How do you know what sounds better?

[sdolezalek]

If during a listening session I don't get goose bumps several times, I know I not really into it that day.

 

With my surround system and good source material, I would add the "jump out of your seat" and "make the hair on the back of your neck stand up" factors. Both mean that I have achieved a sense of realism that separates this listening experience from the background listening I might do in the car, or the critical listening I might do with my earphones on.

[Daudio]

I must admit I have never quite understood the "use live music as a reference". This is not a criticism of that statement but I in general really don't understand. I mean unless what you listen to are acoustic instruments, not amplified, played in a live environment (meaning all players together at the same time in the same acoustic space) then I don't get it. Most of the music I have and love was recorded in studios, probably multi-tracked with various parts recorded at different times or compiled from different takes and whatever else I cannot think of. How does live music become a reference for a home system for that?

 

If your goal is just 'Sounds Good' then whatever floats your boat is fine. But if your goal is sonic accuracy, then live acoustic music is the reference you need.

 

Studio produced music is inherently altered, by mikes, boards, processors, and even the studio monitors, and the source simply can not be compared to the product. Add in the 'space' distortions of somewhat isolated, separately miked instruments and there can be no inherent acoustical truth in the recording, no matter how much one may enjoy the music.

 

But live acoustic music can be compared to the recorded and reproduced product. While it is unusual to have an exact copy, I do know at least one audiophile who was present at a recorded classical concert, the finial mix in the studio, and had the resultant CD, which he used in auditioning equipment.

 

Usually through, the audiophile trains his/her ears at various concerts and venues for the characteristic sound of instruments in acoustic spaces. Enough of this kind of exposure will integrate that sonic knowledge to surpass issues of specific instruments, performances, and acoustic spaces, to be useful in comparing audio reproduction in an audio recording/system situation.

 

Note that I say 'live, acoustic' music, because once any sound reinforcement equipment is added to the event, the source is compromised by varied electronics and speakers, again severely altering the 'live' source (differently then the studio alterations). Just too damn many variables !

 

So 'live, acoustic' music has the least variables and the richest 'signal', for a trained ear to use in determining accuracy in music reproduction. Once one assembles an audiophile system based on 'accuracy', the benefits should apply to both live and studio recordings. Through that may well be influenced by the quality of the studios gear and skills.

 

This is not anything new. It's the concept of the 'Absolute Sound' which has been around for quite a while. I'm surprised so few here on CA are familiar with it

[mwheelerk]

If your goal is just 'Sounds Good' then whatever floats your boat is fine. But if your goal is sonic accuracy, then live acoustic music is the reference you need.

 

Studio produced music is inherently altered, by mikes, boards, processors, and even the studio monitors, and the source simply can not be compared to the product. Add in the 'space' distortions of somewhat isolated, separately miked instruments and there can be no inherent acoustical truth in the recording, no matter how much one may enjoy the music.

 

But live acoustic music can be compared to the recorded and reproduced product. While it is unusual to have an exact copy, I do know at least one audiophile who was present at a recorded classical concert, the finial mix in the studio, and had the resultant CD, which he used in auditioning equipment.

 

Usually through, the audiophile trains his/her ears at various concerts and venues for the characteristic sound of instruments in acoustic spaces. Enough of this kind of exposure will integrate that sonic knowledge to surpass issues of specific instruments, performances, and acoustic spaces, to be useful in comparing audio reproduction in an audio recording/system situation.

 

Note that I say 'live, acoustic' music, because once any sound reinforcement equipment is added to the event, the source is compromised by varied electronics and speakers, again severely altering the 'live' source (differently then the studio alterations). Just too damn many variables !

 

So 'live, acoustic' music has the least variables and the richest 'signal', for a trained ear to use in determining accuracy in music reproduction. Once one assembles an audiophile system based on 'accuracy', the benefits should apply to both live and studio recordings. Through that may well be influenced by the quality of the studios gear and skills.

