Blind listening comparisons

[Brett A]

There are some brief characterizations of such studies along with references in the Olive blog which I already provided a link to.

I'll check it out, thanks. I also right about this point just realize that I have issues and should just keep walking....

(or listening to music as the case may be)

[E-Stat]

I'd like to see evidence of these actual scientific studies. So far, I have not.

In all fairness, DBTs have been used for decades for determining things like distortion thresholds and digital compression limits. They work well with simple sorts of determinations. Unlike the frequent comparison to medical blind trials, audio tests are affected by the level of listener training and acuity. Harman uses them for tonal balance preferences using a single speaker. Click here to see a variation on your photo - this one with the "blinding" curtain raised to show the shuffler.

Only the occasional EE and/or hobbyist saying they are "proof" of something from a scientific stand point.

Indeed many folks don't appreciate the fact that a null result is the lack of a conclusion. They're fine when the limitations are understood. Indeed, you will find precious few component comparisons that begin to show scientific scrutiny. Instead, you get humorous undocumented *tests* by guys like Roger Russell.

rw

[Geoffcin]

There's also the effect that it is well known that statistically people from a random population prefer a response curve that is NOT flat. Commonly they will prefer a sound that is boosted in the lower midbass, and somewhat rolled off in the upper treble. Also speakers with THD of upwards of 5%-30% in the bass region (floppy boxes) are often described as "pleasing" or even "powerful". This sound profile, while they claim in a DBT is pleasing is technically "colored", and NOT true high fidelity sound, which is all about accurate sound reproduction.

[tube fan]

Don't get defensive, I'm not trying to make you look foolish.

I don't see how your reply answers my question. What you are talking about is apples and oranges. If someone can't pick out expensive gear vs. inexpensive, how are you able to pick out a pair of speakers vs. others?

My point is not expensive vs inexpensive, simply A vs B. I think some people probably can pick out a piece of gear from others, just as you can pick out the AR speakers.

I am NOT claiming that people cannot pick out their favorite out of a group of components. I AM claiming, much as happens in blind wine tastings, there will be no, or very little, correlation between price and perceived quality. When I was comparing speakers blind (yes, over 45 years ago), in a group that included the famous AR3a, there was a HUGE difference between the AR3a and other (small bookshelf sized) ones (yes, a huge difference to me). I am NOT claiming someone else might not prefer one of the other speakers. I love blind testings precisely because I am looking for a bargain. Everyone, including me, is influenced by brands and advertising. I have seen many fans of expensive cult wines humbled in a blind taste test that included several lower priced wines. I have seen the same thing happen in blind comparisons between audio components. Of course, blind listening tests are much harder to conduct than blind wine ones. Nevertheless, IMO,
the conventional wisdom that holds that there is a direct correlation between price (or a famous brand name) and perceived quality, is no more true in audio than it is in audio.

[Ajani]

I am NOT claiming that people cannot pick out their favorite out of a group of components. I AM claiming, much as happens in blind wine tastings, there will be no, or very little, correlation between price and perceived quality. When I was comparing speakers blind (yes, over 45 years ago), in a group that included the famous AR3a, there was a HUGE difference between the AR3a and other (small bookshelf sized) ones (yes, a huge difference to me). I am NOT claiming someone else might not prefer one of the other speakers. I love blind testings precisely because I am looking for a bargain. Everyone, including me, is influenced by brands and advertising. I have seen many fans of expensive cult wines humbled in a blind taste test that included several lower priced wines. I have seen the same thing happen in blind comparisons between audio components. Of course, blind listening tests are much harder to conduct than blind wine ones. Nevertheless, IMO,
the conventional wisdom that holds that there is a direct correlation between price (or a famous brand name) and perceived quality, is no more true in audio than it is in audio.

The question I have is whether you are referring to an arbitrary grouping of products from various brands, at different prices in the blind listening test? Or a similar grouping of products from similar/the same brands, at different prices?

