Wheel of Audio by CEDIA for evaluating audio system in private listening space
The core of this wheel of audio recommended by CEDIA/CTA contains nine criteria, which in turn can be categorized into Timber, Spatial Resolution and Dynamics.
First of all, every criterion listed here can be considered a critical element in assessing the ’musicality’ of a reproduction system. The spatial *resolution* category also includes three attributes directly related to musicality. This strongly indicates that resolution does not conflict with or compromise musicality, contrary to what this thread claims. Several posts have already made that point quite clear.
Second, to evaluate an audio system objectively through recordings, the fidelity of the aforementioned nine criteria must be preserved as much as possible. Isolating the room interaction of the recording environment is crucial and is recognized as a fundamental recording technique. Several people here have emphasized room interaction in an entirely misguided way. Consider this: why should the original recording be made in an acoustically treated space, yet the recording of the reproduction system need not be? If you want your system to be evaluated by an audience via YouTube, you must minimize other variables including room interaction.
The recording equipment used by people purporting the theme here is very basic and fails to capture acceptable fidelity across several important criteria — spatial (cue) resolution and bass impact (hence dynamics), to name just a few. How can you possibly convey the true performance of your system to an audience through an already compressed platform? Ignoring advice to improve recording equipment and technique, while preaching about the importance of this approach and complaining about the audience’s unwillingness to cooperate, is like putting the cart before the horse — utterly absurd and laughable. Big vision but poor execution. Refusal to accept one’s limitations is biggest hurdle to achieving their goal.
