Interesting Perspective on Our Hobby

[morricab]

I'm sympathetic to some of Mr. Kessler's complaints, particularly about the ludicrous audio cable sub-industry. However, it's revealing that his essay does not mention the reason that I am in this hobby, which is the music.* Like HP and many others of us who have been in this hobby, I want the concert experience at home.

Despite being busy at work, I flew to Vienna with my fiancée on Saturday night to hear the Vienna Philharmonic, led by Herbert Blomstedt, perform Mozart and Bruckner at the Musikverein on Sunday morning. My system is not capable of conveying what I heard on Sunday, but, when I no longer have to live in an apartment close to my office in central London, I'll be able to assemble a system that can get me very close to the sublime, transcendent concert experience.

Most people don't share my passion, and that's fine. I don't care about prestige, Veblen goods, etc. That I went to Vienna for less than a day to hear a concert is a secret to everyone other than my fiancée, some close relatives, and those of you reading it here. I'm not interested in impressing anyone.

With apologies to Mr. Kessler, owning a Rolex, a Vacheron Constantin, or, God help us, a Breitling does not indicate a refined aesthetic sensibility. If anything, it indicates a strong sensitivity to vulgar advertisements featuring George Clooney and Hugh Jackman, or a misplaced obsession with imitating Steve McQueen.

A few high-end audio companies, particularly the McIntosh group of brands, are trying to establish high-end audio products as conventional, mainstream positional goods. Mr. Kessler seems to desire this trajectory for the entire industry. (Perhaps he, as an audio reviewer, wants the same kind of recognition that the hipster fellow who started a pompous luxury wristwatch blog has gotten.) Sadly, turning high-end audio devices into positional goods has nothing to do with bringing the listener closer to the experience of a real performance.

In this hobby, there are those of us who care about the music and those of us who want high-end audio to be another venue for signaling status. I hope to stay exclusively in the former camp.

* I've read a few of Kessler's columns over the years. If I were to judge by the records that I have seen him mention, I would guess that he does not have a very serious interest in music.

I agree with you wholeheartedly. I do not like the attempt to commoditize audio into carriage trade luxury goods like watches, bags etc. Automobiles are a bit different because you can get in and actually USE them. Watches? Forget it...just expensive arm jewlery, regardless of the engineering inside they still tell time, date and maybe a few other functions...all of which are far better done by some other, far less expensive electronic item.

I also do not think audio in and of itself is geeky...only those who are in it only for the gear itself have that geek aspect. When we have guests come over for dinner, we invariably end up in front of my system where my non-audiophile guests are amazed with the sound they hear...not enough to really spend money on it themselves but they still get a lot of enjoyment from it and probably the only time they have sat through a whole album side in a long time (if ever).

Since I live right near Zürich, I have had the pleasure of hearing lots of live concerts (nevermind my 4+ year relationship with a top profi violinist) and for me it is all about getting as close to a concert experience at home as I can.

 

[bonzo75]

As usual Ked, I'll beg to differ
Tons of people watch MasterChef and chef-led cookery programmes, and the moment something like Salted Caramel or Spirallised Courgettes are mentioned, the country goes crazy and stocks sell out in 24 hrs
Tbh, these are specialist in cookery, but because food is essential AND visual AND aspirational, it is in the public consciousness both at Big Mac AND foodie levels
And so even the proletariat will strive for better food
Music and it's the many interested in it's reproduction? Other than a few 00k involved in our hobby, not at all

Watching master chefs is different. But imagine your gf spent 10 hours cooking trying to get the curry perect, and she was unhappy with all her attempts that you would have considered delicious, because she wanted to get what would happen if she took that saffron out, put another one in, and cooked it again. And this happens day in and day out and you don't really sit down to eat together, because she is always fussing over that one thing in the curry that you can't relate to

 

[spiritofmusic]

