2011 California Audio Show

[JohnMichael]

You are missing the whole point of hi-end audio: reproduction of what you would hear live and unamplified. And, yes, that means that if you want your stereo to produce sounds like you heard at some "live" rock concert (e.g., a Stones or Who concert through thousands of ss watts and crappy speakers), you may get something that you like, but it has NO relationship to the absolute sound.

I think recorded music is like photography. A reminder of the original event. I attend and enjoy classical concerts. Then I go home and listen to that same music in my smaller listening space. I enjoy looking at my pictures of Paris but they are not like walking the streets of Paris. They are a very nice reminder.

[tube fan]

Right - but I actually hear a lot of Jazz bands (or rather one) often in a coffee shops here in Oakland. But I'm actually going - again - to Davies tonight.

The sound you hear at Davies will have NOTHING in common with the harsh etched sound in the MBL room.

[atomicAdam]

Right - I was going to get back to this.

I'd have to say I disagree. The cymbals at Davies were dang near spot on to what I heard in the MBL room.

Except they were 100 or more feet away and in a huge room. But the brashness, the effortlessness, how crisp and resonating they were. IDK if you've ever been next to a cymbal - like right next to it playing in a band or something - but they are harsh and etched on the attack. The resonance isn't - which I found to be the same case in the MBL room.

Except in the MBL room you were like 10 ft away - similar to being 10ft away from a high hat when it is being played loudly. Which most of the time in recorded music - especially with what they were playing in the MBL room - is how it is played - and the engineer can figure out level.

Anyways - just like I said before - we have different ears - and what sound real to me doesn't mean it sounds real to you. So the whole 'should be held to live concert criteria' works fine for YOUR IDEA of what a live concert sounds like.

That gets back to my whole point - holding hifi to what a live sound sounds like is only hold hifi to what you perceive a live sound to sound like. Not what I do with my ears. So there for - holding hi fi to live sound is just as subjective as it is to holding it to 'what i like'. And I personally would rather listen to stuff I like.

[Ajani]

Right - I was going to get back to this.

I'd have to say I disagree. The cymbals at Davies were dang near spot on to what I heard in the MBL room.

Except they were 100 or more feet away and in a huge room. But the brashness, the effortlessness, how crisp and resonating they were. IDK if you've ever been next to a cymbal - like right next to it playing in a band or something - but they are harsh and etched on the attack. The resonance isn't - which I found to be the same case in the MBL room.

Except in the MBL room you were like 10 ft away - similar to being 10ft away from a high hat when it is being played loudly. Which most of the time in recorded music - especially with what they were playing in the MBL room - is how it is played - and the engineer can figure out level.

Anyways - just like I said before - we have different ears - and what sound real to me doesn't mean it sounds real to you. So the whole 'should be held to live concert criteria' works fine for YOUR IDEA of what a live concert sounds like.

That gets back to my whole point - holding hifi to what a live sound sounds like is only hold hifi to what you perceive a live sound to sound like. Not what I do with my ears. So there for - holding hi fi to live sound is just as subjective as it is to holding it to 'what i like'. And I personally would rather listen to stuff I like.

There is a reason why the term 'clashing cymbals' is used to denote a loud and irritating sound... I've always found it amusing when persons claim that a system that never sounds harsh is more accurate than other systems... Real instruments can sound harsh and annoying... So an accurate system would be able to recreate that...

Interestingly, the best explanation for what you described above is from The Absolute Sound. TAS refers to 'Realism Triggers'; essentially the aspects of the sonic presentation that make music seem real (live) to you... So for me it might be extended dynamic range and the ability to feel a drumbeat, while for someone else it might be a 3D soundstage... So 3 of us could hear the same live event and yet each of us claim that a different HiFi setup sounds more like that live event...

[Feanor]

There is a reason why the term 'clashing cymbals' is used to denote a loud and irritating sound... I've always found it amusing when persons claim that a system that never sounds harsh is more accurate than other systems... Real instruments can sound harsh and annoying... So an accurate system would be able to recreate that...
...

