Newbee that's kind of what I was getting at from the outset. The average listener does not have enough information to determine if the music they are hearing sounds anything like the event recorded so they have to opt for a subjectively pleasing listen event.
If it all comes down to what I think sounds right then there is no ultimate standard for musical playback! Anything goes and musical anarchy pervades! |
bomarc, then your system sucks! |
I happen to know for a fact that Nrchy is an idiot, so don't put much stock in what he says!
Frogman, you raise a lot of valid points and I hope I can clarify some of what I intended to state.
Thr issue is not that I would not be able to recognize voices I know in different venues, but that there are too many unknowable (I coined a word?!?) variables in any recording whether it is acoustic music, or electronic to be able to use live music as a standard.
Most audiophiles claim to use live, acoustic, unamplified music as the standard by which they judge the quality of their own systems. I think this is a noble sentiment, but practically impossible since there are too many variables which the listener cannot solve.
The same violin will sound different in Carnegie Hall than it will Stephan's Dom. I think it is practically impossible to be familiar enough with the majority of concert venues were recordings are made to be able to determine the specifics of that recording session.
I admit people like John Atkinson will have an advantage over the casual audiophile. Sitting in on the planning, recording and mastering of the CD allows for intimacy the rest of us will never possess.
We don't have enough information to determine what the recording should sound like, even if we attend live concerts regularly.
I have attended concerts in five different venues in my own home town, apart from various bars over the year. They all have good qualities which make the event enjoyable, but telling the difference between the venues later (on a recording) would be all but impossible except between the worst and best of them.
It is just disingenuous to say that one uses live music as their standard for putting a system together. So I wonder what the standard used by the average audiophile is based upon? |
Frogman, what I am saying is that a listener can only have a general idea what the original recording sounded like since there are too many variables in every concert.
What type of violin did the soloist play, what type of flute was each flutist playing, what are the accoustical signatures of that hall? How many people were in the seats (since this will affect the sound)? You as a listener cannot answer these questions so you cannot possibly know what the recording should sound like.
Frogman will respond with; I know what a violin, flute, or oboe sound like! Yes in general you do know what each sounds like, how about the specific instrument being played in that particular room.
I have never been to the Vanguard, so I like most people who have ever lived cannot make any determination if a particular recording should sound the way I have heard it.
If music sounding good is the standard, upon what is that standard based? It isn't live music, since your system will not reproduce music that well. That statement is not a condemnation of Frogman's system, I would say the same about Albert Porter's system which is probably one of the best ever set up!
On certain recordings if I listen hard enough, and use my imagination the music sounds magical, but it still doesn't sound like there is a musician sitting in front of me playing his/her instrument and singing just for me. I wish it did, but... |
Zaikesman is right. Only my opinion matters, so Bomarc your system sucks, because it isn't the same as mine. Unless of course there is an objective standard.
I want there to be an objective standard so I have something real with which to measure my progress! But if it isn't real live music, what can the standard be???
It is interesting how many people say "this company is great, while the other company sucks" without having a standard by which to measure the quality of any piece of equipment. Personal preference is not a standard. |
Onhwy61, what you propose is a very interesting test. I think this would go a long way in judging the difference between the master tape and our choice of playback medium.
The question remains though, how much difference is there between the the original event and the master tape? I am asking, since I have no way of knowing what it is, I have never been in the position to experience this.
Does a flute sound like the flute played in a concert hall, does the cello not only sound like a bow dragged across strings or is all of the resonance there too? There is soo (That spelling is intentional, similar to the use of the word 'too' in conversation) much information available to the ears when an instrument is played that is never reproduced on an LP or CD. I'm not sure where the fault lies, but that is not the issue for this question.
I still want to know if it is possible to have an ultimate standard with which to judge the quality of playback of my, or any other stereo system! Right now, I don't think we do although your test Onhwy61 is a better standard than has been offered before. |
Zaikesman you are absoluely right about reviewers, both here are in publications using other gear as the standard. I don't think anyone's reference system is a valid comparison by which to measure new equipment.
No one else knows what your, my, or John Atkinson's system sounds like in the appropriate listening room. If I tell you that my new Klyne pre-amp sounds much more like live music than my old Krell pre-amp what good does that do anyone? I could be completely right and still not be making a statement that does anyone else a bit of good. For other gear to be a valid reference point everyone has to be familiar with the gear being used as a standard. Then they need to be familiar with the cabling and room in which the equipment is heard. No two rooms sound alike.