Me and Ra not even married yet Ked
You want us divorced first LOL?
Yep get that
My issue is that there is more interest in good food amongst hundreds of millions
How many really are interested in good music? Hundreds of thousands worldwide at most
I did a survey amongst friends, colleagues, clients and others
Asked hundreds of them how many are interested in good cooking, eating out, nice jewellery, cars
90% at conservative estimate, and all these interests from all 90%
Other than music
Then it was down to 10%
And even that 10% was skeptical any impvt was poss over their current mp3

 

[FrantzM]

I'm sympathetic to some of Mr. Kessler's complaints, particularly about the ludicrous audio cable sub-industry. However, it's revealing that his essay does not mention the reason that I am in this hobby, which is the music.* Like HP and many others of us who have been in this hobby, I want the concert experience at home.

Despite being busy at work, I flew to Vienna with my fiancée on Saturday night to hear the Vienna Philharmonic, led by Herbert Blomstedt, perform Mozart and Bruckner at the Musikverein on Sunday morning. My system is not capable of conveying what I heard on Sunday, but, when I no longer have to live in an apartment close to my office in central London, I'll be able to assemble a system that can get me very close to the sublime, transcendent concert experience.

Most people don't share my passion, and that's fine. I don't care about prestige, Veblen goods, etc. That I went to Vienna for less than a day to hear a concert is a secret to everyone other than my fiancée, some close relatives, and those of you reading it here. I'm not interested in impressing anyone.

With apologies to Mr. Kessler, owning a Rolex, a Vacheron Constantin, or, God help us, a Breitling does not indicate a refined aesthetic sensibility. If anything, it indicates a strong sensitivity to vulgar advertisements featuring George Clooney and Hugh Jackman, or a misplaced obsession with imitating Steve McQueen.

A few high-end audio companies, particularly the McIntosh group of brands, are trying to establish high-end audio products as conventional, mainstream positional goods. Mr. Kessler seems to desire this trajectory for the entire industry. (Perhaps he, as an audio reviewer, wants the same kind of recognition that the hipster fellow who started a pompous luxury wristwatch blog has gotten.) Sadly, turning high-end audio devices into positional goods has nothing to do with bringing the listener closer to the experience of a real performance.

In this hobby, there are those of us who care about the music and those of us who want high-end audio to be another venue for signaling status. I hope to stay exclusively in the former camp.

* I've read a few of Kessler's columns over the years. If I were to judge by the records that I have seen him mention, I would guess that he does not have a very serious interest in music.

I agree with you wholeheartedly. I do not like the attempt to commoditize audio into carriage trade luxury goods like watches, bags etc. Automobiles are a bit different because you can get in and actually USE them. Watches? Forget it...just expensive arm jewlery, regardless of the engineering inside they still tell time, date and maybe a few other functions...all of which are far better done by some other, far less expensive electronic item.

I also do not think audio in and of itself is geeky...only those who are in it only for the gear itself have that geek aspect. When we have guests come over for dinner, we invariably end up in front of my system where my non-audiophile guests are amazed with the sound they hear...not enough to really spend money on it themselves but they still get a lot of enjoyment from it and probably the only time they have sat through a whole album side in a long time (if ever).

Since I live right near Zürich, I have had the pleasure of hearing lots of live concerts (nevermind my 4+ year relationship with a top profi violinist) and for me it is all about getting as close to a concert experience at home as I can.

I agree with these 2 gentlemen. I will admit giving up to the dark side and find myself having a thing about Rolex and Breitling watches that I own:b.. They do nothing better than any other watch and their entire purpose is to stroke the ego when you remember that you are wearing them.... OTOH there is at least a stated goal for Audio equipment, that of reproducing music as well as possible . Our industry has taken the Luxury market path with our items costing more and more for doubtful increase in performance. Much brainpower is being devoted from both the manufacturers and the users (us) to justify this state of affair thus the constant hyperbole and the always "improving" gears . KK is simply writing for his industry and trying to justify the turn taken by it. It would be much harder and counterproductive for him to admit that performance in High End Audio gear has reached a plateau .. may have reached that earlier that we want to admit.

