What is the standard for judging a systems sound?

I've enjoyed reading this thread immensely. I think the first post hits the nail on the head. Although I have a very large collection of musical recordings, I can honestly say that I have only experienced live performances by maybe 1% of the artists in my collection. I may be in the minority here, but reproducing a live event though my sound system has NEVER been one of my main objectives in assembling a musical system or enjoying it thereafter. Trying to guess what a live performance would sound like from each artist in each setting would be like chasing an intangible for me.

This is why I like this hobby so much. Everyone is in it for something different. The lucky ones that frequent live events have every right to attempt to recreate the experience. Others have never even been to a live concert, so to speak, and simply want to expose themselves to as many different types of music as possible through recordings on vinyl, tape or CD. Still there are others who prefer the intimacy and privacy of headphones and are accustomed to this sound that others consider "unnatural".

I believe this is one reason why there is still such a debate over 2-channel vs. surround sound audio. I have heard $100,000 surround systems set up by manufacturers at their booths and STILL do not think it sounds natural to MY ears. This is because I grew up listening to 2-channel and this is what my experience tells me the music should sound like through an audio system. I also prefer CD to vinyl (everyone cringe), but I have heard very good examples of both and still prefer CD. I think it's all about your comfort zone and what your listening experiences have done to shape your perception of what sounds right.

Ever go to a concert and listen to the guitar solo that you've heard hundreds of times on your home system and been disappointed at the way it was played or sounded live? Sometimes the recorded event surpasses the live, and maybe it's just because you're used to the studio sound and actually prefer it.

I don't claim to have the end-all of home theater setups, but I at least know that all channel levels are matched, and the sub is set to the appropriate level. Most of my friends and family are not audiophiles by any stretch. Visit their homes and they all have the sub cranked way up and the typical rumble sounds great to them. They always ask me why I have my sub level set so "low". Even though I know it's at the proper level, their preference is for the rumble-box sound that sounds better to them. They're used to it, and that is what sounds right to them. Technically, we could all fault their preference, as we "know what is right and wrong" in the way something sounds, but from a perception and enjoyment standpoint, why make them listen to something that doesn't sound right to them, just for the sake of being at "reference" level?

The same can be said about various forms of music and how a person evaluates their sounds system. Some would argue that classical or acoustic jazz recordings are the reference for judging timbre, soundstage, etc. It is true that many mainstream recordings are poor, but many enjoy the actual music and how it makes them feel without regards to how the treble was recorded "hot" or bass energy is extreme in the 40Hz region, etc. If a guy listens to Metallica and enjoys it, then he should build a system that will make him happy listening to Metallica. He would probably consider a 5-watt single ended triode amp to be a waste of money and a poor product choice, even though these are cosidered the Holy Grail in musicality for others. In this case, an old high powered Adcom could be considered a better amp than a Cary.

In any case, at the point when all I want to do is sit down and listen to disc after disc (or tape or LP) without the thought of what could sound better is when I have achieved the goal of my sound system. I've had glimpses, but never for long. Hopefully the day will come.

Sorry to be so long-winded.

And then there's the question of the different distortions added by the various microphones and recording techniques/machines used...

Of course Nrchy you are right in your critique, but there's still validity in the preference for acoustic instruments recorded live with minimal mic'ing in a real performance space, and with minimal alteration/processing during mixdown (or no mixing altogether). I won't go into all the possible reasons for this here, other than to say that it *is* very easy to hear for yourself that such records are usually far more revealing of the fine nuances of things like timbre and harmonic structure, low-level detail, and spatial cues than are recordings of electric instruments cut in multitrack studio settings. In other words, when I want to really hear what some change to my system is doing to the music, I always make sure to put on some more or less naturally-recorded acoustic material in addition to whatever else I might use, because quite simply it will show me the differences in the most revealing light possible.

None of which means that one can't or shouldn't use electric rock or whatever else to audition with, especially if that music accounts for most of what you listen to at home. Such recordings can and will be more demanding of systems in certain sonic areas where many acoustic performances tend not to be, and thus can reveal other qualities about a system. But what really helps is to keep the law of averages on your side, by auditioning many different kinds of music and recordings: If one system configuration can consistently give you a more natural impression - with more of your recordings - than some other system configuration can, than it's a good bet that system is, overall, providing reproduction that's closer to the 'truth', whatever that may be for any one given record. By the same token, utilizing a broad spectrum of recorded sources allows more accurate identification of any constant colorations or other distortions that are actually being contributed by the system itself. My own philosophy is of the 'master-tape' school of thought: The best you can strive for in a playback system is to 'accurately' portray what was laid down on the master-tape, as opposed to the live performance that tape was attempting to capture. Some will disagree, but I think that by trying to do the former, you are apt to get closer to achieving the latter on a more consistent basis. But you'll never get all the way there, or really even near enough for rock'n'roll...

