In the previous post “What Absolute Sound?”, when trying to describe various issues with systems with more and the minimum number of components in the signal chain, the idea of describing a system as a chain of Filters and Mutations came up.

Since a Filter is just another Mutation, one can describe a system of ‘n’ components as a sequence of mutations M on the signal coming from the source media:

Mtotal = M1 * M2 * … * Mn

Where M1 is the mutation caused by component #1, M2 by component #2, etc. A component can be an amp, cable, speaker, the room… everything that affects the sound of the system. A typical mutation might be one that removes some dynamics, it might exaggerate note attacks in the midrange, it might shift the harmonics a little bit in the upper frequencies, etc. or it might do all of these things.

For example: if M1, a cable, is lean and only lets through 90% of the bass and M4, a preamp, is also lean and only lets through 70% of the bass, and all other components are bass neutral, then the system lets through 0.90 * 0.70 = 63% of the bass.

A “balanced” system is one where all frequencies are mutated the more or less same way.

A “pseudo balanced” system is one where various frequencies that are mutated significantly by one component are ‘almost’ counterbalanced by a mutation in another. I.E. if one mutation is bright, exaggerating the attack of treble frequencies, then another would have to be rolled off on top, or in some other way unexaggerating the attack in the treble somehow so that, overall, the frequencies in the treble end up being mutated the same way as the frequencies in the midrange and bass..

An “optimal system” is one where the mutations M are very small and have no significant effect [in practice, there is always a slight filtering of the signal as it winds itself through cables and connectors and various cir5cuities. Also a slight leanness or bass emphasis might be present and detectable. All else being more or less mutation free or sufficiently nuanced as to defy easy detection].

This subject comes up periodically on the forums and recently on this blog – the subject being how can modern music be used to test the sound of a sound system – and are we not really dependent on comparing what unamplified acoustical instruments sound like on our systems versus what they sound like in reality?

I.E. do we need a reference ‘perfect’ sound with which to determine just how much fidelity our high-fidelity reproduction systems have?

Definitely an aesthetically pleasing argument. But does it hold up? Is this the ONLY way to ascertain fidelity of a system?

Personally, I find it too limiting.

First, one can argue that there is no ‘perfect’ sound – that our recordings of, say, a piano are so very far from sounding like a real piano and that we cannot ask our systems to sound like a piano if the source material does not sound like a piano. A corollary to this is that 99% of people have no idea what a piano sounds like. And much fewer what the particular piano sounded like that is being recorded – in that particular hall – at the location of the particular microphone(s).

Second, that many people cannot tell the difference between a modest stereo system’s reproduction of a live band and the live band itself. I think Dunlavy used to hold these demos [using very modest albeit dynamic systems] in their factory. [I am very familiar what an acoustical guitar sounds like from 2 to, say, 10 feet away. I can be ‘fooled’ sometimes because my ear will focus on a limited number of cues: the note attack and note decay and note harmonics (of the guitar body and other strings, as well as buzzing against the pick and or frets, etc) ].

Third, music like Radiohead is recorded better and has a higher fidelity to the original music because so much of the original music is electronically generated – this is its natural medium. It doesn’t have to go from vibrations to sound to microphone to weak electrical signals. Radiohead is great for testing – and fairly unique – because it is both complex and recorded very very well. Classical music, when complex, often has issues because the instruments are so spread out they are hard to record with a single microphone – and multiple microphones introduce problems, etc. etc.

So a conclusion here, it seems , is that one has to pay freaking close attention to the sound of the reproduction even if it is purportedly of an acoustical instrument. Are the notes rendered well, how does the music make us feel, etc. And we also compare to other music we have heard on this system as well as this same music we have heard on other systems as well as other music by the same band as well as how other sources (LP, CD, Tape, SACD, etc.) of this same music has sounded in the past.

It is all about triangulating and interpolating and comparing and re-comparing sound to other sounds – and whether that sound is an acoustic instrument or a electronic keyboard or a voice or whatever – it hardly matters IMHO.

OK. My usual argument went like this: very, very few people give a darn whether their music is from an acoustical instrument or not – they just care about the MUSIC and THAT is what has to sound good and have high-fidelity. The question of whether a piano can be reproduced well, and whether reproducing a piano well means it can also reproduce Hendrix’s guitar well, is fine to debate but one could just as well shirt-circuit the whole mess and just listen to a recording of Hendrix’s guitar. I.E. one listens to music one likes and if that sounds correct, with respect to memories of live performances and memories of similar music on the system and similar systems, then one is happy happy.

OK, I threatened to do this… so let’s try to do it without getting us all in too much trouble.

Worthwhile Review

Sound of the piece under review is actually described – in terms of what it does well and what it does not so well.

Clueless Review

Sound is not actually described and instead there is a lot of meaningless hyperbole like: Wonderful vocals, awesome bass, band XYZ sounded extremely good, etc.

Worthwhile Review

Sound is compared to competition [note that some summary of the characteristic sound of the various competition is required otherwise the comparison is worthless / clueless] and to other components from the same company – both above and below the component under review

Clueless Review

It is so common for the phrase “best I’ve heard” to slip into reviews where the reviewer has heard nothing from the competition in this price range or above – i..e this is also the most expensive component the reviewer has ever heard. This type of Clueless Review is also commonly highlighted when the reviewer insists that his modestly priced system, with the less modestly price component under review, sounds better [better is sometimes qualified as ‘highest resolution’ or ‘best dynamics’ or etc.] than any system they have ever heard in their life.

—————————

Let’s see. These two characteristics of Clueless Reviews certainly apply to 90-95% of all reviews in both print and online. Some sites only publish Clueless Reviews like this and nothing else.

Some Clueless Reviews DO have some redeeming value in that they might include historical information about – or an interview with – the manufacturer. Or cool info about the CD they are using to test with. Or whatever, something else unrelated to the supposed actual review of the relative quality of the component under review [like pricing… or photos]