Do Members use Live Music as a Reference

[PeterA]

I mentioned this before - why do we not have the same issue with TV pictures i.e. comparison to 'live'?
Anyone want to answer?

When I last shopped for a TV, I actually did look at color and thought about whether or not it resembled life's colors. Some were much closer than others. Then I had my Kuro Plasma professionally calibrated and it looked even better. Very little over saturation of color. When I casually watch other tvs in clubs or other places, I can pretty quickly tell if the colors look artificial. I also look at things like stripes on ties and patterns. Some TVs can't reproduce those things, and I must be referencing what I think a natural looking stripe or patter looks like. Detail in shadows is another thing, or how blue the whites look, and flesh tone.

Are you suggesting that people don't think of how real things look on a tv when they are watching? It is obvious that TV pictures are not real, nor do they look real, but some are clearly better than others.

 

[amirm]

I still believe that some people listen but don't hear

Time for two more stories then.

Story #1:
I am at local audiophile society and we have a fellow playing Reel to Reel tapes. I am sitting there totally bothered by this buzzing noise I hear at the top end of the dynamics in the left channel. I look around and no one seems to be hearing or objecting to it. We get to a break time and I ask Bruce if he could hear it. To my relief he says yes! Now the question was the source of it. Gary was there and was providing the amplification and speakers. I asked him about the buzzing and he said that the left channel had to be turned up some and the power supply in the then discontinued amp was running out of juice causing that.

Outside the three of us, no one else heard or commented on this really obvious distortion. Hearing it had nothing whatsoever to do with having live listening experience. Indeed many folks in the room likely had more live music experience than me. So who who heard and who listened?

Story #2:
A new Reel to Reel tape is released and folks are raving about it. I am told it is a must buy. I am pointed to a long review by Peter Breuninger where he says angels literally came and flew him up to heaven upon hearing said tape. So I go ahead and order it. The tape arrives and I start to listen to it. I immediately hear a buzzing noise in one of the channels that gradually got louder and then stop. Only to repeat a while later. So annoying it was that I could not listen, much less enjoy it. I contact the producer and he investigates and comes back to tell me that the noise was caused by a tube pre-amp and/or microphone.

Why was it that I could hear this artifact so readily but many other buyers did not? How about Peter? Is he guilty of not going to enough classical music concerts (the tape was classical music by the way). Who heard and who listened?

Note a key point here: both of these issues were problems that were objectively and confidently diagnosed as being there. That is, it is not me claiming to hear things that you have no way of verifying it.

If we accept the reality that our job is to critique everything from recording on, then one has to be a critical listener when it comes to distortions and deviations that come after that. You can have all the experience you want in live music. That enables you to critique the creation of music. It does little to help you diagnose playback problems. To do that, you need to develop a critical ear. One that can listen past the music, is able to know what distortion causes what issues, and enough experience with verifiable answers to be good at this.

 

[bonzo75]

When I last shopped for a TV, I actually did look at color and thought about whether or not it resembled life's colors. Some were much closer than others. Then I had my Kuro Plasma professionally calibrated and it looked even better. Very little over saturation of color. When I casually watch other tvs in clubs or other places, I can pretty quickly tell if the colors look artificial. I also look at things like stripes on ties and patterns. Some TVs can't reproduce those things, and I must be referencing what I think a natural looking stripe or patter looks like. Detail in shadows is another thing, or how blue the whites look, and flesh tone.

Are you suggesting that people don't think of how real things look on a tv when they are watching? It is obvious that TV pictures are not real, nor do they look real, but some are clearly better than others.

Plasma looks more real, so I have a plasma, but then decided I am not into t.v so was a waste of money

 

[853guy]

Time for two more stories then.

Story #1:
I am at local audiophile society and we have a fellow playing Reel to Reel tapes. I am sitting there totally bothered by this buzzing noise I hear at the top end of the dynamics in the left channel. I look around and no one seems to be hearing or objecting to it. We get to a break time and I ask Bruce if he could hear it. To my relief he says yes! Now the question was the source of it. Gary was there and was providing the amplification and speakers. I asked him about the buzzing and he said that the left channel had to be turned up some and the power supply in the then discontinued amp was running out of juice causing that.

Outside the three of us, no one else heard or commented on this really obvious distortion. Hearing it had nothing whatsoever to do with having live listening experience. Indeed many folks in the room likely had more live music experience than me. So who who heard and who listened?