 

This is not anything new. It's the concept of the 'Absolute Sound' which has been around for quite a while. I'm surprised so few here on CA are familiar with it

 

My point is how do you use live music as a reference when the album being evaluated is strictly a creation of the studio as is the case with so many albums. After the fact live performances are not typically note for note renditions of the album and do not share virtually no acoustic setting with the original recording. Now if you have a live recording of an event you attended I might have an understanding exactly how this is referenced. I guess for the average sound of any acoustic instrument compared to another (if the tuning was the same and the environment was the same) okay but to judge any recording and then equipment by that recording based on the sound live it escapes me.

 

I like what I hear. I compare what I hear to other recordings or use the same recordings to compare other equipment and I make a choice of preference based on my environment and set up. I guess I don't know how to make a comparison of something I heard live compared to a studio recording that I play back on my system.

[Jud]

I must admit I have never quite understood the "use live music as a reference". This is not a criticism of that statement but I in general really don't understand. I mean unless what you listen to are acoustic instruments, not amplified, played in a live environment (meaning all players together at the same time in the same acoustic space) then I don't get it. Most of the music I have and love was recorded in studios, probably multi-tracked with various parts recorded at different times or compiled from different takes and whatever else I cannot think of. How does live music become a reference for a home system for that?

 

Yes, you're right that you're not going to have a live reference for most recorded music. So whatever you use as a reference is not going to be perfect. But there's something you can do, and it reminds me of a story a former law partner told me.

 

The law partner was representing the family of a trucker who died when a tire blew out and the truck overturned. The tires had 2-piece rims that under some circumstances came apart, and there were several lawsuits about this across the country. The partner had hired an expert witness to testify on the design of the tires, and the expert was being deposed (sworn testimony taken before a trial) by the defense lawyer for the tire company.

 

The first question the lawyer asked was, "There's no such thing as a perfect tire, is there?" This is a great question, because if the expert answers yes, he's obviously full of BS and no one will believe him, and if he says no, he's on the classic "slippery slope" - the lawyer's gonna keep at him until he basically says all tires are crap so this one's as good as any other. So the expert is sweating right on this very first question, and he hesitates. The lawyer, pressing his advantage, says "Now come on, you can't make a perfect tire, can you?" But after another second's hesitation, suddenly the expert grins, and calmly says, "No, but you can make a mighty fine tire!"

 

OK, so a recording will never give you a perfect representation of a live event. But you can get mighty close in certain respects. For example, one of the recordings I use as a reference is Gillian Welch's The Harrow and the Harvest. It's pretty much just Welch and her partner on vocals and acoustic guitars, and the production is very sparing. It is recorded well enough that you can plainly tell differences between the two acoustic guitars. Welch's voice sounds just about as plain as if she were standing in the room singing, and the acoustic guitars stay in the background, so you can hear the voice and its subtle intonations and phrasing very well. For me, that's the sort of recording where you can say to yourself, "Do those guitars sound like acoustic guitars I've heard in my home, on my back porch, in restaurants and clubs, etc.? Is there the proper balance between string tone and reverb from the guitar body, and between those and the sounds of fingers on strings? Does Gillian's vocal sound like people I've heard singing in my home, outdoors, in churches/synagogues, in small clubs, at parties, etc.? With which piece of equipment (or, pace everyone, cable) do I catch more of her phrasing, breathing, subtle changes in volume and emphasis?"

[Paul R]

Well said Mike.

 

Another thought, each time you play a music file, CD, record, tape, whatever - it is (and by some measure should be) a performance in itself. The same as any other performance, though in this case, the music is recorded.

 

There is at least some justification for that point of view.

 

-Paul

 

 

My point is how do you use live music as a reference when the album being evaluated is strictly a creation of the studio as is the case with so many albums. After the fact live performances are not typically note for note renditions of the album and do not share virtually no acoustic setting with the original recording. Now if you have a live recording of an event you attended I might have an understanding exactly how this is referenced. I guess for the average sound of any acoustic instrument compared to another (if the tuning was the same and the environment was the same) okay but to judge any recording and then equipment by that recording based on the sound live it escapes me.

