How do you know what sounds better?

[f1eng]

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

 

- What genres do you tend to use?

 

- Any particular recordings to recommend?

 

Mainly classical recordings, the Tennstedt Mahler 5th in particular, but also another by Jacques Brel, Pawnshop jazz recordings. Most of the live recordings are somewhat old now I come to think about it.

[f1eng]

 

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

 

I tend to, yes. Since I have had a sound level app on my phone I check more often at concerts. I don't expect to achieve rock music stadium loudness, but other stuff, yes. IMHO this is one of the main ways in which home systems fail to sound like live music. Live music is much louder than most people seem to realise. Most home systems will not go anywhere near loud enough due mainly to lack of amp power and speaker compression. Most of the systems I have measured -sounded- loud well before they actually -were- loud due to this. The ear interprets the distortion and non- linearity as loud even when it isn't.

[spdif-usb]

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 think so, yes. Some people set a specific goal before they start to compare a piece of equipment to another piece of equipment.

They try to listen for differences in specific attributes of the sound. What they often don't realize is that, by doing so, the most important attributes are easily not given much attention by them, and that this in fact alters their perception alot. In other words, they are listening to a biased version of the sound, which usually results in a variety of prejudices towards, and inevitable misconceptions of, the equiment being auditioned. So, basically, it's next to impossible to judge a system correctly without focusing on the music and nothing but the music. That is, except if the listener has received a formal training to develop his or her listening skills (and even then, comparisons are not always entirely free from the effects of human bias, as has been shown, time and again, during field tests in psychoacoustics).

[sdolezalek]

I think so, yes. In other words, they are listening to a biased version of the sound, which usually results in a variety of prejudices towards, and inevitable misconceptions of, the equiment being auditioned.

 

This is exactly what I was trying to get at in posting this in the first place. I agree that we all have inherent biases in what we like and dislike in our musical tastes and in part that is influenced by the equipment we are used to. Comparing equipment might just lead to more of whatever our bias is -- for example some like chest thumping bass (real or not) others mike like that "airy sound" even if the original didn't have a lot of air.

 

But that leaves us with two possibly quite divergent outcomes: one is the most accurate, i.e. true to the original sound and the other is the version of the sound we like best, accurate or not. If its our equipment either end result is great, but if it is a recommendation by a third party of a piece of equipment then it becomes unclear whether that recommendation has value unless both we and the reviewer are using the first "accuracy" standard.

[spdif-usb]

Your ears aren't my ears, so the first "accuracy" standard, as you describe it, is still going to be always very much biased in the first place. Hence, the "value" that you speak of is what I will typically always, to the best of my abilities, try to steer clear of.

This is exactly what I was trying to get at in posting this in the first place. I agree that we all have inherent biases in what we like and dislike in our musical tastes and in part that is influenced by the equipment we are used to. Comparing equipment might just lead to more of whatever our bias is -- for example some like chest thumping bass (real or not) others mike like that "airy sound" even if the original didn't have a lot of air.

 

But that leaves us with two possibly quite divergent outcomes: one is the most accurate, i.e. true to the original sound and the other is the version of the sound we like best, accurate or not. If its our equipment either end result is great, but if it is a recommendation by a third party of a piece of equipment then it becomes unclear whether that recommendation has value unless both we and the reviewer are using the first "accuracy" standard.

[Jud]

This is exactly what I was trying to get at in posting this in the first place. I agree that we all have inherent biases in what we like and dislike in our musical tastes and in part that is influenced by the equipment we are used to. Comparing equipment might just lead to more of whatever our bias is -- for example some like chest thumping bass (real or not) others mike like that "airy sound" even if the original didn't have a lot of air.

 

But that leaves us with two possibly quite divergent outcomes: one is the most accurate, i.e. true to the original sound and the other is the version of the sound we like best, accurate or not.