It was a test, was it? To determine if anyone could hear any artifacts that "totally bothered" them? Run under scientifically-robust conditions? In which those with live music experience were being evaluated against those without? Or was the purpose for people to get together and listen to music?

Story #2:
A new Reel to Reel tape is released and folks are raving about it. I am told it is a must buy. I am pointed to a long review by Peter Breuninger where he says angels literally came and flew him up to heaven upon hearing said tape. So I go ahead and order it. The tape arrives and I start to listen to it. I immediately hear a buzzing noise in one of the channels that gradually got louder and then stop. Only to repeat a while later. So annoying it was that I could not listen, much less enjoy it. I contact the producer and he investigates and comes back to tell me that the noise was caused by a tube pre-amp and/or microphone.

Why was it that I could hear this artifact so readily but many other buyers did not? How about Peter? Is he guilty of not going to enough classical music concerts (the tape was classical music by the way). Who heard and who listened?

It was a test was it? For the purchasers of said tapes to report any "annoying" artifacts that caused them to "stop listening" because they couldn't "enjoy it"? And those who didn't report any artifacts therefore failed the test, did they? Or was the purpose to buy music and immerse themselves in the aesthetics irrespective of the recording quality?

 

[jkeny]

When I last shopped for a TV, I actually did look at color and thought about whether or not it resembled life's colors. Some were much closer than others. Then I had my Kuro Plasma professionally calibrated and it looked even better. Very little over saturation of color. When I casually watch other tvs in clubs or other places, I can pretty quickly tell if the colors look artificial. I also look at things like stripes on ties and patterns. Some TVs can't reproduce those things, and I must be referencing what I think a natural looking stripe or patter looks like. Detail in shadows is another thing, or how blue the whites look, and flesh tone.

Are you suggesting that people don't think of how real things look on a tv when they are watching? It is obvious that TV pictures are not real, nor do they look real, but some are clearly better than others.

I must be either lucky or uncaring about the colour on my Samsung TV as I never felt it was in any way unnaturally coloured - there are a number of different settings which I adjusted when first installed it but only in so far as what looked natural to me - I didn't use any calibration technique other than this - yes, skin tones are the first obvious reference & the blackness of the black, another. What does intefere with my illusion is when there is some pixalation usually due to fast moving objects in low light.

But again, I go back to the assertion that we are using our stored memory of 'visual realism' as our reference, just as I'm suggesting we do the same for our audio playback systems. We don't insist that we have to go 'live events' to have a reference against which we evaluate the colour or realism of the TV picture

 

[acousticsguru]

I realize I'm not going to make many friends saying this (although those who know me in person realize I've been saying this for decades), but in my experience, audiophiles claim they want realism, but really don't, with a handful exceptions to the rule. Maybe they end up comparing gear to other gear because the quest for realism is frustrating if not futile, more often they want playback to correspond to an "idée fixe" of what they would like their favorite music to sound like. I've offended plenty of audiophiles over the years because I'm perfectly understanding of what each of them individually or all of them collectively want: it's a hobby or profession, leisure or obsession, i.e. it's their valuable spare or lifetime and their hard-earned money they're spending, they have a right to expect they're getting e.g. their money's worth - whatever that means to them… One thing I know is there aren't many designers out there who are obsessed with realism, for the simple reason that in the end of the day, the objective is to sell a product. (Ask them - they'll you! I'm being dead serious…)

To me, the fact that a piano recording didn't sound like my sister practicing on my grandma's Steinway when I was still a boy was the reason I became an audiophile and at one time, starting in my teenage years, built/designed my own loudspeakers. But the more audiophiles I met over the years, the lonelier I remember feeling in my endeavor. Call me a cynic, if you like, but I'm really not. (A pessimist, as we say jokingly, is a well-informed optimist, LOL!)

To end this with: ever come home from a concert, e.g. classical, putting on your favorite interpretation, possibly some legendary recording, of the same music, saying to yourself not only it's being performed unlike what you just heard live, but that it sounds better…?! Ever wondered how such a thought could enter one's mind in the first place? Q.E.D.

Greetings from Switzerland, David.

 

[amirm]

It was a test, was it? To determine if anyone could hear any artifacts that "totally bothered" them? Run under scientifically-robust conditions? In which those with live music experience were being evaluated against those without? Or was the purpose for people to get together and listen to music?

It was a test was it? For the purchasers of said tapes to report any "annoying" artifacts that caused them to "stop listening" because they couldn't "enjoy it"? And those who didn't report any artifacts therefore failed the test, did they? Or was the purpose to buy music and immerse themselves in the aesthetics irrespective of the recording quality?

