[Oregonian Haruspex]

On 2013-08-06 02:39:07 +0000, said:

Pardon a couple of comments from my personal experience and viewpoint.
Concerning the statement that "Modern Reviewing Practices In Audio
Rags Have Become Useless," I've been reading reviews for 60 years, and
my question is, "When were they not generally useless?" I don't want
to exaggerate, and I have treasured a small number of useful reviewers
during that period; but gee, they've been rare. // As for imaging, it
is a much misunderstood subject. We can't judge the imaging of a
playback system or a piece of gear unless the source HAS an image; and
this is very rare. Unfortunately, imaging IS important; for its
evolutionary role (enabling us to locate predators or prey) precedes
music's esthetic function; and we have difficulty paying attention to
sound we cannot locate. (I say "we" because while this is true of me,
I also observe it in others.) // On an altogether separate separate
subject, I've started a blog for pianists and musicians generally, at
www.JamesBoyk.com .

I wonder the same thing myself. My first experience with audio rags
came in the 1990s (pardon my young age) but the amount of mumbo jumbo
in these publications strains the imagination.

Stereo imaging is another topic. For live recorded music, your stereo
impression is less that of the spread of the musicians, and more the
specific delay and reverberation caused by the room's shape and audio
impression.

For music that is recorded in the studio, generally every instrument is
mic'd separately and the stereo spread is whatever the engineer(s)
decide. Heck, lots of music these days is recorded over multiple
sessions, with only part of the ensemble being present at any point in
time!

The best stereo recordings I have heard were recorded out of doors,
with the microphones separated by a large distance, thus eliminating
much of the reverb and delay except that which comes off the ground.
The worst are generally those which have the mics on the same mount,
but pointed in different directions.