Right on! Live music can should harsh, (or strident), depending on the music, the performance, the instruments, the venue, and you seat in the venue. For everything to always sound sweet and smooth is not realism.

Beyond that there is the matter of the recording. Personally if the recording is not well made and sounds harsh on that account, I still what to hear the recording the way it was made. Why? Because if you try to make a poor recording sound good, you'll make a good recording sound bad.

[tube fan]

Right but with all the multi-tracking - dubs - and even now with virtual studios where musicians don't have to be even in the same state anymore - who is to say what a 'recording' session sounds like.

If I had to have a system that sounded like most of the real live performances I've heard in my days - acoustic or otherwise - I'd most likely not be in this game. I like my home set up because it pleases me. I tend not to go to shows because they don't please me. Besides - If I want acoustic music I just pick up my guitar and play.

Without some kind of standard or goal, hi-end audio would not exist. If mere personal preference was the aim, communication or debate is a waste of time.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Without some kind of standard or goal, hi-end audio would not exist. If mere personal preference was the aim, communication or debate is a waste of time.

Tube Fan, I have told you this before. Your criteria for evaluating good sound(comparison to live sound) is too narrow. When I am purchasing equipment for my enjoyment, the equipment has to have sonic qualities that appeal to me, not to somebody else's perspective of what good sound is. If I listen to a lot of jazz, then I want speakers that sound good with jazz music, not something that sounds good with classical music. Music enjoyment(and good sound) is in the ear of the beholder, not some subjective standard somebody else has thought up. Enjoying music is all about personal preference.

Good example. I think both of us like good sounding equipment, but you like tubes, and I like solid state. You like cones and domes, and I like well designed horn's. You like analog, and I like digital. You like euphoria, and I like accuracy. You like two channel, I like multichannel. With these differences, we both still like a good sounding system. Our desires are the same, but our way of achieving it is quite different. This is how personal preference guides our choices of good sound.

You cannot "suck the air out of the room" by promoting your way as the only way to achieve good sound. There is more than one way to get around Oakland than the 580 freeway.

This hobby is all about personal preference, and there is room at the "good sound" table for everyone's preferences.

[Mash]

You cannot use live music as THE reference for music reproduction? Then what else is there? Nothing, really.

We all use real life as our reference, whether we admit it or not. Personal preferences can be, and usually are, transient, but real life will inexorably repeat itself. And should our preference-based system clash with live music, dissonance will occur.

This is why we all use standardized tape measures, instead of each of us using our own personal versions of a tape measure: all of us using our standardized tape measures allows all of us, with proper care, to get the SAME answers. If we all settled for getting different answers, we would have chaos. For example, a house could never be properly built. Nothing could ever be agreed upon: Project discussions would degenerate into a tower of babel......

I have been in engineering long enough, and l have led big enough projects, to know that we all must use the same reference and measuring standards.

Relying on personal preferences for sound equipment selection can quickly lead one to the poor house because one is likely to repeatedly be replacing what they have with new selections as their preferences shift or their system clashes with the real world causing dissonance, and this can burn up a lot of money. This unnecessary dissipation of money is an even graver issue in today's USA, and in many other parts of this world.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

You cannot use live music as THE reference for music reproduction? Then what else is there? Nothing, really.

If live music is your only reference, then your perspective will shift relative to where you sat in that live environment. As anyone who has visited an auditorium, concert hall, or performance halls knows, not every seat in the house delivers the same listening experience, or will provide an idea listening experience(every hall has a different acoustic, some bad, some good). Folks at the front of the house hear more direct energy, and somewhat less ambient energy. Those that sit to the sides hear a distorted spatial staging compared to those who sit at the center front of the house. Those in the balcony hear mostly reflected energy, which changes the tonal nature of the instruments based on the acoustic nature of the hall. A recording can never replicate the live sound as it is(the complexity of trying to do so is beyond current technology), but can avoid the pitfalls of an individuals seating perspective within that hall. So which do you trust, a recording with a balanced acoustical perspective(an ideal combination of the direct and reflected sound from a single perspective), or the guy that attended the recording, and sat in the balcony(with more reflected energy than direct energy)? This is why live sound cannot be the only standard for judging good sound.

