Musicians?

Tvad, I could not agree with you more. It is true that "one size does not fit all in this hobby". Hobby being the operative word. No point begrudging someone who wants his system to sound a certain way, even if that means it will have little resemblance to live music. After all, anyone who can't enjoy a great performance on a table radio, is missing the point, IMO.

Having said that, I think there is a great deal to be gained from applying certain standards to this hobby. Two in particular: that the end result should strive to sound as close as possible to live music, or that the end result should sound as close as possible to what the producer heard in the control room. The only time that I have a problem is when hobbyists start saying things like "component X is more accurate than component Z", or "component A blows away component B". I have to ask: compared to what?. And how did you arrive at this conclusion? Often times it becomes pretty obvious that there is no basis for those proclamations.

It has been said countless times that because every hall, or club, or studio, sounds different; and that because it is usually impossible to know with certainty what the producer or engineer had in mind when a recording was made, that comparisons to live music are irrelevant. I disagree. I think most hobbyists focus on tonal issues. These are the easiest to hear and pin point as problems. I contend that there are qualities to the sound of a live performance, even when amplified excessively or simply poorly, that come through "loud and clear", and familiarity with these can be very useful in evaluating a hi-fi component. These qualities usually have to do with the area of dynamics. The sound has a sense of directness, of speed, of connection to the performer that is immediately recognizable. It doesn't matter wether it's unamplified acoustic music, or electronic rock or jazz. Even if the sound has been distorted tonally by processing or too much amplification, that speed will be there to a greater degree than what one hears come out of our systems after all the amplification, eq, conversion, mixing, etc. that the sound suffers in the process of getting from the microphone to when it comes out of our speakers.

Another great post, Frogman! Agree completely with your comments which, as you say, apply no matter what type of venue the music was recorded in. Whether or not a system can give this sense of sound traveling from/in a real space is very important. The best recordings/systems will give you a sense of the original acoustic, including the ambient noise, and how the sound travels in and fills it.

I worked as a session drummer for years here in Chicago. I played mostly jazz and rock. I also play guitar and bass. With music, I listen for 'tone'. The sound of the instrument. My favorite instrument to listen too is solo piano, solo guitar (acoustic), and small jazz ensembles. Too many listen to their systems and never hear the music. There is nothing like listening to live music and learning what an instrumetn actually sounds like. I also enjoy recording small venues with a half track reel to reel and a couple of Sony mikes. Amazing results. Makes we wonder what their doing in studios these days. My profession now is my other passion... photography.

I was a professional touring rock drummer for several years, and somehow still have intact hearing at age 43 despite having a monitor blasting 110+dB into my left ear for about 150 nights a year.

I don't expect recorded music to approximate live drums, especially in loud rock recordings. It seems like the more instruments are layered into a recording, the more compressed the drums become. I don't worry about it too much either. I really enjoy it, though, when an engineer can make drums sound like live drums in a room, minus the dynamics. Brendan O'Brien does a great job in that respect.

I primarily look for tonal balance so that nothing seems amiss, and especially seek to avoid tonal imbalances that make bad recordings worse.

In my opinion, the two system characterstics that make recorded music more engaging are fast transients and a big, holographic soundstage. The system I have now accomplishes this, and it makes good recordings sound great and bad recordings more than tolerable.

I'm semi pro,with an undergrad minor in piano.

The paycheck comes from refining raw data.

My Marantz front end feeds a pair of Maggie 1.6s. For serious listening, I use Grado headphones.

Soon,I'll have to move and the Maggies will get a good local home with t lines on my short list.

Yes,I'm an imaging nut;I want to be able to follow the counterpoint without the speakers getting in the way.

At the risk of incurring someone's wrath,as happened above,I DO know professional musicians who spend their time practicing real instruments and when they do listen,listen to modest systems----or monitors in recording studios.

Also,remember that some musicians endorse equipment much as basketball players endorse shoes and concert pianists endorse pianos. They endorse the high bidder.