The best reference is live music

The best reference in audio is live performance. 

That’s the only impartial reference, all else is subjective preferences (as you like it).

Personally, I do not chase “reality”, comparing live to recorded.  I chase personal “engagement” - Sonics that emotionally draw me into the music.

Absolutely, the bigger the tent, the better. Beautifully put.

@viridian 

Yeah, personally I think we need to keep the audiophile tent as big as possible.  Art never crapped on soundstage, he just didn’t rank it near the top of his list of priorities, and that’s pretty much where I am.  Tonality was his #1, as it is mine.  But when I turn down the lights, pour a scotch (or maybe a bourbon), and put on Waltz for Debby, I love hearing Scott LaFaro hard to the left, almost outside my sunroom.  It allows for that “willing suspension of disbelief” that is so important to me for maximizing my enjoyment of art. 

mdalton, agree completely, except that I find it a distraction and not very cool at all. We all have our preferences, probably why I am not an audiophile.

You can make a pretty strong argument that there’s nothing approaching a “soundstage” in most live performances, even in small venues.  To me the soundstage engineered into recordings for our systems is primarily to give us aural cues in the absence of the visual cues we get with live performances.  It’s artificial, but pretty cool.  That’s why some very sophisticated audiophiles - not all of course!! - are not fanatical about soundstage.  Art Dudley, one of my alltime favorites, may he rest in peace, was in that camp, I believe.  It also may be why some prefer mono recordings, and are not huge fans of Rudy Van Gelder (whom I love).

DSP & harsh sounding class D amps have ruined much of live music! In my opinion, unamplified music & some small venues like night clubs still can sound great & worth attending. The sound quality of every show I’ve been to in the past 10+ years in medium or large venues is awful, hard, not detailed or nuanced in any way & loose all of the beautiful body & tone of the instruments & vocals. Other than just wanting see the performers live, these shows are a waste of time & $. Almost any good midfi system sounds better & more enjoyable to much of the amplified live music today. 

After reading the comments here, it seems to me that the ideal differs among audiophiles. @ronboco stated: "I just want the songs I loved growing up to sound great on my system. Studio recordings almost always sound better than live music ."   This is a valid objective.  What he wants is to enjoy the studio recordings he grew up listening to.  Accuracy is not the measure, but rather his personal enjoyment.  Why should he sacrifice his enjoyment for someone elseʻs standard of performance?

There are those who feel that the ideal is to repeoduce as much as possible, what the studio engineer intended.  That would require the home system to reproduce what they had in the studio.  If it were before about 1990, Iʻd say that your  home system should be Altec 604 drivers in a sealed enclosure, mounted on your wall.  Studios today all use various nearfield monitors.  I feel this ideal is unrealistic because not all engineers mix to the same standards.

The original ideal of stereo reproduction back in the late 1950s was exemplified by Mercury Records and their space omni recordings, which are still held in very high regard today, tape hiss and all.  Iʻm an old Big Band trumpet player and my wife is a mostly retired professional classical violinist.  Iʻm a good musician and sheʻs the serious musician in the family.  The things I look for are a correct tonal balance first and imaging second.  Does that acoustic piano recording sound like a live piano in my home?

I run a custom set of open baffle Linkwitz Orion loudspeakers that really nail it for me.  Voices and ascoustic instruments are delivered with a clarity that to my ear, Iʻve never enjoyed more anywhere.  Other systems do image better, though the Orions do very well.  I very much admire what Iʻve heard from the Dutch & Dutch 8c.

I feel that the Voices of Music videos are helpful in comparing the imaging I hear with where the actual performers were located relative to the microphone array in the middle.  Itʻs a standard that speaks to my own ideals, and feel it would be useful for others who have a similar opinion.
 

nsh123, 

Exactly!  The thrill of immersion in an orchestra/choir dwarfs the home audio system.  You were close to the action which no audience member can get.  Even the 1st row isn't acceptable to me, compared to the stage.  I admit I am spoiled.