Let me explain what I mean:

Test A:

Magnepan MMG $600
Totem Arro $1400
Klipsch Cornwall $3500
B&W 802D $8000?

Test B:

Monitor Audio Bronze BX5 $800
Monitor Audio Silver RX6 $1250
Monitor Audio Gold GX200 $3500?
Monitor Audio Platinum PL200 $8000

In Test A, all the speakers are sufficiently different in design and sound quality, that I could easily imagine there being very little relationship between price and listener preferences... If you love the planar sound, then you might well pick the cheapest speaker of the lot (the MMG)...

In Test B, all the speakers are from the same manufacturer but vary in price... So I would more readily expect there to be a clear relationship between price and listener preferences...

[tube fan]

The question I have is whether you are referring to an arbitrary grouping of products from various brands, at different prices in the blind listening test? Or a similar grouping of products from similar/the same brands, at different prices?

Let me explain what I mean:

Test A:

Magnepan MMG $600
Totem Arro $1400
Klipsch Cornwall $3500
B&W 802D $8000?

Test B:

Monitor Audio Bronze BX5 $800
Monitor Audio Silver RX6 $1250
Monitor Audio Gold GX200 $3500?
Monitor Audio Platinum PL200 $8000

In Test A, all the speakers are sufficiently different in design and sound quality, that I could easily imagine there being very little relationship between price and listener preferences... If you love the planar sound, then you might well pick the cheapest speaker of the lot (the MMG)...

In Test B, all the speakers are from the same manufacturer but vary in price... So I would more readily expect there to be a clear relationship between price and listener preferences...

I am referring to both type of tests. Say compare various Quad speakers with a Quad 57; compare various Magnepan speakers, 1.6, 1.7, 3.6, and 20.1; compare various Audio Note speakers (these differ wildly in price).
The NYT's Robin Goldstein conducted hundreds of blind wine tests. The Beringer $11 Cab outscored their $120 Private Reserve Cab. The same thing would happen in blind listening tests IMO.

As for speakers in a type A test I would like to hear: Magnepan 1.7, The old and new Gallo speakers, the Audio Note J and E ($7500 version), DeVore speakers ($3700 Gibbon, $16,800 Silverback Reference, and $6500 Gibbon 9), Teresonic Ingenium Silver with more expensive ones: Vandersteen Model seven, Wilson Maxx and Sasha, Magico V5 or 3. Many lists could be as good.

[Ajani]

I am referring to both type of tests. Say compare various Quad speakers with a Quad 57; compare various Magnepan speakers, 1.6, 1.7, 3.6, and 20.1; compare various Audio Note speakers (these differ wildly in price).
The NYT's Robin Goldstein conducted hundreds of blind wine tests. The Beringer $11 Cab outscored their $120 Private Reserve Cab. The same thing would happen in blind listening tests IMO.

As for speakers in a type A test I would like to hear: Magnepan 1.7, The old and new Gallo speakers, the Audio Note J and E ($7500 version), DeVore speakers ($3700 Gibbon, $16,800 Silverback Reference, and $6500 Gibbon 9), Teresonic Ingenium Silver with more expensive ones: Vandersteen Model seven, Wilson Maxx and Sasha, Magico V5 or 3. Many lists could be as good.

So in Test type B, you think persons might chose the cheapest Monitor Audio, Audio Note or Magnepan speakers over their more expensive siblings? Intriguing... I could imagine persons not hearing a significant difference between cheaper and more expensive models, but I can't say I'd really considered them straight out preferring the cheaper models...

[RGA]

I am referring to both type of tests. Say compare various Quad speakers with a Quad 57; compare various Magnepan speakers, 1.6, 1.7, 3.6, and 20.1; compare various Audio Note speakers (these differ wildly in price).
The NYT's Robin Goldstein conducted hundreds of blind wine tests. The Beringer $11 Cab outscored their $120 Private Reserve Cab. The same thing would happen in blind listening tests IMO.

