How to meaningfully audition speakers??

Dover, I agree completely with your comments. Personally, I think it's an unfortunate state of affairs. A few thoughts re some other recent comments:

- I don't understand the notion that because absolute fidelity is not attainable (it isn't) we should not bother striving for it. Makes no sense to me. I am not willing to "dumb down" the excellence in a minority of my recordings in order to make the majority sound a little "better". I suppose I am in the minority, but I like to hear how a performance was recorded; warts and all.

- We shouldn't confuse the emotional content of a performance with the emotional reaction that "impressive audio" can elicit. Dimensionality ("3D sound") in audio has nothing to do with emotion in music. When an artist performs he is not thinking about how "dimensional" his sound is going to be.

- As usual, when we discuss emotion in music we omit the aspect of music which communicates emotion: dynamics. Not how loud something is or can be, but HOW it gets from soft to loud and every micro-step in between. Is the increase (or decrease) in dynamics from soft (p) to medium soft (mp) every bit as exciting in its seamless (perfectly continuous) quality as the very loud? That is where emotion in music lives because that is what communicates a performer's phrasing and feeling. Then you have subtle tonal color variation which is a performer's second most important way of communicating emotion. If we don't strive for fidelity those things suffer; if only because the end result is not what the performer intended.

- Yes, there is a reliable reference: live, acoustic sound. Anyone who has not made a commitment to listen to a substantial amount of it on a regular basis simply has no basis for claiming otherwise. The idea that because we all have "different heads", different hearing apparatus, or simply hear differently the concept of a reference is invalid is mistaken. Think about it: sure, we each probably do hear differently. So what? If a given listener hears live sound with (for example) a dip at 10K cycles and an emphasis at 2K cycles, that listener will hear a recording of that sound with the exact same dip and emphasis; so, using live sound as a reference is certainly valid. Of course, some will be quick to point out that if we weren't at the original event we don't know what the recording is supposed to sound like. This is where familiarity with live acoustic sound comes in. The more we are exposed to it, the more "common threads" we learn to recognize no matter the venue, recording equipment, or recording engineer. The differences in sound between an oboe and an English Horn are obvious even over the crappy speaker in the elevator. Yet, that "component XYZ made those differences inaudible" as I have heard stated several times only means that the listener simply doesn't know what either instrument really sounds like. There really is no shortcut: if you want to really understand "accuracy" you have to attend live performances. Of course, not everyone has that as a goal.

Dover, you and Frogman are right on. I especially agree with the last part of Frogman's post: "The differences in sound between an oboe and an English Horn are obvious even over the crappy speaker in the elevator. Yet, that "component XYZ made those differences inaudible" as I have heard stated several times only means that the listener simply doesn't know what either instrument really sounds like. There really is no shortcut: if you want to really understand "accuracy" you have to attend live performances. Of course, not everyone has that as a goal."

People may not like to hear this on this board, but this right here is a large part of the reason why many musicians don't give an audiophile's opinions the time of day. It is a sad thing that not everyone has that as a goal - for a musician, no other reference point makes any sense. If this is not your goal, you are just sitting at home playing with your own toys, and while you might like the sound you have created, it probably doesn't even come close to what a musician would call "accurate."

What part of the "live event" is the reference? Certainly not what the musicians hear unless it's a string quartet sitting around in a circle. If you can't detect an oboe you might want to put the Kraftwerk away for a while. Most musicians would think most hifis that have been attended to and fussed over sound fine and seem accurate enough. I know a LOT of professional musicians, and most don't have "reference points" per se, and often they couldn't adjust a mix...some can, most don't care. Although it's rarely admitted to by audio freaks, you ARE just sitting around at home with your own toys, and that's fine. It's utterly obvious that actual live music makes you want your rig to sound good and if it does to you, you're there, but my main point is simply that there is no univeral standard that applies to taste. Except pianos...maybe...I love pianos...if acoustic pianos sound good on a hifi I'm happy.

In the last 3 years I bought a lot music on Bluray. Many of these are recorded in 24/96 khz. The sound is often stunning. My speakers let me play at extreme volums. ( 118 db spl) My subwoofer goes down till 16 hz. I like to play sometimes at very high volumes. And yess this can become very addictive as well. All my speakers use ribbon tweeters. You get a stunning level of acoustics of the room where it was recorded. This is an extra and important part for a more realistic performance just at home. What I mentioned earlier is that I love Diana Krall her music. The sound ( a Steinway does have his own sound) of her Steinway needs to be as it is in real. The Olive 06HD cannot only give you a very realistic sound, but also the palpable image it has. And the low freq. of the pedals as in real. There is one thing I have to say again. Instruments and voices are very small in dimension in real. This part is very important for an intimate sound of voices and instruments. I use this part to compare it with the same music played at bigger proportions of instruments and voices. People say that is is a lot less involving. So also this part is important for the emotion it gives to people. For example; I have a 24/192 kHz recording of Seal Acoustic. The number Colour is using a piano. I never heard the piano this clear and open as with the 06HD. Sound realism for pianos does a lot with your emotion That is why I hope to give demo's in the US as well to let people hear it. Because hearing is believing. It is that simple!

Hi Bo, Do you care to show us your system, in your room, that you can play at 118db? Which albums do you play that loud?

Bob