So yes you can judge the whole as a whole, but you can't determine the root causes of what you're hearing. In your example, you don't know the source of that hypothetical suckout. It could be the speakers, it could be the program, it could be setup error.
As someone who works in this field, I can tell you, that you should be able to infer a pretty darn solid understanding of whether it’s a quirk in the music production vs the system asa whole after 2-3 songs.
In the majority of Amir’s coverage of the show he listened to more than one track per room, and thus should be able to understand a tonality trend across multiple individual songs.
I’m not asking Amir to critique setup error or room, Im asking for an opinion on the entire exhibition, with the music played out of the equation.
I don't think you've framed that correctly. One need not "memorize" something to identify variance. It's like if somebody washes and dries your raw denim jeans that you had been "breaking in" without your knowledge - you don't have to know exactly where every scrape and fade was to notice they look and fit differently after the mishandling. Likewise, if you've listened to a given track quite a few times in a number of environments, you don't have to "memorize" it to sense when it's coming back at you somewhat differently than expected, or especially nicely
This is a huge contradiction from your original point. You are suggesting that comparison of systems can be judged by a subconscious metric of if is “right or wrong” based on arbitrary subjective “feelings” based off of prior experiences listening to the track, without being able to translate them into real terms which would be a judgement that is far more of a reach than my suggested approach (listening to multiple foreign songs and finding common denominators)
Your last sentence is exactly my point. A listener cannot know if a perceived issue is inherent to the program or a reproduction flaw in the loudspeaker if both are unfamiliar. So you can't judge either one in isolation. You can only make a statement about the gestalt.
True in subtle differences. But when you are at an audio show and are auditioning a well designed speaker after a horrifically “broken” one, as many of the systems are at these shows, it is pretty obvious to identify tonality issues.
When the differences are more subtle any person with a competent ear should be able to draw a judgement (in a vacuum, not comparative) on speaker tonality after 2-3 songs by different artists/engineers.
Production is different from reproduction. In your example, there's no recorded program. You care about making the whole live performance sound as pleasing as you can within the constraints of the equipment and adjustments you have. The equivalent would be trying to evaluate the sound quality of the stage monitors based on the playing of musicians you've never heard playing compositions you don't know.
I think you misunderstood my point, which was that people can judge correct tonality without familiar reference material. The second you add more data points (different songs) to your listening, you can find common traits. And if you have a good ear, the more songs you listen to, the more accurate your judgement on a system is.
The differences in song production and engineering are smaller than you think, even more so at audio shows. Exhibitors are not playing songs with ridiculously broken tonality. 5 seconds in a room with those ZUs I could tell you something was very wrong, and the minute the next track came on and exhibited the same issue I would be able to tell you exactly where and how drastic they are wrong. That might just be me, but it’s not fair to write off being able to say if exhibits sound right or wrong as flawed ideology just because you might not be able to hear or make these judgements.
'm curious what exactly you think you're agreeing with, because I didn't write a word in this thread about "A/B/X comparisons."
I’m aware you didn’t mention it. The reason I said that is mostly due to your point on sighted listening. A/B/X should be done blind of course.
One can certainly form an opinion of how the whole thing sounds to her.
Yes this is my point. I was not asking Amir to write down what the amps or room effects or individual complements sound like.
But more of a “this exhibition booth/room sounded great, tonality was neutral over the few tracks that were played and the imaging and dispersion seemed nice, except for one song (outlier) which had a diffuse center image and anemic bass, but the other 2-3 songs I listened to were fantastic so I was able to logically infer that my bad experience was due to a fluke poor recording”
I’m not trying to argue here. I just think my above example “quote” is a valid thought process.
