[Audio_Empire[_2_]]

In article ,
Scott wrote:
snip

How can they be familiar with a recording, if as music, it doesn't exis=
t=20
outside of a studio? Even when these bands play concerts, they take the=
ir=20
studios with them so that their concert performances sound just like th=
e=20
recordings they made of these same songs! I'll grant that one can be s=
o=20
familiar with a performance that one can anticipate each note with grea=
t=20
accuracy, and can tell instantly, if the performance that they are=20
listening to at any given time is NOT the performance that they are use=
d to=20
hearing. But I don't think that familiarity can help with sonic judgeme=
nts.=20
Nobody has heard 'The Who', for instance, without their whole studio be=
hind=20
them, nor have they heard the band through other than speakers; either=
=20
their own, or the sound-reinforcement systems at a concert.
=20
=20
One simply needs to listen to a recording often enough and on enough=20
different playback systems to be "familiar with the recording." It's almo=
st a=20
tautological argument. And I disagree with you about it not helping with=
=20
sonic judgements. In fact I would argue that it is crucial in making soni=
c=20
judgements that one be familiar with the recordings they use. Then one is=
=20
actually able to compare the playback gear and eliminate the source mater=
ial=20
as a variable.

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that you can't know what any of the =
instruments and voices in such a recording actually sound like because you =
don't know (A) how these instruments are captured, or (B) how the recording=
engineers/producers manipulate those captured instruments/voices after the=
y are captured. The performance does not exist in real space. You can't kno=
w what it sounds like because it doesn't sound like anything outside of the=
ensemble's imagination.=20
=20
Please, bare with me for a few moments and allow me to present anothe=
r=20
=20
scenario. Early electric music, when recorded was mono and simple=20
=20
(relatively). Then, with the advent of stereo and 'studio recording' =
the=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 t=
he=20
=20
space in which the artists were playing at the time/s. Instead it has=
=20
become=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=20
listening experience (with all that involves), I'm criticizing the use =
of=20
these types of music and performances as REVIEWING TOOLS to gauge the=
=20
accuracy of audio equipment.=20
=20
=20
Who says the reviewers are gauging "accuracy?"

Well, they are SUPPOSED to be reviewing for accuracy. If not they are just =
aurally masterbating and their "reviews are a waste of everybody's time.=20

This mixing and engineering has become an art in itself - the 'stagin=
g'=20
of=20
=20
the band in a created reality. That's why music sounded much better w=
hen=20
=20
'artists' like Phil Spector, Alan Parsons and Butch Vig took control =
of=20
the=20
=20
knobs. These were men of vision for their time and were able to imagi=
ne=20
the=20
=20
space in which they wanted the band to be playing - then create it. I=
t's=20
not=20
=20
meant to be the reproduction of a physical reality, it's an artificia=
l=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 tha=
t=20
you can't use music that has no real soundstage to gauge soundstage, no=
r=20
can you use music recorded in such a way that the instruments don't sou=
nd=20
like that instrument would sound in an un-amplified listening situation=
(as=20
in the case of instruments that are recorded using contact microphones)=
..=20
I've heard these arguments before, and I remain adamant that this kind =
of=20
music is simply irrelevant to the goal of high-fidelity reproduction, a=
nd=20
as much as the modern audiophile community might revere it, it's wishfu=
l=20
thinking to believe that any meaningful conclusions about the Fi of=20
equipment can be gathered by using it as a reviewing tool.=20
=20
Any stereo recording has a soundstage even if it does not originate from =
a=20
physical soundstage at a live performance.

That's not a soundstage. That's track placement and it's wholly artificial =
because it relies totally on the percentage of a given track or instrumenta=
l channel that's mixed into each ultimate stereo channel. It produces instr=
ument placement from right-to-left - in a straight line - between the speak=
ers, but it has no image height and no depth, and is therefore two dimensio=
nal. It cannot be used to determine a component's ability to resolve three-=
dimensional images.=20


As for how instruments sound in a=20
live performance, well who knows? Live acoustic music can sound quite=20
different depending on all the variables. So there is no "sound" of live=
=20
music that we can call a reference. There are many sounds of live music a=
nd a=20
good deal of it is not something I would want my playback to sound like.=
=20
Meaning and meaningful conclusions are a personal judgement call. what ma=
y be=20
meaningless to you may be quite meaningful to someone else. Someone using=
=20
studio recordings that i am familiar with may very well have some=20
observations that I would find quite meaningful.=20

There is no reason to continue this. We are at an impasse. I'm not going to=
convince you and you are not going to convince me. That's clear.=20