2. misc-audio
  3. 988653944

What s Your Frame of Reference?

Whenever I make a change to my system I pull out a select few records to evaluate the "upgrade". Gross differences in sound quality are fairly easily judged, but most likely the change in sound quality is subtle and better judged over an extended listening period. This is my problem: let's say I change something and on one of my reference records the trumpet now sounds a little more brash and upfront, maybe even bordering on harsh. How do I know whether the upgraded system is more accurately portraying the sound of the recorded trumpet, or has the upgrade merely added an upper midrange resonance problem? I have a good idea of what a generic trumpet (w/ and w/o mute) sounds like, but I wasn't at the recording session. The studio, the mic, EQ, recording medium, etc. all add an enormous amount of variables to what is actually recorded onto the record. If I judge the sound to be harsh and make changes to my system to remove the harshness, then maybe all I've done is make the system more pleasant, euphonic, but less accurate. The "live music in real space" paradigm is not particularly useful in that the overwhelming majority of the music I listen to is not of this type. Besides, the transparency of the audio engineering is still a variable. Ideally, I need a wide bandwith recording where I was present at the recording and which the engineer faithfully recorded the music. Unfortunately, I don't have such a recording. How are other dealing with this issue?
onhwy61
gregm
3,415 posts
 
Very true, Onhwy61. I use recordings, such as Chesky's "Ultimate Demonstration Disk" that give an introductory explanation of what & how we're supposed to hear the track that follows. Apart from the repetitive boredom, it can serve as a benchmark.
But then, as you say, nor was I at the recording session (or the mastering...)...
I wonder what others have to say?
Cheers
rcprince
3,085 posts
 
An interesting question. Gregm's suggestion of the Chesky disc is a good one. The Stereophile recordings have detailed notes as to what they think the recording sounds like, those are also helpful. Otherwise, I try to play well-recorded recordings, and a good number of them, from a cross-section of labels (Reference/Harmonia Mundi/Telarc/Delos/Decca, for example), to see if the component in question is consistent in its reproduction of the same instrument/vocal range, etc. from recording to recording and label to label. Not an exact science, of course. Some of the Delos recordings are of performances of the NJ Symphony I attended in the NJ Performing Arts Center, those are a good reference for me.
dekay's avatar
dekay
5,892 posts
 
I play a broad selection of CD's (some of them not being quality recordings at all). I focus on specific instruments (and even notes) but also on how the music sounds as a whole. I prefer that our system sound good on a variety of material instead of just sounding great on great recordings and not so great on run of the mill productions. Like I have said before "if Mitch Ryder doesn't sound half way decent, then it's not for me".
More to discover