How can a system be judged with highly processed, non acoustic music?


I basically know what an instrument or human voice sounds like. I understand that almost all recordings, analog or digital, go through some level of processing. I also know that there are many, many recordings which strive to present a natural, real sound. To me, I can best judge a system playing lightly or non processed acoustic music.
This is also my preference for listening in general. And for me, it is vinyl.
mglik
Of course it’s possible to judge a system’s sound using highly processed non-acoustic music. The question is not whether it can be judged, but whether one’s goal is to achieve a sound one likes without any aspirations to meeting any particular standard of fidelity; or, whether it is to achieve a sound that gets as close as possible to the sound of acoustic music. It’s not the same for everyone and, yes, no matter what many think it is possible to have acoustic music as a real and very useful standard.

To throw in the towel because timbre is altered by the first microphone is, in a way, a little like saying: “why should I shower at all, I’m just going to get dirty again”. Point is, of course the process of choosing components that, in combination, best mimic the sound of live acoustic instruments is imperfect. Of course that first microphone alters timbre as well as other aspects of the music. However, the goal is to choose pieces and combinations of pieces of rec/playback electronic gear that does the least damage; and some do a much better job than others.

Its become popular to dismiss the use of a sonic standard and there certainly is nothing wrong with simply aiming for what “sounds good” to us for whatever reason. It is obviously a personal thing. However, with enough exposure to the sound of un-processed acoustic music it becomes possible to form an aural “database” of the characteristics of unprocessed musical sounds that let’s one be a better judge…..if that is one’s goal. Ask yourself this question: how is it possible to tell that the friend or loved one on the phone is getting over a cold? Shouldn’t all that “processing” and crude playback device make it impossible to tell; never mind, tell who it is? Familiarity with the sound.

My experience has been that building a system that best reproduces unprocessed acoustic music allows processed music to sound best. However, “best” for me may not be best for someone else. With processed music, “best” for me also includes being able to hear the warts in the recording that were the result, at least in part, by the choices that the engineer/producer made. The fun part is to be able to tell if Phil Woods is playing his Yamaha or his Selmer alto saxophone. There is no professional mic that will do so much damage that it becomes impossible to tell.
Most music today is NOT worth listening to....let alone purchasing. The Days of quality music and recording are long gone. A sad state of affairs, and a reflection of society today really....I long for the good old days, hence why I choose to live in the past in this regard. I have my own time machine....I will temporarily transport myself to wherever, old records are my vehicle....tonight I'm going to Gay Paris....
Martin or Gibson guitar?
Strat or Les Paul?
Normally, an acoustic guitar player does not electronically alter.
But, perhaps an ultimate test is whether or not a piano sounds “right”.

On the first Stereophile Test CD they have a track where JG Holt reads from a Stereophile  and is recorded in mono by about 15 different microphones including Shures, AKGs, Neumans, Telefunkens, etc.  It's not hard to tell when the microphone changes.

So I would say that what you are doing is making your system sound most natural to you.  It may not sound most natural to someone else who uses different minimalist acoustic recordings to determine natural.
On the first Stereophile Test CD they have a track where JG Holt reads from a Stereophile and is recorded in mono by about 15 different microphones including Shures, AKGs, Neumans, Telefunkens, etc. It’s not hard to tell when the microphone changes.

So I would say that what you are doing is making your system sound most natural to you. It may not sound most natural to someone else who uses different minimalist acoustic recordings to determine natural.
What you just said about mic is right but you miss the important point about what is the difference between natural non electrically amplified instrument and voices timbre recognition in the database set of our brain species...

Natural human voice listening is the better test for an audio system....unamplified piano is good...Because of the sum of all the subtle cues there is associated with them...

Electronic music is the worst choice to determine more objectively if a system is good or not in a comparison implicating many people...

We dont speak about OUR  taste here we speak  acoustic...

 Anybody could prefer moog electronical music over opera singing for sure....Saying that is saying nothing....