 

[853guy]

I'm sympathetic to some of Mr. Kessler's complaints, particularly about the ludicrous audio cable sub-industry. However, it's revealing that his essay does not mention the reason that I am in this hobby, which is the music.* Like HP and many others of us who have been in this hobby, I want the concert experience at home.

Despite being busy at work, I flew to Vienna with my fiancée on Saturday night to hear the Vienna Philharmonic, led by Herbert Blomstedt, perform Mozart and Bruckner at the Musikverein on Sunday morning. My system is not capable of conveying what I heard on Sunday, but, when I no longer have to live in an apartment close to my office in central London, I'll be able to assemble a system that can get me very close to the sublime, transcendent concert experience.

Most people don't share my passion, and that's fine. I don't care about prestige, Veblen goods, etc. That I went to Vienna for less than a day to hear a concert is a secret to everyone other than my fiancée, some close relatives, and those of you reading it here. I'm not interested in impressing anyone.

With apologies to Mr. Kessler, owning a Rolex, a Vacheron Constantin, or, God help us, a Breitling does not indicate a refined aesthetic sensibility. If anything, it indicates a strong sensitivity to vulgar advertisements featuring George Clooney and Hugh Jackman, or a misplaced obsession with imitating Steve McQueen.

A few high-end audio companies, particularly the McIntosh group of brands, are trying to establish high-end audio products as conventional, mainstream positional goods. Mr. Kessler seems to desire this trajectory for the entire industry. (Perhaps he, as an audio reviewer, wants the same kind of recognition that the hipster fellow who started a pompous luxury wristwatch blog has gotten.) Sadly, turning high-end audio devices into positional goods has nothing to do with bringing the listener closer to the experience of a real performance.

In this hobby, there are those of us who care about the music and those of us who want high-end audio to be another venue for signaling status. I hope to stay exclusively in the former camp.

* I've read a few of Kessler's columns over the years. If I were to judge by the records that I have seen him mention, I would guess that he does not have a very serious interest in music.

Hi soundArgument,

Though I concur with some of your sentiments, my perspective is a little different.

Tell me, how much enjoyment did you derive from flying to Vienna to hear the Philharmonic? Was it proportionate to the cost of the flights, accommodation, food and concert tickets? Of was the enjoyment your derived disproportionate? I’m imaging it was disproportionate, in that the cost of “investment” was considered less than the “return” (the enjoyment) with which you were rewarded, despite the fact it was fundamentally an experience defined by its ephemerality, and as such has no utility value beyond the experience itself.

Would you then deny another the same enjoyment they derive from a watch, which although of limited utility value (to tell the time), provides the owner a degree of disproportionate enjoyment relative to cost stemming from its aesthetic value, materiality and appreciation of the maker’s craft?

Would you also deny the same enjoyment to those of us who purchase contemporary art works, or photos, or industrial furniture from the 1930’s, or classic cars, or Japanese ceramics, or first-edition books, despite the fact that return on investment is usually a crap shoot, most suffer depreciation and maintaining and insuring those items brings no reward beyond the enjoyment they provide the owner?

Music appreciation is an extremely poor investment. Yet as a socio-cultural pursuit I would posit continues to have profound meaning for our humanity that we still struggle to fully comprehend. I get that everyone has their passions, and often those passions do not intersect and overlap (i.e. flying to Vienna to hear Bruckner, but deriding another for enthusiasm for the Beatles), but fundamentally, any passion is defined far more from the enjoyment derived than it is the utility value it represents. That’s why they’re passions, right?

The “vulgar(ness)” you point out in those you claim are sensitive to unrefined sensibilities are a reality present in nearly all spheres of life, not limited to watches, cars, clothing, wine, and yes, those who travel to foreign countries to appreciate Romantic composers.