Steve said I listen but don't hear. I gave examples where I listened, heard distortions, investigated them, and found the cause. The rest of the audience listened, but did not hear said problems. You think Steve was right about his characterization of me? That was the point of my response to him.

 

[853guy]

Steve said I listen but don't hear. I gave examples where I listened, heard distortions, investigated them, and found the cause. The rest of the audience listened, but did not hear said problems. You think Steve was right about his characterization of me? That was the point of my response to him.

Hi Amir,

I have no idea what Steve thinks or doesn’t think. I’m not privy to his thought processes. The truth is, I don't spend any time thinking about what Steve thinks about. If you do, you're probably best to discuss it with him rather than asking me.

And nope. You gave two examples in which you listened, heard distortions, investigated them, and found the cause. The rest of the audience may or may not have heard the distortion, but unless they were asked to report them, we can only surmise that if indeed they did hear them, they just didn’t make it known to you. If I had to take a guess, I'd imagine that may be because some people were focused on the aesthetics of the music and the enjoyment thereof, rather than judging and reporting on the artifacts of the recording. Which makes your statements an entirely specious basis upon which to build a “who heard, who listened” argument, wouldn't you say?

 

[amirm]

Hi Amir,

I have no idea what Steve thinks or doesn’t think. I’m not privy to his thought processes. The truth is, I don't spend any time thinking about what Steve thinks about. If you do, you're probably best to discuss it with him rather than asking me.

Hi there. You responded to my answer to him, and questions I posed to him. Let's see what says and whether a fourth insult will come my way regarding my hearing ability or lack thereof.

And nope. You gave two examples in which you listened, heard distortions, investigated them, and found the cause. The rest of the audience may or may not have heard the distortion, but unless they were asked to report them, we can only surmise that if indeed they did hear them, they just didn’t make it known to you. If I had to take a guess, I'd imagine that may be because some people were focused on the aesthetics of the music and the enjoyment thereof, rather than judging and reporting on the artifacts of the recording. Which makes your statements an entirely specious basis upon which to build a “who heard, who listened” argument, wouldn't you say?

No, because if you go there, we have lost the plot . Question for this thread is what your reference model is when evaluating a system. From OP:

I am curious to learn what percentage of the membership uses live music as a reference against which to judge the success of an audio system.

A system that clearly buzzes when dynamics arrive is failing to be successful in my book. The system was deficient in amplification and that needed to be remedied to provide high fidelity to the source which lacked that distortion.

In the second instance of buzzing tape, people who subscribe to Peter's point of view, failed to hear obvious artifacts that were not present or heard by the talent in live presentation. This means familiarity with classical music, live music, etc., did not prepare one to be good at system evaluation.

Sure, we can all get lost in the music. I can even do that with my boombox in my workshop. If one is not able to stop that from happening when evaluating content as Peter B tried to do in his tape review, then he simply is not qualified to evaluating sound reproduction systems. And with it, damns the value of experience with live music.

 

[RogerD]

3) Rejection of systems/topologies that heighten the sound of the music at the expense of the gestalt of the music:
Kinda obvious, isn’t it?

The gestalt of the music,the power and majesty of a breathing orchestra has always been a goal of mine. I'll almost give up everything else as long as this is present. YMMV

 

[NorthStar]

To Amir,

This is purely in a humor sense, nothing else: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water-fuelled_car
There is no relation to what we use as a reference when talking music reproduction from our sound systems @ home...mono, stereo, multichannel.

:b

 

[PeterA]

Question for this thread is what your reference model is when evaluating a system. From OP: "I am curious to learn what percentage of the membership uses live music as a reference against which to judge the success of an audio system."

Amir, I feel compelled to correct your statement to 853guy. You simply misunderstand the OP, IMHO.

I think you fail to understand the question of this thread, which you quote above and which I wrote in the original post. You quoted me from the OP directly but don't understand what I am asking. The question for this thread is NOT what your reference model is when evaluating a system. If it were, I would have written, "I am curious to learn what your reference model is when evaluating an audio system." Instead, I clearly wrote, "I am curious to learn what percentage of the membership uses live music as a reference against which to judge the success of an audio system." I only asked about live music. I purposefully, and specifically, did not ask an open question for other references that members may or may not use, such as reviews, other systems, measurements, AES papers, Harmon tests, sounds heard while walking through New York City, etc. I think much of your frustration with this thread is based on your failure to read the OP carefully and thus understand the question and purpose of the thread.

