[DVV]

So far, we've mostly been wasting our time in rather pointless discussions about whether tube is better than SS, whether analog is better than digital, and so forth.

It's not so much that these are pointless topics as such, it just that we didn't define the basic element of it all - the yardstick by which we measure.

So, let's try to define something most of us can agree is what we'd call good sound. Yes, it is a hornet's nest indeed, but it has to be done sometime, so sooner better than later.

Let me try to give my definition - that's all it is, my definition, with no pretensions to being the holy grail, universal truth or anything general at all.

I would define good sound as an overall effect of a sound reproduction chain which allows me to close my eyes, let myself go, forget the world outside for a while and be lost in music. Sound as will allow me to grasp the emotion of the music and perhaps its meaning to its author. It must be highly informative, yet unpretentious. Smooth, yet with iron tooth bite when required. Clean and clear, yet wholesome.

Before I am accused of wanting the impossible, I will name some names which have perhaps not scored a bull's eye, but did come awfully close. First, and least surprising, my own system (that's why I own it) - source is Yamaha CDX-993 CD player (modified by myself for myself), feeding via van den Hul D102 Mk.3 cables (just 0.5 m, app. 1.4 feet long) and WBT RCA cinch plugs my Karan Acoustics KA-i180 integrated amp, feeding via van den Hul 352 Hybrid (silver plated OFC stranded wire mixed with carbon fibres, 256 strands per side) my B&M Acoustics 1041 Monitors, in a 4.5x3.5 m (app. 15x11.5 ft) room, with me sitting on one end and the speakers on the other, about 3 m (10 ft) away from me. One wall covered in wood, another 2/3 glass (window plus glass door), little carpeting, several pictures hanging on walls.

Just as good, but different, a friend's system, consiting of Audio Research preamp, power amp (100WPC) and CD, using Kardas cabling throughout, driving a pair of floorstanding Sonus Faber speakers. Lovely sound, a bit more mellow than I'd like it to be, but thoroughly enjoyable.

Your turn.

Cheers,
DVV

[Sa-dono]

I just seek accurate reproduction of the recording. Extra warmth and a more liquid midrange are extremely enjoyable to listen to, and can be seductive, but oftentimes end up being more distant from the true accurate reproduction IMO.

I attempt to reach this goal through a couple well-recorded tracks, with which I am personally acquanted with the sound of the instruments. I have no personal delusions that I should try and get the sound as close to a live performance, that is fully different from the recorded performance...oftentimes differentiated by different rooms and tuning to the instruments.

In the end, the only thing that truly matters is finding the sound that you love, and trying to reach that Audio Nirvana

[DVV]

I just seek accurate reproduction of the recording. Extra warmth and a more liquid midrange are extremely enjoyable to listen to, and can be seductive, but oftentimes end up being more distant from the true accurate reproduction IMO.

I attempt to reach this goal through a couple well-recorded tracks, with which I am personally acquanted with the sound of the instruments. I have no personal delusions that I should try and get the sound as close to a live performance, that is fully different from the recor ...

Which is why I tend to walk my system around, meaning to take it over to friends' places and hear it there. If it delivers, I'm happy. I can't think of any other way to check up on its performance under truly different conditions.

Cheers,
DVV

[Tbadder1]

I listen not for pleasure, but for exploration.  Detail is the most important aspect of "good sound" for me.  I don't listen to relax, find solace, party on, get ripped.  I listen to discover the nuances of musical presentation, whether that means the ear-splitting obnoxiousness of Fugazi or Captain Beefheart or John Coltrane, or the sublime mindfulness of Satie, Dylan, or Fitzgerald.  I seek more to understand than engage in an emotional experience, although that happens at times.  I think this is the reason I've never really like copious amounts of bass because it tends to cover stuff up.  Speakers that reach below 35hz make me feel like I'm being short-changed somehow.  This of course means that I'm not really interested in a fully accurate representation of what's being played, which makes me a lousy audiophile I suppose.  

Peace Love Dope
Dan

[Hantra]

I listen not for pleasure, but for exploration. Detail is the most important aspect of "good sound" for me.

I seek more to understand than engage in an emotional experience

See, I am the exact bipolar opposite.  If I listen, I want to pull as much emotion from the experience as possible.  I want not only the emotion of the musician/composer, but my own emotional reaction to their emotion as well.  

I suppose that's not ALL I want b/c listening to a Walkman CAN be emotional.  I just have more of a guarantee of emotion from my real system.

