[Scott[_6_]]

On Thursday, September 26, 2013 7:30:50 PM UTC-7, Audio_Empire wrote:
In article ,
=20
"~misfit~" wrote:
=20
=20
=20
Somewhere on teh intarwebs Audio_Empire wrote:
=20
=20
=20
snip
=20
=20
=20

=20
I realize that the magazines like 'Stereophile' et al have to try to
=20
cater to todays equipment buyers in order to remain "relevant" with
=20
their readers, but what is going on in audio reviewing today is akin
=20
to somebody testing an asphalt paving machine using using salt-water
=20
taffy instead of asphalt. The results obtained from such a test have
=20
absolutely no bearing on how the paving machine will perform when
=20
paving roads with hot asphalt! Likewise a speaker review (for
=20
instance) using studio recorded pop music bears little or no relation
=20
to how that speaker system might perform with REAL, live acoustical
=20
music and anybody who thinks that it does, is deluded.
=20

=20
Frustrating!
=20
=20
=20
I'm sorry, I haven't read through the whole thread including replies ye=
t. I=20
=20
don't have time right now (it's a rare dry day and my lawns are so very=
=20
=20
long) but I have something that I'd like to try to say.
=20
=20
=20
I understand completely your frustration - you have a way of explaining=
=20
=20
things that works well.
=20
=20
=20
However I'd like to posit that there *is* a modern standard of referenc=
e (if=20
=20
you will) and that is whatever recording the listener (and reader) is=
=20
=20
familiar with. After all, it's the reproduction of the *recording* that=
the=20
=20
reviewers are reviewing, not a group of instruments in a certain space.
=20
=20
=20
How can they be familiar with a recording, if as music, it doesn't exist =
outside of a studio? Even when these bands play concerts, they take their s=
tudios with them so that their concert performances sound just like the rec=
ordings they made of these same songs! I'll grant that one can be so famil=
iar with a performance that one can anticipate each note with great accurac=
y, and can tell instantly, if the performance that they are listening to at=
any given time is NOT the performance that they are used to hearing. But I=
don't think that familiarity can help with sonic judgements. Nobody has he=
ard 'The Who', for instance, without their whole studio behind them, nor ha=
ve they heard the band through other than speakers; either their own, or th=
e sound-reinforcement systems at a concert.


One simply needs to listen to a recording often enough and on enough differ=
ent playback systems to be "familiar with the recording." It's almost a tau=
tological argument. And I disagree with you about it not helping with sonic=
judgements. In fact I would argue that it is crucial in making sonic judge=
ments that one be familiar with the recordings they use. Then one is actual=
ly able to compare the playback gear and eliminate the source material as a=
variable.

=20
=20
=20
Please, bare with me for a few moments and allow me to present another=
=20
=20
scenario. Early electric music, when recorded was mono and simple=20
=20
(relatively). Then, with the advent of stereo and 'studio recording' th=
e=20
=20
recording engineer was faced with the problem of making all of the=20
=20
seperately recorded tracks into one whole that sounds pleasing. This=20
=20
recording is in no way intended to be an accurate representation of the=
=20
=20
space in which the artists were playing at the time/s. Instead it has b=
ecome=20
=20
/virtual reality/, an idealised sound - abstract.
=20
=20
=20
I understand, and I agree. I am not complaining here about the music as a=
listening experience (with all that involves), I'm criticizing the use of =
these types of music and performances as REVIEWING TOOLS to gauge the accur=
acy of audio equipment.=20


Who says the reviewers are gauging "accuracy?"=20
=20
=20
=20
This mixing and engineering has become an art in itself - the 'staging'=
of=20
=20
the band in a created reality. That's why music sounded much better whe=
n=20
=20
'artists' like Phil Spector, Alan Parsons and Butch Vig took control of=
the=20
=20
knobs. These were men of vision for their time and were able to imagine=
the=20
=20
space in which they wanted the band to be playing - then create it. It'=
s not=20
=20
meant to be the reproduction of a physical reality, it's an artificial=
=20
=20
construct and, as such is reproducible - accurately or not.
=20
=20
=20
Again, I understand that, but it's irrelevant to my point, which is that =
you can't use music that has no real soundstage to gauge soundstage, nor ca=
n you use music recorded in such a way that the instruments don't sound lik=
e that instrument would sound in an un-amplified listening situation (as in=
the case of instruments that are recorded using contact microphones). I've=
heard these arguments before, and I remain adamant that this kind of music=
is simply irrelevant to the goal of high-fidelity reproduction, and as muc=
h as the modern audiophile community might revere it, it's wishful thinking=
to believe that any meaningful conclusions about the Fi of equipment can b=
e gathered by using it as a reviewing tool.=20

Any stereo recording has a soundstage even if it does not originate from a =
physical soundstage at a live performance. As for how instruments sound in =
a live performance, well who knows? Live acoustic music can sound quite dif=
ferent depending on all the variables. So there is no "sound" of live music=
that we can call a reference. There are many sounds of live music and a go=
od deal of it is not something I would want my playback to sound like. Mean=
ing and meaningful conclusions are a personal judgement call. what may be m=
eaningless to you may be quite meaningful to someone else. Someone using st=
udio recordings that i am familiar with may very well have some observation=
s that I would find quite meaningful.=20

