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
Zaikesman I offer my condolences on your tube. I'm glad it wasn't anything more than that!

Interesting test you ran with your new amp,and the CD-R. You are right, you know what your guitar sounds like and you know the voice of the singer. I would be interested in hearing how both of you sound with the VTL's in place. Does your Fender sound the same as it does when you listen through your vintage Marshall amps?

I think many 'audiophile's' find it easier to enjoy car audio because their expectations are low. No one thinks their car is going to sound like a concert hall, so they just enjoy the compressed lifeless music of their choice. BUT at home we demand more. Which begs the question again, what do we want our music to resemble?
I know that neither amp, nor my system generally, could exactly capture the sound I worked to achieve in the recording and mixing of the sessions. For one thing, the control room at the studio we used was purpose-built with angled walls and ceiling plus extensive acoustic treatments, and floated an image better than any home stereo I've ever heard. Hearing the mastertape during playback was so often startling in its physical embodiment of our performance that it could be downright spooky. However, I'm not depending on my memory of those sessions for my verdict on how close my system can come - I routinely took home rough and completed mixes throughout the recording process at the time, and knew then that I couldn't completely recreate what I heard in the studio when I got home.

At this late date, all I'm doing is listening to final product over the two amps and comparing for which rendition gives me more of that feeling of recognition for my own guitar and the band I practiced with every week for three years. Also, I have an innate sense of the recorded sound I was stiving for in my production, and listening over the tube amps, I am satisfied I had come fairly close to what I wanted ; heard through the SS amp, I don't feel the result was as consistent with what I was attempting to capture - it sounds more like the work of a stranger. But this still a very subjective judgement and open to question, because I've heard this disk played back on my regular system many times since it was recorded, so I'm accustomed to this particular presentation.

And I still think the McCormack is a very nice piece, particularly for it's low cost, showing amazingly little of the negative qualities I was prepared to find in an amp of its type. Having it here definitely helped me get a better grip on what's going on, and what needs to go on, with my reference amps ; I've done several other gear upgrades or substitutions over the past 18 or so months, but it had been too long a time since I heard any of it through an amp other than my VTL's. (It's no accident that it took a SS amp to show me I was having some tube-wear issues.) I can only imagine the hilarity that will ensue whenever I get around to upgrading my speakers...

Oh BTW, I was playing a Micro-Frets though a Super Reverb :-)
Nate: Actually, there were just two songs from those sessions, which were issued on two of the annual compilation disks that get released for the Xmas holidays by a local charity against hunger to raise funds. All the tracks are donated by the bands, some of whom play a live benefit as well (which we did). The stuff wasn't audiophile-type material though - we played seedy garage rock...
It would still be fun to hear it! Are the CDs all gone? If not where could a person obtain one?

I've been thought of as seedy by several people in my life.