While I think that discussion of music, as opposed to equipment is a refreshing and extremely worthwhile endeavor, I confess to being a bit perplexed by what the ultimate goal of this proposal might be. I don't really get it.
This is not meant to in any way offend, but I find it telling that in more than sixty posts, there has not been one mention of how all of the expressed opinions about this recording's or that recording's merits (or lack thereof), mentions of dynamics, brightness, obvious (or not so obvious) sense of space, etc., relate to the sound of real instruments played live.
The idea of a common listening bias was proposed a long time ago by pioneering audiophiles like JG Holt and Harry Pearson. And the most useful common bias has to be the sound of real, unmplified instruments in a real space. IMO this is not up for debate. What is the point of mentioning that Eric Clapton's "Unplugged" conveys more ambient information than The Weaver's Carnegie Hall, when "Unplugged", while it sounds very immediate and spacious, also sounds very tipped up in the highs, with way too much leading edge to the sound of the guitars? The Weaver's recording converys a far more realistic, and natural sound; compared to the sound of acoustic instruments, voices, and audience sounds, as heard live. What's the point of mentioning that a horn section sounds a tad bright, without answering the question: "compared to what?" Maybe it is, but have you ever experienced a great big band live? The brass section of a great orchestra? It can sound incredibly "bright".
I think the basic premise of this discussion is great, but I would love to see much more emphasis on how all of this relates to the real sound of live instruments and voices.
This is not meant to in any way offend, but I find it telling that in more than sixty posts, there has not been one mention of how all of the expressed opinions about this recording's or that recording's merits (or lack thereof), mentions of dynamics, brightness, obvious (or not so obvious) sense of space, etc., relate to the sound of real instruments played live.
The idea of a common listening bias was proposed a long time ago by pioneering audiophiles like JG Holt and Harry Pearson. And the most useful common bias has to be the sound of real, unmplified instruments in a real space. IMO this is not up for debate. What is the point of mentioning that Eric Clapton's "Unplugged" conveys more ambient information than The Weaver's Carnegie Hall, when "Unplugged", while it sounds very immediate and spacious, also sounds very tipped up in the highs, with way too much leading edge to the sound of the guitars? The Weaver's recording converys a far more realistic, and natural sound; compared to the sound of acoustic instruments, voices, and audience sounds, as heard live. What's the point of mentioning that a horn section sounds a tad bright, without answering the question: "compared to what?" Maybe it is, but have you ever experienced a great big band live? The brass section of a great orchestra? It can sound incredibly "bright".
I think the basic premise of this discussion is great, but I would love to see much more emphasis on how all of this relates to the real sound of live instruments and voices.