 

I like what I hear. I compare what I hear to other recordings or use the same recordings to compare other equipment and I make a choice of preference based on my environment and set up. I guess I don't know how to make a comparison of something I heard live compared to a studio recording that I play back on my system.

[Daudio]

Yes, you're right that you're not going to have a live reference for most recorded music. So whatever you use as a reference is not going to be perfect...

 

OK, so a recording will never give you a perfect representation of a live event. But you can get mighty close in certain respects. For example, one of the recordings I use as a reference is Gillian Welch's The Harrow and the Harvest. It's pretty much just Welch and her partner on vocals and acoustic guitars, and the production is very sparing. It is recorded well enough that you can plainly tell differences between the two acoustic guitars. Welch's voice sounds just about as plain as if she were standing in the room singing, and the acoustic guitars stay in the background, so you can hear the voice and its subtle intonations and phrasing very well. For me, that's the sort of recording where you can say to yourself, "Do those guitars sound like acoustic guitars I've heard in my home, on my back porch, in restaurants and clubs, etc.? Is there the proper balance between string tone and reverb from the guitar body, and between those and the sounds of fingers on strings? Does Gillian's vocal sound like people I've heard singing in my home, outdoors, in churches/synagogues, in small clubs, at parties, etc.? With which piece of equipment (or, pace everyone, cable) do I catch more of her phrasing, breathing, subtle changes in volume and emphasis?"

 

Jud,

 

Beautifully put tale of using your knowledge of live sound to judge what is accurate (realistic, SOTA, better, whatever) in recordings, and I'm sure, in equipment too.

 

What I am saying is that knowing the 'real' sound lets your audio judgment be guided by accuracy to that reference, not to a subjective preference of what sounds cool! Most of us spend most of our music listening time to varying qualities of electronic sound. And we've all grown up with ubiquitous electronic sound: old TV's, transistor radios, telephones, HIFI, iPods, et all...

 

So, perhaps, we have unconscious biases, and need a reference. How many CA audiophiles actually take the time to 'calibrate' their ears ? It is those few that kept me around here, amidst all the noise.

 

Whether that judgment can help make commercial recordings more accurate is another question. But we can choose wisely amonst a small group of outstanding recordings to help show us what our equipment can, or can't, do.

[Daudio]

I like what I hear. I compare what I hear to other recordings or use the same recordings to compare other equipment and I make a choice of preference based on my environment and set up. I guess I don't know how to make a comparison of something I heard live compared to a studio recording that I play back on my system.

 

What kind of 'live' music do you listen to ?

 

When I mean 'live', I generally mean no electronics in the sound that is recorded. In most non-classical concerts you hear the bands loudspeaker array, not the band. A 'live, acoustic' recording isn't tainted by over-miking, lots of mixing and processing, or sound reinforcement equipment.

 

My point is how do you use live music as a reference when the album being evaluated is strictly a creation of the studio as is the case with so many albums. After the fact live performances are not typically note for note renditions of the album and do not share virtually no acoustic setting with the original recording. Now if you have a live recording of an event you attended I might have an understanding exactly how this is referenced. I guess for the average sound of any acoustic instrument compared to another (if the tuning was the same and the environment was the same) okay but to judge any recording and then equipment by that recording based on the sound live it escapes me.

 

Simple. you don't. You need to choose good 'live, acoustic' recordings to use as a reference.

 

There are lots of good jazz, chamber, symphony, and other recordings, with short, simple recording paths, and excellent miking techniques. Barry Diamont's Soundkeeper recordings are a great example. His knowledge of miking technique, choice of mikes, and his special mike array make some of the most realistic portrayals of a live acoustical event ever available.

 

If you can't really into the music, they are still a great audio system test/calibration tool.

 

And you need to pay a lot of attention to listening to live acoustic music. It takes practice and concentration to learn the sound of real instruments and spaces. Focus on what kind of sound you are hearing, is it coming out of a speaker, from an instrument, or both, is the acoustic space large or small, live or dead ?

