What is the standard for judging a systems sound?

Zaikesman, that was one of the very best posts I have ever read here; I agree with everyone of your points.

Clearly, fidelity to the live experience is not the only meaningful standard, but it is most definitely a valid standard, and wether some can accept it or not, the most meaningful.

Nrchy, you make some very interesting points, but I don't quite understand why you dismiss the use of the live experience as the best standard simply because we audiophiles are not provided with enough information about the specific instruments involved in the recordings, or the sound of different venues. If we want to use the most meaningful standard, it is our job to familiarize ourselves with the sound of the different venues; and for the truly ambitious, the sound of different makes of instruments. A challenging, but not impossible task. You yourself have admitted to being able to discern the timbral differences between a Gemeindhart and an Armstrong flute. As the player of these instruments, you know better than most that the differences in their sound are not subtle; not to mention that the flute with the richer tone probably felt better to play and consequently, probably allowed you to be more expressive in your playing, which in turn allowed you to progress more as a player, which .... Anyway, the point is that I don't see how anyone can argue that the differences in tone, between those two instruments, would not be more faithfully recorded in an acoustic setting as opposed to an amplified setting. In other words, if you were to record the same twelve bars of the Bach E minor Flute Sonata on both flutes, first on stage at Carnegie Hall with minimal micing and no processing, and then in a club (or studio) playing into a microphone, which then fed a mic preamp, which then fed an amplifier, the resulting sound of which was then picked up by another mic which then went to the mixing board; which of the two different "standards" do you think will allow you to more reliably identify which instrument you were playing on?, barring performance differences, of course. I think it's a no-brainer.

There are timbral and dynamic characteristics in the sound of acoustic instruments playing in a live setting that transcend the differences in the sound of the venues that they are being played in; and I don't mean the differences in tone between different make instruments. I'm talking about the way that the dynamic and harmonic envelopes of instruments being played live interact with each other and affect pitch (intonation) and rhythm; subtleties that are obliterated to different degrees by electronic processing. Zaikesman's observations about the sound of the human voice are right on target. Nrchy, are you suggesting that you would not be able to make a judgement as to the fidelity of different recordings of the sound of the voice of someone that you know intimately, simply because they were made in different venues?

I'm not suggesting that one's approach to building a satisfying stereo system is dependent on using live music as a standard, or that there is anything wrong with electronic or amplified music. However, the truth of the matter is that acoustic instruments played live offer vastly more information to be potentially recorded than electronic/amplified ones do; more subtlety and complexity.

I think that every audiophile should own at least one acoustic musical instrument. Proficiency on the instrument is really not necessary to make this point. Take a decent guitar and strum the open strings. Fool around, pluck a few strings; first with a pick, then with your thumb. Listen to the differences in the sound of an open guitar string played first with a pick and then with your thumb. Really LISTEN! Strum the open strings gently and then aggressively. Listen to the amazing dynamic range; the amazing speed of the sound. Don't worry that you feel that you are just making noise; listen to the SOUND. Do this for a while, and then play on your stereo your best recording of an unprocessed/unamplified acoustic guitar; followed by your best recording of an amplified acoustic guitar in a studio. I rest my case

I find nothing disingenuous in using recordings of unamplified music as the most valid test of a stereo system's accuracy; to the contrary, it is quite logical to do so. Why this is not obvious to some, I can not understand. Yes, everything that Onhwy61 says about the distortions added to music along the way to becoming a cd or lp is true, but does it not make sense to use recordings that have the least number of these deleterious variables? These are, without a doubt, recordings of unamplified music, recorded by a good engineer. Have we forgotten what it is that makes the classic RCA's, Lyritas, London's etc. great; minimal miking, minimal processing and a commitment to preserving the sound as heard in the hall. Yes, you can most definitely hear the characteristic sounds of different venues on good recordings. The sound of Carnegie is easily heard on many recordings, as is the sound of a club such as The Village Vanguard. If you doubt this, spend a few nights at the Vanguard and then listen to Bill Evan's "Waltz For Debby" and tell me that the characteristic sound of that historic, funky little club is not all over that recording. This is all valuable information that serves to test a system's fidelity.

