when evaluating stereo systems, should the performance of the stereo system itself be the reference point, or should the listener be the basis for the evaluation ?
if the instrinsic quality of sound is the basis for judgment, then such concepts as transparency, neutrality or accuracy might be the standard for evaluation.
otherwise, the listener would be the sole judge and whatever criterion, be it based upon sonic considerations or physiological/psychological states, would be the deciding factor.
whatever approach is selected, what is the justification for either one ?
Well, I say one more round of drinks and then on to business. Mrtennis, on the more serious side, it is both. Remove either the stereo system or the listener and you have no evaluation.
Mr T, your question is as unanswereable as the question 'What makes for good music' Is it the technical prowess of the musicians or personal taste as to the melody, harmony, rythm etc..
Unanswerable. Heard that before? I love my rig and think it's better than good, but you may not think so...Our audiophoolish ears just don't appreciate equally....just finished Swann's Way. Much easier to write a treatise on Proust's way than answer your question. And least, one is answerable.....
i think the thread is asking a basic question which can be asked of other endeavors, namely, are there objective standards for evaluating quality or is it all subjective, in which case, it's just a matter of opinion ?
i would like to have a rational discussion, if anyone is interested.
Mrtennis, your asking for a clearly defined answer to a question that most audiophiles cannot give the definitive answer to. Any answers you get are subjective. You already know that given the variables involved in any system and the average listener coming in with his expectations & experience will differ from one person to the next. For that reason nothing is written in stone. Therefore it "is" a matter of opinion. Evaluating quality requires some experience as you know but even then may not be what the next guy considers quality sound. A similiar question would be, what came first, the chicken or the egg? This question would involve an endless debate as does this one & cannot be taken seriously. My attempt to address this question originally made me curious to the responses you might receive. Anybody else?
It is most certainly all subjective. The idea of "High-Fidelity", or being 'true' to some objective concept of what the music is "supposed" to sound like is both absurd and contrary to what the enjoyment of music, or any art form, is all about. More to the point, it just doesn't matter. It reminds me so much of a dog chasing its own tail in circles. The ultimate goal for me is when the gear gets 'out of the way' and I no longer pay any attention to it at all, and am totally absorbed in the presence of music. My idea of what that sounds like is likely going to be somewhat, or completely different to what someone elses idea of what that sounds like might be. The same way you might choose a different tennis racquet, different auto, different flavor of ice cream than someone else...whose to say one is "better" than the other in objective terms. Each may suit a different individual and become the 'best' in their experience...whether or not some collective somehow decrees one or the other widget to actually be the very "best" widget, really should not matter one wit to anyone. Find your own "best" - you are human after all and cabable of your very own set of distinctions, and certainly prone towards making meaning out of everything you experience.
for me, the closer i get to the sound of an instrument in a live setting, the happier i am.
Then spend more time listening to live music.
You're subject is the reproduction of that music by an artificial means. First off, what music sounds like in a live setting may be different to you than it is to me. It will certainly be different depending upon the setting, where you listen from, live mixing, the crowd, the room, your mood, blah, blah, blah. Sometimes live music can sound simply horrible, as we all know, and we wonder why we spent the coin when we could be more moved by the same music on our own system at home. It happens. It all comes down to subjective opinion...what makes you "happy" may not be what makes me "happy". That said, yes, I think I agree with you on some level that what one of the things that engages me most about my system is the illusion of a 'realistic' presence. I don't know that brings us much closer to some objective definition of "good sound" though but I suppose it's something. Again, it becomes subjective...those qualities in a system that make music sound "live" to you may be quite different to those that I am engaged by.
Marco: Accuracy isn't subjective. Personal preference, obviously, is subjective, but many of us don't care what someone else thinks "sounds good." That person may like exaggerated bass or treble, which is not at all true to the source. Or that person may simply not be qualified to judge a system because he or she has no idea what an unamplified instrument sounds like. As John Dunlavy noted, much of this actually can be measured. Good -- meaning accurate -- sound really isn't such a big mystery.
I noted your post to Marco - I can't help but wonder how you judge a system to be 'accurate'. You say it "really" isn't such a big mystery".