As for speakers in a type A test I would like to hear: Magnepan 1.7, The old and new Gallo speakers, the Audio Note J and E ($7500 version), DeVore speakers ($3700 Gibbon, $16,800 Silverback Reference, and $6500 Gibbon 9), Teresonic Ingenium Silver with more expensive ones: Vandersteen Model seven, Wilson Maxx and Sasha, Magico V5 or 3. Many lists could be as good.

I think it will be very easy to detect a difference between different speaker lines. Comparing an Audio Note J or E (any model at any price) versus a Magnepan (any model) versus a Vandersteen (any Model).

It would be more difficult to detect differences between the models of a given line - perhaps depending on the music played. But an E or 20.1 has more bass than a J or 3.6 and if it is blind level matched and you play bass you will detect the difference - if you don't play bass it may become more difficult because the same general technology is used. But in the case of Audio Note - they use different tweeters and different woofers. So in some cases you are paying more for a Higher High Efficiency driver to make it more usable for lower powered amps - it may not really be a very big improvement in sound over the non HE version. But once the dollars start to rise some of it becomes bragging rights over actual sound quality benefits and one has to truly temper their ability to spend with what they're actually getting. Still, to people very very familiar with the house sound of a product line then they will arguably hear more improvement in the $50k version of the speaker over the $10k version more than someone who is not nearly as familiar with the products.

[RGA]

So in Test type B, you think persons might chose the cheapest Monitor Audio, Audio Note or Magnepan speakers over their more expensive siblings? Intriguing... I could imagine persons not hearing a significant difference between cheaper and more expensive models, but I can't say I'd really considered them straight out preferring the cheaper models...

I suppose it could happen depending on the room. Bass shy speakers tend to sound faster and cleaner. Speakers with good solid bass can also be heard as being distorted (when it's just bass). Thus a lower model could be picked out as being better. I find this with most of the DBTs. They tend to be fairly short auditions - make a selection - speakers with bright sound tend to be preferred on short duration sessions and may very well be chosen in a blind test. Good long tests have not been done. Which may explain why many find metalic tweeters fatiguing over long listening sessions but they often do well in DBT style tests.

[tube fan]

I think it will be very easy to detect a difference between different speaker lines. Comparing an Audio Note J or E (any model at any price) versus a Magnepan (any model) versus a Vandersteen (any Model).

It would be more difficult to detect differences between the models of a given line - perhaps depending on the music played. But an E or 20.1 has more bass than a J or 3.6 and if it is blind level matched and you play bass you will detect the difference - if you don't play bass it may become more difficult because the same general technology is used. But in the case of Audio Note - they use different tweeters and different woofers. So in some cases you are paying more for a Higher High Efficiency driver to make it more usable for lower powered amps - it may not really be a very big improvement in sound over the non HE version. But once the dollars start to rise some of it becomes bragging rights over actual sound quality benefits and one has to truly temper their ability to spend with what they're actually getting. Still, to people very very familiar with the house sound of a product line then they will arguably hear more improvement in the $50k version of the speaker over the $10k version more than someone who is not nearly as familiar with the products.

I'm really talking about triple blind tests: those tacking the test don't know what's in the test. They are told to rate the overall sound, from highest to lowest. Yes, a given piece of equipment may have more extended lows (or highs), and still be rated below some other equipment in perceived quality. The Beringer Private Reserve is darker, higher in alcohol, and higher in the use of oak, than their $11 cab (all easily determined). The blind testers still preferred the $11 wine over the $120 one. I have heard that many prefer the Magnapan 1.7 over the 20.1, at 5 times the price. One of the salesmen at the Audio Note room at the CAS admitted that he preferred the J to the various E speakers in most smaller rooms, like the one at the CAS.

