What is your listening bias


Quite frankly, I've stolen this idea from TAS. The question entails:
1. What points are important for you, when listening to reproduced music. ( soundstage, proper rendering of mids, highs, lows, transparency, dynamics )
2. Where are you prepared to compromise and where not.
3. In the building up of your system, how much a role has the mnestic imprint of live music played a role.
4. In how far are you prepared to voice your system and shape its sound to reach your goal.
5. Do you give more weight to the fact, that your system has been built up according to the precepts of scientific reason, or do you rather trust your own ears and aural predelictions?
For me, I've always attemted to recreate the sound of indidividual instruments as closely as at all possible, be it as a solo instument or playing tutti. For me a violin should sound like one, an oboe like an oboe, brass like brass etc and I've been willing to sacrifice a bit of soundstage to that end. I also like voices to sound as natural as possible. If neccessary I'll shape the sound of every recording to meet my tastes and expectations. Dynamics are also very important and the proper rendition of transients, especially in the p to ppp section. So transparency is equally important. So far, I've found the old shady dogs and early mercuries to come closest to what I expect from a good recording.
detlof
Great topic, excellent replies everyone....Timbre and pacing start it for me but all of the above is important and I agree, live is live and all we can do is reprduce what is on the record....the end result can be pretty amazing and darn satisfying....Well, time to shovel more snow....cheers everyone
Nice thread Detlof. I wish we would talk about music more.

Garfish and Detlof agreed. Imperfect as reproduction is: if your "drawn into" it as Detlof says, or if the reproduction makes you want to "get up and dance", as Garfish says, well, I think you have succeeded. It doesn't much matter what we call it or how we label it at that point.

"Talking about jazz is like dancing about potatoes"

Who said that?

I am having a brain cramp. But isn't it true in a way? Charles Mingus? or was it Potter Stewart?

Sincerely, I remain
When I listen to the music I first pay attention on the musician's performance and/or it has to be the music I love and listen to every day. That's where I can compromise to the recording quality. Genesis(P.Gabriel) is the clear example to it. There are almost no album that is recorded descent, but I love that music.

Then I really appreciate it more if it's well recorded and reproduced.
From my system I expect no fatigue during the long-time listening.
I do first the scientific research before building or upgrading. I am interested in what parts have been used in the component that I want to get.
Hi Marakanetz, I think I know exactly what you mean. I have a similar example taken from classical music: Claudio Abado just recently did a musically seminal recording of all of the Beethoven symphonies with the excellent Berlin Philharmonics on Deutsche Grammophon who did an attrocious and outrageous multimiked hatchet job on it, which first got me livid with rage until I became more and more fascinated by Abado's rendering of the 5th, which made the audiophile shut up and the music lover (thank you Sean) come forth. These, I suppose are those moments of truth, were you can find out for yourself, in which camp you are basically at home!

And yes, Clueless, I also wish we could talk more, on music and all the rest. Besides, I like your selfirony and your fine and sometimes wonderfully caustic wit! Cheers,
Detlof, Mich atzend?

"A guy who wants to play a tune and only knows one note is going to blow hard sometimes." John Coltrane (or was it Potter Stewart?)

I remain,