And while I completely agree turning high-end audio into a positional good is fraught with ideological problematicism, please don’t use your (“very serious”) enjoyment of music to deride those of us who appreciate aesthetics for aesthetic's sake - whether they be related to works of art, watches, or music not falling under the classical banner - as a reason to dismiss our enjoyment, despite the fact all of us are only doing so almost exclusively and precisely because of the level of enjoyment we derive from them.

Best,

853guy

 

[bonzo75]

or music not falling under the classical banner

Off topic from what you were addressing soundArgument – but the reason to use classical to test hifi products is more than just the taste difference between Bruckner and Beatles. It is about stressing a hifi component by putting 50 acoustic instruments simultaneously into the system instead of 4 amplified ones. There is more of a right and wrong to acoustic tonality than to an amplified one. And putting 50 instruments simultaneously through the crossover and into multiple drivers, stresses each driver as it gets confused between should it move far out to produce that large sound wave or move less to produce a small sound wave. It is much easier for a speaker to reproduce only one subset of a the frequency spectrum – say vocals, than to reproduce a whole orchestra. Same with electronics, if you take the same brand, say Lampi, and compare the Level 5, Big 7, Golden Atlantic, and Golden Gate, the GG will increase distance massively on orchestral – all will sound more or less the same on Diana Krall.

 

[853guy]

Off topic from what you were addressing soundArgument – but the reason to use classical to test hifi products is more than just the taste difference between Bruckner and Beatles. It is about stressing a hifi component by putting 50 acoustic instruments simultaneously into the system instead of 4 amplified ones. There is more of a right and wrong to acoustic tonality than to an amplified one. And putting 50 instruments simultaneously through the crossover and into multiple drivers, stresses each driver as it gets confused between should it move far out to produce that large sound wave or move less to produce a small sound wave. It is much easier for a speaker to reproduce only one subset of a the frequency spectrum – say vocals, than to reproduce a whole orchestra. Same with electronics, if you take the same brand, say Lampi, and compare the Level 5, Big 7, Golden Atlantic, and Golden Gate, the GG will increase distance massively on orchestral – all will sound more or less the same on Diana Krall.

Hey Bonzo,

You know the speaker isn’t sentient, right? It’s just transforming electrical energy into acoustic energy, yes? The waveform will always be comprised of pitch+amplitude/time, and that will be the case wether it’s a solo voice, a choral symphonic work, or Nine Inch Nails.

Is the acoustic tonality of a large scale symphonic work any more of a test for a system than the micro-dynamic shadings and rhythmic agility of a bandwidth-limited piccolo flute or countertenor? Given the number of speakers that fail the latter test, I’m not sure large symphonic works by themselves have any intrinsic value in the evaluation of a system, except to reinforce the musical sensibilities of the the subject.

Yours in needless semantics,

853guy

 

[opus112]

bonzo's point still stands even in the absence of sentience in speakers (and electronics). Intermodulation distortion increases as the number of tones present increase, so Diana Krall is indeed easier to convey with low IMD than Bruckner or Mahler's large scale symphonic works.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Hey Bonzo,

You know the speaker isn’t sentient, right? It’s just transforming electrical energy into acoustic energy, yes? The waveform will always be comprised of pitch+amplitude/time, and that will be the case wether it’s a solo voice, a choral symphonic work, or Nine Inch Nails.

Is the acoustic tonality of a large scale symphonic work any more of a test for a system than the micro-dynamic shadings and rhythmic agility of a bandwidth-limited piccolo flute or countertenor? Given the number of speakers that fail the latter test, I’m not sure large symphonic works by themselves have any intrinsic value in the evaluation of a system, except to reinforce the musical sensibilities of the the subject.

