What is your reference?


What is the reference by which you judge the sound of a component or a system? I see a lot of confused posts here, and listen to a lot of equipment at all price levels that sound phony, which leads me to believe that a lot of manufacturers and consumers don't really know what music sounds like. I am starting to wonder if many buyers of expensive equipment might actually prefer an artificial, hi-fi sound as opposed to something that approaches real music. I know that we are seeking a mere reproduction of the real event, so don't give me that babble about "nothing can duplicate..." That's a cop-out by those who can't hear or have given up trying. What is the aural image you have in mind when auditioning audio equipment? And what recording best represents that image?
madisonears
...a final thought before I hit the hay: I used to consider the Handel & Haydn Society's period instrument concerts at (the smaller) Jordan Hall a supremely wonderful reference, both musically and acoustically. Well, H&H got too successful, needed to sell more seats, and migrated across the street to (the larger) Symphony Hall. All of a sudden the original instuments sound "skinny", harsh, lacking warmth, etc. So much so that I simply stopped going! Concerts by my neighbor Marty Pearlman's Boston Baroque, as well as the Boston Chamber Music Society, both still at the warmer Jordan Hall, now fill my desires for ravishing performances of period instruments; I reserve my outings to Symphony Hall for larger, modern orchestras and choral groups who "fill" the hall better. System references? One dealer's Watt/Puppy6/Levinson setup sounds energetic and full-bodied. Another dealer's Pipedreams/Accuphase/Airtight/SPM system sounds much leaner, yet refreshingly natural. I have a great live recording (Pickwick) of BostonPhilharmonicOrch/Zander of Stravinsky's Rite of Spring (1990). It sounds "weightier" on the former system, and in some ways more full-bodied, and richer, but I'll be damned if the leaner system doesn't sound more like that orchestra playing in Jordan Hall! Thanks again.
Subaruguru, thanks for comments. They are among the most intelligent and insightful I've come across any Audiogon forum. You obviously have a passion for and have educated yourself about music. The pursuit of sonic accuracy is extremely important to our hobby, but only if it is done to support the music. The recording process is an active process where the artist and engineer conspire to creative an illusion from which musical truth can emerge. Elements in this process are the recording hall, the choice of a specific instrument and its setup, microphone selection, mic placement, EQ, added reverb and/or delay, compression/limiting and post performance editing (good musicians can and do play "bad" notes). When performed by talented people this processing is transparent. As listeners we should also be active. We should consciously tweak our systems such that they positvely contribute to the enjoyment of the musical experience. It's that emoitional (not sonic) truth that I want my system to let through. P.S. I too use Pass electronics (P pre and 5 amp). I think they are a superb product and a great value. I use Discovery interconnects and OCOS cables. The speaker are Monitor Audio 50s w/ REL stereo subs.
Did not describe my own system in original post, so here it is: CAL Icon MkII Power Boss HDCD, Van den Hul The Second, Bryston BP-25 pre, AQ Opal balanced, BAT VK-200 power, VdH silver for highs and AQ for bass, B&W 802's with North Creek Music outboard crossovers. Very warm, tonally precise, open sound with no harshness, no fatigue whatsoever. Sound compares favorably to local symphony in concert, but can still kick out the jams on rock and jazz. Most realistic sound so far is old version (NOT brightly lit remaster) of Philips CD of Beethoven's 3rd by Masur. If an orchestra could be shrunk to fit in my living room, this is what it would sound like.