I've seen this term used alot to describe an audio system. On AA there is a thread discussing whether to go vintage or keep "reference" system.

I figure you should be able to have both....., shy not a vintage reference system??

Does reference=new?

I think there are many "old" systems that will hold their own with many new "reference" products.

Would a BA-5000 driving NS-1000M be reference?

What about ESL 57 driven by some old Quad II?

Maybe some Allison 1 and a SR-2004?

Add a good source to any of these combos and I'm sure you'll make many a stereo salesman very frustrated when he's trying to "sell" you on some new stuff....

AFAIK they use the term to intimate that their system is the one all others are measured against. Pure marketing hype.

Rob

A friend of mine and I both have systems that we consider our "refrence" systems. Since audio is subjective, I've always considered the term "refrence system" to mean the system that you have that sounds the best to you with the gear you got. This term has a lot more meaning when you factor in a large ammount of equipment rolling, etc., and what you get is an expression of what an individual's personal tastes are, and what their bank account can afford! I think the newest part of my refrence system is the CD player, after that the next newest component is a decade old. I like the sound of my system, and it serves as a handy watermark for comparison: Did I like the change of a piece of gear? What did so-and-so's system sound like compared to the memory of the one I've been playing with?

I've heard plenty of systems that sounded as good as my refrence system or better. Enjoying and growing are a great part of this hobby!

AFAIK they use the term to intimate that their system is the one all others are measured against. Pure marketing hype.

Rob

This is consistent with my understanding of the term "reference system"...... literally the standard by which others are measured.

In my case, I don't take that to necessarily mean the "best" system that I have ever heard.... and I certainly don't mean to imply that my "reference system" is better than any other system.

I favour a more practical interpretation that would describe a system that I am intimately familiar with and listen to on a regular basis so that I can easily draw comparisons against new or unfamiliar gear.

heh, that ASL + my altecs + Rega p3 == a decent reference system.

I thought this was a term coined by professional audio reviewers to allow them to compare a new component to their present system. thus, they analyzed the new by referring to differences between it and their "reference". Implied was that within their budget, they had carefully selected components which optimized their reference system to sound as close as possible to the real thing, out of all of the components reviewed by their publication, and others.

The concept fails in that reviewers wind up owning gear they can get deals on, and are governed by herd mentality.

For each AK member, you play around with all of your gear, assemble the system that sounds best to you, and that's your reference. Then, you compare possible new stuff, and if you decide it's an improvement and you buy it, that's your new reference. Of course, you could just keep doing this and not bother with the word reference, and just say it's your system. :D

with audio its tough to sell one mans idea of a good sounding system when everyone has their own take on what sounds good, thats why I try not to fall into the types of "reference" and "hi-fi" :D

For all I know I could like the way a cheap off brand bookshelf setup sounds, while others feel it sounds amazing.

Reading these responses, I can answer with all truth, honesty, and authority that what I own is nowhere near what professional salespeople would call a "reference system". But what NT says is true too. If I get used to what my gear sounds like, it's what I compare anything and everything else to; it's my yardstick, my "reference".
Tom

If I get used to what my gear sounds like, it's what I compare anything and everything else to; it's my yardstick, my "reference".
Tom

Right on Tom.
My system is also my " reference " though I´ve certainly heard better ones.
Jorge

Reading these responses, I can answer with all truth, honesty, and authority that what I own is nowhere near what professional salespeople would call a "reference system".

I can relate to this. :yes:

I think a professional sales person would use this terminology to sell the high end stuff.

OTOH, a friend and I heard some $30,000.00 speakers (with super expensive electronics, natch. - sorry, never inquired how much the electronics cost). But we were pretty shocked to hear that our systems sounded better than their "reference system"!

And our entire systems cost less than their speakers. Much, much, much less!

There's some pretty nifty vintage electronics and speakers out there, eh?

If I had a van and oodles of time, I'd be tempted to take over my "vintage economy" system and blow their minds....

:D

<edit: Sorry if it looks like this post was "bragging" or if I sounded obnoxious or something. I was just trying to point out that a "reference" system just may not be all that great. If you know what I mean.... Gary>

Wouldn't a 'reference system' be one that was suitable for an 'executive home'? :tongue:

"Reference" is a bit of a mis-nomer nowadays. For an individual, the reference system is your home system - you know it well, so you compare other things with it when you hear them (and if you like them enough, you bring them home and see if you now have a new reference :D). For some of the people in AK, it would be their music room system. For a retailer, it's probably the one they have the biggest mark-up on, and for a manufacturer it would be the one that costs the most (not to build, but to buy).