B

[meilankev]

This post reminds me of a true incident between my mother and myself a number of years ago.  I play the piano, as my mom also did when she was alive.  There was this one occasion where I was trying to expose her to the technical brilliance of Keith Jarrett.  As we were listening, I interrupting the music to highlight some riff that I considered extraordinary.  After 3 or 4 of these interruptions, she had had enough and yelled at me, "Why don't you shut up, and let me enjoy the music?  I'm not interested in his technique - I'm only interested in its beauty".

Of course, she was right.  And now, I apply this experience with audio systems.  I try not to get hung up about specific audio qualities.  If I'm tapping my feet, it's cool.

Kevin

[gonefishin]

This post reminds me of a true incident between my mother and myself a number of years ago.  I play the piano, as my mom also did when she was alive.  There was this one occasion where I was trying to expose her to the technical brilliance of Keith Jarrett.  As we were listening, I interrupting the music to highlight some riff that I considered extraordinary.  After 3 or 4 of these interruptions, she had had enough and yelled at me, "Why don't you shut up, and let me enjoy the music?  I'm not interested in  ...

  hehe...two different ways of looking at music I suppose.  (but...your mother was right )

[nathanm]

Good sound is what two people who hate each other's musical tastes can agree on.

[Carlman]

I'm somewhere between Tbadder and Hantra.  I thoroughly enjoy getting results from tweaks.  I like to hear every single detail in the music.  I find it neat when I hear something I didn't hear before.  Sometimes I listen only for sound accuracy.  I ask myself "How much does this sound like a real instrument?"  Usually, the answer is 'it's getting there'....

However, sometimes, I can't listen to those things becuase I get wrapped up in the music and am in awe of the overall sound.  Whether that be toe-tapping or an emotional response of some sort.

This hobby is great for a creative yet analytical and technical person.

[Tbadder1]

Let me explain a little further...

For me, the emotion comes from the song or composition, not the quality of the recording.  For instance I love Bob Dylan's Blood On The Tracks, and I've never found I loved it less when listening on my good gear or my piece of crap cassette player via the automobile.  The emotion and meaning don't come from the method of reproduction, but from the relationship between my physical/mental interpretation and the song/composition.  Now I will admit that quality reproduction can help my ability to see into the music, to understand it to a greater degree, but rarely, sometimes, but rarely does it cause the experience to become more emotional.  Taken together then...the music itself is the emotion, and the reproduction is the understanding.  The head and heart come together thusly--for me.  Hantra's angle is perfectly legit as well...just different.  I think the more ways we can come to music the better in any case.

I guess I'm arguing for subjectivity over objectivity, even when it comes to what constitutes "audiophile" sound.

P,L,D
Dan

[Brad V]

So far, we've mostly been wasting our time in rather pointless discussions about whether tube is better than SS, whether analog is better than digital, and so forth.

It's not so much that these are pointless topics as such, it just that we didn't define the basic element of it all - the yardstick by which we measure.

So, let's try to define something most of us can agree is what we'd call good sound. Yes, it is a hornet's nest indeed, but it has to be done sometime, so sooner better than later.

Let ...

Sorry, however I still think it's a waste of time. That's like trying to get everyone to only pick one car. Everyone is going to have their own idea of what good sound is.

Have a great day,

Brad

[DVV]

Sorry, however I still think it's a waste of time. That's like trying to get everyone to only pick one car. Everyone is going to have their own idea of what good sound is.

Have a great day,

Brad

Disagreed, Brad. This is, I believe, a win-win situation. We may end up with a generally agreed on "defintion" (description is more likely), in which case we win.

But even if don't, we and certainly I will at least glimpse of how others define what is clearly defined in my mind. But I have yet to see a clear picture that cannot be made clearer yet.

For example, the Mom story made me think. The lady was right, and in fact I agreed with her without being aware of it, I never vocalized it, but it was there. However, once I am clear on the fact that a system lets me grasp the emotion of the music (like Hantra), I do let myself listen to a particular guitar riff, or drum staccatto, etc. This just makes a good thing better for me.

Cheers,
DVV

[audiojerry]

Good sound is what two people who hate each other's musical tastes can agree on.

I've only got a moment, but without being funny, Nathan's statement is quite profound. Think about it...

Listening to the same recording, one person may hate the music, the other may love it, but I think they could both agree that the system responsible for reproducing the sound is doing so about as well as it can be done.

