O-10, thanks for your response. Like I said before, and it’s even more obvious now, we listen for different things in music and in sound. I don’t want this to become a pi$$ing contest, but hopefully just an explanation of those differences. Re the violin:
I think it’s great that you use a reference to judge the sound of your system, but I would reconsider your choice of recorded reference. The violin is not only not "simple" it is a very complex instrument that produces a very harmonically complex sound which is extremely difficult to record, perhaps the most difficult. No one should ever suggest that someone else’s preferred tonal balance (or other audiophillic considerations) is not right for anyone except himself. However, the fact still remains that there is, in fact, a true reference as concerns "accuracy" (or, at least, the quest for it) in reproduced music; and as suggested by pryso and Schubert the live music standard is it. Some may argue this or that, but imo it always comes back to that. Moreover, exposure to the live standard is the only way to be a good judge of this. Again, absolutely nothing "wrong" with any other preferred kind of sound for any given listener if that is what they want or like; but, if only as a subject of discussion, it should be pointed out that there is a lot of sonic beauty that sometimes gets missed. For what it is worth, both of those clips deviate quite a bit from what is possible with "violin sound". The second one especially is pretty heavily processed; not to mention that they use electric violins (!); deal breaker right off the bat. I can’t find in YouTube the exact recordigns that I might use as a violin reference, but these are in the ballpark. They (especially the first) may not impress at first because of the absence of hyped up and digitized violin sound that I hear in your clips, but if one gives up those expectations and recalibrates the ears there is so much more beauty, nuance and complexity in this other kind of sound. The music is some of the greatest ever written:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-U3TsUw8TK0For a recorded sound a little closer to what is generally considered more current, but that still honors what is possible in live:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=iScgtiQUvjEI enjoyed the Oscar Pettiford clip, thanks. He was undeniably a great player and very important in the history of jazz bass playing. Jazz is a relatively new art form and the truth is that some instruments (trombone another) have traditionally lagged behind other instruments as far as reaching what is technically possible on the instrument in that music. Putting issues of stylistic preferences on the part of the listener aside, the truth is that Pedersen plays the bass at a much higher level of proficiency than Pettiford did. Go back in time and compare bass players that preceded Pettiford and what he was doing and you can say the same thing. They got better and better as far a clean technique, intonation, facility etc. Now, that may or not mean its great music making, but that is another story. In Pedersen’s case I think it certainly does. Regards.