I hearby declare my main rig a Reference System (tm)

Saying that a reference system is supposed to be one that is as true to the real thing as possible, is perhaps a misnomer. After all don't many concert halls have their own distinct acoustics? What then becomes real, the studio?

Perhaps a better descriptor for a reference system would be one that is "uncoloured". Thus it would seem that a reference system should above all things be accurate recognizing that an accurate system is not necessarily the most complimentary of the source material, i.e.: accurate and good sounding are not necessarily the same thing. I'm told that many studio set-ups are actually quite fatiguing to listen to precisely because they are designed to reveal all, whether it be good or bad.

To return to the thread, for most of us a reference system could probably be best be termed "our benchmark system", the one we compare others against. the problem for me is that I'm still searching for may "benchmark" system. For what it's worth.

Fast Eddie has a "reference" system, indeed. Rack 'em.

I think things got more complicated when a few of the super-high-end companies decided to build cost-no-object components and labelled them "Reference". Then they used those reference products to design the cheaper components in their lines. Every lesser component left out one or more elements of the reference component.

I can't recall who started it, but IMHO the ultimate expression was Mark Levinson's Reference Series. The No. 33 amp and No. 32 preamp were fantastic products, and their designs were then used to produce the more reasonably priced rest of the line.

Anyway, whoever started it, the "Reference" name was instantly copied by everyone and his dog, so that eventually it has no meaning for anyone but Levinson and Audio Research, who are still following the original pattern.

As an aside, I recall reading somewhere a while back that while ML makes only the 32 and 33H, there are vague rumors of another burst of production for the 33. But at prices only an oil baron can afford, this makes little sense. If I won the lottery, I'd buy a full set of Levinson Reference, just to have something to compare enerything elso to!

You could look at it from a builders perspective in that you have an idea how a system
should sound "to you" so you build accordingly then when you design a new product it
goes into the reference system to see how it compares.

That way a company can try and keep there signature sound to all there products which
becomes there reference systems.

I have something simular in that I have a system combining of components "and test
equipment" that I know and trust that they are fairly neutral which I use to judge a
new speaker build/rebuild or piece of equipment mod that I know very well. The one
main ingrediant is my kenwood m2a amp which has plenty of power to judge just about
any speaker and I've had the piece since it was new so I know it really well and trust
it to be fairly accurate and distortion free even under demanding circumstances.

Does reference=new?

Yes, reference = new.

It is the system you tell your brother-in-law to buy so he will quit pestering you for gear.

:D

My "reference" system is outlined in my sig................ with mods and upgrades from EW here and there................ :thmbsp:

I think we all have a Reference system. If the new one you just got sounds better, the old one goes on Ebay. :D

Gary

Marketing silliness aside, I think the term "reference system" came from the audiophile press and means something that's good enough that you can try any component in it and be able to meaningfully hear its differences.

In practise it not only means megabucks but also restricts your recordings to the (maybe) 0.001% of all the ones out there that are going to be as good as the system. Garbage in, garbage out.

I very, very rarely buy recordings for their audio quality ... if I don't like the tunes I don't care how it sounds ... and frankly my relatively modest Rega/Grado/Rotel CD/Nad amp/Paradigm system is still better than 95% of the stuff I listen to.

All good points. I agree with all of them.

But to me, a reference system would be live unamplified music. After all, that's what all of us are striving for, isn't it? :yes:

If I remember correctly, the first big reference system was owned by the infamous Harry Pearson in Sea Cliff New York. This would be the standard of reference by which he and all other writers at The Absolute Sound would judge components. Weird concept in that they considered live music to be the "Absolute Sound", but who can understand audiophiles.... :)
E

... But to me, a reference system would be live unamplified music. After all, that's what all of us are striving for, isn't it?

If only I could get the musicians to remain in the room, ready to play when I walk in, yet keeping quiet the rest of the time. And the food bills!! You have no idea hoe much those people eat! Then, they have the nerve to ask for a retirement plan! It never stops, I tells ya!