[DVV]

Good sound is what two people who hate each other's musical tastes can agree on.

I've only got a moment, but without being funny, Nathan's statement is quite profound. Think about it...

Why else do you think I copied it? Nate can be like that ... but refuses to believe he can do it and does do it, the @#$%^&* .

Listening to the same recording, one person may hate the music, the other may love it, but I think they could both agree that the system responsible for reproducing the sound is doing so about as well as it can be done.

A reasonable view. Can we go a bit further?

Cheers,
DVV

[nathanm]

Well the example I can give is when I first visited Jerry's home and listened to his system.  I don't remember what speakers he was using at the time, some kind of small floorstanders.  Anyway, he played a Patricia Barber track, someone whom I had never heard of.  It was that kind of smoky jazz club stuff with the brushed snare and the woman crooning. Now, I certainly don't hate that music, but it's not what I would choose to listen to myself.  (Play a Puff Daddy track and then we'll talk about hate)  But regardless, the sound was amazing.  The soundstage was really 3D and there was lots of detail (and brushed snare really draws attention to this aspect I think).  Anyway, the point is that it was a great recording.  The difference between sound and music is very obvious I think.

[Hantra]

This is interesting.  

Since you mention Patricia Barber, I want to share more about this subject, using her.

I have a friend who has played a Patricia Barber track for me many times at his place.  I never really thought much about the track.  It was neat, and dynamic.  Sound was good.  

But one day, he brings the disc over to my place, and we listened to that track.  I was absolutely amazed!  Not at the sound per se, but I finally was able to hear the GOBS of emotion that track has.  It was such an emotional track, I had to go buy the disc THAT DAY.  

So. . . This is what I'm talking about.  I have heard many systems that sound really good, and that haven't been able to transfer any emotion to the listener at all.  

This makes our entire question more difficult to answer.  

B

[gonefishin]

Ok...here I go.  I'll try to get a start of my description.


  First off...when someone is describing what they want out of a system...or describing good sound (to them)...and they state that they prefer a neutral sounding system...or a system that is accurate to the original recording is cop out.    To me this tells me nothing of what they want.  I've seen too many "audiophiles" describe this same thing...and I've heard some of their components and some of their systems.  Yet they all sound different!  Which person is right?  well...they all preach about having a neutral system that's accurate to the recording...so what should we do?  All of them are colored to me.  I know...let's get the guy who recorded the album to decide which is closest to what he wanted.

    I know this is nitpicking...and I don't mean it to sounds as harsh as it may...but come on!  In my eyes this is a B.S answer that gives me no description of what you are working toward...only what you think your working toward.  There are tons of audiophiles that feel the same way...but all have different sounding systems.  Give me something more to go on...give me a description of your system...give me a description of how you prioritize what makes a good, neutral, accurate component.  Give me more than your mission statement!  more...more...more!!!!

      lol...hehe.  


   ok...so, now it's my turn.  

   First off...let me say that I will try to describe what I'm looking for in a stereo system that makes me think...Hmmm...that's good sound!  

   Why do I say this?

    Because good music transcends over any system.


   So...what do I find important?  

    First off...Tone.  A trumpet has to sound like a trumpet...a cymbal, like that particular cymbal...an alto sax like a...well, you get the idea.

    Dynamics.  No, I'm talking about how loud a system can play...but the uncompressed dynamic range with which it plays.  (this can also help that trumpet sound more like a trumpet...or sax sound more like a sax...or a gospel singer sound more like...well, again...you get the idea)

    Low distortion.  Gives a nice clean sound...helps the other aspects really shine.

    Imaging and soundstage.  While I hold imaging higher than soundstage...both are nice attributes in a system.  

   A stage set for one.  Most of the time I enjoy listenin' to music with others...talkin'....having a few drinks...and just havin' a good time.  But, when I'm listening to music on my system...I mean really listening to music...I actually prefer to be alone.  no interuptions...just me and the music


    well...that's all I can think of for right now.  I suppose there is no right or wrong answer to this...just different explanations we use to describe what we like.  But you already knew that...didn't you

[Tonto Yoder]

This is interesting.  
I have a friend who has played a Patricia Barber track for me many times at his place.  I never really thought much about the track.  It was neat, and dynamic.  Sound was good.  

What's the track??

[Hantra]

Nardis. . .

[Tonto Yoder]

Nardis. . .

Yep, her version makes Bill Evans seem like a wimp.