[RGA]

I'm really talking about triple blind tests: those tacking the test don't know what's in the test. They are told to rate the overall sound, from highest to lowest. Yes, a given piece of equipment may have more extended lows (or highs), and still be rated below some other equipment in perceived quality. The Beringer Private Reserve is darker, higher in alcohol, and higher in the use of oak, than their $11 cab (all easily determined). The blind testers still preferred the $11 wine over the $120 one. I have heard that many prefer the Magnapan 1.7 over the 20.1, at 5 times the price. One of the salesmen at the Audio Note room at the CAS admitted that he preferred the J to the various E speakers in most smaller rooms, like the one at the CAS.

Then the only magazine for you would be Hi-Fi Choice. The take say 6-12 amplifiers. A panel of expert listeners who are both reviewers and the manufacturers of the products in the test. Listen blind level matched and make notes on the products. Then at the end they find out which was which. What is interesting is that some of the actual manufacturer/designers don't even choose their own products - they pick a cheaper competing product as being the best. Which is kind of funny.

The Stereophile link I posted noted the same thing. Some of the top Solid State amp makers including the guy from Meridian chose an old less expensive tube amplifier over his own top end SS product. A lot of the big English makers have sat in those sessions.

[tube fan]

Then the only magazine for you would be Hi-Fi Choice. The take say 6-12 amplifiers. A panel of expert listeners who are both reviewers and the manufacturers of the products in the test. Listen blind level matched and make notes on the products. Then at the end they find out which was which. What is interesting is that some of the actual manufacturer/designers don't even choose their own products - they pick a cheaper competing product as being the best. Which is kind of funny.

The Stereophile link I posted noted the same thing. Some of the top Solid State amp makers including the guy from Meridian chose an old less expensive tube amplifier over his own top end SS product. A lot of the big English makers have sat in those sessions.

Yes, this is what I am looking for! I need to look into zero feedback amps. Need to get Hi-Fi Choice.

[tube fan]

BTW, I recently went to an audio event where they compared blind some higher rez digital music to MP3 versions. 90% of those listening said they preferred the MP3 sound! My wife could correctly hear the difference while texting. One of the men (who owned a $50,000 turntable and $15,000 cartridge) asked my wife how she could hear the difference. Her reply: I'm not deaf. The higher resolution music has WAY more detail, high and low end. It was mystifying, but informative to see how few owners of terribly expensive equipment have no hearing!

[RGA]

BTW, I recently went to an audio event where they compared blind some higher rez digital music to MP3 versions. 90% of those listening said they preferred the MP3 sound! My wife could correctly hear the difference while texting. One of the men (who owned a $50,000 turntable and $15,000 cartridge) asked my wife how she could hear the difference. Her reply: I'm not deaf. The higher resolution music has WAY more detail, high and low end. It was mystifying, but informative to see how few owners of terribly expensive equipment have no hearing!

I was at my local high end dealer Soundhounds today and it was informative. I enjoy talking to people who have been selling gear for 35 years own 20,000+ vinyls and about 15,000 CDs. A professional musician in Jazz who must make a nice living at it was in the store discussing his M8 (you need some coin if you can afford a system that has an M8 Preamplifier). I like the perspective they all had on some of the gear they sell, don't sell, etc. They carry one line where they like the two ways and then they said it all turns to crap in the three way version of the speakers.

What's good though is they are pretty honest about the relative strength and weakness of the stuff they sell. If you like Staging then they recommend X if you like some other thing they recommend Y. And there really isn't any other way to hear it and iot's not open to personal taste. If you have remotely decent hearing it is clear that Speaker X can do A B and C but is crap at doing M N and O. The only reason people don't notice the foibles of MN and O is because they don't go and listen to speakers that are truly great at doing MN and O.

But I have never been to any other dealer where the first priority is truly about music. An owner that knows a ton about music, listens to it all day every day spends his profits on music not fancy cars and watches. Those kinds of dealers are difficult to find. The vancouver dealers are not remotely like that. The ones I went to in Eastern Canada are not remotely like that. They have their audiophile approved discs they bought that "sounded good" from some other person's yardstick.