Moreover, a system that does a good job of reproducing unamplified music will IMO do a superior job of reproducing amplified/processed music; assuming fidelity to the master tape is the goal. I have heard many high-pedigree systems that sound "really good", exciting on pop, rock, and even on alot of contemporary jazz, then you play a recording of a large string section in a hall, and OUCH! strings don't sound like that. Usually way too much high frequency content that makes the instruments sound screechy and thin.

The really unfortunate thing is that as audiences for live, unamplified music become more and more scarce, the standard for judging true high-fidelity will be diluted more and more. Is it really that important to adhere to such a lofty standard? Probably not. Music is about emotions, and ultimately, as was stated above, if it sounds good to you that's what really matters. But let's not be cynical or judgmental of those who acknowledge that such a standard does exist, and that ii is worth pursuing.

Happy listening.

Nrchy, I must say that I am confused by your take on this subject. You pose the question "What is the standard...?, not once, but several times; yet you won't accept an answer that is in fact eminently logical and practical. What is your answer to your own question? That there is no standard to be used? Unlikely. If so, why ask the question?

The easiest answer is in fact that "if it sounds good to you...". Why? Because music should not be overly analyzed. Music is about emotions, and (I'm thinking about another thread currently running right now) if a listener cannot be moved by good recordings of say, Mahler 5 or Billy Strayhorn's "Blood Count" on a "boom box", then there is too much preoccupation with the gear and not enough openness to the music.

However, and it's a big "however", audiophilia is a hobby, a very noble and rewarding one, but a hobby nonetheless. And an intrinsic part of this hobby is the quest for perfection in the reproduction capabilities of one's system. I think that most reasonably sober audiophiles acknowledge that this "perfection" will never be achieved, but the quest for it sure can be fun and if kept in it's proper perspective can enhance one's enjoyment of the music immensely.

I am impressed by the fact that you seem interested in the search for a standard. I'll say again. IMO live unamplified music is the best standard, if a standard we must have. I don't see why you let the questions of "what kind of instrument is being played" or "how many people are in the hall" etc. become road blocks in the acceptance of the live music standard. Clearly, these things will affect the sound of a recording. So what? There are far more aspects to the sound of music that characterize acoustic performance, that are far more important, in the scheme of things; generic traits of live sound, if you will. Complexity of timbre; something that is seriously diminished by the amplification process. Microdynamics; where a lot of an artist's expressive subtlety is manifested. And many more things; some that can be described easily, and many that defy description. The more live performances that a listener attends, the more these things become obvious; this is the key.

It really doesn't matter if you don't know the "sound" of the Village Vanguard, although, obviously, it would be ideal if you did. But if you played "Waltz For Debby" on two unfamiliar systems (or components) and one let you hear clearly that there is quite a bit of distance between the bandstand and the bar in the back, where a tremendous amount of glass tinkling and conversation is taking place, or that the slightly hooded sound of the piano and cymbals is classic "ceiling is too low" sound. While the other system masks these qualities and makes the instruments sound as if recorded in a studio, and the voices of the rude audience members sound as if they are right on stage with the musicians. Guess which system I would pick as probably being more faithful to the original event? On the other hand, if this music had in fact been recorded in a studio, with the inevitable reduction in complexity of timbre and absence of any natural ambience, combined with all of the "judicious" use of reverb and "natural" panning choices; not to mention the reduction in groove factor caused by the players having to listen to each other over headphones, as opposed to being connected by the same acoustic. What would we be able to tell using that recording? Not a whole lot IMO. Can it still sound good? Of course it can. But we are talking about establishing a benchmark for the hobby.

Anyway, I'm finding that I am repeating myself. Ive enjoyed reading and contributing to this thread. I would encourage everyone to check out Harry Pearson's (The Absolute Sound) writings and opinions on this subject. While some here will dismiss him as a pompous ass, IMO he does as good a job of dealing with this subject as anyone I have ever read.