 

Classical and chamber concerts are usually 'pure' acoustical listening events, while jazz and other small group gigs, usually have some, to lots, of electric instruments, mikes, and speakers, masking and distracting from the acoustical sound, through the experience of sound dynamics can be good.

[spdif-usb]

The only way that works for me is to just listen to all music genres, including those genres that I normally wouldn't listen to very often, for about a month or two. While doing this, I listen purely for pleasure and NOT for differences, and I do NOT listen to any other equipment at all, all until my hearing system has been given the proper (!) chance to adapt itself to as many attributes of the sound as possible (in other words, I am fairly obsessed with being an objectivist in the pure sense of the word).

[sdolezalek]

Since more than half of you responded "I can just tell by listening" and many if not most so responding said they went with whatever "sounded better to them", but without using something other than another recording, another piece of equipment or another piece of software (i.e. A/B comparison) as a "reference point," I can see why we would have a fair amount of disagreement between whatever DAC sounds best, which desktop speaker sounds best, etc.

 

But it also implies that in listening to others' views on what they like or don't like, I probably should listen most closely to those who use a reference point similar to what I use - namely a single live acoustic instrument carefully recorded vs. the live sound of that same instrument, with a single human voice being a pretty good starting point.

 

It also probably means that when someone describes a piece of equipment as making their system "more transparent," "smoother," "more immediate" or "whatever" that without knowing their starting point, it is really hard to decide whether that same change would be better or worse when applied to my own system.

 

All of which suggests that a "loaner policy" by local dealers/distributors could actually be very helpful (if only equipment wasn't both so expensive and so susceptible to mistreatment). I have found that to be very true when it comes to trying DSLR camera lenses (which are also rather fragile and expensive and not easily told apart (although there specifications do tend to tell more of the story).

 

Also; where are all the folks who say there can't be meaningful differences between cables because those differences cannot be shown by some form of measurement? Are there only two of you in that camp? Or maybe you fall in the camp that says prove your ability to pick the better sound by doing so repeatedly in A/B testing?

 

On the other hand, a lot of money could be saved by just convincing myself that I really like what I already have just because it sounds good to me...

[Paul R]

A bit of that is skewed by the choices available in the answers above, but I think in general, your conclusion is accurate. Perhaps the reasons you infer are open to more discussion. For example, many people replied in the discussion they use a combination of techniques, ending up with listening to make a final descision.

 

The number of answers for the first choice in the poll is probably inflated because it is easier to take that answer than to check other and explain in a post.

 

 

Paul

 

 

Since more than half of you responded "I can just tell by listening" and many if not most so responding said they went with whatever "sounded better to them", but without using something other than another recording, another piece of equipment or another piece of software (i.e. A/B comparison) as a "reference point," I can see why we would have a fair amount of disagreement between whatever DAC sounds best, which desktop speaker sounds best, etc.

 

But it also implies that in listening to others' views on what they like or don't like, I probably should listen most closely to those who use a reference point similar to what I use - namely a single live acoustic instrument carefully recorded vs. the live sound of that same instrument, with a single human voice being a pretty good starting point.

 

It also probably means that when someone describes a piece of equipment as making their system "more transparent," "smoother," "more immediate" or "whatever" that without knowing their starting point, it is really hard to decide whether that same change would be better or worse when applied to my own system.

 

All of which suggests that a "loaner policy" by local dealers/distributors could actually be very helpful (if only equipment wasn't both so expensive and so susceptible to mistreatment). I have found that to be very true when it comes to trying DSLR camera lenses (which are also rather fragile and expensive and not easily told apart (although there specifications do tend to tell more of the story).

 

Also; where are all the folks who say there can't be meaningful differences between cables because those differences cannot be shown by some form of measurement? Are there only two of you in that camp? Or maybe you fall in the camp that says prove your ability to pick the better sound by doing so repeatedly in A/B testing?

 

On the other hand, a lot of money could be saved by just convincing myself that I really like what I already have just because it sounds good to me...

