In article ,
Andrew Haley wrote:
Audio_Empire wrote:
In article ,
Andrew Haley wrote:
Audio_Empire wrote:
I realize that the magazines like 'Stereophile' et al have to try to
cater to todays equipment buyers in order to remain "relevant" with
their readers, but what is going on in audio reviewing today is akin
to somebody testing an asphalt paving machine using using salt-water
taffy instead of asphalt. The results obtained from such a test have
absolutely no bearing on how the paving machine will perform when
paving roads with hot asphalt! Likewise a speaker review (for
instance) using studio recorded pop music bears little or no
relation to how that speaker system might perform with REAL, live
acoustical music and anybody who thinks that it does, is deluded.
So what? I've never seen any evidence that great-sounding speakers
don't sound great with all kinds of music. Also, it makes sense to
listen to speakers playing the kind of music you know well.
That's incorrect for a start. I repeat. If you don't have a good idea
what real music sounds like, then you have no basis for judging whether
a piece of reproducing equipment is accurate or not.
That's your claim. You can repeat it as much as you like.
I find it remarkable that anybody would try to refute this claim,
especially since it's much more than that, it's actually not only fact,
but it should be self-evident fact!
Case in point. A speaker system, reviewed by a rocker several years
ago was declared to have the best bass that the reviewer in question
had ever heard. When I got to audition the same speaker, I found
that the bass was wooly, and had a huge mid-bass peak . It might
have made the kick-drum of some rock group sit up and do tricks, but
it made organ music sound dreadful. Problem was, the reviewer
didn't know the difference because he only auditioned the speaker
with music he liked and that music was all electronic studio
produced and manipulated sound. I.E. not real instruments playing in
real space.
Or, perhaps, he didn't know good sound. Flabby bass usually sounds
bad on all music with bass.
I don't doubt that.
Those of us who have been listening to The Dark Side Of The Moon for
the last forty years continue to be delighted when a system reveals
some subtle detail we hadn't heard before. That's priceless.
Hopefully, you know what real music sounds like and don't judge
sound quality using solely artificial musical performances such as
"Dark Side of the Moon".
All music is artificial, with the possible exception of birdsong.
Now you're being purposely obtuse as I'm more than reasonably sure that
you know exactly what I mean.
I do know what real music sounds like and I do judge sound quality
using artificial musical performances such as Dark Side of the Moon.
It's an immaculate piece of work, with a great deal of attention paid
to superb sound. I also listen to purely acoustic music, to the
extent that recordings can be purely anything.
How can you judge things like soundstage and imaging from such
recordings that have have none?
"There are simply two kinds of music, good music and the other kind
.... the only yardstick by which the result should be judged is simply
that of how it sounds. If it sounds good it's successful; if it
doesn't it has failed."
I just don't think understand, possible on purpose. I say LISTEN to what
you like, but EVALUATE for publication using the best acoustical source
material you can find. If magazine reviewers would follow that simple
rule of thumb, they would do their readers and the industry a great
service.
---
news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints:
---