What is a "reference" system?

To me it is the system with which I use to compare other or new things.  If I am looking to buy a new component for this system, my second system, for a vacation home, or to recommend to a friend or relative, I (at least in my own mind), compare it to my 'reference system', where it I have the best I have assembled.  It does not imply it is better than any one else's system at all.

If one said 'my best system' would this be less off putting?

My system is my only system so it must be my reference system. It certainly sounds good but is it better than others? Tough to say. ;)

I have one very modest system. To me a reference system is someone else's setup. If it were mine, I imagine I would have to have several homes, audio rooms, 3 or 4 decent setups to call one reference, one that is the most balanced, neutral, not necessarily the most enjoyable but the one that would appeal to the largest audience. 

The obstacle though is, even if I have unlimited funds, I would make my one system the best. I don't know why I would have a 2nd system in my home?

@viridian  Just jargon used on forums. If we want to be technical it is a system that is targeting a standard. What standard that is that people on forums refer too, I have no idea

I have had my HRTF stuff modeled so I know my idea of neutral is a -0.75dB/Oct tilt from 20Hz to 20kHz. so, using room treatment, speakers that have the best baseline balance and using DSP to add finishing tweaks has helped me achieve this tilt in my 2.2 setup 

Reference also refers to how effortless a system can get to 80dBSPL sustained over a passage of a song and how it can handle dynamic transients which means distortion and compression rejection should be a good thing for that system to have.

Outside of the technical delta which defined the tolerance amongst humans for what is perceived neutral, anything that is said to be reference is just what someone personally finds appealing.

That’s my 2 cents though

Good question.

Unfortunately, it is used in more than one way. The most common is a highly resolving high end system.

I used to have a system that I was forced to call my reference system because it was so revealing. The venue and mastering was so obvious instantly on hearing a cut. I felt obligated to call it my reference system. I had it for a long time and used it as a reference for components and my other systems. Interestingly, I now have a much better system, and I do not call it my reference system. It simply sounds like music. The venue and mastering are not unnaturally highlighted as they were in my reference system.  

Technically, any system can be a reference system if it is your semipermanent system you use to make judgements on new (to you) components or against other systems. This is a really useful way to think about your system.

Professional reviewers have their own system, which they know really well, and which they will swap components in order to assess them. This is their reference system... inexpensive or expensive. 

Reference is critical in assessing something for which there is not absolute reference. Since you can’t bring in a symphony to your listening location and compare it with your system... a reference is a very useful.  

My reference is live music, not a system. 

A "reference" system is usually understood as a system on which a man with a Medicare card spent obscene amounts of money.

A ‘Reference’ system has nothing to do with being the “best”, it states a system you are familiar with. A lot of manufacturers put ‘reference’ in the name of the product to try to boost sales. Just like ‘Signature’, what does that mean in reference to sq? Would you buy a component just because it states reference or signature?

My belief is "reference" implies one has more than one system, and the "reference" is the best one. That may be the most familiar, or most revealing system. If one has only one system then that must be their reference system, regardless of price or sound quality. 

Yes, I also do think it is ridiculous- seems like bragging to me. Would a reviewer test a product without putting it in the "reference system"? Obviously not, so why then explain to readers at the onset of the review  it was tested in the "reference system" ? Simply list the other components in the system it was used with. 

Good point by @rbstehno 

Would you buy a Marantz reference series component?

I have moved on from that many years ago. Their sound was always restrained, not engaging enough, making it very difficult to be able to evaluate the complexities of music sounds and their projection. You really need to lift the veil before you can use a system as "reference" imo.

What some call a reference system, one might also call it a baseline system.  I believe that is more descriptive of its status to the owner.

When I was in high school my reference system was the AM radio in the dashboard of a '50 Ford driving eight speakers stolen from drive-in movie theaters.

@fastfreight 

like most things in audio, it’s a bs term, loaded with subjectivity.  To me it means the most in the context of a professional reviewer.  As in “…compared to my reference DAC, DAC X sounds…”

A "reference" system is your stereo system at home home that you reference when you are unsuccessfully trying to hit on that hot blonde at the bar. Seriously, it is a system so resolving and familiar to the owner that he can swap in a single piece of gear and immediately hear the differences in its sound quality from the piece that it replaced.

My reference system is my reference system. 

i dont know why so many people have jammed this up with BS answers. its VERY SIMPLE. there is NO AMBIGUITY to its meaning. 

an incredibly transparent, revealing system with  the highest  fidelity that acts as a standard for comparison (reference) for all other audio systems and media. 

in other words, the standard is so high that it its fidelity is more like a calibrated measuring device than a not. 

the phrase "reference system" can be used however one wants, but that doesnt mean its correct. 