Detail is the entire musical content enabled by full frequency extension.  This applies to a solo instrument or singer as well as the large ensemble.  I really don't understand why a music lover would not want to hear as much detail as he could perceive.  Whatever music he enjoys, full appreciation comes with more information retrieval.  Nuances of dynamic gradation and tonal subtlety come from detail.  The goal of every performer is to present the music in a balanced, pure and detailed way which always lets the listener learn more about the music.  The 16 first violinists must all play precisely together for best clarity.  Less skilled amateurs lack the clarity of pros.  The cohesive detail suffers and some of the music is buried  in the extraneous distortions, akin to muddy audio reproduction.

This post reminds me of the profound effect of performing with an orchestra and then later confronting the recordings of the event! When I was in a fancy choir in college we got to perform on live TV with the Chicago symphony orchestra. The event was well put together. But I couldn't find a TV system back in 2004 that would replicate half of the experience. It was  a blur, and although you could tell it was a nice concert, the detail of the sound was just not there compared to my memory of being on stage.

This formative experience showed me the challenge of trying to squeeze the sound of something big into any kind of video playback system meant just to sound the evening news.

When I am doing my own mixes now, I think not so much of 'capturing the moment' as much as 'presenting something excellent' - Even if the recording does not match the room, as long as it sounds good, it generally keeps people happy.

@viber6 

I mean no disrespect but detail has never and will never be my top priority. But then, I don’t listen to big band or orchestral music, where the density of massed instruments presents much more of a challenge than small groups. 

@Stuartk Live music from a distant seat in the hall is radically different from where the mikes are.  The best position for full clarity and balance is the conductor's head--close up and centered.  I can enjoy music on youtube of 1930 recordings of my favorite musicians, forgetting about the sound, although even with those recordings, close mike sound is more musically enjoyable than more distant, muddy recordings.  Whether live or recorded, for me the priority is to hear the music with the greatest detail.  Often youtube has videos of solo piano with the score.  The piano score reveals lots of notes that are best revealed by recordings with greater clarity.  Most musicians strive to present interpretations with the greatest clarity and purity.  Even if his style is more vague, whatever it is, the recording should faithfully capture all his intentions.  Most of this is lost from a hall seat further away.  Try different seats--close and various rows back--to see what I mean.

Here we have the usual divide on display. We're all different, with different hearing, different rooms, different budgets, different tastes, different priorities and different experiences of live music. Seems to me the most important thing is understanding one's priorities. By this, I mean, what one finds most personally rewarding. I spend zero percent of my time thinking about whether my system accurately replicates live music. 

Some really contrarian views regarding sonic reality in this discussion.  Generally it’s assumed that we should attempt to reproduce the “real thing.”  But, I agree, that  is not practical or possible considering all the variables involved (such as position in the hall,  microphone placement and the like.  I believe what a recording should portray is an approximation of the sound that comes closest to the experience of the listener in the hall.  That is not necessarily what the microphones reproduce considering the above factors.

As a performing violinist, I totally agree with russbutton.  Thanks for posting Voices of Music.  Look at Vivaldi RV 278.  The video shifts from about the 3rd row to extremely close when you see the intricate work of the solo violinist.  The sound is like the 3rd row.  In a reverberant space like that, to me even this is TOO DISTANT.  Too much reverberation which destroys the clarity when the small ensemble is playing together.  When the solo violin is playing alone, the clarity is good.  But put a medium size orchestra of 30 on that stage, and the clarity would be awful.  It would be a muddy mess.  Forget about a larger orchestra in a typical larger hall, sitting further away than the 5th row.  Compared to my Audiostatic 240 electrostatic speakers with great class D SS amps, I have the experience to know that I get better clarity at home.  I enjoy only the 1st row center in a hall, just considering sonics.  Mikelavigne is correct on that point.  Row M is totally bad.

