Musicality vs Transparency & Detail

For me, the thing that makes music emotionally satisyfing is reproduction of Timbre. Whether or not your system gives you tons of detail and resolution, or a warm "musical" sound is not the final arbiter-for ME. A speaker that can present extreme detail may or may not get the timbre right. What is important (again-to me) is does an acoustic bass sounds like one does when you are in its presence as it is being played, does a clarinet sound like a clarinet or an oboe? Does that cello sound like a cello or are you in a quandary as to whether or not its a bass as its being bowed? For electric instruments some may say "Well, fine, but what is the true timbre of a Fender Stratocaster played through a Marshall stack?" That is a more difficult question, but again, if youve been around electric intruments played live, you hear a difference and know if the reproduction has that "right" sound. What I am constantly amazed at is this: the variables introduced by all our hearing abilities being so different due to physiology or age or environment makes one wonder at how there can be any standard to compare components against! How can Listener A say Speaker X presents detail in "extremely fine resolution", when Listener B may have hearing that is even more acute , and Listener C may have hearing that is incapable of perceiving that fine a level of detail? Food for thought.--Mrmitch

Mrmitch...that's why going to live music concerts is important. If one does, he/she will know what live music sounds like and is likely to replicate that in the home. All is lost if one's perception of music is from car radios, tv, etc. since there is not base for evaluation.

..I don't agree the timber is an important consideration, since timber is always affected by concert hall/venue acoustics, and the distance the instrument playing is from the audience. My violin sounds way different when I play it, then when I hear recordings of it... most times, the recording is better. The scraping, mechanical sounds are gone, replaced by the silkiness of the string itself.

I agree that timbre is critical and I do think you can evaluate it accurately at least to some degree. I believe the difference you're hearing, Stringreen, between the sound of your violin as you play it under your ear and that of the same violin on record is a matter of distance as you point out yourself. Having said that, accurate timbre and naturally presented fine detail are both important to me.

Being a violinist like Stringreen, I agree with his statements above completely .I would also add, I think that the violin and piano are the two most difficult instruments to record and get the sound correct. As Stringreen, I have played in symphony and chamber orchestras and have attented hundreds of solo violin recitals, and never to my ears does a violin
sound bright even in it's upmost register when heard in an accountic evironment. Yet, I have never heard a commercial recording of the violin that to me got the top end correct. They always sound bright, edgy,and with a thinner sound than when heard live.
Likewise, a concert grand piano can produce dynamics when heard live that to my ears is not reproduced on a recording. Also the top octaves of a concert grand produce a bell like quality when heard live and is lost or dimminished when recorded.
I know that listeners hear diferrently and each has their own favorite aspect of music that is more improtant to them than would be to others , but me as a musician,I have a very difficult time enjoying music that is bright ,edgy,or strident,on recordings when it is not when heard in a live accoustic event.