[mayhem13]

 

Also; where are all the folks who say there can't be meaningful differences between cables because those differences cannot be shown by some form of measurement? Are there only two of you in that camp?...

 

Some have chosen to leave CA or no longer post. Others are simply respecting the request of the forum moderator to no longer challenge subjective claims or viewpoint. Whether or not that's a good thing or not....that's yours to decide.

[accwai]

[...] I probably should listen most closely to those who use a reference point similar to what I use - namely a single live acoustic instrument carefully recorded vs. the live sound of that same instrument, [...]

 

That would be quite difficult I think. I'm very familiar with live sound of 3 instruments: violin, french horn and piano. In all three cases, there is substantial variation between sound of individual instrument of that type. And each individual instrument sound different depending on your location: e.g. distance, height and your angle relative to the bell also in the case of french horn. Then the same instrument can also sound different depending on who is playing it. I would imagine other instruments would be the same. So you're comparing the sound of a system against your impression of the instruments at best. Still not an absolute reference though.

 

In any case, just spent an afternoon yesterday listening to a system with Ocellia Calliope.21 Grandis speakers driven by a 300B SET power amp. We used a variety of harpsichord, lautenwerk, forte piano, piano, organ, violin (solo and with piano), ensemble, full orchestra pieces with a couple if jazz vocals thrown in. In many cases different recordings of the same work are used. The result: all over the place, depending on what you're playing. The speakers are still quite new and positioning is not totally dialed in. But the overall characteristic is that of coherence. The system seems to have the uncanny ability to assemble subtle sonic clues into a complete soundscape. Images of instruments on the soundstage stays in place and maintains its character through their complete tone range.

 

At its best, the system acts almost like an window into a different acoustic space that has very little to do with the room you're in. Things are so believable that it feels almost like you can reach out and touch what's in that other space. On the other hand, it's quite unsettling to hear familiar recordings projected in unfamiliar, and often odd, ways--very close, very distant, huge sizes etc. Worst, on some recordings, you can clearly hear a layer of harshness or glare permeating the whole soundstage. And at its worst, the whole thing breaks down into a blob of noise, like at orchestral fortissimo.

 

So I think this is what I learned from the episode:

 

1. You have to keep an open mind--can't go by simply what you like and don't like. The system above presents some recordings in unsettling ways but its ability to resolve is clearly staggering.
   
2. There is no single type of reference music--systems can do very well on some type and not at all good on others. The system above can sound sublime, but that can turn to almost unbearable in an instance if you push it over its limit.
   

And more importantly I think, beyond certain level, there is no clear cut better or worst. It's all trade off between strengths and weaknesses. It's down to knowing the trade offs and prioritizing accordingly.

 

Andy

[4est]

Some have chosen to leave CA or no longer post. Others are simply respecting the request of the forum moderator to no longer challenge subjective claims or viewpoint. Whether or not that's a good thing or not....that's yours to decide.

 

A little bitter eh?

 

IMO, you failed to properly represent the moderators wishes, skewing it to seem as if he is picking on objectivists. Tthe truth is much more even handed in favor of what the OP is asking for.

[sdolezalek]

So here is what I have learned ...[*]You have to keep an open mind--can't go by simply what you like and don't like. The system above presents some recordings in unsettling ways but its ability to resolve is clearly staggering.

[*]There is no single type of reference music--systems can do very well on some type and not at all good on others. The system above can sound sublime, but that can turn to almost unbearable in an instance if you push it over its limit.

And more importantly I think, beyond certain level, there is no clear cut better or worst. It's all trade off between strengths and weaknesses. It's down to knowing the trade offs and prioritizing accordingly.

 

Andy

 

Andy: I think you framed as well as it can be said -- everything is a compromise and the tradeoffs we each make depends greatly on what we like to listen to, how we like to listen and what we care about -- which brings us full circle to the conclusion that there is no one "better sound."

[mayhem13]

A little bitter eh?

 

IMO, you failed to properly represent the moderators wishes, skewing it to seem as if he is picking on objectivists. Tthe truth is much more even handed in favor of what the OP is asking for.