Admittedly, I have the privilege of playing in groups where I am close to my fellow musicians.  That is an unparalleled experience where I hear maximum detail and appreciate the tonal sensitivity of instrumentalists and solo singers alike.  One group is in a small church.  The chorus is stands in the back of the orchestra about 25 feet from me in the front of the orchestra.  The chorus is severely muffled and muddy compared to musicians close to me.  Another video of Voices of Music has a solo soprano singer.  There is way too much reverberation which buries her tonal sensitivity.  I am shocked and delighted by the opportunity I have to hear singers 5 feet away from me who demonstrate much greater clarity in the minimally reverberant 5 feet of distance between us.

@spenav + 1

I just want the songs I loved growing up to sound great on my system. Studio recordings almost always sound better than live music 

In the Eagles DVD concert "Hell Freezes Over", Joe Walsh and Don Felder (guitars) stood side by side making some inspiring music. It is easy to know which one is playing due to the 5.1 format and the visual clues on the screen. On the CD of the same concert however, the recording engineer made the decision to put them on opposite side of the podium. The effect was quite pleasing and unmistakably the right thing to do, for obvious reason.

I am saying this to say that: fidelity is not the be all and end all when it comes to music reproduction. We are not only dealing with science, but we are also dealing with art. While science is immutable, art is very personal. Add to that the fact that we don't necessarily hear the same thing and you would realize that whether your system does a good job at reproducing live events, while an interesting question, is rarely what keeps us up at night. Maybe we should try to answer this question: Is your system pleasing to you? I think the answer to that question will indicate whether we are still tweaking, upgrading or staying put and enjoying the music.

For me personally, I feel good that my system can recreate live performance but to be honest, I usually listen to music at a much lower volume than live music and usually sit in a more comfortable setting than a stadium or concert hall venue. At the end of the day, I couldn’t careless how the music sounds in real life, I listen to it only if it pleases my ears. These are my 2 cents and certainly doesn’t reflect how other music lovers feel.

I had  7th row center seats to the Oregon Symphony for a decade. 7th row is known as the audiophile seats because of the ratio of reflected to direct sound. In these seats the sound hole of the solo violinist is pointed directly at the seat as is the reflection surface of the piano. Instruments are distinct if played separately and blended when played. When the symphony is recorded, the primary microphones are nearly directly above these seats.

If you listen to recordings of the same concert you attended, you can easily hear the difference that the people in front of you make as opposed to being "hung in the air" above the seats.

This is an excellent way to work towards a natural musical sounding system That correctly portrays sound.

Since my time at the symphony they installed a multimillion dollar DSP sound system to make the symphony sound better. My system at home now sounds far better and more natural and more musical than attending one live. Which is way I stopped attending.  Sometimes technology is not better. I spent my career choosing appropriate technology for specific purposes, which sometimes means not to because it is too soon. 

So it goes. 

the idea is that the best systems tell us what the recording engineer wanted us to hear. sometimes that is live to 2 track and so locations of instruments do match the video or picture. but also this simple mic'ing technique might not allow us to hear the instruments very distinctly. in a perfect world we would have many mics all around to catch the individual instruments and also the hall effects plus perfect mixing and so we get placement plus the whole cohesively. hard to do.

and YouTube recordings have limited bandwidth, even though i agree many are very enjoyable.

a few years ago i attended a live Seattle Symphony concert of a work by a friend of mine. sat mid hall right in the center. row M. i enjoyed the concert, but the sound and detail was muddled. the bass was in and out. later my friend gave me a file of the recording of the concert i attended.

it was much more clear and laid out in my home system. the elements of the music and the bass was much more distinct and easier to follow and enjoy.

for sure this is an anecdotal case, and not always how it goes. but the live music experience is very inconsistent. at it's best it is much better than the reproduced experience. but it's many times not as good as far as the sonics and understanding.

i do agree when you add the visuals to the recording then there are insights to be found. i have a separate home theater system with Dolby Atmos 9.3.6 speakers and it can result in a fun experience. but for me the best sonic experience is my 2 channel when the performance and engineering of the recording is top notch.