@devinplombier 

lol. You may be on to something….

Thanks to all who played. This morning, I just cracked open my second bottle of Thunderbird (hey, it's a holiday), and it hit me. Thunderbird is my "reference" hooch. The one that I judge all other hooch by. Otherwise, I would never know how good Cisco, Night Train, Tango, Richard's or MD 20/20 is. I wouldn't even have an appreciation for Colt. So this reference stuff has legs. I'm in. Drink up folks and don't pull anything during your Easter egg hunt.

 Thunderbird is my "reference" hooch. The one that I judge all other hooch by. Otherwise, I would never know how good Cisco, Night Train, Tango, Richard's or MD 20/20 is. 

I have never heard of any of these names. I suppose I need a better frame of reference. 

By context, I have usually understood that "reference" means the system the speaker or writer knows best so as to be able to gauge other pieces of gear and recordings etc. It's not specifically a superlative but presumably people go to their best setup for that. 

Manufacturers use the term as a kind of superlative.  It implies the buyer will add it to their reference system I assume. 

People that think their system is "a" reference system rather than "their" reference system...well that is a different discussion I choose not to start today. 

@viridian - You forgot Wild Irish Rose.

A reference system is one that you've played your best and worst recordings on and are familiar with its capabilities. The payoff is, when you play some new music, and hear distortion or something funny, you're confident that your system is not responsible (fuzz is built into the recording, etc.).

Happy Easter! 

No, I mentioned it, "Richard's", short for Richard's Wild Irish Rose. You need to get some better hooch and become more conversant with the finer things in life.

I'm enjoying both the serious and humorous posts, here. 

Happy Easter to all! 

It's the one the other guy has that you can't afford.

Viridian:

Two takes on T-Bird...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xY7mBQrzXU&t=1s

https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=James+Mason+says%3A+Thunderbird+Wine+Has+An&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:4aa12539,vid:10oKb4xkwNI,st:0

DeKay

It is an indirect or a fancy way of saying individual has assembled one or more other audio systems in the house, but this specific one is the "reference' because it is sounds "better" than other system(s). This "reference" system in all likelihood has a dedicated listening space/room whereas other systems may be in the office, bedroom, work area/garage, home theater setup, etc.

I have two systems, one dedicated for audio only and the other for both audio and video. I don't call any one of my setups reference because that's all I got (LOL).

IMO, a “reference” system is just the one you have that you compare any new component, cable, footer, etc to.  If you have multiple systems, it’ll typically be the one you’ve put the most time into getting it to sound the best to you.  

Each of us has a reference system as it has zero to do with price of the components, their newness, or anything of the like.

Dekay, thanks for that! Well, if it’s good enough for James Mason, it’s good enough for me.

What kills me is that I have visited the homes of some of the old codgers...err members on this board, and you know what? They have all of this scratch but are buying old grape juice. Like real old! I’m talkin’ decades here. Well none of that for me. I want fresh hooch, absolutely fresh, like bottled last week. Then again, you see some of their hifi rigs and you know why they can’t afford fresh wine.

It all depends I what you are “referring to”. 
so you live high-volume outdoor venues, intimate jazz clubs, large auditoriums. 
can your system reproduce this in your living/music room?

if so, then you can say, “I have a reference system”. 😉

This thread caught my eye was because of an experience I had talking to a salesman on the phone about ordering an audiophile fuse to upgrade my system. I told him about my system and asked about the difference between one fuse and another that was more expensive. He told me that the more expensive one was for a “reference system.” I just let it go but it bothers me to this day…..what exactly is a “reference system? “ So, if the system you have is not a reference system, then what is.? I think most of you are answering that question, so thanks and may each of us enjoy our reference systems.  

Funny:

I prefer young bourbon and also young wine that has seen little if any "wood".

If you shop @ TJ's look for a couple of inexpensive "screw top" wines that have either a pig or a zebra on the label.

One is a Grenache blend and I forget what the other/cheaper one  is.

Both are quite good when left open in a glass for hours and/or given a quick jolt in a blender.

DeKay

It is the system you "refer" to when comparing it to others.

I still use a boombox in the garage. I have my desktop plugged into an old receiver and some small Yamaha 2 way speakers in the office.  I. have another system in the basement.  None of these I would call Reference.  My main setup is much higher quality and as such would be my reference when listening to any other systems.