 

That's why one thing I listen for is how different various recordings sound from each other. If a piece of equipment is providing chest thumping bass or "that airy sound" to every single recording, then it isn't accurate. If there's chest thumping bass on one recording and "that airy sound" on another, then maybe it is. Further listening with a wide variety of recordings should help determine even more accurately whether the equipment has an evident sound of its own, or whether it lets different types of music come through.

[jhwalker]

I am willing to believe "better" or "worse" when we're talking about the analog realm (e.g., speakers, analog interconnects, speaker wires, etc.). I'm much less likely to entertain the idea that a *digital* signal chain can affect the sound of music. There, I'd need numbers before I'd trust what I think my ears are hearing

[spdif-usb]

Rumor has it Intel sounds better than AMD...

I am willing to believe "better" or "worse" when we're talking about the analog realm (e.g., speakers, analog interconnects, speaker wires, etc.). I'm much less likely to entertain the idea that a *digital* signal chain can affect the sound of music. There, I'd need numbers before I'd trust what I think my ears are hearing

[NOMBEDES]

This is easy. If it sounds good, then it is good. It is your money. It is your music. Your space. No charts, no meters, no fear and loathing. No trolling on the form.

 

Just enjoy.

[NOMBEDES]

Since I can't reliably resolve differences others claim are stunningly obvious, I have decided either my hearing/auditory processing/equipment is hopelessly inferior, or I'm in the midst of some sort of mass hysteria. Either way, I've decided it is kind of pointless to obsess on things I don't properly appreciate, and to spend more time on things I can appreciate.

 

 

Yes. Fanned.

[mwheelerk]

Interestingly enough after having said I don't quite get the use of 'live' as a reference point in system evaluation now comes three recordings from HD Tracks in their new Binaural+ series that are the most live and real recordings I have heard in some time. The Wycliffe Gordon and Amber Rubarth albums are stunning. Explorations In Space And Time that features Lenny White is also very interesting. I guess if a recording sounds live for me these are it.

[mwheelerk]

This is an interesting little read and not so much a musical autobiography as a study of music. From chapter 3:

 

"What has happened is to some extent what Sousa feared: we now think of the sound of recordings when we think of a song or piece of music, and the live performance of that same piece is now considered the interpretation of the recorded version. What was originally a stimulation of performance -the recording-has supplanted performances, and performances are now considered the stimulation."

[flez007]

As some have already mentioned it, I trust my ears, since I have preferences, biases and like some certain sorts of music at a certain listening levels.

[GoldenEar]

I trust my ears, but I don't like systematic a/b testing. In my experience, if I try to make out differences, I usually become confused rapidly. However, if I listen normally (even sometimes reading/surfing while I listen) to a new piece of equipment, I sometimes discover different sounds in familiar recordings. I don't care about "more live", as long as it is subjectively "more real" to me. In most cases this occurs to me with piano recordings or solo voices, probably because I know these "instruments" best.

 

Just my humble 2 cents.

Kay

[mwheelerk]

I trust my ears, but I don't like systematic a/b testing. In my experience, if I try to make out differences, I usually become confused rapidly. However, if I listen normally (even sometimes reading/surfing while I listen) to a new piece of equipment, I sometimes discover different sounds in familiar recordings. I don't care about "more live", as long as it is subjectively "more real" to me. In most cases this occurs to me with piano recordings or solo voices, probably because I know these "instruments" best.

 

Just my humble 2 cents.

Kay

It's a reasonable 2 cents to me in fact I also notice things I had not noticed before in familiar music when I am distracted doing something else. It's that 'sound' and it draws you back to the music

[GoldenEar]

It's that 'sound' and it draws you back to the music

 

Yes, that's exactly what I mean. New equipment that really makes a difference draws your attention to details that you did not notice before. In my experience, if I go back to the previous piece of equipment, I realize that the detail is in fact there and I wonder, why I never heard that before. This might be a psychological effect, but on the other hand it never happens if I did not change equipment.

 

Regards

Kay