What does listening to a speaker really tell us?


Ok. I got lots of advice here from people telling me the only way to know if a speaker is right for me is to listen to it. I want a speaker that represents true fidelity. Now, I read lots of people talking about a speakers transparency. I'm assuming that they mean that the speaker does not "interpret" the original source signal in any way. But, how do they know? How does anyone know unless they were actually in the recording studio or performance hall? Isn't true that we can only comment on the RELATIVE color a speaker adds in reference to another speaker? This assumes of course that the upstream components are "perfect."
pawlowski6132
Drubin, I've been at the front tables many times at Mahanttan's Blue Note. Yes, that close you can hear many of these things, but then what you get is a different sort of presentation, not one that is any more or less demanding of an involuntary bodily reaction. I think you missed my point: what made the performance last night "great" was not garnered by an analysis of the sound, but of the wholeness of the event, a point where musicians, audience, and material were all in near perfect unison. I've been to countless live events; things like that don't happen too often.

I've found over the years that getting that level of musical reproduction at home is very hard. When we try to get "more detail" or "more midrange warmth" or whatever is your fancy, it sometimes winds up becoming a "part" of our systems. But, if we get what we want then I guess we're happy with what we get.
Marco, I'm not sure that what I'm trying to describe really is hyperdetail. I've heard ARC and Quicksilver tube gear sound wonderfully clear and open, and with the right recordings will give you that "open window" into the tiniest transients recorded on a disc or CD. But I agree it's not necessarily the same as hearing it through SS. I think your last part has it; we tend to look for things in our high end setups that will wow us, even if we strive for some level of realism and natural presentation. So maybe the subjectivist view has some truth to it: it sounds right if it recreates music to a degree that is ultimately satisfying to us.

I don't know that I necessarily agree with that; it bothers the engineer in me.
Intersting post - as a psychologist (we study human perception) one thing that I am aware of is how quickly the mind bores of the same. We are designed to notice change and are usually pleased with it, if it is non-threatening. Variety is the spice.
So when they increase the lighting in a manufacturing plant 10% productivity goes up and everyone reports more well being. Then if they decrease the lighting 10% after a period of time, the same thing happens.
So perhaps some of what we are doing after a basic level of fidelity (perhaps defined as being able to transmit the emotional appeal of the music without distraction), is introducing small changes in our systems so that we can notice and delight in the music once again. Live performances being so much different is actually a good thing - it makes them special, represents a change, and therefore commands our attention once again.