[Feanor]

There's also the effect that it is well known that statistically people from a random population prefer a response curve that is NOT flat. Commonly they will prefer a sound that is boosted in the lower midbass, and somewhat rolled off in the upper treble. Also speakers with THD of upwards of 5%-30% in the bass region (floppy boxes) are often described as "pleasing" or even "powerful". This sound profile, while they claim in a DBT is pleasing is technically "colored", and NOT true high fidelity sound, which is all about accurate sound reproduction.

IMO, it isn't only "people from a random population" who like these characteristics, but also a great many self-defined audiophiles. Back when I first became interested in hi-fi the avowed objective was, indeed, high fidelity whether it actually was or not.

People are a bit less deluded today. Very many just admit that they like their sound with more "body", more "soul", or more "organic", i.e. they like it the way they like it, accuracy be damned. There are still some, though, who is still insist that their personal preferences are more "realistic".

[Geoffcin]

IMO, it isn't only "people from a random population" who like these characteristics, but also a great many self-defined audiophiles. Back when I first became interested in hi-fi the avowed objective was, indeed, high fidelity whether it actually was or not.

People are a bit less deluded today. Very many just admit that they like their sound with more "body", more "soul", or more "organic", i.e. they like it the way they like it, accuracy be damned. There are still some, though, who is still insist that their personal preferences are more "realistic".

Probably the reason why so many "zero feedback" tube amps get sold to self called "audiophiles" This gets compounded by the fact that some of the speakers these people like have huge impedance peaks and valleys (often caused by the floppy nature of their construction). You add these all together and you have a response curve that you couldn't reproduce without massive eq on a more neutral and ACCURATE system.

While I don't begrudge people who like such systems their enjoyment, I take umbridge at the thought that these systems are in any way "High Fidelity", or that what they are listening to has any remote connection to what accurate sound reproduction is.

[Mash]

Me? I use the sound of real music as my reference. Recitals are probably best if the ceiling is higher than 15 feet, because the setting is more intimate and there are fewer instruments to focus on. Just remember: no instruments that plug into electricity, and no sound reinforcement system.

Then get an assortment of the best recital recordings of the same music that you can find and have at it. True, recitals are not "blind" but they are a great starting point, and they will even clue you in about whether or not you should even blow the big bucks on pricey gear. Your ears will remember live music far longer than music you hear from a loudspeaker.

I listened to Segovia in concert in Cincinnati, OH in 1965. I next heard Segovia in concert in Hartford, CT in 1985. At the end of the first half of the Hartford concert, I said to my wife: "That is not the Segovia I remember from Cincinnati." At the end of the second half, I said to my wife: "That IS the Segovia I remember from Cincinnati!"

Why?

The reviewer reported the next day that Segovia had trouble the entire first half of the concert with his new $50,000 Spanish guitar not responding so well to the humidity in Hartford. So for the second half of the concert Segovia switched back to his old guitar- the one he previously had been using all the way back to 1960.

I use Mackie HR824 Active Powered studio monitors for our "second tier systems", one pair in the kitchen with a Mackie HRS120 and another pair in the bedroom with a V-dyne 15" for TV sound. These are really good and extremely articulate speakers, but I think our two tube-driven Maggie systems are better. And all are credible when compared to live music.

I suggest the "live music as reference" to evaluate sound systems so you can avoid the entire DBT Debate. However, blind tast-testing of wine might be more comparable to the blind testing of different acoustic guitars. [But trust me, a solid wood guitar should sound a lot better than a plywood guitar.]

Once your system sounds like real music, then what else do you want?

[tube fan]

Me? I use the sound of real music as my reference. Recitals are probably best if the ceiling is higher than 15 feet, because the setting is more intimate and there are fewer instruments to focus on. Just remember: no instruments that plug into electricity, and no sound reinforcement system.