The poll results are in and my OP question has been answered. Everything else is either a discussion or statement in support of one's vote, or it is off topic. That is fine, and I have learned a lot about music versus sound and other topics, while Bob always provides a good vibe, grounding us in what matters most.

If you would like to discuss what reference model or models members use to evaluate audio systems, you should start a new thread and ask your question. It is an interesting question, but it is one which I did not ask, and it is not the "question for this thread".

 

[amirm]

Amir, I feel compelled to correct your statement to 853guy. You simply misunderstand the OP, IMHO.

I think you fail to understand the question of this thread, which you quote above and which I wrote in the original post. You quoted me from the OP directly but don't understand what I am asking. The question for this thread is NOT what your reference model is when evaluating a system.

How is that consistent with what you wrote on page 2?

Tom, your comment in blue is at the heart of the matter and I considered saying something similar in my OP, but I wanted to keep it simple. For those who advocate copying the original recording, if they do not also consider the sound of real music, then they must be left analyzing specifications, measurements, and design typologies. Is that enough to reach a conclusion? Perhaps for determining if one component like a DAC can make an audibly indistinguishable copy of a recording, though I think they also listen for confirmation, but where does that leave one if the copy does not sound like real music? And what about an audio system in it's entirety? How is that evaluated if not by also using live music as a reference?

I am curious to read how those who have voted "NO" in the poll evaluate an entire system and what they think if the system does not sound like real music. Should I conclude that it must not matter to them? From what I have read on other threads, listening is used to determine if a difference between a copy and the original can be detected. Listening is not used to determine if the component sounds like live (real) music. Is this correct?

So you are misstating the purpose here given your own posts.

The poll results are in and my OP question has been answered.

Then you should feel free to leave the thread since you got your answer. We are not holding your feet to this thread to read it.

 

[NorthStar]

 

[amirm]

I think much of your frustration with this thread is based on your failure to read the OP carefully and thus understand the question and purpose of the thread.

I appreciate your concern but I am not frustrated in anything. I wish Steve had not made those personal and unkind remarks about me repeatedly but hey, it is the Internet and this kind of thing comes with the territory. I contribute sparingly in WBF and when I do, it means I am interested and happy to do so.

This topic is an important one and one that I think we have a shot at changing each other's mind. So I enjoy interacting with members on it.

 

[NorthStar]

Live music, Tone and Presence: What most systems get wrong

"Last night I went to a very nice house concert in a house in one of the nicest parts of Zürich. The house was of modern design and the room for concert was fairly large at about 6 x 10 meters (20 x 33 feet) with high ceilings. THe concert was a duo with two cellos. Both cellists were professionals from the Tonhalle Orchestra and so quite skilled if not at the uppermost levels of the soloist world. The pieces ranged from largely unknown to me to a final piece that was quite demanding from Paganinni (not sure if it was originally written for cello or transcripted).

Anyway, my wife and I sat in the front row, which was only 2.5 meters or so from the performers themselves but slightly "off-axis" from the center. The music ranged from light and playful to "hard and heavy" or deeply romantic. So, quite a wide variety of sound and styles and technical diffculty. It was clear that some of the pieces required an extreme amount of concentration whereas other pieces they were able to feed off of each other in a playful manner. Really great stuff!

Now, there were two really deep take home audiophile messages from this concert that had nothing to do with the musicians playing or the compositions but really the sound itself and the impact that sound created.

1) The tone of the two instruments was FAR richer sounding than 99% of the high end systems I have heard, either at people's homes or shows. This was driven home to me more than usual because we were sitting so close (I could easily hear the breathing of the cellist closeest to us). You expect a certain richness in a big hall when you sit in the middle to the back of the hall due to absoprtion of high frequencies. There was none of that here.

The other important point about tone was the disctinct and laughably easy differentiation between the two performers cellos. Now, this might also have to do with how they played their instruments but it seemed to be more the instrument (or bow) themselves. What do I mean? The cellist closest to us (by closer I mean about 50-75 cm closer) had a warmer tone that was also somehow less complex and more midrange centered. It also projected a bit more but was more tonally homogeneous and therefore somewhat less interesting. The other cello (ist) had more growl in the low notes with complex overtones in the lower strings and likewise a bit more "bite" in the upper frequencies, which were again more complex. It gave a more "hear into" quality on her solos. Mids were a bit less projected but still more interesting from the complexity of the tone.

Resolution was of course the real thing. Every nuance of their playing revealed, every squeak, squeal, fingering etc. all there without hardness.

