[Audio_Empire[_2_]]

In article ,
"~misfit~" wrote:

Somewhere on teh intarwebs Audio_Empire wrote:

snip


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.

Frustrating!
=20
I'm sorry, I haven't read through the whole thread including replies yet.=
I=20
don't have time right now (it's a rare dry day and my lawns are so very=
=20
long) but I have something that I'd like to try to say.
=20
I understand completely your frustration - you have a way of explaining=
=20
things that works well.
=20
However I'd like to posit that there *is* a modern standard of reference =
(if=20
you will) and that is whatever recording the listener (and reader) is=20
familiar with. After all, it's the reproduction of the *recording* that t=
he=20
reviewers are reviewing, not a group of instruments in a certain space.

How can they be familiar with a recording, if as music, it doesn't exist ou=
tside of a studio? Even when these bands play concerts, they take their stu=
dios with them so that their concert performances sound just like the recor=
dings they made of these same songs! I'll grant that one can be so familia=
r with a performance that one can anticipate each note with great accuracy,=
and can tell instantly, if the performance that they are listening to at a=
ny given time is NOT the performance that they are used to hearing. But I d=
on't think that familiarity can help with sonic judgements. Nobody has hear=
d 'The Who', for instance, without their whole studio behind them, nor have=
they heard the band through other than speakers; either their own, or the =
sound-reinforcement systems at a concert.=20
=20
Please, bare with me for a few moments and allow me to present another=20
scenario. Early electric music, when recorded was mono and simple=20
(relatively). Then, with the advent of stereo and 'studio recording' the=
=20
recording engineer was faced with the problem of making all of the=20
seperately recorded tracks into one whole that sounds pleasing. This=20
recording is in no way intended to be an accurate representation of the=
=20
space in which the artists were playing at the time/s. Instead it has bec=
ome=20
/virtual reality/, an idealised sound - abstract.

I understand, and I agree. I am not complaining here about the music as a l=
istening experience (with all that involves), I'm criticizing the use of th=
ese types of music and performances as REVIEWING TOOLS to gauge the accurac=
y of audio equipment.=20
=20
This mixing and engineering has become an art in itself - the 'staging' o=
f=20
the band in a created reality. That's why music sounded much better when=
=20
'artists' like Phil Spector, Alan Parsons and Butch Vig took control of t=
he=20
knobs. These were men of vision for their time and were able to imagine t=
he=20
space in which they wanted the band to be playing - then create it. It's =
not=20
meant to be the reproduction of a physical reality, it's an artificial=20
construct and, as such is reproducible - accurately or not.

Again, I understand that, but it's irrelevant to my point, which is that yo=
u can't use music that has no real soundstage to gauge soundstage, nor can =
you use music recorded in such a way that the instruments don't sound like =
that instrument would sound in an un-amplified listening situation (as in t=
he case of instruments that are recorded using contact microphones). I've h=
eard these arguments before, and I remain adamant that this kind of music i=
s simply irrelevant to the goal of high-fidelity reproduction, and as much =
as the modern audiophile community might revere it, it's wishful thinking t=
o believe that any meaningful conclusions about the Fi of equipment can be =
gathered by using it as a reviewing tool.=20

This artificial construct will sound very similar on high-end audio syste=
ms=20
(although they all will colour it to some degree). It is the playback of=
=20
this manipulated recording that the reviewers are reviewing, comparing it=
to=20
how they've heard it on 'great' systems. It has nothing to do with how th=
e=20
band sounds when they're playing in a space. That's the fundamental=20
difference between what you are familiar with and what the readership of=
=20
these magazines are familiar with. In my opinion it in no way invalidates=
=20
these contemporary reviews and a system that can accurately reproduce wha=
t=20
you refer to as 'pop music' will, in all likelihood also be good at=20
reproducing a symphony in a hall - or a string quartet in a large room.

I still maintain that if your final comment in the above paragraph is true,=
it's happenstance, because the conclusions drawn using pop music as a sour=
ce simply have no relationship to the reality of music reproduction.=20

When I was more mobile (and affluent) I'd take a few 'reference CDs' with=
me=20
to listen to on a system. (Rickie Lee Jones in particular, also Peter=20
Gabriels 'So' and a few others) I know these 'recordings' (if you'll allo=
w=20
the use of the word - they're really constructs) so very well, having=20
listened to them many, many times on diverse systems (yet I've never hear=
d=20
either performer live). I know how they /can/ image, I know the parts whe=
re=20
Rickie very quietly 'breathes' along with the bass line - and I know that=
it=20
takes a formidable speaker (as an example) to not only reproduce those tw=
o=20
diverse sounds, one very soft, one deep and powerful, concurrently. On a=
=20
mass-produced lo-fi system you could listen for decades and never hear it=
..=20
On the system I'm listening to now with it's tri-amped quasi-ribbon tweet=
er=20
top end, lower-midrange section and 10" deep bass drivers (it's a small=
=20
room) it's unmissable.

