Evaluating a system - what do you listen for?


I have been in this hobby a long time and my opinion of what I want to hear in reproduced music continues to evolve. Having owned many systems - and critically listened to many, many more - I am now looking for an overall sound that as accurately as possible captures the tone and tempo of the music with enough of a bass foundation to convincingly portray an orchestra at full tilt or club beats while still nailing the timbre of an upright bass. Decent portrayal of leading and trailing edges is nice, and a high end that’s fully present and balanced without stridency is a big plus. Detail’s good, but hyper detail without musical flow can be distracting. Airy treble and pinpoint or large soundstage are also nice to have, but if what’s coming out of the speakers doesn’t make me want to tap my toe or cry a little bit when a vocalist holds a note just so, then what’s the point? That’s what I’m looking for these days - what about you?
Ag insider logo xs@2xknownothing
“The music is not in the notes,
but in the silence between.”

 Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart
knowwnothing
I think Bpd expressed himself very well with what is important to him. I think that different aspects of sounds are different for different people. They are drawn to different things. For me it is the timing of music more that a couple of degrees off tone, timbre, warmth or cool or frequency response. So after those thing are close for me the music has to bounce and groove naturally for me, on a micro level as well as a macro level, all of it altogether at the same time. And as music is played a lot of things make that up. I think Amadeus was eluding to that. I think the phrase 'starting and stopping on a dime' use to be kind of used for what I am saying. And it is not just the overall sound that needs to do it for me but all parts, all instruments, voices, hall/venue noises, etc.,  so it doesn't alter the timing for the completeness of the music. I think Bdp was a musician and I would think that probably is important for him to. I don't think it is easy for the reproduction of sound to do that real well. It can be likened to a not very good band to me. To me that is a big(huge)difference between live and reproduced. When it fits, it's tight, it's more right as a musical fabric, it is satisfying. Then the knit fabric of music paints a more colorful, emotional? picture to me. It fits all together much better. I think it effects those other things already mentioned( tone, timbre, warmth or cool or frequency response), for good reason, in the reproduction of satisfying sound. So in a roundabout way I am saying some of what Bdp did, and that is, I am most concerned in how I connect to the music on the system I am listening to. 
So I would take a spectrum of favorite music and listen. Takes note of how each piece, on each system, moves me and move in the direction that I like most.
Not necessarily audiophile approved, but satisfying for me. 
This is what I do not want:

Exaggerated high frequencies and etched sound = "detail", biting unnatural attacks = "fast transient response", unnaturally dry bass = "taut" and “tight”

This is what I want:

An emotionally accurate feeling of live, natural, sonics when listening to acoustic  music.

The  "You are there", feel of electronic music, that does not "add any distortion from the original performance, or take any away". 

A great stereo can do both!


randy-11  First, get the mids right...

Agree, I list to the piano first.  It has to sound right to me and it seems that it is the hardest for digital to reproduce.  After that violin, I have to know if I am listening to Sastradivarius violin.  Then space between instruments, vocals, placement and then TONE, TONE, TONE.  Front to back layering, left to right layering.  Decay of notes especially the piano.  Stand up bass has to have that wood sound.  I never found the sound I was looking for with what I could buy so I finally built my own DAC, preamp, phono and now amp.  Not to say there is nothing out there because I have not heard it all but I was swapping out components and cables, etc., and never found the overall improvement I was looking for (actually I never knew that something could be so different because I never heard it before in a system).  Even with people I know who also build or modify their own components, I heard better sound but not to where I am today.  What I found when building my own components was I learned what parts made a difference and how they made a difference.  So I can use that information to modify other peoples components as I do repair/modification work also.  It was a extremely great learning experience for me at least.  I was looking for my digital to sound analog.  Now I finally have that although the phono stage I build is also something special also.

Happy Listening.

 
In this order:
1] Driver integration (if that's not dead-on right, nothing else matters)
2] Total lack of treble fatigue
3] Tonal saturation (aka timbral accuracy)
3] Sufficient 'weight' across every frequency
4] PRAT
5] Dynamics
6] Soundstaging

...and the magic ingredient? If the system does not want to make me sing, tap my foot, or bob my head, it's a no go for me. Because why else listen, right?






I always listen for this first:
1) Vocals - Both male & female
2) Piano
3) Stringed instruments - Guitar, violin, harp etc.
4) Bass
If all this sounds right - then, depth of sound stage - dynamics & most important = Make sure to your ears that it all sounds real!
Do this as many times as necessary & then start all over again until you get it all 100% right!
Remember one thing: This is a uncureable disease!