This level of tonal differentiation is VERY difficult to get right with hifi. I have never heard a system with a SS amp get it right...ever. Very few tube systems get it right either though and none of the push/pull type from what I have heard so far.

So, next time you hear someone say that an all tube system sounds too rich for reality don't believe them in most cases because the reality for real instruments in a real space IS rich and harmonically complex...even up close where you get more high frequency "bite" to the sound. The problem with most tube systems is that the tonal richness often comes at the price of transparency and resolution of details. They get tone right but lose the nuance.

2) The presence of the music was THERE! It was in your lap, in your face and then fading back to the performers during quiet passages. It lived and breathed. It didn't sit back in space, it invaded your space but with all the richness and resolution without hardness described above. This palpability is nearly unprecedented in hifi playback. Of course you need a recording that is intimate (most small ensemble recordings are rather made this way). A big orchestra recording is often going to have a more distant perspective...just like when you sit mid-hall.

Small ensembles in the spaces they were designed for can generate powerful waves of music and it is immersive and present in the room with you. It is more visceral than going to a big concert I have found, unless you sit very close as well to the orchestra. For example, I was at a concert the week before at Tonhalle to hear Mussorgsky "Pictures at an Exhibition" and we sat in the mid-back of the hall. It was powerful sounding and moving but from a more distant perspective. The horns did not land in your lap.

I have heard very few systems that do the presence I heard last night even remotely close to that live performance. The closest thing it reminded me of was the Schubert Festival in London where we heard quartet and quintet in the home of a London doctor. That was equally visceral.

This presence is one of the things that horns seem to do better than dynamic speakers. Whether it is the sensitivity or the directivity of the speakers it is hard to say...probably a comination of these and other factors. The presence I heard last night I have never heard with a dynamic speaker but I did hear it from time to time with big electrostats. I have also never heard it with a system driven with SS electronics...they tend to paint a more distant perspective of the soundfield and lack the dynamic bursts to capture that pulsing sound.


It seems to me now that in some ways, there are many systems that have even more trouble getting this presence, dynamic "breathing" and tone right of a small, two instrument, ensemble than do to recreate a nice panoramic orchestral sound (not a lifelike SPL mind you). It is severe even because most fall down on both the tone and differentiation of tone as well as the presence and microdynamics. Most are flat and gray compared to what I heard sitting 2-3 meters from the performers.

I have seen many people argue that SETs make an unrealistic sound in terms of tone and "projection" of the sound...artifacts and distortion some people say. And yet, they get closer to the sound I heard yesterday (coupled with horns in particular) live than any other technology I have heard. I have laid out technical reasons why but the best is just listening and realizing what the real deal sounds like and which technology gets us closer to that." - by morricab

 

[853guy]

Hi there. You responded to my answer to him, and questions I posed to him. Let's see what says and whether a fourth insult will come my way regarding my hearing ability or lack thereof.

Hi Amir,

No, I did not respond to your answer “to him”, I responded to the faulty logic of your argument that only you heard the distortions present. Was anyone at the local audiophile society asked to listen for, identify and report any distortions? Did you personally ask anyone outside of Bruce and Gary whether they heard it? If not, then it’s completely assumptive on your behalf to suggest that “no one else heard or commented on this really obvious distortion.” And it stretches the limits of credibility to further surmise that “Indeed many folks in the room likely had more live music experience than me”. Did you ask them? Take a poll? If not, you’ve arrived at a conclusion based on assumptions you can’t possibly verify.

Again, I have no interest in what Steve thinks or doesn't think, nor whether your relationship will continue to be played out in these posts. That’s entirely up to you.*

No, because if you go there, we have lost the plot . Question for this thread is what your reference model is when evaluating a system. From OP:

This whole thread has gone there. We’re up to Post #257 already. If you feel uncomfortable discussing musical aesthetics as distinct from sonics that’s fine, but that distinction was - and, in fact, is, the axis upon which this thread rotates. PeterA made that explicit in his very first post (and re-clarified in Post #253). That this thread has evolved in our attempts to articulate our thoughts on it does not negate the centrality of the core idea apropos the aesthetics of live musical performance.

*On a personal note, I try and restrict myself from becoming entangled in "he said/she said" exchanges, not only because it tends to bring out the worst in me, but because it only serves to drag the forum into areas of personal offence, the grievances of which you seem to want to air here. As someone who wishes to neither cause offence, nor find reason to take it, I hope you can accept my apologies for not wanting to continue this.

