What is the standard for judging a systems sound?


It is often said in these threads that this hobby is all about the music. That live music is the only meaningful standard for comparison when determining the quality of a stereo system. While these words sound good, are they really true?

A violin should sound like a violin, a flute should sound like a flute, and a guitar should sound like a guitar. Many purists will immediately say that amplified/electronic music cannot be used as a standard since a listener can never really know what the intention of the musician was when he/she recorded it, and what that sound should be.

Even something as simple as an electric guitar has multiple settings from which to choose. Electronic keyboards have hundreds of possible voices, so how does the poor audiophile know how the tone was supposed to sound?

These are valid concerns. Back to the purists!
“That’s why only unamplified classical music can be used as a standard!!!” On face value that looks like an acceptable statement. Consider some facts though. In my immediate family we a have several musicians who play a few different instruments. We have an electric piano (due to a distinct lack of room for a baby grand), acoustic guitar, Fender Stratocaster electric guitar, a nickel plated closed hole flute, a silver plated open hole flute, a viola, and a cello.

I have a fairly good idea how each of these instruments sound. One comment I must make immediately is that they sound a little different in different rooms. Another comment, which demands attention: when I bought my first flute I knew nothing about flutes. I began fooling around with it and enjoyed the sound. I liked it so much a bought a better, as mentioned silver open-hole flute. This flute sounded much better than the first flute. The tone was richer (the only words I can think of to describe the difference).

The reason for that background information is to show that the same instruments in different room’s sound different, AND different models of the same instrument have a much different sound!

If we audiophiles are using live unamplified music as a standard there are still several important issues, which must be addressed. How do we really know what we are hearing? What instrument is the musician playing? Was that a Gemeinhardt or Armstrong Flute. What are the sonic characteristics of the specific instrument. Stradivarius violins sound different than other violins, if they didn’t people would not be willing to pursue them so aggressively. Better instruments (theoretically anyway) sound better than lesser instruments. The point here is that different versions of the same instrument sound different.

I have seen the same music reproduced in different settings. I have heard string quartets play in a garden in Vienna. I have heard the Pipe Organ in Stephan’s Dom. I have heard Rock and Roll in arenas and Performing Arts Centers. I have heard jazz played in small one room clubs, not to mention the above listed instruments played in the house.

Each one of these venues sounds different from the other.

When I am listening to a selection of music at home, how do I know how it is supposed to sound? None of the LPs sounds like any of the particular places I have heard live music, while none of those places sounded like any other either.

There is no standard by which to judge the quality of live music since no two venues sound alike. If everyone were to go to the Royal Opera House in Covent Garden and hear Tchaikovsky’s Symphony No. 6 would everyone hear the same thing? Even if they did, and that one concert became the standard by which all other recorded music was judged, would that be translatable to allow the judging of all other music?

I have never heard a cello reproduced as well as my sons playing in the living room. I have never heard better flute players sound better than my own terrible playing at home.

So what do we audiophiles really use as the standard by which recorded music can be judged?
nrchy

Showing 6 responses by bomarc

How so? If "it all comes down to what I think is right," to quote your previous post, then my system is the best on earth!

But seriously, why do we need an ultimate standard? Why isn't the "ultimate" standard whatever each individual consumer wants from his system? Some will want a sound that evokes the sensation of listening to live music (and note that I've worded this very carefully). But since you appear to have agreed already that recreating the actual sound of live music is impossible, that means we're talking about an illusion of live music, and I think it's fair to say that no two people will share the same illusion. And I'm still having trouble understanding why that is such a problem for you.
"High fidelity" does NOT mean "close to the original event." It means "close to what's on the recording." On a technical level, an audio playback system cannot do better than that.

It can do worse than that however, and still sound good. It's even possible that, by diverging from (i.e., distorting) what's on the recording, we can get a sound that we like better, or even get a sound that gives us a better illusion of a live musical event. But don't confuse "an illusion of a live musical event" with "a reproduction of a live musical event." The latter is impossible. The former is possible, but it might not be high fidelity!
You have nailed the paradox. There is no such thing as "the sound of a flute." There is only "the sound of this flute, played by this flutist, in this room." And, getting your listening room to sound even close to any other room on the planet is a physical impossibility.

So what to do? First, let's dispense with the "sounds like a flute" standard. What that's really about is timbre, and modern audio systems, even relatively cheap ones, get timbre right, or close to right. What they don't get is ambience.

And, since the ambience of one space cannot be reproduced in another space, what's really going on is something the literature biz calls "willing suspension of disbelief." In other words, it's not that we are recreating the sound of an orchestra playing in Carnegie Hall. We are creating an illusion that makes us feel like we are listening to an orchestra playing in Carnegie Hall. And that illusion may be a long way from "the real thing" or, for that matter, a long way from accurate in the technical sense of flat frequency response, etc.

I'll probably get some flames here, because I'm really arguing that an audiophile who says, "My standard is the sound of acoustic instruments in real space" is fooling himself. That standard is impossible. But it's ok, because "fooling yourself" is exactly what you are trying to do. If you get a sound you like, if it lets you close your eyes and visualize your favorite concert hall, then you've really achieved something.
I wouldn't use the term "subjective accuracy" at all, or, rather, I wouldn't use the word accuracy to describe the subjective sense that reproduced music sounds more or less like "the real thing." Accuracy is a technical term, and it's measurable, and I'd prefer to leave that word to the engineers.

Which brings us back to your concerns about relativism. What, if I may ask, is so wrong with relativism, in a hobby whose true purpose is providing sensory pleasure? And what's wrong with a little anarchy? Why can't I like something and you like something else, and therefore I prefer System A and you prefer System B? Most of us would agree that there isn't one best system. This is why.

I said earlier that I thought the only true standard is, "Do I like it?" I'd amend that to say that for many audiophiles, part of what they like is an illusion of liveness, but we're each going to have a different sense of what that is. It's subjective, it's relative, its anarchic, and that's part of what makes it interesting.