Why don't you explain to those of use who want accuracy, but have a hard time being sure we have achieved it, exactly how you know when your system is in fact accurate and not just a sound you personally prefer.
Newbee: Compare it to a reference: live unamplified vocals or instruments. In addition to possessing the obviously necessary hearing acuity, a person has to have reference points. He or she has to know how instruments really sound. Then find albums or CDs that have minimal processing and see how it compares. Nothing I've heard matches the live event, but the best systems can recreate a decent illusion. Sometimes it takes an adjustment period to appreciate a more accurate system.
9rw, Gee, that sounds very simple. But, unless I was actually in the recording studio during the performance how will I ever know what the performance actually sounded like before it hit the mikes?
When referring to 'he or she knows how live instruments really sound' do you mean from within 2 feet, 20 feet, or 100 feet, seated or standing, in what kind of venue?
In one's own room it would seem that the distance between you and a vocalist, for example, would not be nearly the same as in a live performance. Even in a small club you're going to be 20 to 30 feet away from a vocalist and to make the judgment more difficult everyone has a mike in their mouth now to boot. But in your home you're going to be seated, maybe 10 feet away.
In fact most every small scale recording is multi miked so the recording engineer can give equal voice to each instrument in the mix, and or spot light one instrument, or vocalist, so I'm unsure where to even find the ideal recordings to begin with.
If the recording were made at 30 feet of an unamplified vocalist or instrument, and the recording was ideal, then over a 2 channel system I would imagine that you would have a very tiny voice coming from exactly between your speakers and it would be indistinct, recessed, and unlike anything that you would hear if you were just standing 10 feet away (assuming thats a typical distance in a well set up system in a medium sized room.It certainly wouldn't sound 'live'.
FWIW, the problem I have with your statement is that it's not simple to guage accuracy by using live music as a guide. IMHO, all that does is inintentionally create a lot of insecurity in audiophiles who rely on others opinions and results in their chasing gear which they think will bring them closer to the perfect sound. As you have admitted one can't recreate live music electronically in the home, one can't come close, and if one thinks he can he's set out on a very expensive and frustrating trip to no where. Thats why I'm satisfied to just accept the goal of reproducing accurately what I think is on the recording. That is a much more obtainable goal I think.
there is a simple but not perfect solution as indicated below:
take a single instrument, such as a cymbal. obtain a decent digital recording device. measure the distance between the cymbal and the microphone, and make a recording in your listening room.
you may make several recordings, each with a slightly different microphone placement. you will need an assistant for this procedure.
a cymbol could be struck with a wooden drum stick, for recording purposes. thereafter, compare the sound of the cymbal to the recording, fed through your stereo system. make sure the listener is sitting at a distance from the cymbal, equal to the distance between mike and cymbal. hopefully, mike would have been placed at listening position. thus, one has an opportunity to compare the sound of an instrument with the recreation of the sound of the instrument heard through one's stereo system. one can vary components, to try to come as close as possible to the sound of the cymbal.
yes, it is not perfect and it is just a cymbal, but its a start and provides an indication of the differences between live and recording. you could also do this experiment using an acoustic guitar. however, mike placement may be more significant than for a cymbal.
Newbee: Mrtennis has one solution, but it really isn't so complicated. You either know what a cello sounds like or you don't. Forget whether you're two feet away or two miles away. If you've been around live acoustic music and have paid attention you can tell if a system is coming remotely close to reproducing the sounds/textures/dynamics/nuances and invoking even a trace of the emotions you feel when you listen to a live event. The system is doing this or it isn't and no amount of rationalizing is going to change that fact.
9rw, Interesting summary - FWIW, I've actually heard a cello in my living room played by a friend, as well as a grand piano in his large living room, my daughter singing and playing an acoustic guitar, etc. I regularily attend concerts and performances.
I actually do know what live music sounds like and I've never heard it replicated, not even close, anywhere on any audio system! I certainly have never been able to do it in my home. Everything I have done has been a compromise of some sorts. The biggest compromise for me has been the loss of the natural dynamics of live instruments as heard in an appropriate space. Frankly, IMHO, everything without that is make believe on some level, no matter how you want to rationalize it.
