The “friendliest audio forum”?

[2FarGone]

that's an easy question. What exactly is the goal of an audio system?
Everyone does not hear differently but many do not know how to listen, very different.
If its just whatever you like then this is what we have.
The Absolute Sound and the Stereophile started out with well defined goals.
HP was my mentor and he was looking for the sound of unamplified instruments in an acoustic space. This is how I was taught.
You may disagree and that's perfectly fine but what is your goal?

These are "reviewers" no? How does one review without a goal or a target?
If we have four targets then we don't have one goal do we?

You raise a question I’ve long been pondering. I personally see the goal of an audio system as being to create a credible subjective illusion (Lynn Olson referred to an audio system as an “Illusion Engine”) but it seems that the way we all define that phrase differs.

That focused attention over long periods of time creates new neural pathways in the brain has long been known in neurology, and that pretty much defines what we, as audio enthusiasts, do in pursuit of our hobby. That said, we listen to different music on different setups in different acoustic & otherwise varying environments, so while we may hear in essentially similar fashion, the way in which we process what we hear may vary widely. I remember listening to a $30K set of speakers with a friend at a dealership in Minneapolis years ago. My friend was blown away, but I was unimpressed. Same speakers, same system. I’m guessing it was probably because my perception of a realistic illusion was formed over many years of listening to stats, and later my Odeon horns. These were comprised solely of dynamic drivers, and I just didn’t feel they conveyed an adequate sense of realism for the price.

So what defines realism for any given enthusiast? Dynamics? Tonal accuracy? Depth and placement of the performers? Texture? Probably all of the above I’d guess for most people, but it seems almost certain that the priorities will vary between individuals, accounting for different preferences. For this reason, at this point in my pursuits I look to the system being used by someone whose opinion I’m considering to determine if I think it will be similar in character to my own. If they’ve built a setup of similar character, I’m inclined to give far greater weight to their impressions.

This thread has taken on a positive slant despite its clumsy inception. Thanks, folks.

 

[BendingWave]

I'll take a stab at how can 4 different people/reviewers have 4 different reference systems.

Whether you are a reviewer or an audiophile, your system is YOUR reference system. And I predicate that statement based on people who don't constantly change out different components in their gear and they NEVER have a stable reference system in their home.

We need to stop thinking that a reference system means that some non-existant majority of audiophiles would all agree that any particular system based on price is reference quality.

When audiophiles and reviewers attend audio shows, they are comparing the gear they hear in the rooms they choose to go into against their stereo systems because their systems are their reference. I've never heard any audiophile at any show I attended compare show systems against live unamplified music in a concert hall.

Some people who attend shows including reviewers bring music with them which has cuts they consider to be reference level music in order to compare what they hear at shows vs. their own reference system. The results of what they hear can lead to purchasing decisions.

As for reviewers' systems, I think the size of their room and the level of the gear in their reference systems will dictate the level of gear they review.

Sorry I don't agree . What is the goal? My goal is the reproduction of music I don't care what YOU like or the frankenstein event in someones room based on what fell off the back of a truck or a discount sale.
If you can't tell me your goal then I don't have any reason to want to listen to you or read you.
Are you a drag racer, or formula one , or a daily driver they are not the same thing.
One of TAS top guys and I had a large disagreement over there are 3 different goals in his mind , of course then there is no possible wrong only more product sna dmore advertising dollars.

That attitude in my mind undermines everything the high end of anything is about. why have 3 star restaurants if everyone knows better?

Sorry you are a reporter not a reviewer then

 

[Shadowfax]

You raise a question I’ve long been pondering. I personally see the goal of an audio system as being to create a credible subjective illusion (Lynn Olson referred to an audio system as an “Illusion Engine”) but it seems that the way we all define that phrase differs.

That focused attention over long periods of time creates new neural pathways in the brain has long been known in neurology, and that pretty much defines what we, as audio enthusiasts, do in pursuit of our hobby. That said, we listen to different music on different setups in different acoustic & otherwise varying environments, so while we may hear in essentially similar fashion, the way in which we process what we hear may vary widely. I remember listening to a $30K set of speakers with a friend at a dealership in Minneapolis years ago. My friend was blown away, but I was unimpressed. Same speakers, same system. I’m guessing it was probably because my perception of a realistic illusion was formed over many years of listening to stats, and later my Odeon horns. These were comprised solely of dynamic drivers, and I just didn’t feel they conveyed an adequate sense of realism for the price.

