[Scott[_6_]]

On Wednesday, July 31, 2013 9:52:36 AM UTC-7, 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.


This is such a surprisingly weird assertion. Had you not told us numerous times that you record live classical music I would suspect that you have never been to any sort of live classical performances at all. what exactly does "live music" sound like? Because in my experience it sounds like a lot of different things depending on the instruments, the musicians, the venue and the seat I am sitting in. You seem to be treating the sound of "live music" as this monolithic unwavering point of reference. It aint that. No way. I shudder to think someone with a subscription to the overpriced balcony seats at Davies Hall or Copley Hall would suffer the dire audio consequences of thinking that their listening experience to live music in such halls from those seats sets a standard by which playback should be measured and even worse sets a standard by which they should actually adjust their aesthetic values. The horror, the horror


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 .

Well did you audition it with the same ancillary equipment in the same room with the speakers in the same position? If not you can't really pass judgement on the review.

It might have made the kick-drum of some rock

group sit up and do tricks, but it made organ music sound dreadful.

Let's be more "accurate" here. IYO it made the specific organ music you used for your audition sound horrible to you with those speakers in that room with that system.



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.

You don't know that. You don't know the reviewer's experience with other source material and live music. You don't know 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".

Dark Side of the Moon is REAL music.