Ain't this hobby fun? We've all got our points of view and we are all right, even Mr T if you just happen to own a quality professional digital recorder, mikes and a lot of expertise and have access to a cellist who will come to your home to make the recording, but then you must also have perfect memory of the live performance so you won't have to have the cellist back eact time to compare the component(s) sound to live music. Ah............:-)
my suggestion does not require a cello. it can rely on an instrument that anyone can "play". since it is always available, there is no need to be dependent upon acoustic memory.
if you replace components, it is an approach which gives you an idea as to how close you are to the timbre of a cymbal. does anyone have another idea ?
referring again to the example of the cello, you can take advantage of that situation and replace components while the musician is there.
The problem I have with the idea of this question is in the title. The word "good" implies there is a human being making a judgement based on whatever the heck it is you guys decide is appropriate, for instance ('good" and 'bad' do not exist in nature nor some kind of objective reality - they are concepts that exist only in the human mind). So, then is that supposed to represent some kind of standard for the rest of the world to aspire to when it comes to the reproduction of sound? Can we all join the "Good Sound" club if we qualify and can afford the membership fee and dues? Will there be a committee to determine who gets to join, and who isn't quite 'right'? Will we have to qualify on one of those "is it live, or is it Memorex" tests. Must we have heard a cello in our living room before being considered? As far as "accuracy" becoming a means of judgement, I'd have to agree with that I've never heard a system that sounds like live music, and I do listen to live music, have heard cellos and violins in my house. Various systems, in various rooms have varying strengths and weaknesses depending upon the material you feed them. The idea of the cello in your own living room test is a bit odd because, well, even if I do record a cello in my living room with minimilast proecessing and brilliant mixing and recording with the best gear available, and then actually create a system that makes that sound quite "realistic" in my own living room...that's all fine and good...if that were the only recording I listened to for the rest of my life. Not gonna' happen though. And I can tell you with great confidence that the vast majority of the music I listen to was definitely not recorded in my living room. In fact, I'd venture to guess that the rooms most of them were recorded in bear no resemblence whatsoever to my living room. Also, unfortunately, most of the music I do listen to has had some mixing and processing, and there are usually one or more human beings that have made decisions about how to implement all that mixing and processing. I too do enjoy the illusion that my system has brought musicians and instruments and an environment into my living room. Given that it is an illusion at best, it is up to the listener to judge the effectiveness of that illusion. That will vary from person to person. Some are more easily convinced than others. Those in the elite "Good Sound Club" who've heard cellos and pianos and cymbals and bagpipes in their very own homes can continue to feel special that they are in such a privelidged position to judge such matters with peerless integrity. Pardon me if I don't drop to my knees and bend deeply at the waist, but while I'm here, would any of you happen to have any Grey Poupon?
Marco, I agree with you. I do not need to join a club to distort what I believe sounds good to me. But many audiophiles want and seek approval from others and in the beginning I was not that much different. I'm sure that is why clubs like that exisit. My system is a very personal to me including my music & have tried enough gear to realize that the very most important part of any system is the speakers. I can't put enough emphasis here. I have had audiophiles over to my house to demonstrate a preamp or power amp and some folks threw the money at me to buy it. I did however point out to the buyer that with different speakers it may not produce the same results.
Getting back to the subject at hand, I don't think that any system assembled will sound exactly like live music although some may come close and I'm sure that is what many audiophiles strive for but others in the end may prefer a more intimate venue and need only to please themselves.
Marco by the way, maybe we should all try some Grey Poupon just to see what all the fuss is about. I'm still using French's mustard.
Newbee: I never said anything about having the cellist come to my house. Again, you either know how a live piano, cello, flute, bassoon etc. sounds or you don't. You don't necessarily have to do a rapid A-B comparison to know whether a system is doing a decent job of recreating the illusion. You know it when you hear it. Of course, in many cases, the recording is a big source of the problem. That's why you have to find a few recordings that you trust. Enjoy your systems.