We all use real life as our reference, whether we admit it or not. Personal preferences can be, and usually are, transient, but real life will inexorably repeat itself. And should our preference-based system clash with live music, dissonance will occur.

What is real life to a person who records in a studio environment most of the time. It is the studio perspective, which can also be judged as live music. After all, live instruments where played there. This gives a studio recording just as much credence as a live experience in a concert hall. Somebody(whether in the studio or concert hall) heard a live instrument.

This is why we all use standardized tape measures, instead of each of us using our own personal versions of a tape measure: all of us using our standardized tape measures allows all of us, with proper care, to get the SAME answers. If we all settled for getting different answers, we would have chaos. For example, a house could never be properly built. Nothing could ever be agreed upon: Project discussions would degenerate into a tower of babel......

Standards are only applicable if you are trying to achieve similar results in a wide variety of environments. There are no real standards in live or recorded music. What you hear is what you get. We have standards in the film community because we want to see and hear a very close approximation to what the re-recording guys hear and see on the dubbing stage, and patrons hear and see in theaters. If you follow SMPTE video standards, and THX audio standards, you will pretty much achieve that goal(sans the acoustics of a large theater, and the impact of a huge screen). Since there is both high quality sound tracks(that has standards, and high quality music(which has no recording or playback standards), one can glean the fact that standards are not the only means of achieving a benchmark of good sound in music playback.

I have been in engineering long enough, and l have led big enough projects, to know that we all must use the same reference and measuring standards.

Once again, there are no standards in live, or studio environments in music. Everything is totally subjective - from the placement of the microphones, acoustics of the studio or hall and playback systems environment, to the place where a person sits in a concert hall, auditorium or studio. There is no established criteria of sound quality in this instance, it is all placed on the individual placement of the listener, acoustics of the listening space, and hearing mechanisms of the individual.

Relying on personal preferences for sound equipment selection can quickly lead one to the poor house because one is likely to repeatedly be replacing what they have with new selections as their preferences shift or their system clashes with the real world causing dissonance, and this can burn up a lot of money. This unnecessary dissipation of money is an even graver issue in today's USA, and in many other parts of this world.

One has to distinguish what is a chase for high quality, or the chase for sonic nirvana or perfection. One is achievable, the other is not. The former can be considered healthy for a audiophile or videophile, the latter a sickness that leads to constant dissatisfaction.

[Feanor]

...
Once again, there are no standards in live, or studio environments in music. Everything is totally subjective - from the placement of the microphones, acoustics of the studio or hall and playback systems environment, to the place where a person sits in a concert hall, auditorium or studio. There is no established criteria of sound quality in this instance, it is all placed on the individual placement of the listener, acoustics of the listening space, and hearing mechanisms of the individual.
...

You don't have to very many concerts or listen to very many recordings to figure this out. But some still argue "live" as a standard. It is possible to have a pretty valid idea about what a given accoustic sounds like, but I suspect that these people's "live standard" is some sort of idealization based as much on preference as on a clear-minded recollection of the live sound of these instruments.

What I want is "accuracy". And by accuracy I mean what sounds like the producer and engineer heard listening to the proof release medium. I'll grant I can't actually know exactly what the producer & engineer heard, but I believe I can avoid the obvious pitfalls of the preference-driven exercise.

I believe the accuracy approach will yield the greatest number of good-sounding recordings and will certainly make the best recordings all that they can be.

[Mash]

These concerns you raise are non-issues.

