather than what was actually recorded most of the time. And most producers dealing with digital music are hardly ever working with the most “accurate” or “flattest” equipment either.
Of course this doesn’t mean I’m hearing what the artist intended, I hear what the mixing/mastering engineers intended. 
1 Like
Lol yeah the goal is to make it sound good not flat
2 Likes
No. You hear what the record exec approved.
3 Likes
That’s what I’m saying though… you aren’t hearing what the mixing/mastering engineer intended… Most of the time they are mastering on speakers… not headphones. And even then their rooms have their own acoustics. And every mastering engineer is going to have a different setup on top of that. It’s impossible to hear what they heard unless have their same exact setup. It’s pretty much a ‘fools errand’… really.
2 Likes
On top of that… a good mastering engineer probably finalizes their masters on a number of different systems with different measurements and different sound. And I’m sure most would tell you to just listen on whatever sounds best to you. I’m not even sure there really is an SPECIFIC “intended” sound.
1 Like
Indeed if we really wanted what gets signed off on we’d all be listening nearfield.
And if you want the sound that was signed off on in the 60’s and 70’s you’d need amps with 0.5% distortion and bad nearfield monitors.
1 Like
I have so many things I run the final through lol, I test it on all sorts of consumer gear that I don’t list, along with all my higher end setups
There is an intended sonic goal most of the time, but that goal may not have anything to do with what you actually play it back on
1 Like
I’d figure the “intended” sound is probably not “ultra dry, analytical” either. I mean if someone likes that sound, great, but I’m not sure you can call it “truth” depending on the definition of “truth”… it’s only true the exact specifications of the file and it’s frequency outputs… but that is not the same to the intended sound of a mastering engineer.
For what I do my intended goal is to sound good on the most amount of systems with commerical business work (so not music), I want to maximize quality on as many setups as I can and make something flexible. With music you can play around more for what it can sound good on
1 Like
I think this is where owning gear manufactured by companies like Rupert Neve, SPL, and RME to name the most prevalent in the community, gives you a slight advantage to the sound heard during production since their equipment is often present during said production.
2 Likes
Prob true, if you have commonly used pro gear to listen back I would say there is a higher chance of it sounding as intended if you really care about that (unless the engineer decided to optimize it for something else)
1 Like
I mean… there’s probably more “truth” in an iphone or ipod with bose, beats, or airpods than any high end audio gear… given those are some of the most popular devices for playing back music. They are probably taken into account more than most things. Doesn’t mean they sound better, imo.
The whole point here ought to be about enjoying what was recorded, regardless of how it was recorded.
I can’t control the quality of the mastering of the music I listen to, but I’d like to be able to get past it and enjoy the music if it isn’t good.
The right equipment can let you do that.
2 Likes
To expound on this, the “right equipment” is what you have that gives you enjoyment.
In the end it really is bout the music.
1 Like
And I’m sorry… not trying to pick on you. I’ve been there too… just at some point I realized chasing “accuracy” is really a pointless thing… as it’s not a really a thing that exists when it comes to the mastering of music and audio. There’s just WAY too many variables that exists from the point of recording to the final output of audio reproduction to EVER get anything that could ever be considered anywhere close to accurate.
3 Likes
Yes the goal is enjoyment in the end lol
2 Likes
Yeah, like, 90% of the time, neutral AF Yamaha HS5’s, for the last 2 decades or so.
So neutral-ish headphones/speakers/DACs are good enough for me. 
That’s the definition of being an audiophile anyway, searching for “neutral” stuff just eliminates one (enormous) variable. 
People try their best to make everything sound natural. Studio recording interfaces and hell, even smartphone audio chipsets are neutral for a reason. Seriously if “neutrality” is “a fools errand”, well, audiophilia is madness. I know I’m never gonna make music with a Topping D50S, but I know if I hear an annoying bass boost or snare or cymbal, it won’t be my systems fault.
Seriously guys, I just don’t wanna be rolling DACs, lol.
1 Like