what is good sound ?


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 ?
mrtennis

Showing 7 responses by newbee

9rw, ROTFLMAO, go get'em! Reminds me of how some folks seem to live in (or come from) a time warp.

Marco, Don't fret, Good sound came to my house - it got frustrated knocking at the door of folks who didn't appreciate. But it still exists. :-)
Jeeze, talk about someone who needs an anger management course! You're a psych major(?) and you get upset when someone challenges you for your conduct in creating a thread and responding to posts. That surprises me as I would think your training should have caused you to expect as much, and your age and life experiences should have enabled you to ignore such comments or folks. Did you actually get a degree or did you just do Psych 101?

"other "audiophiles". How condescending. Just about as condescending as your inane responses to critism about your threads from folks who just can't seem to take you or your threads seriously.

All in my humble opinion, of course. I have no proof what so ever.

Now that I have spewed my venom I'm going to seek solace in listening to some good music.

Most respectfully,

other "Audiophile"
9rw,

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.

Thanks
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.

All IMHO, of course.



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............:-)


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.

Peace, my last post on this subject...........

"..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.

By now, got to go listen to Eva.............:-)