What s Your Frame of Reference?


Whenever I make a change to my system I pull out a select few records to evaluate the "upgrade". Gross differences in sound quality are fairly easily judged, but most likely the change in sound quality is subtle and better judged over an extended listening period. This is my problem: let's say I change something and on one of my reference records the trumpet now sounds a little more brash and upfront, maybe even bordering on harsh. How do I know whether the upgraded system is more accurately portraying the sound of the recorded trumpet, or has the upgrade merely added an upper midrange resonance problem? I have a good idea of what a generic trumpet (w/ and w/o mute) sounds like, but I wasn't at the recording session. The studio, the mic, EQ, recording medium, etc. all add an enormous amount of variables to what is actually recorded onto the record. If I judge the sound to be harsh and make changes to my system to remove the harshness, then maybe all I've done is make the system more pleasant, euphonic, but less accurate. The "live music in real space" paradigm is not particularly useful in that the overwhelming majority of the music I listen to is not of this type. Besides, the transparency of the audio engineering is still a variable. Ideally, I need a wide bandwith recording where I was present at the recording and which the engineer faithfully recorded the music. Unfortunately, I don't have such a recording. How are other dealing with this issue?
128x128onhwy61
somehow my above post got cut off. it should end with "...that, i think, is what comprizes a 'point of reference.' " -kelly
This may seem simplistic but I use a familiar recording to get a quick sense of the "tone" of the component, then the imaging. If these are favorable, I listen more carefully to try to discover something I haven't heard before in the recording. That's it. If it sounds "musical", images well and is more revealing, I have to assume it's a winner.
That assumption is the problem. Unfortunately, it's only in long term listening that you truly discover whether the CIQ (component in question) is right for you. But then for those of us drawn to Audiogon, selling it is half the fun.
I am lucky enough to have a number of recordings that I have made, and can judge a new component that way if I have to, but I usually do something similar to Garfish and Cornfedboy. Also, I have heard my favorite tracks on 3 different state of the art systems, and am very familiar with the sound of one of them, so I use that as a reference to compare my system to. Now that I know exactly how close my system is to that reference,
I can tell if any changes are taking me closer to that ideal, or not.
I just pick a disc that I know like backwards. Much easier to discern any differences that way (usually quicker anyways)