Then get an assortment of the best recital recordings of the same music that you can find and have at it. True, recitals are not "blind" but they are a great starting point, and they will even clue you in about whether or not you should even blow the big bucks on pricey gear. Your ears will remember live music far longer than music you hear from a loudspeaker.

I listened to Segovia in concert in Cincinnati, OH in 1965. I next heard Segovia in concert in Hartford, CT in 1985. At the end of the first half of the Hartford concert, I said to my wife: "That is not the Segovia I remember from Cincinnati." At the end of the second half, I said to my wife: "That IS the Segovia I remember from Cincinnati!"

Why?

The reviewer reported the next day that Segovia had trouble the entire first half of the concert with his new $50,000 Spanish guitar not responding so well to the humidity in Hartford. So for the second half of the concert Segovia switched back to his old guitar- the one he previously had been using all the way back to 1960.

I use Mackie HR824 Active Powered studio monitors for our "second tier systems", one pair in the kitchen with a Mackie HRS120 and another pair in the bedroom with a V-dyne 15" for TV sound. These are really good and extremely articulate speakers, but I think our two tube-driven Maggie systems are better. And all are credible when compared to live music.

I suggest the "live music as reference" to evaluate sound systems so you can avoid the entire DBT Debate. However, blind tast-testing of wine might be more comparable to the blind testing of different acoustic guitars. [But trust me, a solid wood guitar should sound a lot better than a plywood guitar.]

Once your system sounds like real music, then what else do you want?

Of course, the problem is that NO system sounds like live music. However, IMO, you can get very lifelike sound from some equipment. IMO, those are analogue and tube based systems. Many others prefer ss and digital sound. Either way, if you want to maximize your value to price ratio, blind listening is the way to go.

[Ajani]

Me? I use the sound of real music as my reference. Recitals are probably best if the ceiling is higher than 15 feet, because the setting is more intimate and there are fewer instruments to focus on. Just remember: no instruments that plug into electricity, and no sound reinforcement system.

Then get an assortment of the best recital recordings of the same music that you can find and have at it. True, recitals are not "blind" but they are a great starting point, and they will even clue you in about whether or not you should even blow the big bucks on pricey gear. Your ears will remember live music far longer than music you hear from a loudspeaker.

I listened to Segovia in concert in Cincinnati, OH in 1965. I next heard Segovia in concert in Hartford, CT in 1985. At the end of the first half of the Hartford concert, I said to my wife: "That is not the Segovia I remember from Cincinnati." At the end of the second half, I said to my wife: "That IS the Segovia I remember from Cincinnati!"

Why?

The reviewer reported the next day that Segovia had trouble the entire first half of the concert with his new $50,000 Spanish guitar not responding so well to the humidity in Hartford. So for the second half of the concert Segovia switched back to his old guitar- the one he previously had been using all the way back to 1960.

I use Mackie HR824 Active Powered studio monitors for our "second tier systems", one pair in the kitchen with a Mackie HRS120 and another pair in the bedroom with a V-dyne 15" for TV sound. These are really good and extremely articulate speakers, but I think our two tube-driven Maggie systems are better. And all are credible when compared to live music.

I suggest the "live music as reference" to evaluate sound systems so you can avoid the entire DBT Debate. However, blind tast-testing of wine might be more comparable to the blind testing of different acoustic guitars. [But trust me, a solid wood guitar should sound a lot better than a plywood guitar.]

Once your system sounds like real music, then what else do you want?

There are a few issues with the use of live music as a reference....

What if very little of the music you listen to is performed live, in an un-amplified setting? If most of your music is mixed in the studio, then the best reference would be the recording studio (now figuring out how you would gain access to the studio is another issue altogether).

Next you have to think about the acoustics of the setting you choose as reference... If you choose a concert hall/cathedral type setting, then you will expect voices and sound to come at you from all directions and hence Dipole speakers will sound very realistic to you... If you listen in a setting more like a typical living room, where voices and music tends to come at you directly, then Dipoles will sound artificial...