Yours in needless semantics,

853guy

I think the extra trick classical demands is keeping FR complete and coherent (both location and depth) for some many precise parts.....and each part having different levels of energy. even different than 'live' where there tends to be a confluence of sound, and recordings can have the potential for laying out individual threads more clearly. (not saying it's a real as 'live'.....it's different).

can you get the distinct full impact while also delivering the delicacy and maintaining ease and naturalness?

our reference for all these parts with classical is more true, than most other musical genres, therefore the expectations are higher.

of course, the 800 pound gorilla in the room.......is the room and the synergy with the system.

 

[853guy]

bonzo's point still stands even in the absence of sentience in speakers (and electronics). Intermodulation distortion increases as the number of tones present increase, so Diana Krall is indeed easier to convey with low IMD than Bruckner or Mahler's large scale symphonic works.

Hi Opus,

If the music we listened to was solely comprised of steady state frequencies and their associated harmonics, then IMD as the arbiter of system performance would be indisputable. Given music comprises pitch+amplitude/over time, the latter two variables matter just as much, and from my perspective, cannot be reduced to a lesser role in defining system performance.

Best,

853guy

 

[opus112]

Hi 853

You lost me.

Clearly the music we listen to isn't steady state, but still nevertheless is able to be decomposed into combinations of sinewaves all of which are going to intermodulate giving rise to a noise-like error signal (noise modulation).

 

[853guy]

I think the extra trick classical demands is keeping FR complete and coherent (both location and depth) for some many precise parts.....and each part having different levels of energy. even different than 'live' where there tends to be a confluence of sound, and recordings can have the potential for laying out individual threads more clearly. (not saying it's a real as 'live'.....it's different).

can you get the distinct full impact while also delivering the delicacy and maintaining ease and naturalness?

our reference for all these parts with classical is more true, than most other musical genres, therefore the expectations are higher.

of course, the 800 pound gorilla in the room.......is the room and the synergy with the system.

Hi Mike,

I feel like we’re highjacking this thread (I blame Bonzo…!), so I’ll keep this short.

As someone who played orchestra in high school I’m very aware of the demands the genre can put on a system. Like I’ve already mentioned, I’ve heard too many systems that excel at one thing while exhibiting deficiencies in another. That frequency response in music (rather than steady state signals) is never divorced from the amplitude with which it is delivered, nor when it occurs in time, I’m reluctant to use one genre of music as the arbiter of anything, except for how that particular system conveys that particular genre.

Be well!

853guy

 

[microstrip]

I agree with these 2 gentlemen. I will admit giving up to the dark side and find myself having a thing about Rolex and Breitling watches that I own:b.. They do nothing better than any other watch and their entire purpose is to stroke the ego when you remember that you are wearing them.... OTOH there is at least a stated goal for Audio equipment, that of reproducing music as well as possible . Our industry has taken the Luxury market path with our items costing more and more for doubtful increase in performance. Much brainpower is being devoted from both the manufacturers and the users (us) to justify this state of affair thus the constant hyperbole and the always "improving" gears . KK is simply writing for his industry and trying to justify the turn taken by it. It would be much harder and counterproductive for him to admit that performance in High End Audio gear has reached a plateau .. may have reached that earlier that we want to admit.

Independently of giving us music, IMHO one of the needs of any high-end manufacturer is survival. Surely in order to do it he will have to adapt his products to the taste of people prepared to spend money with the products he develops - and here luxury can cross audio. It is a fact that the high-end industry needs press and people such as KK to spread information. Although I do not care about his reviews, many people do and I have been told that his reviews really sell products.

But I expect that when analyzing performance we are able to separate luxury characteristics from performance. In high-end audio we have poor, good and excellent audio products. Even iconic brands went through great and less good or simply poor phases. Market rules play their role in the survival high-end race. But performance is increasing at regular rates, and in the last few years in a key area - improvements in digital sound reproduction equipment that drove the whole range of equipment - amplifiers, speakers and accessories - in significant progress. IMHO we always feel we are in a plateau until we reach next plateau.

