Your reference sounds

[pablolie]

I play percussion (bongos) competently. Percussion sounds to me are a big test for an audio system in general, and of course I am tuned to it. *BUT* many musicians forget their own "reference sound" is *not* universal, there are always differences in the sound and tuning and playing.

I can also play some rather basic keyboards, but mine is of the electronic variety so there is no way I can declare that a "reference" in any way, I'd leave that to acoustic stuff, and just the fact it sounds authentic rather than "real" (which we seldom have a true reference for).

 

[Peluvius]

Well I guess no real surprises here, with measurements taking the gong. The results pretty well align with my approach which is somewhat reassuring. Thanks to everyone who cast a vote and contributed. I am off to measure something........

 

[pablolie]

Well I guess no real surprises here, with measurements taking the gong. The results pretty well align with my approach with is somewhat reassuring. Thanks to everyone who cast a vote and contributed. I am off to measure something........

But... we also know that even with the most linear equipment, we may not get the ultimate truth, but rather the recording/mastering version the artist/producer/recording and mastering engineer had in mind. Which regularly means "optimizing" stuff to be played on poor equipment. The quest for ultimate truth is always a bit doomed in audio, but yes, I agree balanced, linear equipment (perhaps with a slight boost in the presence region) is to be preferred to establish "references".

I have said before that one of my favorite tracks to listen to when I "test" equipment is:

Has great acoustic instruments and an amazing lead vocal.

 

[Robin L]

IEDs (improvised explosive devices) are too lethal for me, despite the unbeatable transient capability
But seriously, before I vote - you mean IEM?

My main reference is live acoustic music, relatively hard to get in today's reality.

The 7Hz x Crinacle Zero:2 IEMs are very nice, only $25.

I agree about live acoustic music. Back in the 1990s I was recording a number of acoustic ensembles, primarily Baroque/Classical. I had pretty good gear, used Stax headphones to monitor the recordings. No matter how fine the microphones or microphone preamps might be, I always felt that something musically important was missing, to greater or lesser degrees. These experiences include work as assistant engineer for audio engineers with a lot more experience and the best microphones for the job.

I pretty much look at the specs when I can (my Infinity Primus 250s haven't been measured as far as I can tell, but the 150s and 360s have and they both measured well). I'll like the sound of the audio system if it reminds me of the sound of a concert I've recorded—preparing for a recording involves spending some time listening to a group rehearse, usually.

 

[Robin L]

I could be wrong but I think the listening room and the microphone(s) used for the recording are the weak link. I've played acoustic guitar since I was 15. I'm not great but good enough to accompany my singing. I've done coffee house folk singing and other low paid playing for an audience. I've listened to a lot of other players unamplified. I've never heard a recording of an acoustic guitar, including models I'm very familiar with, that sounds like the same guitar unamplified. Again, I could be wrong.

I doubt it. The two microphones most frequently recommended for steel string guitar back when I was recording—Neumann's KM 84 and AKG's 451—both had very distinct sound signatures, the KM 84 having more of a "singer-songwriter/folkish" tone, the 451 being more "country", a harder, steelier sound. I don't know what the favorite might be these days, but those two microphones have left their mark on many recordings and sound quite different from the "real thing".

 

[Palmer]

I doubt it. The two microphones most frequently recommended for steel string guitar back when I was recording—Neumann's KM 84 and AKG's 451—both had very distinct sound signatures, the KM 84 having more of a "singer-songwriter/folkish" tone, the 451 being more "country", a harder, steelier sound. I don't know what the favorite might be these days, but those two microphones have left their mark on many recordings and sound quite different from the "real thing".

My favourites are older Milab mics, the PML DC-63 and the DC-96B, sadly that company has folded, and declared bankruptcy on August 11th this year. Get 'em while you can...

 

[Timcognito]

Reference recordings need to be on the list. Seems like many use them and as others mentioned I have my go to "in the room" favorites. Plus knowing what is there and whats not again and again, that is say life like accuracy, familiarity, and repeatability listening to different devices.

 

[Palmer]

Reference recordings need to be on the list. Seems like many use them and as others mentioned I have my go to "in the room" favorites. Plus knowing what is there and whats not again and again, that is say life like accuracy, familiarity, and repeatability listening to different devices.

Willy DeVille - Miracle...

Willy, or Mink DeVille was in Dire Straits, and Mark Knopfler went, with the guys, ahead and did the recording. Splendid mixing, great voice.

Bob Clearmountain, Bob Ludwig at Masterdisk. One of my references...

 

[Robin L]

Willy DeVille - Miracle...

Willy, or Mink DeVille was in Dire Straits, and Mark Knopfler went, with the guys, ahead and did the recording. Splendid mixing, great voice.

Bob Clearmountain, Bob Ludwig at Masterdisk. One of my references...

Willy DeVille formed Mink DeVille. Then he went solo.
Mark Knopfler was the leader of Dire Straits and produced "Miracle". I still have a copy on CD.

 

[Palmer]

Willy DeVille formed Mink DeVille. Then he went solo.
Mark Knopfler was the leader of Dire Straits and produced "Miracle". I still have a copy on CD.

Well, DeVille was in dire circumstances, and Mark Knopfler stepped up and helped. Better? Tough crowd.
By the way, I met the man when he was not doing well. Miss him, dearly.

 

[tengiz]

Always surprised to see so many think the reference is live acoustic music, given there's so many variables and changes in between listening to someone playing a guitar in your room and a recording of them playing a guitar in your room.