[RGA]

I don't think live is a good reference - but it depends on how you mean it when you say live. If you are talking about a comparison of a an instrument - how it sounds live versus how a stereo reproduced it - say a piano - then Live is a good comparison because you want your stereo to make the instrument/voice sound like he reakl instrument with all the colour texture decay transient timbre tone and "believe" that instrument is actually sitting right there as much as you can. But that is still largely recording dependent.

I have always liked the idea of the system that shows the most differences in recordings since a system that has higher contrasting ability is the one that has more resolutions and is more revealing of recording differences. Classical Music composer and critic Leonard Norwitz and Peter Qvortrup of Audio Innovations (later Audio Note) - wrote about this based inpart on an article that appeared in Positive Feedback.
http://www.enjoythemusic.com/magazin.../audiohell.htm

[Mash]

First, you seem to be dragging "manufactured music" into my comments. One example of manufactured music is when various tracks of different performers are seperately recorded, often at different times and places, and then all tracks are mixed down to produce the final group product.

There is no front-to-back time-distance information in such manufactured products, i.e. one player is not performing in a different front-to-back position with respect to another player while both are simultaneously being recorded with the same microphones. All performers are acoustically in the same time-distance plane or depth position front-to-back [but not side-to-side, the left-right pan control provides the left-to-right illusion]. Since Maggies are excellent for revealing front-to-back spacial relationships, these kinds of manufactured recordings will sound like crap on Maggies.

You can listen to such manufactured music if you wish, and some of it is quite good. The problem from my "reality viewpoint" is that these mixed-down performances never really happened as "performances in real time". Therefore, you cannot compare them to a recital which IS a performance in real time.

You could record the group referred to above playing together in recital in a large room with a high ceiling, but then you would NOT have a manufactured recording. You would have a real-time recording. And if there are NO amplified instruments being used, you have the recital venue I described.

The purpose of the intimate recital venue I described is to help you learn what real instruments sound like, and after you attend enough recitals this will happen and the particular performance then becomes far less important.

Amplified instruments introduce amplifier distortions, some intentional and some not, and speaker cone distortions, which are very complex. These unnatural effects [i.e. do not occur in nature] also introduce VARIATION, one instrument to another "very similar" instrument, and so on, to the point that you simply cannot learn and internalize reliable instrument sound references.

Attending numerous recitals did me a LOT of good. I learned what different ACOUSTIC instruments really sound like, which for me has transfered to any performance of acoustic instruments.

Bottom line, attending recitals may do you no good. To each his own.

[Ajani]

IMO, the challenge with trying to determine a clear reference for judging HiFi comes from the idea that we all have different sonic priorities (realism triggers according to some reviewers at The Absolute Sound, if I'm not mistaken).

For example, for some persons the need to cover the entire frequency range is critical, so no matter how good a setup sounds if it can't produce the lowest note of the pipe organ then they will be taken out of the musical experience...

For others it is about whether the instruments have a realistic tone... so does a piano sound exactly like a piano... that person may be able to 'listen around' peaks and valleys in the frequency response as long as the tone is correct... while someone else is very sensitive to even a 1db variation in the frequency response (FR)... so for them, a flat FR is critical...

Someone else values scale/size more than anything else... so no pinpoint accurate mini-monitor is going to sound like real music to them... They need colossal towers, capable of delivering a wall of sound...

Some persons need dynamic range. So if a system in unable to produce concert level volumes, then it just won't sound like real music to them... Some need to feel the physical impact (kick in the chest) of deep bass, so no planar bass will do (regardless of whether it sounds more precise)...

Some persons value the ability to hear the most minute detail... others are all about precise leading edge definition (PRAT lovers), while others value the decay at the end of a note...

So two persons could easily listen to a live performance, then listen to it replayed on several HiFi systems and disagree on which system sounded most like the live performance...

