What is the standard for judging a systems sound?

I find nothing disingenuous in using recordings of unamplified music as the most valid test of a stereo system's accuracy; to the contrary, it is quite logical to do so. Why this is not obvious to some, I can not understand. Yes, everything that Onhwy61 says about the distortions added to music along the way to becoming a cd or lp is true, but does it not make sense to use recordings that have the least number of these deleterious variables? These are, without a doubt, recordings of unamplified music, recorded by a good engineer. Have we forgotten what it is that makes the classic RCA's, Lyritas, London's etc. great; minimal miking, minimal processing and a commitment to preserving the sound as heard in the hall. Yes, you can most definitely hear the characteristic sounds of different venues on good recordings. The sound of Carnegie is easily heard on many recordings, as is the sound of a club such as The Village Vanguard. If you doubt this, spend a few nights at the Vanguard and then listen to Bill Evan's "Waltz For Debby" and tell me that the characteristic sound of that historic, funky little club is not all over that recording. This is all valuable information that serves to test a system's fidelity.

Moreover, a system that does a good job of reproducing unamplified music will IMO do a superior job of reproducing amplified/processed music; assuming fidelity to the master tape is the goal. I have heard many high-pedigree systems that sound "really good", exciting on pop, rock, and even on alot of contemporary jazz, then you play a recording of a large string section in a hall, and OUCH! strings don't sound like that. Usually way too much high frequency content that makes the instruments sound screechy and thin.

The really unfortunate thing is that as audiences for live, unamplified music become more and more scarce, the standard for judging true high-fidelity will be diluted more and more. Is it really that important to adhere to such a lofty standard? Probably not. Music is about emotions, and ultimately, as was stated above, if it sounds good to you that's what really matters. But let's not be cynical or judgmental of those who acknowledge that such a standard does exist, and that ii is worth pursuing.

Happy listening.

Frogman, what I am saying is that a listener can only have a general idea what the original recording sounded like since there are too many variables in every concert.

What type of violin did the soloist play, what type of flute was each flutist playing, what are the accoustical signatures of that hall? How many people were in the seats (since this will affect the sound)? You as a listener cannot answer these questions so you cannot possibly know what the recording should sound like.

Frogman will respond with; I know what a violin, flute, or oboe sound like! Yes in general you do know what each sounds like, how about the specific instrument being played in that particular room.

I have never been to the Vanguard, so I like most people who have ever lived cannot make any determination if a particular recording should sound the way I have heard it.

If music sounding good is the standard, upon what is that standard based? It isn't live music, since your system will not reproduce music that well. That statement is not a condemnation of Frogman's system, I would say the same about Albert Porter's system which is probably one of the best ever set up!

On certain recordings if I listen hard enough, and use my imagination the music sounds magical, but it still doesn't sound like there is a musician sitting in front of me playing his/her instrument and singing just for me. I wish it did, but...

Nrchy, I must say that I am confused by your take on this subject. You pose the question "What is the standard...?, not once, but several times; yet you won't accept an answer that is in fact eminently logical and practical. What is your answer to your own question? That there is no standard to be used? Unlikely. If so, why ask the question?

The easiest answer is in fact that "if it sounds good to you...". Why? Because music should not be overly analyzed. Music is about emotions, and (I'm thinking about another thread currently running right now) if a listener cannot be moved by good recordings of say, Mahler 5 or Billy Strayhorn's "Blood Count" on a "boom box", then there is too much preoccupation with the gear and not enough openness to the music.

However, and it's a big "however", audiophilia is a hobby, a very noble and rewarding one, but a hobby nonetheless. And an intrinsic part of this hobby is the quest for perfection in the reproduction capabilities of one's system. I think that most reasonably sober audiophiles acknowledge that this "perfection" will never be achieved, but the quest for it sure can be fun and if kept in it's proper perspective can enhance one's enjoyment of the music immensely.