"unamplified"?? What if the original music is amplified, like an electric guitar?

Seriously, there have to be reference systems. There's just no other way. The concept is flawed in many, many ways, but there is no viable alternative.

If I remember correctly, the first big reference system was owned by the infamous Harry Pearson in Sea Cliff New York. This would be the standard of reference by which he and all other writers at The Absolute Sound would judge components. Weird concept in that they considered live music to be the "Absolute Sound", but who can understand audiophiles.... :)
E


IIRC, that system's speakers consisted of an Infinity IRS with the addition of two Magneplanar Tympani III bass panels. An unfortunate choice, since initially no one else had one, and few could afford to duplicate it, ever.

That said, I heard one in SoCal at an exhibit in a private home. Fantastic sound.

That said, I heard one in SoCal at an exhibit in a private home. Fantastic sound.
Can you give a brief review of what you thought on the sound? I've been unable to find a personal review of the big IRS where the reviewer didn't have an agenda, typically to discredit Harry Pearson and his speaks.

- JP

The major complaint with the IRS (and the Betas) was the big difference in speed between the ribbon EMITs and EMIMs and the 12" cone woofers (oops, sorry, woogers). The maggie panels are slower than ribbons, but much faster than cones, and they bridged that gap perfectly, allowing the cones to handle only the very lowest range, where their slowness wasn't noticed. Meanwhile, higher up, the famous maggie "slam" is a great match for the punch of the ribbons.

The result was very dynamic, and a true full range speaker, able to reproduce live-level volume and dynamic sound in the room, with what seemed to me as timbral accuracy and immense soundstage.

I have no idea if the set I heard was done worse or better than HP's, since I was told the crossover and electronics weren't the same. At the time, I had no experience with "statement" products; in fact had never heard one before, so I was awed easily. Awed enough that after five years of wanting, I'd managed to save enough and snagged a used pair of Betas.

Thank you much for your take on the sound. It may have been your first time with a statement speaker, but your awe most likely had founding. The times I've encountered such speakers, I've usually been disappointed not awed; if awed, you had a reason. (Funny how my dream speakers are those that I've never heard.)

I do look forward to seeing photos and reading your impression of the sound of your Betas when you finally have a place to set them up and revisit that, obviously, significant audio experience.

- JP

I just realized that I do have something that I use as a "reference system". I have a Grace m902 headphone amp, which has its own 24/192 DAC, and pair of Sennheiser HD650s. I use the SPDIF input off a good CD transport, and that's my reference.

Truly, I compare the sound of everything else to that, because it sounds wonderful, and is totally immune from room effects. Detailed, flat, and musical, if I can get the same performance out of my main system, I'll be a happy guy!

Yes, "live music" makes a damn good reference. The only problem with that is that Harry Pearson and others in the 'underground' press that claim it as a reference seem to constantly go on about soundstaging. I've heard a ton of live acoustic music and never, ever was 'soundstaging' part of that experience.

Next time you go to an acoustic concert, close your eyes and see if 'soundstaging' is what you're hearing. It's just friggin' music.

I think the best comment on those 'experts' was made by (I think) Frank van Alstine years ago. They start by claiming that the only good way to review is by subjective listening. However, if anyone disagrees with them, especially if they know what they're talking about, they then start using technical terms to justify their subjective opinions. And of course they have absolutely no grasp of those terms.

I think in order to use a live performance as a Ref. then it should be one performed by a full orchestra and devoid of electronic enhancments.
I have heard live rock bands that sounded terrible in one setting and fantastic in another. The addition of electronics and mixing can be great or a complete disaster depending one the room and mixing engineer.

I still feel we here at AK use our best sounding system as a basis by which we judge all other systems or components. My downstairs system is not as nice as my living room system because the LR is a warmer room with more cushy furniture and bigger/better speakers. Even if I moved the entire systems up or down the LR will always sound better then the down unless I start dealing with accoustical characteristics of the room.
I do think Negotiableterms is on the right track for truely testing one component or a combination of components over others with his headphones as he is completely removing external affects and maintaining the exact same soundstage- Right between his ears!
Back in the days when I was a concert goer, Vocal harmonizing was a great source for judging. Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young sounded much better in Eisenhouer Hall, West Point then the did in larger Auditoriums and arenas. I saw Accoustic Alchemy in a small local tavern and they sounded fantastic. I saw them again in an open air arena and they sounded completely different.
At home both groups can be made to sound just wonderful.