One more thing: The very best, most revealing recorded source you can possibly use is the well-recorded speaking voice of someone you know well (not yourself! - we don't know what we sound like to others). But even this test only illuminates a relatively small portion of the frequency and dynamic ranges, and is not terribly complex or demanding a signal compared to group music. Its virtue is that we are intimately familiar with that voice as a reference, and that evolution has provided that our ears are most sensitive to minute variations in the human voice. The fact that this ostensibly simple test can never be satisfactorily met tells us all we need to know about what kind of chance we stand trying to reproduce live music convincingly.

Which is why, in my system, I don't try to. I just want my system to sound pretty good to me, meaning fairly uncorrupting of what my own sense about the 'correct' sound of decent recordings ought to be, with as little obvious sound contribution of its own as I can manage given my budget and commitment limitations. At the end of the day, if I can get close enough to where I'm not thinking about the sound of my system but just the music I'm playing, I really suspect that's all I can ask for. The funny thing is, this is very easy for me to do when I'm listening to a crap system, like the one I purposefully leave as stock in my car or my kitchen radio - I dial it in as well as I can, and then proceed to just get lost in the music, if it's good music. Only with the higher fidelity sound of the big rig do I tend to focus nearly as much on purely sonic attributes - is that self-defeating, or just the nature of the beast (or both)?

Exactly. Thousands of people think that Bose Wave Radios sound good, and good for them. They've found musical happiness. I'm just looking for a system that engages me and forces me to listen to the music, the phrasing of the artists, the sound of the instruments. That's pretty much all one can ask for, short of building a world-class concert hall and hiring an orchestra, jazz bands, rock groups, or whatever you want to listen to to play in it.

Zaikesman, that was one of the very best posts I have ever read here; I agree with everyone of your points.

Clearly, fidelity to the live experience is not the only meaningful standard, but it is most definitely a valid standard, and wether some can accept it or not, the most meaningful.

Nrchy, you make some very interesting points, but I don't quite understand why you dismiss the use of the live experience as the best standard simply because we audiophiles are not provided with enough information about the specific instruments involved in the recordings, or the sound of different venues. If we want to use the most meaningful standard, it is our job to familiarize ourselves with the sound of the different venues; and for the truly ambitious, the sound of different makes of instruments. A challenging, but not impossible task. You yourself have admitted to being able to discern the timbral differences between a Gemeindhart and an Armstrong flute. As the player of these instruments, you know better than most that the differences in their sound are not subtle; not to mention that the flute with the richer tone probably felt better to play and consequently, probably allowed you to be more expressive in your playing, which in turn allowed you to progress more as a player, which .... Anyway, the point is that I don't see how anyone can argue that the differences in tone, between those two instruments, would not be more faithfully recorded in an acoustic setting as opposed to an amplified setting. In other words, if you were to record the same twelve bars of the Bach E minor Flute Sonata on both flutes, first on stage at Carnegie Hall with minimal micing and no processing, and then in a club (or studio) playing into a microphone, which then fed a mic preamp, which then fed an amplifier, the resulting sound of which was then picked up by another mic which then went to the mixing board; which of the two different "standards" do you think will allow you to more reliably identify which instrument you were playing on?, barring performance differences, of course. I think it's a no-brainer.

There are timbral and dynamic characteristics in the sound of acoustic instruments playing in a live setting that transcend the differences in the sound of the venues that they are being played in; and I don't mean the differences in tone between different make instruments. I'm talking about the way that the dynamic and harmonic envelopes of instruments being played live interact with each other and affect pitch (intonation) and rhythm; subtleties that are obliterated to different degrees by electronic processing. Zaikesman's observations about the sound of the human voice are right on target. Nrchy, are you suggesting that you would not be able to make a judgement as to the fidelity of different recordings of the sound of the voice of someone that you know intimately, simply because they were made in different venues?

I'm not suggesting that one's approach to building a satisfying stereo system is dependent on using live music as a standard, or that there is anything wrong with electronic or amplified music. However, the truth of the matter is that acoustic instruments played live offer vastly more information to be potentially recorded than electronic/amplified ones do; more subtlety and complexity.

I think that every audiophile should own at least one acoustic musical instrument. Proficiency on the instrument is really not necessary to make this point. Take a decent guitar and strum the open strings. Fool around, pluck a few strings; first with a pick, then with your thumb. Listen to the differences in the sound of an open guitar string played first with a pick and then with your thumb. Really LISTEN! Strum the open strings gently and then aggressively. Listen to the amazing dynamic range; the amazing speed of the sound. Don't worry that you feel that you are just making noise; listen to the SOUND. Do this for a while, and then play on your stereo your best recording of an unprocessed/unamplified acoustic guitar; followed by your best recording of an amplified acoustic guitar in a studio. I rest my case

Back atcha, Frogman. I must say to you all, I was curious about Frog's forum history after reading his post, so I clicked on his threads and answers, and I thought it was notable that he boasts around three times as many responses in the "Music" catagory as in any other one catagory (which of course are all technical/gear-oriented). Now, *that's* an audiophile who's got his priorities straight!

(None of which is to suggest that Nrchy's points aren't very well taken.)