Achtung, ze bore iz let looze!!
A lot of issues, here.
Dom: Not all acoustic music is classic, as many people noted. And there is bite in a lot of classic music. Just try almost any interpretation of Reinhardt Goebel and the Musica Antiqua Cöll and there is all the bite you can wish for. Take is Ouvertures or his Brandenburgs; that might please you. Or take the opening movement of the Bach Christmas Oratorio ââ'¬â€œ can't get more bite than that, I think. For a different kind of bite, you have Mahler, Bruckner, or, better still, Bela Bartok or Prokofief's piano sonatas (ughh). Also the beginning of Brahms' first symphony.
Julian: I did witness concerts in which the public and the musicians were completely united and there was a feeling of very strong emotion between all the people present. I particularly remember Wieland Kuijken (a viol player) ââ'¬â€œ he was with the public, the public was expecting him to do his utmost, and he did just that ââ'¬â€œ he kept smiling to the audience while playing, and when something very beautiful happened, you felt he knew the public recognized it. It is almost impossible to describe, but the amount of emotion was extreme. Of course he had to play 5 or 6 encores and had about ten minutes applauseââ'¬Â¦
I remember another instance, with Camerata Lisy Playing Vivaldi, another with Pro Cantione Antiqua singing old English Elizabethan music. And, really, this kind of thing is common in opera. Even the stern Gustav Leonhardt is not immune to it: I once saw him (after a marvellous recital) gave three or four extras ââ'¬â€œ usually he gives none!
When one plays to the public one can really sense (I don't know about it ââ'¬â€œ an organist never sees the public) how the public is reacting. Sometimes the public is bored; other times they are entranced. Of course they don't shout along with the tune, they don't get drunk. But that is nowadays. In Venice Operas that seemed to be the common behaviour. And in Holland, in the 17th Century, it seems a lot of flirtation was carried out while the organist was playing. There is even mention of mischievous conduct in the darker recesses of churchesââ'¬Â¦
As for myself, I can't really see the appeal of getting drunk while a drummer is damaging my ears and I try to persuade some persuadable girl to go to bed with me ââ'¬â€œ if you must pick a girl up, it is much more subtle to talk her into it (or, as George Mikes said ââ'¬â€œ a womanizer friend of his used to say it with flowers, but brandy is so much quickerââ'¬Â¦).
Now, let's consider the recording process and its impact on sound quality. It is obvious that has a very big importance. Some records are plainly manipulated. The dynamic range is often compressed (otherwise it might just bust your speakers) and there is a lot of tinkering with the timbre. But with electronic music that is even worse ââ'¬â€œ in many cases there is no sound whatever to start with ââ'¬â€œ it just goes from the keyboards to the processor and the master tape. Afterwards, you do what you like with it.
So that is why I say one must chose an instrument that one knows well, possibly a lot of such recordings, and try them. If they sound true (like a violin, like a harpsichord, like an organ ââ'¬â€œ preferably one you actually have heard ââ'¬â€œ like a piano, and so on) the system is possibly accurate.
Now it was said there is no such thing as the sound of 'the' violin: every one has its own sound. This is true, but every violin shares a lot of qualities with all the violins; the same with harpsichords and even grand pianos. Organs are different ââ'¬â€œ they are so different they are actually different instruments; so you have to choose one you really know. But the organ-dedicated labels often produce recordings with a minimum of interference (and without compression ââ'¬â€œ watch your speakers if there is a gross unterposaunenbaß!).
That said, the best tests are the live ones with minimal tinkering from the sound engineers. In classical music it is often said that the 70ies produced excellent recordings. I myself think otherwise. The quality keeps becoming better ââ'¬â€œ right know Christophe Rousset is playing the English suites. If I raise the volume a little bit and sit away from the speakers and close my eyes I may actually be fooled as to believe I am listening to a true instrument; same thing as far as Glenn Wilson's WTC goes.
Having said that, the ultimate test to accuracy is the human voice. This is because your brain is tuned to decode that kind of sound. If the recording seems credible (again: an acoustic recording), the system is OK. If it is overbright, if it hisses, if it sounds in any way unnatural, the system is flawed.
Of course, using this test, you always find out that not only is the system at fault but that the recording medium is flawed, too. But, after all, hifi is about reproduction, it is not the real thing.
One final consideration. When I read hifi magazines I'm amazed the writers feel so confident about, say, Ray Codder's voice (I don't know Ray Codder ââ'¬â€œ the name seems credible to me, but for all I know he may be a drummer) comes off beautifully, I'm amazed at their incompetence. They just say they *liked* the rendering. I know of two actual instances: Diana Krall and Tory Amos. Their records are so badly engineered their voices stand out in a different acoustic and a different frequency balance to the rest of the playing; there is *no way* a human voice can actually sound like that. How on Earth can one evaluate a system based on such crap (I mean the recording, not the singers)?
Reviewing hifi on based on that is not difficult. It is plain impossible. So you are left with acoustic recordings.