I can understand that those whose preference makes them stick to analog consider that the plateau was reached some time ago. But IMHO anyone following what digital is now finally reaching can see that the high-end is still climbing, if he wants to see (or listen to ) it. But perhaps this is the subject for another thread.

BTW, my best watch is a pocket watch from the XIX century, dating from the XIX century and shown here, distuning with the beautiful watches shown in an WBF thread. http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?10064-What-determines-the-value-of-a-watch&p=182864&viewfull=1#post182864 I surely disagree with the unkind comments expressed by another poster on luxury watch collectors sensitivities or obsessions.

 

[853guy]

Hi 853

You lost me.

Clearly the music we listen to isn't steady state, but still nevertheless is able to be decomposed into combinations of sinewaves all of which are going to intermodulate giving rise to a noise-like error signal (noise modulation).

Hi opus,

I think the topic is valuable, but I'm conscious the subject matter perhaps belongs in another thread.

Best,

853guy

 

[bonzo75]

Hi Mike,

I feel like we’re highjacking this thread (I blame Bonzo…!), so I’ll keep this short.

As someone who played orchestra in high school I’m very aware of the demands the genre can put on a system. Like I’ve already mentioned, I’ve heard too many systems that excel at one thing while exhibiting deficiencies in another. That frequency response in music (rather than steady state signals) is never divorced from the amplitude with which it is delivered, nor when it occurs in time, I’m reluctant to use one genre of music as the arbiter of anything, except for how that particular system conveys that particular genre.

Be well!

853guy

You didn't play the orchestra, just an instrument in the orchestra

Semantically yours

 

[Lee]

I have a more optimistic view of the hobby than some here.

http://thehighfidelityreport.com/the-golden-age-of-audio-is-now/

There is a newish ultra-luxury end of the market with incredible prices but I have seen much evidence of the technology informing design of more reasonably priced products.

 

[853guy]

You didn't play the orchestra, just an instrument in the orchestra

Semantically yours

Ha! Technically, I played whatever notes were written in the score. The instrument was just the intermediary transducer.

Yours in even more semantic ridiculousness,

853guy

 

[spiritofmusic]

853, I do believe many skeptics view our hobby as ridiculousness personified LOL
Nothing semantic in that sentiment

 

[morricab]

Hi soundArgument,

Though I concur with some of your sentiments, my perspective is a little different.

Tell me, how much enjoyment did you derive from flying to Vienna to hear the Philharmonic? Was it proportionate to the cost of the flights, accommodation, food and concert tickets? Of was the enjoyment your derived disproportionate? I’m imaging it was disproportionate, in that the cost of “investment” was considered less than the “return” (the enjoyment) with which you were rewarded, despite the fact it was fundamentally an experience defined by its ephemerality, and as such has no utility value beyond the experience itself.

Would you then deny another the same enjoyment they derive from a watch, which although of limited utility value (to tell the time), provides the owner a degree of disproportionate enjoyment relative to cost stemming from its aesthetic value, materiality and appreciation of the maker’s craft?

Would you also deny the same enjoyment to those of us who purchase contemporary art works, or photos, or industrial furniture from the 1930’s, or classic cars, or Japanese ceramics, or first-edition books, despite the fact that return on investment is usually a crap shoot, most suffer depreciation and maintaining and insuring those items brings no reward beyond the enjoyment they provide the owner?

Music appreciation is an extremely poor investment. Yet as a socio-cultural pursuit I would posit continues to have profound meaning for our humanity that we still struggle to fully comprehend. I get that everyone has their passions, and often those passions do not intersect and overlap (i.e. flying to Vienna to hear Bruckner, but deriding another for enthusiasm for the Beatles), but fundamentally, any passion is defined far more from the enjoyment derived than it is the utility value it represents. That’s why they’re passions, right?