Plus so much music is not acoustic instruments.

This is why every poll has some "The average person has one breast and one testicle" quality.

If your main scenario is, say, classical, with zero (typically) non-acoustic instruments, then the live acoustic reference may be exactly what you want.

 

[Robin L]

Well, DeVille was in dire circumstances, and Mark Knopfler stepped up and helped. Better? Tough crowd.
By the way, I met the man when he was not doing well. Miss him, dearly.

Fair enough.
Always loved "Cadillac Walk".

 

[Peluvius]

But... we also know that even with the most linear equipment, we may not get the ultimate truth, but rather the recording/mastering version the artist/producer/recording and mastering engineer had in mind. Which regularly means "optimizing" stuff to be played on poor equipment. The quest for ultimate truth is always a bit doomed in audio, but yes, I agree balanced, linear equipment (perhaps with a slight boost in the presence region) is to be preferred to establish "references".

I have said before that one of my favorite tracks to listen to when I "test" equipment is:

Has great acoustic instruments and an amazing lead vocal.

What a great track, thank you for sharing that. Very well recorded If my gear and ears are anything to go by (but to your point, likely with the mastering engineers preferences overlayed). I have added it to my reference playlist, nice mix of vocals and percussion.

 

[Barrelhouse Solly]

I voted technical measurements but only since it's the best fit.

Always surprised to see so many think the reference is live acoustic music, given there's so many variables and changes in between listening to someone playing a guitar in your room and a recording of them playing a guitar in your room.

Plus so much music is not acoustic instruments.

Rarely encountering a professional recording that sounds bad is my indicator of 'good'. If that happens often, then the system is not 'good.' (Excessively 'loud' mastering excepted).

Also if the same obvious colouration is plastered across all recordings (hello Klipsch et al) then the system is not good - although some don't seem to mind that it's not for me.

I hate headphones and never use them.

I happen to have listened to a lot of acoustic instruments live without amplification. It's a natural reference to me because I've listened to so much of it and have listened to the same songs played on the same model instruments on recordings. I've done a lot of guitar shopping. Sure there's a lot of music that's not played on acoustic instruments. In my particular case my listening experience comes from classical, jazz, old timey... I'm familiar with the sounds of a lot of guitars. It's not a matter of my thinking of live acoustic music as The Primary Reference. It's an area where I have the most listening experience and am most confident making comparisons between live and recorded.

 

[pablolie]

I happen to have listened to a lot of acoustic instruments live without amplification. It's a natural reference to me because I've listened to so much of it and have listened to the same songs played on the same model instruments on recordings. I've done a lot of guitar shopping. Sure there's a lot of music that's not played on acoustic instruments. In my particular case my listening experience comes from classical, jazz, old timey... I'm familiar with the sounds of a lot of guitars. It's not a matter of my thinking of live acoustic music as The Primary Reference. It's an area where I have the most listening experience and am most confident making comparisons between live and recorded.

I am not sure there is a universal reference to live... or if that's even an ideal. Depends entirely on the venue, the seating etc etc. And many live performances are often at best OK, and often flawed... but of course the value is in the experience.

 

[Phorize]

IEDs (improvised explosive devices) are too lethal for me, despite the unbeatable transient capability
But seriously, before I vote - you mean IEM?

My main reference is live acoustic music, relatively hard to get in today's reality.

I've seen some DIY amps that came close to being IEDs.

 

[theREALdotnet]

1. Live music
Tied for 2nd:
2. Measurements
2. Well-regarded equipment playing reference recordings

 

[Torin Krell]

Thinking live music should probably be the number one on the list....

IMHO I would add live acoustic music in a venue with good acoustics. My live references are quality orchestral performances at Carnegie Hall and a few other well respected venues.

 

[Mart68]

I happen to have listened to a lot of acoustic instruments live without amplification. It's a natural reference to me because I've listened to so much of it and have listened to the same songs played on the same model instruments on recordings. I've done a lot of guitar shopping. Sure there's a lot of music that's not played on acoustic instruments. In my particular case my listening experience comes from classical, jazz, old timey... I'm familiar with the sounds of a lot of guitars. It's not a matter of my thinking of live acoustic music as The Primary Reference. It's an area where I have the most listening experience and am most confident making comparisons between live and recorded.

in my youth I played piano, guitar and violin (not well I might add, zero talent, but I put the hours in). Done two piano recitals and sang in a choir with full orchestra. So I think I also have reasonable experience of live acoustic instruments.

The problem, I think, with using that as a reference to the recorded version is how much that is changed by the very act of recording, and then what is done in post production to make, say, a flat, one dimensional piano recording sound 'live' and 'real' again on playback. There's quite a bit of artifice involved. Perhaps not in every recording of acoustic instruments but even the purest recording will still have some compression applied.

Then consider mic position - how do you mic up, at what distance, how many mics and which mics? All those choices give a different sound and none of them 'hear' the same as you standing in the room with the piano.

My point is the recording cannot be a direct facsimile of the original experience of a listener in the room or hall. Maybe at best it can be a rough guide as in when the replay system gets it badly wrong we can tell.

Personally I'd rather take the recording as the starting point and listen to it on a calibrated, accurate replay system then compare that to how it sounds on whatever system I'm evaluating. But that isn't really practical.

 

[Chrispy]

IMHO I would add live acoustic music in a venue with good acoustics. My live references are quality orchestral performances at Carnegie Hall and a few other well respected venues.

Or just what you're familiar with and like.....classical isn't of much interest to me.