=20
=20
=20
This artificial construct will sound very similar on high-end audio sys=
tems=20
=20
(although they all will colour it to some degree). It is the playback o=
f=20
=20
this manipulated recording that the reviewers are reviewing, comparing =
it to=20
=20
how they've heard it on 'great' systems. It has nothing to do with how =
the=20
=20
band sounds when they're playing in a space. That's the fundamental=20
=20
difference between what you are familiar with and what the readership o=
f=20
=20
these magazines are familiar with. In my opinion it in no way invalidat=
es=20
=20
these contemporary reviews and a system that can accurately reproduce w=
hat=20
=20
you refer to as 'pop music' will, in all likelihood also be good at=20
=20
reproducing a symphony in a hall - or a string quartet in a large room.
=20
=20
=20
I still maintain that if your final comment in the above paragraph is tru=
e, it's happenstance, because the conclusions drawn using pop music as a so=
urce simply have no relationship to the reality of music reproduction.=20


Sorry but playback of pop music is part of the reality of many others' want=
s and needs as audiophiles even if it isn't a part of yours. So there is a =
clear relationship.

=20
=20
=20
When I was more mobile (and affluent) I'd take a few 'reference CDs' wi=
th me=20
=20
to listen to on a system. (Rickie Lee Jones in particular, also Peter=
=20
=20
Gabriels 'So' and a few others) I know these 'recordings' (if you'll al=
low=20
=20
the use of the word - they're really constructs) so very well, having=
=20
=20
listened to them many, many times on diverse systems (yet I've never he=
ard=20
=20
either performer live). I know how they /can/ image, I know the parts w=
here=20
=20
Rickie very quietly 'breathes' along with the bass line - and I know th=
at it=20
=20
takes a formidable speaker (as an example) to not only reproduce those =
two=20
=20
diverse sounds, one very soft, one deep and powerful, concurrently. On =
a=20
=20
mass-produced lo-fi system you could listen for decades and never hear =
it.=20
=20
On the system I'm listening to now with it's tri-amped quasi-ribbon twe=
eter=20
=20
top end, lower-midrange section and 10" deep bass drivers (it's a small=
=20
=20
room) it's unmissable.
=20
=20
=20
Perhaps so, but I don't see what that has to do with a system's performan=
ce on live music played in a real space. What it shows is that these perfor=
mances sound GOOD to the listener through THAT equipment, and that's down t=
o individual taste, not accuracy. I.E., I know what a real bowed bass viol =
sounds like and when a system's bass is accurate, that's what I hear in the=
listening 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 ampl=
ifier/speaker, I have no idea (and neither does any other listener). So whe=
n the bass line comes across as being tubby or wooly with poor low frequenc=
y transient response, what does it tell us? Is it the playback system? Is i=
t the bass player's on-stage amp/speaker?, is it the way the bass player ha=
s his guitar set-up, or is it something that the producer/engineers have do=
ne to the bass in production to "punch it up"? There's no way to know.=20



There is more to audio and music than the recording and playback of acousti=
c instruments. maybe not for you but for most other audiophiles. And the fa=
ct you seem to completely ignore is there is no one sound of acoustic instr=
uments.What does a bass viol sound like? Does it have one sound and only on=
e sound? Are all bass viols the same? Are all musicians who play them the s=
ame? Are all the halls they are played in the same? Do they sound the same =
no matter where you sit? No, No, No, No. So you have the same issue with a =
bass viol as you do with a rock bass. that is a fact.



=20
=20
=20
Once again, I'm not arguing with you - I agree with all that you say. I=
'm=20
=20
simply putting forward a different viewpoint based on a different music=
al=20
=20
genre and a different 'standard' and trying to do so as eloquently as y=
ou=20
=20
put forth your opinions. Forgive me if I fail.
=20
=20
=20
I understand. I just don't buy that using this music to test audio equipm=
ent can give a complete or accurate picture of how a piece of equipment act=
ually sounds beyond the "It sounds good to me and my tastes" level of criti=
cism.=20


But "It sounds good to me" is the bottom line. everything else is academic
=20
=20
=20
For a time, four years or so spanning the turn of the decade, late 1970=
s and=20
=20
early 1980s, I travelled with a band and was responsible for their live=
=20
=20
soundmixing. When the time came for them to lay down some recordings I=
=20
=20
'consulted' with the sound engineer, giving input into the band's live=
=20
=20
sound, telling him when his mix drifted too far from how the band sound=
s=20
=20
live (so that people who were faniliar with the band live - my mix -=20
=20
wouldn't buy a recording and hear something completely different.
=20
=20
=20
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 p=
erformance (and vice versa).=20

In reality they are generally quite different.=20
=20
=20
=20
=20
=20
Back then it was rare for a band to sound even similar live to how they=
=20
=20
sounded on their recordings. You didn't go to a concert to hear the ban=
d -=20
=20
you were best to do that at home on your hi-fi (if you owned one). You'=
d go=20
=20
to a concert for the experience. In fact the only band I've ever heard =
live=20
=20
after listening to their albums repeatedly that sounded almost the same=
was=20
=20
Dire Straights - that was spooky - going to a concert and hearing almos=
t=20
=20
exactly what you'd hear coming from your hi-fi. Normally, then, the=20
=20
experiences only had a few things in common w/r/t the way they sounded.=
(It=20
=20
may be common-place now for all I know as I no longer go to concerts.)
=20
=20
=20
I think today's concert goers expect their favorite songs to sound, in-co=
ncert, like they do on the band's recordings. Luckily, that goal is obtaina=
ble today with modern S.R. equipment and talented mixing personnel.


You are incorrect on that on all accounts. as a concert goer I have no such=
expectations and that goal clearly is not obtainable.