I understand room accoustics well enough, for both large & small rooms, that I can visualize where boundry effects could be noticable, i.e. specifically near walls. One can also be aware of ceiling height when one attends a recital in a room that one hopes has a ceiling that is at least 15 feet above the floor, as opposed to a symphony in a hall that likely has a very high ceiling. These effects are part of the real world and therefore invariant for specific situations.

One's personal problems such as immediate employment or personal concerns, and other transient personal factors, are unpredictable and cause far greater variations. These personal issues can be extant both when you attend a live performance, and when you listen to and/or evaluate your home system, so the issues w/r/t the live performance venue become minor, and in the course of reattending a performance in a given venue, venue issues will fade even further.

I attended an Andre Segovia concert in Cincinnati in 1965. My seat was near the center and at the very front of the first balcony. Essentially I was hanging out in open air, as it were.

I never listened to Segovia in any form until I attended another Segovia Concert in Bushnell hall in 1985 in Hartford, CT. My seat was again at the front of the first balcony, near the center. Again, essentially I was hanging out in open air, as it were.

Your position would seem to be that I could not meaningfully evaluate nor recall a live performance so as to use it as a reference tool. But did I?

Yes, I did, and with a 20 year gap.

Halfway through the first half of Mr. Segovia's performance, I turned to my wife and said: "This is NOT what I remember from Cincinnati."

Halfway through the second half of Mr. Segovia's performance, I turned to my wife and said: "This IS what I remember from Cincinnati."

So what happened? Do you have any idea?

Here is the explanation that appeared the next day in the Hartford Courant:

During the first half of Mr. Segovia's concert, he was playing his brand new $100,000 Spanish guitar, and that guitar was apparently not responding so well to the humidity in Hartford.

During the second half of Mr. Segovia's concert, he was playing his "old" guitar, the same one he had used in Cincinnati.

Using live music as a reference will trump trusting one's personal tastes every time.

[Mash]

Feanor, if you REproduce the live performance, then by definition you have accuracy to the live performance.

Anything beyond that, and you are transforming your system into a performance instrument, rather than as something intended to REproduce a specific performance.

You can choose either one, but do not confuse the two.

[Feanor]

Feanor, if you REproduce the live performance, then by definition you have accuracy to the live performance.

Anything beyond that, and you are transforming your system into a performance instrument, rather than as something intended to REproduce a specific performance.

You can choose either one, but do not confuse the two.

I didn't think we're far apart here, Mash.

I agree with you that I don't want my system to be a "performance instrument" but rather an accurate reproducer. If we differ at all it's in that I want to reporduce the recording as recorded rather than sound like some imagined live performance.

[Mash]

Re: ".......... I want to reporduce the recording as recorded rather than sound like some imagined live performance. "

"Imagined live performances" are a lot of work and require more spare time than I have ...... and I have been (completely) retired for many years now- I got out before I got old.

So "recording" versus "live performance" depends on how well the performance was recorded: say Blumlien versus death by multi-mike....................

[Feanor]

....
So "recording" versus "live performance" depends on how well the performance was recorded: say Blumlien versus death by multi-mike....................

I have to agree with you there.

[dingus]

...Using live music as a reference will trump trusting one's personal tastes every time.

huh? without using ones personal taste you are not able to establish any type of reference in regards to music.

[atomicAdam]

I busted out the Electrocompaniet CDP + Audio Note DAC One Sig w/ the Melody AN211 and WyWires all around and the Brodmann FS speakers. Put on Two Tchaikovsky CDs and low and behold everything was very much clearer than the last three classical concerts I've been to. That is two at Davies and one at the Music Conservatory.

Sh*t I could really hear the violins - include first versus soloist - not to mention the oboe and clarinet were way easier to tell apart. Not to mention the french horn and oboe. Amazing how much more easy it was to hear the separation of instruments in my home system versus the last three live performances. WTF does that mean then?