The “vulgar(ness)” you point out in those you claim are sensitive to unrefined sensibilities are a reality present in nearly all spheres of life, not limited to watches, cars, clothing, wine, and yes, those who travel to foreign countries to appreciate Romantic composers.

And while I completely agree turning high-end audio into a positional good is fraught with ideological problematicism, please don’t use your (“very serious”) enjoyment of music to deride those of us who appreciate aesthetics for aesthetic's sake - whether they be related to works of art, watches, or music not falling under the classical banner - as a reason to dismiss our enjoyment, despite the fact all of us are only doing so almost exclusively and precisely because of the level of enjoyment we derive from them.

Best,

853guy

I don't think music appreciation is so hard to understand. It is clearly hardwired into us as a species and man has been curious about beats and sound making since more or less the dawn of time. Every generation gets a certain percentage of people who are captivated by making organized noise (i.e. music) and have talent in making it. This satisfies something deep within them. Those of us with that need but not the talent become good listeners (again to the limits of that "talent").

Turning music making, a very human process, into a commodity is a wrong turn in the evolution of music in a lot of ways but it doesn't stop some very creative people from making great music and talented engineers from making great gear. However, they are now competing with the all addicting internet and smartphones and so survival pushes them either to cheap mass market or uber expensive luxury, where they can cater to egos when in the past they catered to ears.

I personally don't find a problem with love of gear for gear's sake but when you have to pay a price like a real work of art then I balk. A piece of gear is a highly reproducible item whereas a unique work of art is a moment of creative burst captured in time.

 

[morricab]

Hey Bonzo,

You know the speaker isn’t sentient, right? It’s just transforming electrical energy into acoustic energy, yes? The waveform will always be comprised of pitch+amplitude/time, and that will be the case wether it’s a solo voice, a choral symphonic work, or Nine Inch Nails.

Is the acoustic tonality of a large scale symphonic work any more of a test for a system than the micro-dynamic shadings and rhythmic agility of a bandwidth-limited piccolo flute or countertenor? Given the number of speakers that fail the latter test, I’m not sure large symphonic works by themselves have any intrinsic value in the evaluation of a system, except to reinforce the musical sensibilities of the the subject.

Yours in needless semantics,

853guy

Regardless, the audible confusion is clear to hear with inferior systems, which indicates that it is messing up (i.e. distorting) these voltage transitions either before it gets to the driver or at the driver. At any given instant in time there can be only one input voltage the question is the speed of transitions required to "get it all". I suspect a lot of amps get into slewing issues and therefore distort and screw up phase relationships even before it gets to the speaker. Then there is the harmonic and IMD distortion that is going to multiply exponentially. Just going from one to two tones creates a wealth of problems for a lot of electronics then keep piling it on and you create a sonic "muck" that is fluctuating with the signal and masking information. The white paper from Nelson Pass talks about the IMD issue and the concentration of distortion.

I would argue that probably no commercially available speaker can truly do full orchestra but that also the electronics are failing to deliver just as often and probably more so when the speaker is capable of say a string quartet.

I think the ability to retain some individuality of instruments within the greater sense of orchestra (recording permitting) while capturing both micro and macro dynamics is more difficult than a lot of smaller scale material. However, most systems CANNOT even capture a single instrument with reasonable accuracy, either micro or macro. I think though that a system that gets closer to right on the large scale material (which has both micro and macro swings) will probably be able to handle the smaller scale stuff more realistically as well. It is not like it will get LESS resolving when there are fewer instruments and most experience suggests that it will get more so.

I do agree though that to judge a system a wide range of music should be used as confirmatory experience since we are far from a mathematical theory here where we can definitively predict the outcome...so why not play some stuff and find out?? To deliberately restrict yourself to Mahler is just silly, IMO because it might be that it does that brilliantly but it might not do Kraftwerk or Chick Corea all that well...it should but if you are not listening to the whole picture you might like only a certain aspect of the sound that favors tone over resolution, for example and leads you to a biased result.