How can a system be judged with highly processed, non acoustic music?

Here’s the thing… if an instrument or voice is recorded, it’s processed. Period.

You also MISS the point...

Everything is processed in a way or in another,yes, but some music is TOTALLY processed...

If everything is processed to some degree,  ANYWAY  we know how must sound a natural  voice and a noremal  piano ALREADY in our memory....

We have an imprinted distinctive  physionomy of the sound in our brain...

Acoustic science is not taste or fad. Period.

Judging an audio system ask for an archetypal model to go with, human voices and natural non electrified instrument timbre are these phenomena acoustician or musician use.... Not Moog synthetiser or electrical guitar....Or too much processed voice....

The OP question is this:

How can a system be judged with highly processed, non acoustic music?

it is not about your taste in front of your system...

Hold on, wait one second, I’m judging my system again... Yep, still sounds GREAT to me, and I’m listening to amplified rock music. But at least it’s socially conscious amplified rock music... this time.

You confuse acoustic with your taste....


The OP question is not asked to some dude about their fad....

The OP question is a serious one implicating facts in psycho-acoustic...

What is a timbre?

For example... And recognizing a timbre is the hallmark of any good audio system...You cannot judge this with heavy processed heavy metal ONLY sorry...

If the meaning of the OP question was what you say it is, this thread will be trivial : do you love your system and are you able to say that it is a good audio system for Rock music? Off course it is....I created it for my rock music....


Do you catch it?

If you assume the "standard" is real, live music, it is harder to evaluate something that has been heavily processed or involves electronic instruments. But those can inform too.
From my perspective, anything done in a studio is likely to have undergone some "adjustments" whether they actually improve the sonics or not. (I’m reminded of the line that a lot of gimmickry goes into making something that sounds "natural").
Leaving that aside, if I listen to something like Crimson, Live Toronto 2016, I know what the actual band sounds like rendering that performance in a large concert hall, so the bass, for example, from Tony Levin, on the "stick" can tell me how deep and loud a system can go- whether that is of importance is a different question.
I listen mainly to small combo jazz, combined with early proto-heavy rock (kind of an odd juxtaposition, but there it is) and can only evaluate a system meaningfully by listening to a range of recordings. Having a "natural acoustic" that is being reproduced in your room, imposing the sound of the recording venue as part of the delivery, is only one of a number of aspects I listen for. I do like live recordings for this reason. I’m not listening for "thrills" but mainly for tonality and realism, but that’s pretty subjective.

Call me crazy. I tend to evaluate the sound of a system as to whether it sounds good with the music I like, from acoustical to electronica. Is there really more to it than that?

Obviously, recording music is an electronic process-mixed and mastered. However, many recordings clearly strive to recreate the real, original sound. I would point to “Audiophile Recordings” which, mostly, are acoustic and “natural”. Surely, such recordings are sweetened and adjusted but the goal is a natural SQ.