It doesn't take an expert, or a seasoned concert goer, or an audiophile who changes their amp as frequently as their underpants to be able to judge a stereo system. The convincing illusion of a musical sound, or a human voice does not require someone familiar with sound engineering, musicology, nor the design and manufacture of high-end audio components. The kind of reproduction of sound that makes a persons hair stand on end or raises goose bumbs requires no membership cards, secret handshakes or special discernment based upon experience nor knowledge, in order to appreciate that illusion. Because one person is intimately familiar with the nuances of what a kazoo and jaw harp sound like does not put them in any better position to judge for another person what sounds "good" for them. To rely upon another person's opinion of how well a given system will accomplish the illusion, no matter how experienced and knowledgeable that person may be, could be just as unreliable as asking someone else which movie you should watch, or which book you should read, or which food you should eat, or which wine to drink. Yes, you may get some opinions that actually work for you, but they are still only that; opinions...just as much of an illusion, if you will, as the reproduction of the sound. The supposition of the question here, to me, implies that there is some objective means of judgement of such things. This is an oxymoron..."judgement" can never be objective no matter how scientific. Science that was proved to be "true" a hundred years ago is now held in doubt, and some of it may no seem as absurd as the flat earth. Why do people need assurance from others that what they enjoy in life is "right" to be enjoying? Do we want tunas with good taste, or tunas that taste good?
"..the kind of reproduction of sound that makes a persons haid stand on end or raises goose bumps..."
What makes this happen to me, and I even tear up, is when I listen to Eva Cassidy sing 'Over the Rainbow'. This music is so emotionally charged (for me). Its not technically a great recording by a long shot, in fact the recording techniques can be distracting if thats whats important to you. Its the performance! Judy Garland's version is beautiful, but it puts me to sleep - just some dreamy kid.
I've never heard Eva live, don't know if how I hear her is anywhere close to live, but what I do know is I don't need to worry about buying new stuff to increase my appreciation of her music. I can just close my eyes feel the emotion she is expressing by the way she sings ....
and, come to think about it, maybe if I were to STOP listening to live performances I may well forget what they sound like (the sounds of live instruments played in an appropriate space). I'll probably then be much happier using equipment that doesn't come close enuf to 'audiophile apporved' because I can convince myself that I'm as close to 'live' as I can get.
Maybe the lesson to be learned is, if you're really into music, it can pay to be ignorant. Think of all the money you can save. Buy more music.
Jax2: Accuracy isn't subjective. It's either accurate or it isn't, at least to varying degrees, and perhaps few people are able to make that determination. You have to know what an instrument is supposed to sound like before you can know if a reproduction provides a reasonable illusion. You are, however, right when you say that one person cannot judge for another person what sounds "good." That person may hate the sound of an accurate system.
9rw, Pardon my again intruding on your post to Marco, but I can't resist. As it is now I'm ROTFLMAO. One just can't be "accurate" if you quality that statement by "at least to varying degree". Thats a cop out! 'Accurate' is an absolute term, like 'unique', you really can't use a modifier, it is or it ain't. If it ain't the degree to which it ain't is dependant on personal choice.
Don't take this personal, its not! It's just that I find that so many of the folks who use a 'live' reference either in reviews or commentary are salemen of something, equipment more often than not, but sometimes it's just their persona.
Newbee: It's no intrusion at all. Of course there are varying degrees of accuracy. It's nothing like being unique -- it's either unique or it isn't. You're right about that. Take two pairs of speakers that are identical in every way -- waterfall plots, frequency and transient response, etc. -- only one pair is down 3 decibels at 40 hertz and the second pair is down 6 decibels at 40 hertz. The first pair is more accurate than the second pair. And so it goes.
when considering 2 speakers which are attenuated in the bass, one may be down 3 db at 40 hz, and the other may be down 6db at 40hz. both speakers are inaccurate. accurate is analogous to scoring a grade of 100 on a test.
thus, there are degrees of inaccuarcy, e.g., one speaker is less inaccurate than another. i believe the word accurate implies perfection. all components fall short of that. i could be wrong. one may be using the word in a different way.
9 out of 10 dentists agree; music that's free from error is a critical part of good aural hygiene. When considering two speakers, always ask a dentist.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