Perhaps so, but I don't see what that has to do with a system's performance=
on live music played in a real space. What it shows is that these performa=
nces sound GOOD to the listener through THAT equipment, and that's down to =
individual taste, not accuracy. I.E., I know what a real bowed bass viol so=
unds like and when a system's bass is accurate, that's what I hear in the l=
istening room. Whatever differs from that is NOT the sound of a bass viol. =
What some rock-band's bass guitar sounds like through their on-stage amplif=
ier/speaker, I have no idea (and neither does any other listener). So when =
the bass line comes across as being tubby or wooly with poor low frequency =
transient response, what does it tell us? Is it the playback system? Is it =
the bass player's on-stage amp/speaker?, is it the way the bass player has =
his guitar set-up, or is it something that the producer/engineers have done=
to the bass in production to "punch it up"? There's no way to know.=20

Once again, I'm not arguing with you - I agree with all that you say. I'm=
=20
simply putting forward a different viewpoint based on a different musical=
=20
genre and a different 'standard' and trying to do so as eloquently as you=
=20
put forth your opinions. Forgive me if I fail.

I understand. I just don't buy that using this music to test audio equipmen=
t can give a complete or accurate picture of how a piece of equipment actua=
lly sounds beyond the "It sounds good to me and my tastes" level of critici=
sm.=20
=20
For a time, four years or so spanning the turn of the decade, late 1970s =
and=20
early 1980s, I travelled with a band and was responsible for their live=
=20
soundmixing. When the time came for them to lay down some recordings I=20
'consulted' with the sound engineer, giving input into the band's live=20
sound, telling him when his mix drifted too far from how the band sounds=
=20
live (so that people who were faniliar with the band live - my mix -=20
wouldn't buy a recording and hear something completely different.

That's very true. The "road" sound and the studio sound must be the same on=
a band's popular works, or the fans will be disappointed with the live per=
formance (and vice versa).=20

=20
Back then it was rare for a band to sound even similar live to how they=
=20
sounded on their recordings. You didn't go to a concert to hear the band =
-=20
you were best to do that at home on your hi-fi (if you owned one). You'd =
go=20
to a concert for the experience. In fact the only band I've ever heard li=
ve=20
after listening to their albums repeatedly that sounded almost the same w=
as=20
Dire Straights - that was spooky - going to a concert and hearing almost=
=20
exactly what you'd hear coming from your hi-fi. Normally, then, the=20
experiences only had a few things in common w/r/t the way they sounded. (=
It=20
may be common-place now for all I know as I no longer go to concerts.)

I think today's concert goers expect their favorite songs to sound, in-conc=
ert, like they do on the band's recordings. Luckily, that goal is obtainabl=
e today with modern S.R. equipment and talented mixing personnel.

So, not being intimately familar with live, unamplified music from a=20
location close enough to the performers (as in where a conductor might=20
stand) where I can get a sense of the spatial diversity I'd be a poor jud=
ge=20
of a stereo system listening to such a recording. However, give me my=20
original copy of Rickie Lee Jones' first album and I think that I'd be ab=
le=20
to give a fair judgement of the fidelity of the system.

Well, first of all, the best classical recordings are not recorded from the=
conductor's point of view, but rather from the perspective of a prime seat=
in the audience. The trick is to get the various instrument sounds in an o=
rchestra to coalesce into the sound of a symphony orchestra, not the sound =
of 80 individual instruments all playing at once - which is more or less wh=
at the conductor hears. But, of course, that's what he needs to hear as opp=
osed to what the concert goer needs to hear.=20

After all's said and done it's not generally the source material that we=
=20
discuss here it's the equipment that reproduces it (and in this thread th=
e=20
legitimacy of magazine reviews of that equipment).

But without real music with which to judge said equipment, the evaluations =
are meaningless
because they come down to someone's personal taste rather than accuracy. IO=
W, without a
reference, there's no way to know where you are. I feel that is where the a=
rt and science of
reviewing is today.