Now was it as effortless? Not really. Was there a little big of a gap say in the cello range in the home system...yes. Did trumpets really flare - not as much as live. How about micro dynamics - well actually they sounded better on my system? Macro - no - live was better. But boy oh boy was staging and details far superior at home than what i've heard live.

What does that all mean? The point being that comparing to live is only 1 factor in a deciding if a system sounds good. And maybe it might sound as good or better than live in one way and not another.

Anyhow... These WyWIres sure are nice. The digital cable and ICs really tamed the aggressiveness of the AN DAC One. I think the rather forgiving at the extreme high end (tape hiss and digital glare) of the Brodmann's has helped as well. Had a good day rocking out to some classical.

[tube fan]

My objections to ss and digital lies in their inability to reproduce accurately TAS. Digital is simply a flawed concept. Music is analogue. The original analogue signal must be converted into digital bits, and then, those bits are manipulated in billions of ways. Of course, because humans only hear analogue, those manipulated bits must be converted yet again, this time from dsigital back to analogue. What a waste of time! Several digital recording representatives at the 2111 CAS agreed with me that we should have stuck with reel-to-reel analogue tape if we wanted to accurately preserve TAS.

[Feanor]

My objections to ss and digital lies in their inability to reproduce accurately TAS. Digital is simply a flawed concept. Music is analogue. The original analogue signal must be converted into digital bits, and then, those bits are manipulated in billions of ways. Of course, because humans only hear analogue, those manipulated bits must be converted yet again, this time from dsigital back to analogue. What a waste of time! Several digital recording representatives at the 2111 CAS agreed with me that we should have stuck with reel-to-reel analogue tape if we wanted to accurately preserve TAS.

Dear, dear, dear.

The "music is analog(ue)" line of argument is pretty old as well as disproved.

Of course we don't listen to zeros and ones. Before it gets to our ears the analog is reconsituted perfectly within our range of audibility -- in principle and very nearly in practice. The distortions insinuated by digital, even 16/44.1, are demonsterably far less than by LP vinyl.

At its birth, CD was plagued by suboptimal filtering and huge amounts of jitter. This isn't true of any descent current CDP or DAC. Many early CD recordings, especially those direct transcriptions from masters intented for vinyl, were poor. But even from the beginning there were excellent CDs.

I remember LPs. When I first go into audio there was vinyl and tape, (and FM broadcast if you want to include that). My distinct recollection is that were lots of really crappy LPs out there.

[bobsticks]

Dear, dear, dear.

The "music is analog(ue)" line of argument is pretty old as well as disproved.

Of course we don't listen to zeros and ones. Before it gets to our ears the analog is reconsituted perfectly within our range of audibility -- in principle and very nearly in practice. The distortions insinuated by digital, even 16/44.1, are demonsterably far less than by LP vinyl.

At its birth, CD was plagued by suboptimal filtering and huge amounts of jitter. This isn't true of any descent current CDP or DAC. Many early CD recordings, especially those direct transcriptions from masters intented for vinyl, were poor. But even from the beginning there were excellent CDs.

I remember LPs. When I first go into audio there was vinyl and tape, (and FM broadcast if you want to include that). My distinct recollection is that were lots of really crappy LPs out there.

Tisk, tisk, tisk...Bill, Bill, Bill...

Live music is in it's purest form based on heat and magnetism. I thought you knew.

[JohnMichael]

I use classical music as an important part of my equipment auditions. Of course I use all types of music since I listen to all types of music. I would like all my music to be enjoyable. The one issue I have with the live music only thought is the variable of the concert hall. I do not have any recordings from any hall where I have enjoyed classical concerts. Does a violin sound the same in Hall A as it does in Hall B? That is why I will always use a wide variety of music. Oh and not every audio shop has a turntable where you can hear your vinyl. Yes I take cd's to audition.

