what is good sound ?

my suggestion does not require a cello. it can rely on an instrument that anyone can "play". since it is always available, there is no need to be dependent upon acoustic memory.

if you replace components, it is an approach which gives you an idea as to how close you are to the timbre of a cymbal. does anyone have another idea ?

referring again to the example of the cello, you can take advantage of that situation and replace components while the musician is there.

The problem I have with the idea of this question is in the title. The word "good" implies there is a human being making a judgement based on whatever the heck it is you guys decide is appropriate, for instance ('good" and 'bad' do not exist in nature nor some kind of objective reality - they are concepts that exist only in the human mind). So, then is that supposed to represent some kind of standard for the rest of the world to aspire to when it comes to the reproduction of sound? Can we all join the "Good Sound" club if we qualify and can afford the membership fee and dues? Will there be a committee to determine who gets to join, and who isn't quite 'right'? Will we have to qualify on one of those "is it live, or is it Memorex" tests. Must we have heard a cello in our living room before being considered? As far as "accuracy" becoming a means of judgement, I'd have to agree with that I've never heard a system that sounds like live music, and I do listen to live music, have heard cellos and violins in my house. Various systems, in various rooms have varying strengths and weaknesses depending upon the material you feed them. The idea of the cello in your own living room test is a bit odd because, well, even if I do record a cello in my living room with minimilast proecessing and brilliant mixing and recording with the best gear available, and then actually create a system that makes that sound quite "realistic" in my own living room...that's all fine and good...if that were the only recording I listened to for the rest of my life. Not gonna' happen though. And I can tell you with great confidence that the vast majority of the music I listen to was definitely not recorded in my living room. In fact, I'd venture to guess that the rooms most of them were recorded in bear no resemblence whatsoever to my living room. Also, unfortunately, most of the music I do listen to has had some mixing and processing, and there are usually one or more human beings that have made decisions about how to implement all that mixing and processing. I too do enjoy the illusion that my system has brought musicians and instruments and an environment into my living room. Given that it is an illusion at best, it is up to the listener to judge the effectiveness of that illusion. That will vary from person to person. Some are more easily convinced than others. Those in the elite "Good Sound Club" who've heard cellos and pianos and cymbals and bagpipes in their very own homes can continue to feel special that they are in such a privelidged position to judge such matters with peerless integrity. Pardon me if I don't drop to my knees and bend deeply at the waist, but while I'm here, would any of you happen to have any Grey Poupon?

Marco

Marco, I agree with you. I do not need to join a club to distort what I believe sounds good to me. But many audiophiles want and seek approval from others and in the beginning I was not that much different. I'm sure that is why clubs like that exisit. My system is a very personal to me including my music & have tried enough gear to realize that the very most important part of any system is the speakers. I can't put enough emphasis here. I have had audiophiles over to my house to demonstrate a preamp or power amp and some folks threw the money at me to buy it. I did however point out to the buyer that with different speakers it may not produce the same results.

Getting back to the subject at hand, I don't think that any system assembled will sound exactly like live music although some may come close and I'm sure that is what many audiophiles strive for but others in the end may prefer a more intimate venue and need only to please themselves.

Marco by the way, maybe we should all try some Grey Poupon just to see what all the fuss is about. I'm still using French's mustard.

Newbee: I never said anything about having the cellist come to my house. Again, you either know how a live piano, cello, flute, bassoon etc. sounds or you don't. You don't necessarily have to do a rapid A-B comparison to know whether a system is doing a decent job of recreating the illusion. You know it when you hear it. Of course, in many cases, the recording is a big source of the problem. That's why you have to find a few recordings that you trust. Enjoy your systems.

It doesn't take an expert, or a seasoned concert goer, or an audiophile who
changes their amp as frequently as their underpants to be able to judge a
stereo system. The convincing illusion of a musical sound, or a human voice
does not require someone familiar with sound engineering, musicology, nor
the design and manufacture of high-end audio components. The kind of
reproduction of sound that makes a persons hair stand on end or raises
goose bumbs requires no membership cards, secret handshakes or special
discernment based upon experience nor knowledge, in order to appreciate
that illusion. Because one person is intimately familiar with the nuances of
what a kazoo and jaw harp sound like does not put them in any better
position to judge for another person what sounds "good" for
them. To rely upon another person's opinion of how well a given system will
accomplish the illusion, no matter how experienced and knowledgeable that
person may be, could be just as unreliable as asking someone else which
movie you should watch, or which book you should read, or which food you
should eat, or which wine to drink. Yes, you may get some opinions that
actually work for you, but they are still only that; opinions...just as much of
an illusion, if you will, as the reproduction of the sound. The supposition of
the question here, to me, implies that there is some objective means of
judgement of such things. This is an oxymoron..."judgement" can
never be objective no matter how scientific. Science that was proved to be
"true" a hundred years ago is now held in doubt, and some of it
may no seem as absurd as the flat earth. Why do people need assurance
from others that what they enjoy in life is "right" to be enjoying?
Do we want tunas with good taste, or tunas that taste good?