Gary

I do think Negotiableterms is on the right track for truely testing one component or a combination of components over others with his headphones as he is completely removing external affects and maintaining the exact same soundstage- Right between his ears!

And it's a well-known fact that there's nothing between my ears to get in the way of the sound! :music:

1. merrylander hits it right on the head, A reference system “is the one all others are measured against” it is a tool. Like a hammer or a screwdriver.
But he is wrong by saying “Pure marketing hype” It is not. To determine any change in the sound good or bad, you need a point of reference. And that is exactly what a ref. system is. The quality of the ref. system does not matter that much, it is the change in sound going from A to B that matters. Of course the finer tools you use the more detailed work you can do.

2. yosl is pointing out another issue. The reference sound, the source. But that has nothing to do with the ref. system. Searching for the system that can play any source 100% as it was recorded. That is the hunt for the Holy Grail, the perfect system. Not a ref. system.

To comment on the studio system, yosl’s description sounds like a mastering studio. Not a recording or mix studio. If you want to hear the sound as the recording/mix engineer did, the best bid is to get a pair of Yamaha NS-10 (they are near field monitors) and a big amp to feed them. Even today you will find a set of these in most studios. Reason? The NS-10 has been an industry standard for many years, so you have the same ref. speaker all over the world. And as a rule of tomb, if you can make the music sound god on the NS-10, it is goanna sound good any ware. They have the right mix of detail and crappy sound to please both the hi-fi system and what ever people have brought home from the supermarket.

A typical studio ref. system of the 90’s is a pair of good seized active Genelec speakers for ref. sound and NS-10’s for near field monitoring. The NS-10 is on the way out of the studios, so there is a good chance to pick up a pair (but it is still a studio ref. speaker).

Negotiableterms; And it's a well-known fact that there's nothing between my ears to get in the way of the sound! :music:

Well then, I believe you are listening in a "Reverbertation Chamber" and though I seriously doubt that, I think I am safe in saying we have all been there! :yes: , :thmbsp: , :scratch2:

Gary

Does reference=new?

No.

AFAIK they use the term to intimate that their system is the one all others are measured against. Pure marketing hype.

Not always (see below)...

I favour a more practical interpretation that would describe a system that I am intimately familiar with and listen to on a regular basis so that I can easily draw comparisons against new or unfamiliar gear.

This is my favored interpretation of "reference system" as well. And there are, in fact, numerous "professional reviewers" who share this view, and who often note in their write-ups that some component they are auditioning - whether they wind up purchasing it or not - actually improves upon their reference configuration.

The concept fails in that reviewers wind up owning gear they can get deals on, and are governed by herd mentality.

Hi Negotiable!

I am assuming that this is not meant as a blanket statement, and that you have certain widely-read reviewers in mind here.

I myself know of many reviewers who REFUSE to write reviews of components when the manufacturer or distributor offers a deep discount in advance as a "carrot". And I also know of more than a couple of reviewers who INSIST upon paying the retail price of components they've reviewed and fallen in love with, even when a hefty discount is offered to them!

Cheers,
Brian

I am assuming that this is not meant as a blanket statement, and that you have certain widely-read reviewers in mind here.

My view comes from dealing with a few audio mfrs and distributors (relating to real estate, not audio), who complain loudly and long about reviewing practices. To put it in perspective though, most would agree that getting carried away in herd mentality is a bigger flaw than bias.

In my case, I don't take that to necessarily mean the "best" system that I have ever heard.... and I certainly don't mean to imply that my "reference system" is better than any other system.

I favour a more practical interpretation that would describe a system that I am intimately familiar with and listen to on a regular basis so that I can easily draw comparisons against new or unfamiliar gear.
Ditto what hpsenicka said.

As far as I am concerned as reference system is simply that.

Components that set a known level for others to be judges against. Reference doesn't necessarily have to be the absolute best and quite often it is not.

If you were doing some mods on a component (say a turntable) then a stock unit would provide the reference point in which to compare it.

Of course, it's all subjective as the factors that some people want to compare against are not necessarily what another person will want to compare. Horses for courses.