Believability?

[AnotherJohnson]

I never see this as a reviewer descriptor.

People focus more on “how things sound” in one system relative to how the same things sound in another.

This is very useful in reviews. It facilitates answering questions like “I own this… how is it different from that?” “I like this … might I also like that?”

The idea of describing sound was a key to the development of both TAS and Stereophile. HP and JGH were real pioneers and from their initial recognition of the need for language, the whole industry of subjective reviews has evolved.

I recognize/acknowledge this. But in my own evaluations, there is something going on in the subconscious. If I close my eyes while listening, am I transported to the illusion of the live performance or session?

I find that there are many different systems and components that can achieve this illusion.

Sort of a paraphrasal of Lincoln’s “you can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time”:

Some recordings are so good that they always sound good, some are so bad that they always sound bad, but many can sound good OR bad depending on random factors we attribute, rightly or wrongly, to this or to that.

My sense is that the better the system, the more likely it is that with any given recording, you will be transported to the illusion of a live performance. So when I say that a system is believable, all it means is that the illusion, or magic if you will, is experienced frequently.

The illusion is not dependent on a type of sound for me. Live performances and sessions vary wildly. The illusion is dependent on the gear’s ability to cut through the haze/veil.

Many systems can do this. I think they’re all worthy.