So what defines realism for any given enthusiast? Dynamics? Tonal accuracy? Depth and placement of the performers? Texture? Probably all of the above I’d guess for most people, but it seems almost certain that the priorities will vary between individuals, accounting for different preferences. For this reason, at this point in my pursuits I look to the system being used by someone whose opinion I’m considering to determine if I think it will be similar in character to my own. If they’ve built a setup of similar character, I’m inclined to give far greater weight to their impressions.

This thread has taken on a positive slant despite its clumsy inception. Thanks, folks.

Being a Bass Head, I listen to the bassist more than anything. I like a system they draws me into the music as to be tapping my feet or dancing in my seat. I like when the band is in the room, not over there in the corner.

 

[BendingWave]

Being a Bass Head, I listen to the bassist more than anything. I like a system they draws me into the music as to be tapping my feet or dancing in my seat. I like when the band is in the room, not over there in the corner.

I think that without getting the bass right the whole system falls short. I don't like most speakers because they don't get it right or even close to right. The illusion that the band is in the room and having a time machine is very cool and very important. On the right pieces these really make your body and brain respond in a magical way.

I do believe we need to learn to listen, its not something we are born to do> Yes we can hear but critical listening is a skill and developed just like our other senses, This is very real and we change with age. One is not born a wine expert or a gourmet these are things we learn and listening is the same.

 

[the professor]

I find out about new gear mostly by forums like this. But also from magazines and bloggers /influencers and dealers and any other advertising source. If a product sounds interesting to me I will read about it and then search it out to listen to it.

I don’t give reviewers any more credit than I do somebody writing about it here or elsewhere. Over the hundred years (it seems) that I’ve been in this hobby, yes over time, some peoples opinions have more value than others. Duh

I do understand how a magazine would have different reviewers with different references like panel and horn and small bookshelf and big cone speakers. I don’t want to read about a speaker that the reviewer already doesn’t like it because it’s not their style. I want to know how it compares with fellow horn or cone or panel etc. for example: there can be something extremely special about a small 2 way monitor BUT how can it compare to a big panel system. That’s like comparing a violin solo to a full symphony. Each can be great in themselves. They also could suck if the person playing hits a lot of bad notes or in our case the design isn’t very good.

To really see how anything performs, you have to have it in your system in your room.

 

[the professor]

As far as my “goal”

Mine is simple - I want a system that conveys the emotion of the music to me. The better it gets to communicating that the better.

 

[mep]

Sorry I don't agree . What is the goal? My goal is the reproduction of music I don't care what YOU like or the frankenstein event in someones room based on what fell off the back of a truck or a discount sale.
If you can't tell me your goal then I don't have any reason to want to listen to you or read you.
Are you a drag racer, or formula one , or a daily driver they are not the same thing.
One of TAS top guys and I had a large disagreement over there are 3 different goals in his mind , of course then there is no possible wrong only more product sna dmore advertising dollars.

That attitude in my mind undermines everything the high end of anything is about. why have 3 star restaurants if everyone knows better?

Sorry you are a reporter not a reviewer then

You misunderstood the intent of what I said. My goal is to have a system that sounds like real music being played by musicians in whatever recording venue they were in whether thats live or recorded in a studio. I'm quite happy with the amount of realism that my system brings to the table.

 

[Shadowfax]

You misunderstood the intent of what I said. My goal is to have a system that sounds like real music being played by musicians in whatever recording venue they were in whether thats live or recorded in a studio. I'm quite happy with the amount of realism that my system brings to the table.

I have been to too many electric concerts that I would NOT want my system to sound like.

 

[Michaels HiFi]

As far as my “goal”

Mine is simple - I want a system that conveys the emotion of the music to me. The better it gets to communicating that the better.

I agree.

I disagree with those who want it to be "exactly like the music should sound".

Certainly they can enjoy music any way they'd like, but I'd prefer the music put a smile on my face even if it's not completely "accurate".