Good Listening.

It's interesting Nrchy, when I started in this hobby, I began with, and still hold, the assumption that my stereo system will never be able to sound like the real thing. You on the other hand, started with the idea that your stereo should sound like the real thing. This seems to be causing a certain frustration that is quite understandable. Please don't misinterpret my comments, I mean to be respectful; in fact I admire the fact that you care so much about this issue.

I think it would be helpful to forget about the unknown variables and focus instead on the known variables. In your situation, you have resources available that most listeners don't; you are very fortunate. You play the flute and your son plays the cello. Why not make recordings of your son playing the cello in your living room and in a concert hall? You would then have the best possible reference (standard) to use in judging a system's accuracy, since you are obviously very familiar with these sounds.

I am sure that you will arrive at a conclusion to this problem. I admire the fact that your household experiences so much live music making; that is what it is all about.

Best

Bingo, Zaikesman; the feeling "can easily transcend fidelity for some mysterious and wonderful reason". Brilliantly stated. My only qualification would be concerning the use of the word "fidelity". I would instead say: "...fidelity in the usual sense..." In other words, fidelity as usually defined by audiophiles; not necessarily the most relevant concern.

This is precisely the point. This feeling is the most important part of music making and likewise, the most important part of music reproduction. Can a component reproduce the feeling of the performance? This is in part what I mean when I refer to the "generic" sounds of live music. Although we tend to not think of the "feeling" in terms of "sound", the feeling has much to do with issues of microdynamics. The next obvious question will be: How do we know if that "feeling" was actually there at the original event, and not some sort of distortion caused by the record/playback process? Because just as with more usual concerns such as timbral accuracy and soundstage recreation, with enough exposure to the real thing, we can learn to recognize what is truth and what is a distortion.

The feeling of a good performance is a pretty powerful thing; the reason that it can transcend the LACK of fidelity of a table radio. It's not that the table radio somehow manages to reproduce the feeling because of some subtle electronic attribute, it's simply that the feeling of a good performance is difficult to destroy completely; it is that powerful. And this is what hangs up a lot of audiophiles IMO. We tend to focus on subtle differences in timbre and soundstaging, and overlook the magic. And where can we experience the most magic? At a live event.

The last thing that I thought I would ever do is feel like I have to come to the defense of audio reviewers. The truth of the matter is that although audio reviewers are oftentimes easy targets for criticism/ridicule, wether we want to admit it or not, there are in fact a few truly talented ones. Have you guys read the work of people like Jon Nork, Harry Pearson and others, over the years? I don't know about you guys, but I have found their commentary extremely useful. They helped develop a language to describe what they hear that has changed the way that we all talk about the hobby. I frankly don't find it all that difficult to get a sense of what the best reviewers are trying to say about certain components, eventhough their systems are in constant state of flux, since they (the best ones) usually make reference to the sound of the real thing in a way that to me, makes sense. The same way that we need to attend a lot of live music performances to really be able to build a good personal reference, by familiarizing ourselves with the language and yes, biases of these guys, we can get some really useful info about components. I find the across-the-board cynicism directed at reviewers unjustified and counterproductive. Are there a lot of hacks out there? You bet! So what? Ignore them.

I disagree that all reviewers use other equipment as a reference. Yes, a comparison, even if not stated in the review, to other equipment is probably inevitable. So what? As long as the focus is on how it measures up to the sound of the real thing.

I'll say it again: There are many "generic" qualities in the sound of the real thing, that makes concentrating on issues such as the effect of the sound of different venues, mics, mixing boards etc., while certainly not irrelevant, almost pointless. We just need to familiarize ourselves with these sonic qualities enough. Perhaps spend less time and energy on feeding the neurosis of the hobby, and more time attending live events. Not an essential pursuit in order to enjoy music and the hobby, but certainly essential if we want to bother with comparisons using any kind of meaningful standard.