Live music is not a static target, but neither is anyone's refernce system. Zaikesman, how long has your system been the same? We neurotic audiophiles are in a constant state of flux. My system went unchanged for about a year, in the last month I bought a new pre-amp, and I'm in the process of buying new speaker cable. Nothing that changes so much can be helpful to others who do not hear that system. In the case of reviewers their system changes from week to week. How can any of them be used as a refernce. They don't even know what their systems sound like. They just know the latest interation of that system.
Zaikesman, I don't know that we really disagree in the essence of things. We both want our systems to be as good as reasonably possible, it's just that we have trouble locating a standard. I'm sure your mastertapes don't sound the same at home as they do at the mixing board or as the event in the studio. If you could actually use mastertapes you would definately have a leg up on the rest of us, but where do we stand in relation to the cello, flute or piano I hear at home? |
Zaikesman I offer my condolences on your tube. I'm glad it wasn't anything more than that!
Interesting test you ran with your new amp,and the CD-R. You are right, you know what your guitar sounds like and you know the voice of the singer. I would be interested in hearing how both of you sound with the VTL's in place. Does your Fender sound the same as it does when you listen through your vintage Marshall amps?
I think many 'audiophile's' find it easier to enjoy car audio because their expectations are low. No one thinks their car is going to sound like a concert hall, so they just enjoy the compressed lifeless music of their choice. BUT at home we demand more. Which begs the question again, what do we want our music to resemble? |
Zaikesman when can I buy the disc, or will it be out on Vinyl? : ) |
It would still be fun to hear it! Are the CDs all gone? If not where could a person obtain one?
I've been thought of as seedy by several people in my life. |
So it comes to this. I posted the question because I have thought for along time that what is reproduced by a good stereo should sound like instruments playing, not a record playing (or CD, SACD, cassette, or 8-track). Through the years my system has gotten better, but I still find that goal of (to paraphrase (I think) what uppermidfi said) live music in my own room is just as illusive.
So I began to examine my own standards and motivation. I realized that what I want to hear isn't possible, so the question with which I was left was: What standard am I using to judge the quality of my own, or any other system? I' not sure if I've come to a conclusion because I don't think saying "it sounds good enough to me" is a real answer. It would lead to relativism and (can I say it?) anarchy?!?
Frogman, I understand what you are saying, and in a perfect world I would agree with you, but I think it's only wishful thinking to conclude that yours/mine/or any other system sounds like good unamplified music. There are too many unknown variables. When my son plays his Cello in the living room it sounds a lot different than when he plays it in a concert hall. When I play a recording of a Cello, which one of those memories is the right one with which to judge the recording? I know we've been through this before, but there must be an answer. A person can't say that the gerneral sound of a Cello is good enough. If one uses that response, then tonal accuracy is not a desired factor in musical reproduction.
Bomarc, you made a good reply to what I thought was an accurate comment by uppermidfi, until I saw your response. In the long run the recording is probably more important than the reproduction of it. No system, nomatter how good will add back what was not recorded in the first place. But unless the listener was at the recording session accurate reproduction is purely subjective. Is that all this hobby amounts to; subjective accuracy? |
Zaikesman, consensus does have value, as do the opinions of everyone who reviews a piece of gear, as long as it is done with integrity. If you tell me the Mc Cormack amp sounds good I believe it does. Based on your comments I would tell someone else that the DNA amp you mentioned is considered to be a good amp. The issue is what have I really learned. I consider you to be a credible source for information, but ultimately what has your comment done for me?
This is certainly not to say your comments are worthless, but it does call into question the value of your comments. I’m not trying to be rude, I’m just looking at the way we think about our systems. Is your determination of ‘good enough’ going to agree with mine, or anyone else’s?
Each instrument has a specific sound. That instrument will have a specific, but different sound when it arrives at the soundboard. It will have a slightly altered sound again as it is put onto a CD or LP. Which version of that sound are we willing to accept as being good enough, or as a standard which any or all of us can accept for judging the quality of our system? Or is it even worth it to try to have a standard?
The whole issue from the outset is my own wondering whether there was a standard that everyone can use to judge quality of gear. Other than anyone’s opinion it doesn’t seem that there is a standard. I believe everyone (almost) who’s posts and ideas I am familiar with on AudiogoN when they say something sounds good. I’m sure they think it sounds good, so in their mind it does sound good. Some people are less likely to have enough credibility to have their statements accepted by me as being reliable. But none of these comments are based on an absolute standard. |