 

[Shadowfax]

I agree.

I disagree with those who want it to be "exactly like the music should sound".

Certainly they can enjoy music any way they'd like, but I'd prefer the music put a smile on my face even if it's not completely "accurate".

and the Bonus is even if it's music you don't listen to and it somehow sounds good.

 

[2FarGone]

I agree.

I disagree with those who want it to be "exactly like the music should sound".

Certainly they can enjoy music any way they'd like, but I'd prefer the music put a smile on my face even if it's not completely "accurate".

“Exactly like the music should sound” makes no sense to me. According to who?

 

[mep]

I have been to too many electric concerts that I would NOT want my system to sound like.

The music recorded live that can sound scary real to me is jazz. Jazz as a genre usually sounds very real whether it was recorded live or in a studio. Most rock concerts are recorded in large venues with poor acoustics.

 

[2FarGone]

The music recorded live that can sound scary real to me is jazz. Jazz as a genre usually sounds very real whether it was recorded live or in a studio. Most rock concerts are recorded in large venues with poor acoustics.

Ian Anderson at the Jethro Tull concert in Chicago at the International Amphitheater (1971) referred to the venue as “the worst acoustical hole in northern America”. I guess he didn’t like it.

 

[Mike]

Venue characteristics aside, non-amplified live music is the benchmark for any system.

 

[Michaels HiFi]

“Exactly like the music should sound” makes no sense to me. According to who?

Exactly!

My friend oversaw some of the largest recording studios in Europe. He always laughs when he hears audiophiles say that and he says "the artist had little to do with how it sounded - it was up to the producers, the record labels and the sound mixers. Plus they were all so high on drugs they have no idea what they were trying to do at the time".

His point is just enjoy it on your system how ever you want to.

 

[2FarGone]

Venue characteristics aside, non-amplified live music is the benchmark for any system.

Undoubtedly true, but there are still variables- acoustic vagaries of the venue where a recording was made, microphones used and placement, etc.

I see a danger here that may exist for no one else, probably because I fell in it once. I use my rig to listen to music, but I don’t let it determine what that music is. It doesn’t have to be perfect. As others have noted, I’ll choose content that connects with me emotionally.

I’m reminded of an old Buddhist koan: “I meditate upon the mountain until only the mountain remains.” To become one with the music until only the music remains is why I have this rig. There’s no other reason to own it.

 

[Kramer64]

The goal for my system is to produce music that engages me to the point that I don't think of anything other than the music during a listening session and when its long past bedtime I'm bargaining-"Just one more song." I know the general characteristics I prioritize-imaging, wide soundstage, tight bass. I don't think about what the artist intended, etc., doesn't help define any sort of goal for me.

Lots of ways to learn about new gear, but I find the often maligned shows to be very useful and I don't subscribe to the notion that you can't get good sound at shows-I've heard great sound at shows. Its not like a dealer's showroom, but any dealer has limitations in the number of brands available and many of us live in an audio desert. Shows are not perfect, but useful for me.

The major magazines obviously have no interest in changing. Soundstage shows there is a different, better way. I also see several headphone sites that always do relatively in depth comparative reviews and are unafraid to plainly state perceived shortcomings in the product. I don't know enough about headphones to judge the quality of the reviews, but I can easily discern that they place a higher priority on candidly conveying honest impressions that are useful to consumers.

I can enjoy the mags, but the rank hypocrisy bugs the hell out of me. On one hand, they say that they must have the very finest equipment, free or deeply discounted of course (the kind maybe 2% of their readers have) because only then can their reviewers, who have vast experience and highly evolved expertise , deliver incredibly insightful reviews to their readers who are in great need of this information. At the first suggestion, however, that the reviews might be tainted by obvious, often undisclosed, conflicts of interest, the mags and their defenders immediately do a conceptual 180-" Any sentient audiophile knows that our reviews are not meant to be relied on, its entertainment, and you have no reason to expect that we will tell you what we really think, particularly if our truthful opinion is negative." Consistency is indeed the hobgoblin of small minds. It is apparently an economic model that works for them.

Oh well, still looking forward to my next issue of TAS.