I keep reading this months piece by JVS and keep wondering what is an equipment reviewer to do? How can he not somewhat side step the performance to zero in on what the equipment is doing?
It would seem that at best the equipment reviewer is taking a broad stroke of some familar music and decide how it differs from some other system (HIS Main) or other recently reviewed components. It also seems that getting into the timber of sound would be very difficult unless you were present at the recording session and can recall that moment in time.
I love the sound of a well recorded grand piano. Yet we all have recordings of great piano performances that are sonically all over the place. Alfred Brendel talking on the B and W gift DVD from an older issue of Stereophile talked about how he told his producer to get some older Fisher piano recordings from the '30s that Mr. Brendel thought had some of the best piano sound he has heard. If any of you have any of these recordings let me know what you think of them.
This is why JA's comments to me are more accurate as he equates what he is hearing from a recent recording sesion being played through some component(s). With sonic memories being so short this has got to be tough.
If something does not have the right timber in the first place (the recording) how can a speaker recreate it? If a mic or a mic pre has some certain coloration, a speaker system with the inverse frequency response might make it sound more "accurate?" in timber. or at least less "colored".
I am amazed that reviewers do what they do so well. I could compare 2 or 3 components in real time, but to seperate it by time and remember it would be a challenge, especially not being at the recording of the event.
Just a thought.