What is the standard for judging a systems sound?


It is often said in these threads that this hobby is all about the music. That live music is the only meaningful standard for comparison when determining the quality of a stereo system. While these words sound good, are they really true?

A violin should sound like a violin, a flute should sound like a flute, and a guitar should sound like a guitar. Many purists will immediately say that amplified/electronic music cannot be used as a standard since a listener can never really know what the intention of the musician was when he/she recorded it, and what that sound should be.

Even something as simple as an electric guitar has multiple settings from which to choose. Electronic keyboards have hundreds of possible voices, so how does the poor audiophile know how the tone was supposed to sound?

These are valid concerns. Back to the purists!
“That’s why only unamplified classical music can be used as a standard!!!” On face value that looks like an acceptable statement. Consider some facts though. In my immediate family we a have several musicians who play a few different instruments. We have an electric piano (due to a distinct lack of room for a baby grand), acoustic guitar, Fender Stratocaster electric guitar, a nickel plated closed hole flute, a silver plated open hole flute, a viola, and a cello.

I have a fairly good idea how each of these instruments sound. One comment I must make immediately is that they sound a little different in different rooms. Another comment, which demands attention: when I bought my first flute I knew nothing about flutes. I began fooling around with it and enjoyed the sound. I liked it so much a bought a better, as mentioned silver open-hole flute. This flute sounded much better than the first flute. The tone was richer (the only words I can think of to describe the difference).

The reason for that background information is to show that the same instruments in different room’s sound different, AND different models of the same instrument have a much different sound!

If we audiophiles are using live unamplified music as a standard there are still several important issues, which must be addressed. How do we really know what we are hearing? What instrument is the musician playing? Was that a Gemeinhardt or Armstrong Flute. What are the sonic characteristics of the specific instrument. Stradivarius violins sound different than other violins, if they didn’t people would not be willing to pursue them so aggressively. Better instruments (theoretically anyway) sound better than lesser instruments. The point here is that different versions of the same instrument sound different.

I have seen the same music reproduced in different settings. I have heard string quartets play in a garden in Vienna. I have heard the Pipe Organ in Stephan’s Dom. I have heard Rock and Roll in arenas and Performing Arts Centers. I have heard jazz played in small one room clubs, not to mention the above listed instruments played in the house.

Each one of these venues sounds different from the other.

When I am listening to a selection of music at home, how do I know how it is supposed to sound? None of the LPs sounds like any of the particular places I have heard live music, while none of those places sounded like any other either.

There is no standard by which to judge the quality of live music since no two venues sound alike. If everyone were to go to the Royal Opera House in Covent Garden and hear Tchaikovsky’s Symphony No. 6 would everyone hear the same thing? Even if they did, and that one concert became the standard by which all other recorded music was judged, would that be translatable to allow the judging of all other music?

I have never heard a cello reproduced as well as my sons playing in the living room. I have never heard better flute players sound better than my own terrible playing at home.

So what do we audiophiles really use as the standard by which recorded music can be judged?
128x128nrchy
Nrchy: The way to know the difference between the mastertape and the original event would be to listen at the mic position during the original event - except that you can never know exactly what was captured on the mastertape without putting it through some kind of playback system that will distort it. And that includes the original studio's monitoring system, which may be no better than a good home system at representing the mastertape signal fed into it...

You would, however, gain insight into what the mastertape engineers and producers heard to work with.
This is a fascinating thread. It makes me wonder how equipment reviewers are able to describe the sound of any particular piece of euipment and what good, better, best means in the reviewing context.
Pubul57, despite the rhetoric about the standard being unamplified live acoustic music - a standard that (within limits) is still useful and admirable, and which I understand aspiring to - I think that in actuality, most gear is essentially reviewed in relation to other gear the reviewer has experience with. Which makes perfect sense to me, since the different sounds of components will all be more similar to one another than they will be to real live music (a large part of the reason for which has to do with the recording process of the source material fed them, BTW).
Zaikesman you are absoluely right about reviewers, both here are in publications using other gear as the standard. I don't think anyone's reference system is a valid comparison by which to measure new equipment.

No one else knows what your, my, or John Atkinson's system sounds like in the appropriate listening room. If I tell you that my new Klyne pre-amp sounds much more like live music than my old Krell pre-amp what good does that do anyone? I could be completely right and still not be making a statement that does anyone else a bit of good. For other gear to be a valid reference point everyone has to be familiar with the gear being used as a standard. Then they need to be familiar with the cabling and room in which the equipment is heard. No two rooms sound alike.

Live music is not a static target, but neither is anyone's refernce system. Zaikesman, how long has your system been the same? We neurotic audiophiles are in a constant state of flux. My system went unchanged for about a year, in the last month I bought a new pre-amp, and I'm in the process of buying new speaker cable. Nothing that changes so much can be helpful to others who do not hear that system. In the case of reviewers their system changes from week to week. How can any of them be used as a refernce. They don't even know what their systems sound like. They just know the latest interation of that system.

Zaikesman, I don't know that we really disagree in the essence of things. We both want our systems to be as good as reasonably possible, it's just that we have trouble locating a standard. I'm sure your mastertapes don't sound the same at home as they do at the mixing board or as the event in the studio. If you could actually use mastertapes you would definately have a leg up on the rest of us, but where do we stand in relation to the cello, flute or piano I hear at home?
Nrchy, I think I agree with your point about the pitfalls in using reference
systems as a point of comparison. But if you follow this line of thinking
to its logical conclusion, then it means virtually all of the advice given
within these forums regarding the sound of components is worthless.
You haven't heard my system in my room and I haven't heard yours.
What valid conclusions about sound quality can we really draw from the
words others have typed into their PCs?