One aspect of my stereo is the better imaging than what I hear in a classical concert. When I attend a concert and I close my eyes the sound is diffuse. When eyes are open the visual cues let me know where the sound originates. The audible cues of a recording let's me know where the musicians are seated. Therefore is imaging a coloration of sorts.

Oh and I do enjoy solid state and find my Krell an accurate reproducer.

[Feanor]

I use classical music as an important part of my equipment auditions. Of course I use all types of music since I listen to all types of music. I would like all my music to be enjoyable. The one issue I have with the live music only thought is the variable of the concert hall. I do not have any recordings from any hall where I have enjoyed classical concerts. Does a violin sound the same in Hall A as it does in Hall B? That is why I will always use a wide variety of music. Oh and not every audio shop has a turntable where you can hear your vinyl. Yes I take cd's to audition.

One aspect of my stereo is the better imaging than what I hear in a classical concert. When I attend a concert and I close my eyes the sound is diffuse. When eyes are open the visual cues let me know where the sound originates. The audible cues of a recording let's me know where the musicians are seated. Therefore is imaging a coloration of sorts.

Oh and I do enjoy solid state and find my Krell an accurate reproducer.

The stark fact is that recordings can sound better in a lot of ways than a live performance. As I've often said, live performance depends on the instruments, the performance, the venue, and your own particular seat in the venue.

With the seats I can afford I don't often hear much separation of the instruments.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

These concerns you raise are non-issues.

No, they are not non-issues, you just dismissed them.

I understand room accoustics well enough, for both large & small rooms, that I can visualize where boundry effects could be noticable, i.e. specifically near walls. One can also be aware of ceiling height when one attends a recital in a room that one hopes has a ceiling that is at least 15 feet above the floor, as opposed to a symphony in a hall that likely has a very high ceiling. These effects are part of the real world and therefore invariant for specific situations.

Here is the problem with your logic. Room boundary effects in concert halls are not easy to detect as they are in small rooms. Also how do you separate a boundary effect from the concert halls overall sound. We just don't hear boundary effects in isolation, we hear the ambience or room signature of the hall as a whole. Lastly, there are nearly thousands of opportunities for the sound to interact with the walls - so how does one ascertain if the boundary effect is far from you, or very close? You can't.

You last line is as wrong as two left shoes. Every concert hall has a unique sound signature, and therefore creates a variant that has to be accounted for.

One's personal problems such as immediate employment or personal concerns, and other transient personal factors, are unpredictable and cause far greater variations. These personal issues can be extant both when you attend a live performance, and when you listen to and/or evaluate your home system, so the issues w/r/t the live performance venue become minor, and in the course of reattending a performance in a given venue, venue issues will fade even further.

This is also wrong. The only way the venue becomes a non issue is if you sit in the same seat(minus the halls acoustics), with the same group of performers in front of you playing the same instruments with the same song. Once you change each of these things, you have created a audible variant. A solo pianist will create a different sonic signature than a wind ensemble in the same hall. Each time the orchestration changes, the sound of the hall will change along with it. The amount of people in that hall is also a variant, and that will also change the sonic signature of the hall. Let's couple that with the fact that a recording will never sound like the hall, because our rooms are too small, and their acoustic is superimposed over the acoustic of the recording.

I attended an Andre Segovia concert in Cincinnati in 1965. My seat was near the center and at the very front of the first balcony. Essentially I was hanging out in open air, as it were.

With a reflective surface right in front of you in the name of the facade of the balcony.

I never listened to Segovia in any form until I attended another Segovia Concert in Bushnell hall in 1985 in Hartford, CT. My seat was again at the front of the first balcony, near the center. Again, essentially I was hanging out in open air, as it were.

Different venue, different acoustical signature = variant.

Your position would seem to be that I could not meaningfully evaluate nor recall a live performance so as to use it as a reference tool. But did I?

Yes, I did, and with a 20 year gap.