It would seem to me that a reference system would be a system that was used, or similar to that used, in the mixdown of the track of the specific recording being played at the time.

For example, there can be no denying that LS3/5As are "reference" speakers regardless of size or price.

Everybody's system is "their" reference system. It's really that simple.

Fast freight said about all that needs to be said... "To me, it is the system with which I use to compare other or new things". Would that be fair comment?

+1 @fastfreight 

It’s a overused term, in reference to what 

a good middle ground Audio system is around $60 k  to start 

I have been in Audio over 40 years and weed a Audio store over a decade 

some have $1million reference audio systems that would be considered a true end game reference system .I would say for the majority of Audiophiles $30-40k 

then around $60k-$70k for the vast majority $100k 20% or less 

a Reference to your average price group  also diminishing returns

myself being retired are working this yesrs to have just 2 audio systems my speakers will be the last and most expensive part of the Chan, and not easy 

now a days v $15k is the lower end for a reference Loudspeaker , your $$ dollar buying power since covid has diminished by 25% on average sadly.

@viridian Thunderbird is "An American Classic" so well done sir! Lots of older grape juice here the problem is none of it is quite old enough yet. ;)

I think in its purest context, the phrase reference system simply means one with which the listener is very familiar and that can be used for easy comparison.

” what’s the word? Thunderbird. How is it sold? Good and cold. What’s the price? $.50 twice.“

When I hear mention of a "Reference system" or "Reference Speakers", I assume the terms are speaking about a system, (or speakers, as the case may be), that reproduces music in the upper percentage of a high-fidelity category for a given span of dollars spent.

In the higher (or highest) dollars spent for that particular group, the ‘reference system’ reproduces a flat, or near-flat sound reproduction without EQ enhancements and with a minimum of total harmonic distortion.

For example; within the higher (or highest) dollar category, I’m of the opinion that the McIntosh Power & Pre Amps would be a good baseline comparator.

They pretty much all have a rated THD of .005% from 250 milliwatts on up to the rated maximum power output. Those specification ratings would make the McIntosh line a “Reference System” for Class A/B & D amps.

In fact, I personally consider the specification of any McIntosh Power Amp and/or Pre-Amp to be a very good choice for the high-dollar category systems.

But not all of us have the tens of thousands of dollars needed to meet those specifications and match them with the additional comparable speaker system, turntable, cables, PSU conditioners, etc. etc.

As the saying goes, “A chain is only as strong as its weakest link”. Ergo, if you invest $6K in a Mac power amp and another $5.5K in a pre-amp, it doesn’t make sense to play your LPs on a ‘close-n-play’ turntable and ‘Walmart-brand’ speakers that you picked up in a clearinghouse special offer.  

The problem is that even if you buy components that all fall among the same category of rated specs, there are so many variables that can be easily overlooked and the system can be ultimately mismatched as a result.

Frankly, it can get pretty crazy and quickly spiral out of control if one becomes obsessed and overly focused on each component’s speculations alone!

While most of us probably couldn’t afford to shell out $150K for a personal home stereo system, I knew of at least two people who took out loans, (one with a combined 2^nd mortgage) for systems in the ‘top’ category.

I was much younger then and I’m pretty sure that at least one of them couldn’t afford anything close to what they bought were it not for his wife’s profession and earning power. Some years later I heard that they’d divorced over financial problems, (no surprise there).

So, IMO (and as several people have already intimated one way or the other), the “Reference System” has a ‘floating baseline’. It all comes down to a category/dollar-group that you can reasonably afford and ultimately, how well it sounds to you when you listen to it.

If you found that a collection of components you sampled sounded the best among all the other combinations in that cost category, that would be the “Reference system” to go by.

But regardless of the system you bought, if it sounds great to you for the money that you’ve spent to build it, then that’s all what really matters. Yes, you can bet that there are other people who have systems that sound better but you don’t need to satisfy them, just yourself.

FWIW,

Rich

"It is the system you "refer" to when comparing it to others."

@boxcarman - Bingo!  It is as simple as that.

