The unamplified music that I listen to includes classical, large and small scale, opera, jazz, choral, girl with guitar, folk, and blues. I even have some male a cappella. It all serves as great references because one can go out regularly to hear this stuff.
A Gold Standard for Listening Evaluations
- Thread starter Karen Sumner
- Start date
The unamplified music that I listen to includes classical, large and small scale, opera, jazz, choral, girl with guitar, folk, and blues. I even have some male a cappella. It all serves as great references because one can go out regularly to hear this stuff.
Even unamplified voice and instruments have gone through a microphone, amplifier, recorder, probably a mixer each of which adds its signature sound. Then there's pressing for vinyl, processing/downsampling for CD, which can have variable results.
Last edited:
yes, but what else is there better than this for a reference? People can surely choose not to have a reference or choose amplified music if they wish. Jimi Hendrix said that he played amplifier not guitar. I’d rather use an acoustic guitar to gauge the natural sound of my system.
Hendrix is an exception to say the least.
I think J.Gprdon Hol called it "distorted distortion." As far as I know distortion does not discriminate.
I could demonstrate how difficult it is s to reproduce electronic music. But if you like heavy metal then that should be your reference. If you like chamber music...and so on...
T
I think J.Gprdon Hol called it "distorted distortion." As far as I know distortion does not discriminate.
I could demonstrate how difficult it is s to reproduce electronic music. But if you like heavy metal then that should be your reference. If you like chamber music...and so on...
T
Karen has laid out well in her opening post why using amplified music as a reference does not work.
I've heard a fair number of systems that were fantastic on unamplified acoustic, yet God awful on the rest. So it's a nice idea to say this "best on acoustic" principle should be the test, but it's not the whole story.
My system needs to do it all. I have a number of selections which I use to highlight difficult passages, including amplified rock, pure acoustic, electronic, etc. I'm not happy until all sound right to me. By "right to me", I mean no faults I can identify; no mushy bass, no zingy or plinky treble, no gauze around the performers, coherent voice, decent imaging and soundstage. Transient performance is particularly important. I am very sensitive to snares that go thump instead of snap, and cymbals that go pushhhh instead of pishhhhh.
There are systems that do all of the above better than my system, but my system meets my standards. It holds my interest for hours of listening every day, and never does anything to annoy me. Any improvement would cost more than I am willing to spend, so I'm done. All I want now is the time to continue enjoying music.
There are systems that do all of the above better than my system, but my system meets my standards. It holds my interest for hours of listening every day, and never does anything to annoy me. Any improvement would cost more than I am willing to spend, so I'm done. All I want now is the time to continue enjoying music.
His problem is he plays his poorly recorded prog on it and it sounds awful. But that is usually the music and his recordings not the system
May I ask how much your real piano sounds
compared to any recording you play on your system ? this should be at the top of his post. i can’t see how a smaller system can compare to a larger one. just pointing to the large full of blood mammal in the room near your piano
And while it works for her, I think it is incomplete. I don't care to argue this point further.
I'm not sure I understand your post. Nobody would ever mistake a live piano for a reproduced one, no matter how good the system is that is reproducing it. That said, one might say that perspective is like looking a glass that has 50% water in it, and calling it half empty. A more optimistic view is looking at the same glass and calling it half full, which is the perspective that the great Harvey "Gizmo" Rosenberg reminded us of about 30 years ago, when he said that for the first time in the history of mankind, we now live in an era where music reproduction can achieve a reasonable facsimile of the real thing . That's an impressive achievement, but still, only a live piano can sound like a live piano.
I have always thought that it’s pretty amazing that we can even identify the sound of the piano over a car radio. We can quickly identify exactly who’s on the other end of a telephone call. Those little amplifiers and speakers are quite incredible. Good audio systems are so far beyond any of that. I have to think the glass is much more than half full, but I’ve been exposed to some pretty good audio and I am generally optimistic by nature.
You are one of the most honest posters here. i truly value your comments. to have a standard for evaluation alone is a complex task. the size , type , room , source and so on yields to many directions to comment on. we all know the goal we want but even this is a complex debate. while I’m attending the next ausio show I wonder how many rooms I could even enjoy on any level.
just what gold standard do I attempt to apply ? your place is way above most all rooms to be heard at the event.
If you like the music being played, enjoy them all! Don't overthink it. It's like wine. There are only 2 kinds- wine you enjoy and wine you do not. All that other stuff (it tastes like plums, cassis, tobacco, burnt toast etc) is mostly crap. You either like it or you don't. Some of the best listening rooms at shows are the most humble of systems. (Did anyone ever hear a room at a show by Dick Shahinian-RIP- that they didn't enjoy? And his entire system probably cost less than most high end preamps today!) Conversely, some of the least enjoyable rooms are the ones with the most expensive Goliath systems. The hard part is to try and figure out why you liked the sound in a particular room and then try at figure out what you might take away from it that you can use to enhance what you are trying to do at home. If I knew the answer to that, I'd be a smart man.
Last edited:
Totally agree with Karen’s comments. I would like to add that, for me, so many systems and components that I have heard over the last 35 years have failed to reproduce the live energy of instruments and vocals especially at low to moderate listening volumes of say 55-70dB. Even a gently plucked acoustic guitar string has so much energy that so many systems and components have failed to reproduce in a satisfactory manner for me, especially in the midrange. I don’t actually recall any manufacturer that I have spoken with over the years even making reference to this aspect of sound reproduction being part of their design criteria. I have heard heard components that are supposed to have low noise floor, excellent micro dynamics etc but they still haven’t done it for me so I guess there is more to this than just low noise floor but I am not an electronics engineer so can't be sure. Some systems and components are obviously better than others.
I agree that energy and life is a key component of convincing reproduction. It is often missing.
Have you ever heard a super efficient system, say 105 or 115 dB? IMO, The energy from a guitar string being plucked or a cello string being bowed can be pretty convincing but the electronics and rest of the system have to be high-resolution and the room can not be over damped.
I agree completely with so many of Karen's individual statements that I am not sure which ones to highlight. There is so much wisdom embedded in her essay that I truly believe this essay is, in and of itself, an introductory education to our hobby.
I would like to highlight two paragraphs in Karen's essay which I think are monumentally important and which have great explanatory power for much of the behavior of many audiophiles:
These views, I believe, explain my personal preference for components whose sonic "center of gravity" is the lower midrange/upper bass portion of the frequency spectrum.
I would like to highlight two paragraphs in Karen's essay which I think are monumentally important and which have great explanatory power for much of the behavior of many audiophiles:
These views, I believe, explain my personal preference for components whose sonic "center of gravity" is the lower midrange/upper bass portion of the frequency spectrum.
Last edited:
Similar threads