I am impressed by the fact that you seem interested in the search for a standard. I'll say again. IMO live unamplified music is the best standard, if a standard we must have. I don't see why you let the questions of "what kind of instrument is being played" or "how many people are in the hall" etc. become road blocks in the acceptance of the live music standard. Clearly, these things will affect the sound of a recording. So what? There are far more aspects to the sound of music that characterize acoustic performance, that are far more important, in the scheme of things; generic traits of live sound, if you will. Complexity of timbre; something that is seriously diminished by the amplification process. Microdynamics; where a lot of an artist's expressive subtlety is manifested. And many more things; some that can be described easily, and many that defy description. The more live performances that a listener attends, the more these things become obvious; this is the key.

It really doesn't matter if you don't know the "sound" of the Village Vanguard, although, obviously, it would be ideal if you did. But if you played "Waltz For Debby" on two unfamiliar systems (or components) and one let you hear clearly that there is quite a bit of distance between the bandstand and the bar in the back, where a tremendous amount of glass tinkling and conversation is taking place, or that the slightly hooded sound of the piano and cymbals is classic "ceiling is too low" sound. While the other system masks these qualities and makes the instruments sound as if recorded in a studio, and the voices of the rude audience members sound as if they are right on stage with the musicians. Guess which system I would pick as probably being more faithful to the original event? On the other hand, if this music had in fact been recorded in a studio, with the inevitable reduction in complexity of timbre and absence of any natural ambience, combined with all of the "judicious" use of reverb and "natural" panning choices; not to mention the reduction in groove factor caused by the players having to listen to each other over headphones, as opposed to being connected by the same acoustic. What would we be able to tell using that recording? Not a whole lot IMO. Can it still sound good? Of course it can. But we are talking about establishing a benchmark for the hobby.

Anyway, I'm finding that I am repeating myself. Ive enjoyed reading and contributing to this thread. I would encourage everyone to check out Harry Pearson's (The Absolute Sound) writings and opinions on this subject. While some here will dismiss him as a pompous ass, IMO he does as good a job of dealing with this subject as anyone I have ever read.

Good Listening.

Above, I said I wasn't going to try to go into detail about *why* 'naturally'-recorded live acoustic music might make superior audition material. But it seems to me like one of the main reasons should be specifically addressed at this point. From the comments so far, I make the observation that most of what we're talking about seems to boil down to questions of tonal balance, and the timbral signature of any individual instrument's (or voice's) unique harmonic structure. All of this is valid, but let's not overlook the issues of phase and time.

Only in minimally-mic'ed live recordings do we get a good portion of the original phase and time relationship information preserved in the document. Despite our lack of familiarity with the actual instuments and venue used, our ears can still make use of the phase and time coherence captured. This translates - provided our systems can maintain and transmit the information mostly unscathed - into a better comprehension of spatial relationships and transient events.

In typically multi-mic'ed, multi-tracked studio recordings, where there might be no one original performance captured live, this information either doesn't exist in a relational sense (as in the case of purely electronic 'instruments'), or is distorted, or is in conflict between the various elements in the cut, or is artificially manipulated in the mix, or very likely is a combination of all of the above. The result is a playback performance containing no coherent spatial or transient unity to reproduce, which yields a muddled message no matter how we might try to configure our systems for convincing effect.

So, only if program material succeeds in capturing some of this original performance integrity which we would hear live (no matter what the venue, or where we were inside it), will a recording be able to illuminate much about what our systems might be doing to transmit or corrupt it. This is especially valuable for assessing transducer performance, and for investigating speaker/room set-up possibilities, but can be helpful for listening to the spatial and temporal linearity of any device in the playback chain. No, you still won't be able to know exactly what the original performance sounded like, but you'll still be able infer more about what your system is doing, because your ear/brain can detect and interpret a coherent signal, and therefore recognizes compromises to or absence of same.

Zaikesman it seems like your approach is a little different than a lot of people. People either pretend that their stereo sounds like a room full of musicians, or they say "it sounds good to me." You are trying to go from some kind of standard. What nrchy is saying is that real live music doesn't sound like what we get in the listening room. The group that stands out is the one that says "It sounds good to me." What does that mean? That is not fidelity, it sure isn't High Fidelity! The purpose of High Fidelity is to closely resemble the original event. If it doesn't resemble the real event it is not high fidelity.

...an dats da name a dat tune.