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?
128x128nrchy
Back atcha, Frogman. I must say to you all, I was curious about Frog's forum history after reading his post, so I clicked on his threads and answers, and I thought it was notable that he boasts around three times as many responses in the "Music" catagory as in any other one catagory (which of course are all technical/gear-oriented). Now, *that's* an audiophile who's got his priorities straight!

(None of which is to suggest that Nrchy's points aren't very well taken.)
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?
If the goal is attaining fidelity to the music as recorded, whether to vinyl, CD, tape, etc., then the only practical test is to compare the sound of your system to the sound of the final mix in the studio where the music was mix/mastered. That sound is the sound the artist and the engineers agreed was the sound they were trying to produce. The actual sound of the musicians playing in a real space is for all practical purposes unknowable and hence irrelevant.

Even the most minimalist recording requires a microphone, a microphone amplifier and a recording medium. Each of these components will in some way color the signal. There are literally millions of different combinations of these three components where each grouping will show slightly different colorations. However, the contribution of the equipment is insignificant when compared to the skill the engineer takes in positioning the microphone(s) to pick up the music coming from the musicians. Fractions of an inch really do make "huge" differences in the final sound of the signal. Without even taking into account the harmful effects of the audiophile's room and system, there are simply too many unknown variables between the listener and the original live sound for anyone to really know how the two differ.

When you're listening to music over your system you're not really listening to the sound of music being produced in a hall. Instead you're only listening to the music as captured at a specific point(s) in that hall by a microphone(s) and recorded to a storage medium. It's the recording engineer who compares this recorded sound to the original live source. The final mix or mastering stage is his final statement of how successfully he did his work. You would have had to been at the recording session to truly judge the engineer's work. But if all you want to do is test your system accuracy, then you could rent the studio where your best sounding album was mastered and play it back over the studio's system.
Funny as it may seem but most of the folks who responded to this thread know what they are talking about! I hardly see any dissagreements between various posters here. All have put forward valid points and interesting explanations (viewpoints). Yet, when two auddiophools discuss equipment there is always invariably a heated debate!

I have had the pleasure of listening to some instruments being played live (unamplified) from few feet away which included the harp, sitar, and guitar amoung others and one thing that I appreciated that the ambience that the instruments created was something that I have yet to hear in any audio system at any price.

Live music and reproduced music (through a hifi) are two different things altogether, NO COMPARISION!