This is pure nonsense. Nobody on this planet has a echoic memory that last 20 years. Our echoic memory(acoustical memory) at best is only 3-4 seconds. This is why DBT are switched so quickly, because we can only remember a passage or an acoustical signature for a very short time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Echoic_memory

Halfway through the first half of Mr. Segovia's performance, I turned to my wife and said: "This is NOT what I remember from Cincinnati."

Halfway through the second half of Mr. Segovia's performance, I turned to my wife and said: "This IS what I remember from Cincinnati."

So what happened? Do you have any idea?

Yes I do. The humidity affected the resonances of the sounding board, and can change the tuning of the strings. So it probably sounded like the song was in a different key, non resonant, or brighter or darker than usual depending on how the sounding board and frets are responding to the humidity. I hear this all the time from our guitar and bass players during a humid day or nights at my church.

Here is the explanation that appeared the next day in the Hartford Courant:

During the first half of Mr. Segovia's concert, he was playing his brand new $100,000 Spanish guitar, and that guitar was apparently not responding so well to the humidity in Hartford.

During the second half of Mr. Segovia's concert, he was playing his "old" guitar, the same one he had used in Cincinnati.

I think your explanation is pure nonsense. First nobody has the ability to filter out the complex reflections of a hall so they can hear the unique sound signature of one guitar from another if both are tuned identically. You will hear a difference if one is out of tune, and the other is not.

Using live music as a reference will trump trusting one's personal tastes every time.

How would this apply to a person who listens to pop music, or studio recordings? How many people have heard live music minus the acoustic of the venue? What if the person does not listen to classical or jazz? How would live music help them? What if the person reference to live music comes from a place with poor acoustics? While live music can be one of many references, it cannot be the only one without addressing all of the variables that come with that reference. A lot of folks here do not listen to classical or jazz, and their only reference to live music came via the PA system at the venue. Do we just dismiss their reference?

The bottom line here is our systems are put together based on our own taste of music. Ralph likes small ensemble classical works, and his speaker are very good at reproducing it I am sure. I like a very wide variety of music, everything from classical, jazz, and gospel, to hard rock and rhythm and blues. That goes for movies soundtracks as well, and the system in my signature is very good at doing all of these musical genres well. Why would any jazz lover put together a system that does not sound good when a jazz recording is playing? Why would an analog lover build a system around a good CD players? Why would a high resolution digital guy like myself build a system around a turntable? We/they wouldn't, they would build a system that sound good with the genre of music they like.

Live music is one reference point, but our own personal taste in music cannot be dismissed.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

My objections to ss and digital lies in their inability to reproduce accurately TAS. Digital is simply a flawed concept. Music is analogue. The original analogue signal must be converted into digital bits, and then, those bits are manipulated in billions of ways. Of course, because humans only hear analogue, those manipulated bits must be converted yet again, this time from dsigital back to analogue. What a waste of time! Several digital recording representatives at the 2111 CAS agreed with me that we should have stuck with reel-to-reel analogue tape if we wanted to accurately preserve TAS.

By this post, you have shown me you have no clue about how digital audio works. Now I completely understand why you don't like it, you don't understand it.

[Mash]

Music may be analog but those nerve impulses sent to your brain by those hair cells in your inner ear are not....

Anyway I have experience in acoustics/noise & aerodynamics and these sister disiplines are modeled similarly these days with FEA. A boundry can be essentially rigid and (usually) 100% reflective or non-rigid and maybe 100% absorbtive, or something in between. The boundaries (walls) of concert halls are (intentionally) in between.

I have walked from the back wall of a balcony to the frontmost seats of that balcony and the perceived change in the sound of the performers is appreciable: from sounding confused with dulled highs at the back to a very clear and lucid sound at the front of the balcony. I have found the front & near-center balcony seats to be most satisfying.

This personal taste as a measurement criteria to determine accuracy leaves me cold: some of us will prefer blue and some of us will prefer red but most of us use the same references to actually define "blue" and "red".