The connotation has been misapplied to products by manufacturers and others to imply what might more accurately be described as a "signature," "flagship," or "premier" product.  In the case of audio systems, a "reference" might be more closely aligned with a "benchmark" (not the company) in that it is something to compare to, but should not be mistaken as SOTA, which itself is not a fixed point, similar to wine, art, and other things that are subjectively judged.

i didnt read any of the post prior; i did not want a bias...reference is what our ears tell it is to each of us....and our wallets....we all know of the multimillion dollar systems that some have...that is their reference...then there are those of us who have Best Buy reference, which is "good enough for government work"...so to speak....then there are those of us, which aspire to true high fidelity...hopeful to one day attain what we feel is reference, always knowing we are falling short...either in a cable, an inner connet, or a component, a stand, isolation gizmos....whatever...but I for one aspire to the Wilson Audio Alex VFX speakers (but had had to settle for the SashaV for now: and aspire to dual mono 330M tube aamps from Audio Research, but have had to settle for dual mono EVO 400 tube amps from Prima Luna......and have desired the Shunyata OMEGA class of speaker cables, but had to settle for SigmaX; and wanted OMEGA class XLR cables and had to settle for THETA (oh, but what value and performance)...so, we settle for audiophile common sense sometimes and wallet/bank balance...I have my current reference system in place and it sounds fantastic.....but the dream is the ARC equipment and more Wilson Audio......the reference is the desire to the motivation to strive forward, make some money, and buy more equipment of better quality...but....for the time being and just under $100K, my system sounds good enough to me....one can spend millions, or thousands, or a few hundred and it's the music that matters.......given a few beers, even a boom box sounds like reference...

Is playing a brilliantly designed acoustic guitar a reference? It's in my lap and sounds different to me than to somebody who isn't playing it. Live music generally involves sound reinforcement using the ears of a sound mixer (like me...a certified old person), or reflections from a concert hall or the bald head of the guy in front of you. Do people listen to to live string quartets or jazz bands while lying on the floor between the musicians? You risk being stepped on. To me, a reference is what sounds good to me from whatever source...it's clear, coherent, and makes sense...if it doesn't make me "think" the sound is appropriately balanced and well played it isn't gonna make me feel good about it. Not reference-ish enough maybe. 

A reference system is a combination of components that provides a standard or baseline for comparison for determining the sound quality of a new component that is introduced into the system.  While some believe that the definition of a reference system includes subjectively the “best; most resolving; most neutral; most expensive” components, this does not necessarily fit with the idea of establishing a standard or baseline for the comparison of other components.  In addition, some believe that a reference system includes subjectively a system that reproduces sound most like acoustic, live performances.  While admittedly this is one of my goals for my system, personal preference and subjective interpretation does not enter into establishing a reference system.  If you survey the systems of some authors in the trade rags, some have the most resolving or most expensive reference systems but others do not.  So, a reference system is basically your system if you have established a perception , goal, standard or ideal of how you believe recorded and reproduced music should sound, and have developed excellent listening skills that permit you to  understand how your system sounds in comparison.  Then, you can introduce new components and compare the change to your reference.  

The ideal "reference" system would be that which is the most heard by the most recording engineers/people so that most everyone would have a common ground on which to base their opinions (i.e., a point of reference).

This is why I had previously alluded to the LS3/5As because most all British music is mixed, or at least sampled, over this set-up and most engineers would be familiar with the sound.

An American "reference" system would then include the likes of Altec 604s/JBL 4333s, at least for 60s/70s/80s music.

While not current state of the art, these were purchased from a recording studio and even at >45 years old this would qualify as a reference system.

https://youtu.be/iGa9259pz-I

 A reference system is defined by two factors:

 A--- The sound of  live acoustic instruments or voices experimented by each one of us in our life...

 B----Then the way the system room is acoustically designed for ONE listener to translate the recording in the best acoustic experience...

Great hall acoustics  dont use the principle and concepts  of acoustics for all listeners ears sitting in different position  in the same way a dedicated room did for the owner ears in one specific location...

Same acoustics science very different application...

There exist as many reference system as there is pair of ears...

A reference system is not about money and only gear pieces but about their acoustical embeddings...

the fact that some piece of gear are "reference" does not define a reference TOP system...

Well, I know you said you didn't want to open it up regarding YouTuber reviewers, but Hans Beekhuyzen has three "reference" systems. In his world, "reference" means three price points such that all components in each system are matched to each other in price.  In other words, he doesn't put a $10K DAC on a $1K integrated amp and $500 speakers. And yes, at each of these three price levels he switches review pieces in and out and lets you know what he hears and which system they are most likely a good fit (or not). 

There is no such thing as a reference system, when you don’t know the ins and outs of the recordings you have in hand.

Live music from the same band even is what it is...but, you weren’t sitting with the band in the studio or know anything about what all happened with the mastering apparatus.

My reference is live music, not a system.