 

This post is a clear example of how a thread gets derailed and an arguement ensues.

 

I responded to a question posed that has absolutely NOTHING to do with you or your viewpoint. There was no need for a reply of any kind, even more so your baited insult and poor summation touted as an opinion. A little self control goes a long way.....exercise some.

[ipeverywhere]

Most the music I listen to sounds awful live (think concrete indoor stadiums). I have a handful of albums I've listened to repeatedly for over 20 years. I know how I want them to sound and when they sound better on an A/B test I go with A or B.

 

I will use a SPL to verify levels for surround sound.

 

I hired someone to voice my room (calibrated mic, software, etc,) and now that I've got some acoustic panels up I will do that again.

 

My New Years resolution might very well be to get to some decent concert halls as I'm slowly getting into more Jazz and Classical simply because the recordings sound better. Maybe then I will compare to live.

 

Ultimatly though, I always come back to one or two favorite songs, close my eyes, and if I feel it's there, I don't touch anything. If not, I tinker.

 

edit: Question, For those trying to match live do you also try to match the volume of a live performance?

[wgb113]

 

edit: Question, For those trying to match live do you also try to match the volume of a live performance?

 

If I did that I'd be deaf and divorced by now!

 

Bill

[DigiPete]

Well, sort of . .

 

I believe in quantum leaping equipment, not incremental change.

 

That means that I have concidered a whole new system of a whole new technical architecture.

I went from a good minimalistic linear analogue turntable driven system to a full digital DSP room corrected system.

 

I used:

 

Technical topology to choose systems to audition.

I deselected small garage firms that does not take advantage of mass production and may fold any time.

Finally listening tests with known material confirmed my choice.

 

The brain is truly great at compensating, so it's not to be trusted with spotting minute changes.

Also, the brains ability to spot differences is very dependent of sound levels, so you need a very precisely calibrated sound level for any comparisons to make any sense at all.

I'm alergic to distortion, so that is a no-brainer.

 

IMHO - EQ the system, use the same room and calibrate the sound level very precisely, or your brain will play tricks on you!

[spdif-usb]

And more importantly I think, beyond certain level, there is no clear cut better or worst. It's all trade off between strengths and weaknesses. It's down to knowing the trade offs and prioritizing accordingly.

If I listen to the strengths and weaknesses of a system, I can't hear the music because the subtleties in the music are what the music is supposed to be all about in the first place, and I can't hear those subtleties when I am busy trying to hear the characteristics of the system instead. If I can't hear the music, I can't enjoy the music. If I can't enjoy the music, I can't answer questions about how well the system will let me enjoy listening to music. It's as perfectly simple as that, really.

[accwai]

If I listen to the strengths and weaknesses of a system, I can't hear the music because the subtleties in the music are what the music is supposed to be all about in the first place, and I can't hear those subtleties when I am busy trying to hear the characteristics of the system instead. If I can't hear the music, I can't enjoy the music. If I can't enjoy the music, I can't answer questions about how well the system will let me enjoy listening to music. It's as perfectly simple as that, really.

 

Well for me, the goal isn't so much enjoyment of the music but awareness. If I'm aware that the performance is great and the system lets the performance come through, then I enjoy (or aware that I'm enjoying, to be more precise ). If something goes wrong, I become aware that something is wrong. When that happens, sometimes I'm aware of what's wrong and can articulate it. But other times, I'm not. To me, it isn't so much about strenuously searching for something to say as opening oneself and let in awareness of all kinds. Then the answer comes effortlessly. Good or bad, enjoy or not, there must always be awareness behind it. Awareness is bliss. As simple as that...

 

Andy

[Guidof]

Those of us, like me, who mainly listen to jazz and classical have it (relatively) easy when it comes to "live music" as a standard for excellent playback quality. You do have to live in a place where frequent concert or club listening is possible, of course.

 

As has been pointed out, reproduced music *never* sounds as convincing as the real thing, but the closer it comes, the more satisfying it is to me.