[Feanor]

IMO, the challenge with trying to determine a clear reference for judging HiFi comes from the idea that we all have different sonic priorities (realism triggers according to some reviewers at The Absolute Sound, if I'm not mistaken).

For example, for some persons the need to cover the entire frequency range is critical, so no matter how good a setup sounds if it can't produce the lowest note of the pipe organ then they will be taken out of the musical experience...

For others it is about whether the instruments have a realistic tone... so does a piano sound exactly like a piano... that person may be able to 'listen around' peaks and valleys in the frequency response as long as the tone is correct... while someone else is very sensitive to even a 1db variation in the frequency response (FR)... so for them, a flat FR is critical...

Someone else values scale/size more than anything else... so no pinpoint accurate mini-monitor is going to sound like real music to them... They need colossal towers, capable of delivering a wall of sound...

Some persons value the ability to hear the most minute detail... others are all about precise leading edge definition (PRAT lovers), while others value the decay at the end of a note...

So two persons could easily listen to a live performance, then listen to it replayed on several HiFi systems and disagree on which system sounded most like the live performance...

I really like the idea of "realism triggers".

I guess biggies for me are "realistic tone" (i.e. accurate timbre) and "minute detail", (i.e. resolution / transparency).

[Mash]

well acquainted with the live (acoustic instruments) venue which has then allowed both of us to acquire our accurate references for real acoustic instruments, then the differences you refer to become irrelevant because we are still using the same references even though we may inadvertantly emphasize different personal priorities.

It is as though we are using the same tape measure [the same reference] on different features of an object: we get different values for different features of that object but in the end we can agree that we are measuring the same object.

Conversely if we are using different tape measures, one that measures in furlongs and one that measures in rods, then our agreeing that we are measuring the same object becomes much more difficult even though we CAN convert furlongs into rods. But what if we CANNOT convert our individual measurements into a common system? Chaos results.... which is what routinely occurs in audio equipment discussions and evaluations. Everyone is talking past everyone else because they have no common reference. Then the Audio Gurus step in and make a great living as you defer to their greater wisdom.

[Ajani]

well acquainted with the live (acoustic instruments) venue which has then allowed both of us to acquire our accurate references for real acoustic instruments, then the differences you refer to become irrelevant because we are still using the same references even though we may inadvertantly emphasize different personal priorities.

It is as though we are using the same tape measure [the same reference] on different features of an object: we get different values for different features of that object but in the end we can agree that we are measuring the same object.

Conversely if we are using different tape measures, one that measures in furlongs and one that measures in rods, then our agreeing that we are measuring the same object becomes much more difficult even though we CAN convert furlongs into rods. But what if we CANNOT convert our individual measurements into a common system? Chaos results.... which is what routinely occurs in audio equipment discussions and evaluations. Everyone is talking past everyone else because they have no common reference. Then the Audio Gurus step in and make a great living as you defer to their greater wisdom.

No. Not at all... It's not a case of measuring the same thing using different units of measure... It's a case of two persons measuring different things altogether...

Many audio reviewers constantly rant at length in their reviews, about the live performances they attend on a regular basis... Yet they still disagree completely on what components sound good... Both Art Dudley and John Atkinson of Stereophile, listen to live music regularly... yet they have very different tastes in equipment... members of this forum and many other forums also listen to live music regularly and disagree completely...

The never ending arguments in HiFi comes from the failure of so many audiophiles to accept that someone else can have a different opinion of what sounds more accurate/real... The panel fans need to prove that their tech is superior to monkey coffins... SET amps must be superior to SS... Digital must be better than analog.... This tech is distorted...That tech robs the soul from the music... blah blah blah...

IMO, it seems as if many audiophile can't just be happy with their choices in equipment, unless they prove that others who bought something different for the money, or spent more money, were foolish, deaf or don't listen to real music...

It's quite obvious to me that different technologies have different strengths and weaknesses, so your own realism triggers (and musical tastes) will determine what gear you gravitate towards...