 

[DonH50]

I've been around live music all my life, acoustic, amplified, electronic, as a listener and performer. The term "reference" means different things to different folk, and I use it different ways as well. Sometimes it means the absolute best, the reference against which all else is judged. Other times it is more like a baseline against which other things are compared, sometimes better, sometimes worse (or maybe just different). There are times I really appreciate a live performance, and times I much prefer the recording, for all the usual reasons (the enveloping sound of a concert hall, the intimate presence of a jazz club, versus the ability to really listen to the music in a great recording and pick up nuances hard to catch in a live setting, or maybe I just don't feel like going out, or want to listen to certain songs rather than whatever the group is doing, or listen to songs from multiple groups, etc.) Some venues are poor and yet the (live) music shines through, and sometimes the performance just isn't what I expected or hoped it would be. Sometimes the recording is poorly mastered or recorded and just has no hope of feeling "real". Too many variables.

I would not apply the word "reference" when considering how I judge my system with respect to live music; I would say live instruments, music, and performances (rehearsals, plinking at a friend's house, etc.) provide the context for my listening. That means at times the sound from my system may not be true to life but is the way I like to hear it. Sometimes I like the snap of a drum or piano hammer strike to be sharper and more percussive than it often is live, and I may prefer instruments more in the background behind a singer than they are in a live performance. Or vice versa.

All IME/IMO/FWIWFM/my 0.000001 cent (microcent), etc. - Don

 

[DaveC]

I realize I'm not going to make many friends saying this (although those who know me in person realize I've been saying this for decades), but in my experience, audiophiles claim they want realism, but really don't, with a handful exceptions to the rule. Maybe they end up comparing gear to other gear because the quest for realism is frustrating if not futile, more often they want playback to correspond to an "idée fixe" of what they would like their favorite music to sound like. I've offended plenty of audiophiles over the years because I'm perfectly understanding of what each of them individually or all of them collectively want: it's a hobby or profession, leisure or obsession, i.e. it's their valuable spare or lifetime and their hard-earned money they're spending, they have a right to expect they're getting e.g. their money's worth - whatever that means to them… One thing I know is there aren't many designers out there who are obsessed with realism, for the simple reason that in the end of the day, the objective is to sell a product. (Ask them - they'll you! I'm being dead serious…)

To me, the fact that a piano recording didn't sound like my sister practicing on my grandma's Steinway when I was still a boy was the reason I became an audiophile and at one time, starting in my teenage years, built/designed my own loudspeakers. But the more audiophiles I met over the years, the lonelier I remember feeling in my endeavor. Call me a cynic, if you like, but I'm really not. (A pessimist, as we say jokingly, is a well-informed optimist, LOL!)

To end this with: ever come home from a concert, e.g. classical, putting on your favorite interpretation, possibly some legendary recording, of the same music, saying to yourself not only it's being performed unlike what you just heard live, but that it sounds better…?! Ever wondered how such a thought could enter one's mind in the first place? Q.E.D.

Greetings from Switzerland, David.

This is true... for some. From selling cables I can tell you there is a fairly even split of folks who want their music as clear and uncolored as possible and those seeking their personal idea of what sounds good, which is ALWAYS based upon how much more warmth they want added. Also, for some adding warmth is a requirement to smooth out unpleasant distortion and they want just enough to do that... make the average recording sound a bit better, smooth out the grain from all the crappy brass connectors in the system, etc..

I come home from amplified concerts thinking my system sounds better all the time, because it is much better than the PA equipment at the venue. For live sound if it's mangled enough by room acoustics then a system might sound better too. But I get what you're saying... people with little experience in hearing live sound or other HiFi systems get acclimated to their own system and think it's the best thing in the world. VERY common, but I find with more experience this can be dropped.


AMIR... hearing defects and distortion is a different skill from evaluating realism of vocals and instruments. Both are very valuable though, I also hear issues most people miss but it comes with the territory... through experience I know what different kinds of distortion sounds like. For cables I pretty much know what they'll sound like before I even hear them as I've tried so many different designs and materials, I know the effect these things have on the sound. So, this indicates that hearing can be trained, you find your ability to pick out problems valuable but evaluating realism is just as valuable, maybe moreso.

I'm not even going to respond to your comments about Toole, as usual it's a result of you seeing things from a unique perspective and ignoring all the things that are contrary, and delving into it is just not in my schedule of things to do.

 

[Steve williams]

I'm not even going to respond to your comments about Toole, as usual it's a result of you seeing things from a unique perspective and ignoring all the things that are contrary, and delving into it is just not in my schedule of things to do.

I agree.