 

On the other hand, my treadmill system (see sig), though mid-fi at best, sounds fine when I'm exercising and listening to Dinah Washington's 'Complete's Mosaic set or Pavarotti belting it out in the Three Tenors.

 

Guido F.

[spdif-usb]

Well, since the goal of the equipment is to reproduce music, I guess it would indeed be fair to conclude that awareness of the music is bliss. Which, again, explains why I listen, whenever I need to find out how well the equipment can perform, to the music and not the equipment (if that makes sense).

Well for me, the goal isn't so much enjoyment of the music but awareness. If I'm aware that the performance is great and the system lets the performance come through, then I enjoy (or aware that I'm enjoying, to be more precise ). If something goes wrong, I become aware that something is wrong. When that happens, sometimes I'm aware of what's wrong and can articulate it. But other times, I'm not. To me, it isn't so much about strenuously searching for something to say as opening oneself and let in awareness of all kinds. Then the answer comes effortlessly. Good or bad, enjoy or not, there must always be awareness behind it. Awareness is bliss. As simple as that...

 

Andy

[f1eng]

I use live recordings, including those I have made myself.

[accwai]

Well, since the goal of the equipment is to reproduce music, I guess it would indeed be fair to conclude that awareness of the music is bliss. Which, again, explains why I listen, whenever I need to find out how well the equipment can perform, to the music and not the equipment (if that makes sense).

 

I was talking about awareness, not awareness of music. In meditative practices, what you talked about is like one-pointed concentration--exclude everything but the object of focus. What I talked about is like insight meditation--face your situation without aim or aversion, and let the experience unfold. The former is often considered a stepping stone towards the latter because one will soon discover that the object of focus is not a solid thing as one initially thought. And to proceed, one have no choice but to let it go and open up to all experiences instead of focusing exclusively on one.

 

Likewise, music through a sound system is not a solid thing. It's sound. It's rhythm. It's melody. It's harmony. It's dynamics. It's articulation. It's phrasing. And it's emotion. But it's more. It's history: composer, musicologists, editors. It's the instrument and their makers. And of course the players and the recording engineers. It's also the audio system that convey all these--how the system is voiced has a big effect on the overall presentation. And music is also the sum of all of the above. All these aspects can come to mind while listening. I don't see anything invalid about any of them.

 

And by the way, I personally don't use recognized audiophile "test records" to listen for sonic attributes. If that's the reason for your reaction, I probably didn't explain it very clearly. I normally use classical pieces. Many of them are non-mainstream so the recording qualities varies quite a bit. And how the system performs always come up in the context of the music, not in a vacuum.

 

In last weekend's listening session I mentioned, many topics came up. We listened to Bach on harpsichord and lautenwerk. We noted the difference and talked about the recent revival of lautenwerk. We listened to Scarlatti on harpsichord, forte piano and piano and discussed the distinct sound of each. We listened to Thomas Tallis' 40 part motet Spem in alium and noted how the sound broke apart at the loudest points. Then we speculated on the piece's relationship with Alessandro Striggio's 40/60 part mass Missa sopra Ecco sì beato giorno. We noted the circular breathing used in Sharon Bezaly's version of J.S.Bach flute partita in A minor. We listened to multiple versions of Heinrich Wilhelm Ernst's Polyphonic Study No.6, noting the different soundstage and overall presentations. We also talked about the various mind-bending techniques demanded by the piece and why it is regarded as the most difficult piece in the whole violin repertoire. We also talked about how coherent the system sound and the seemingly unending harmonic decay. Etc, etc... All in all a very enjoyable afternoon. The whole experience wouldn't be nearly as enjoyable if we were to come in with specific goals.

 

In the end, I feel we are talking more or less the same thing and what's we're doing here is just mincing words. So perhaps it's all for nothing? I don't know...

 

Andy

[Jud]

I use live recordings, including those I have made myself.

 

For the live recordings other than those you've made yourself:

 

- What genres do you tend to use?

 

- Any particular recordings to recommend?