In article ,
Scott wrote:
On Wednesday, July 31, 2013 9:52:36 AM UTC-7, Audio_Empire wrote:
In article ,
Andrew Haley wrote:
Audio_Empire wrote:
[ This article has been substantially cleaned up by the
moderator. Please don't double-space your quotes, or anything
else, and do take the time to clean up your articles before
you submit them. -- dsr ]
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
Can you tell the sonic difference between a real acoustical violin and
one of those funny, open-framed electric violins when you hear it? well,
if the answer to that question is yes (and I suspect it is), then you've
answered your own question. An Amati, a Guarneri, and a Stradivarius all
sound unique, but all sound like REAL violins and most people know one
when they hear it. The electric violin doesn't sound like a real violin
any more than a Fender Stratocaster sounds like a real Spanish
acoustical guitar.
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.
Yet that "organ music" I used is one of the best organ recordings ever
made. On a good system, it sounds very realistic.
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.
I do know what he SAID he used that gave him the "killer bass" . If he
used something else, he didn't mention it. Besides, what would it
matter. he declared a speaker with mediocre bass at best to have great
bass. Kinda blows his credibility that he knows what good bass sounds
like.
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.
Of course, it's real music. But it's an artificial PERFORMANCE because
it does not exist outside of the studio. You are being too literal here.
When I say "real music" in this context, I mean acoustical instruments
captured playing in real space.
You guys are really touchy about your rock-and-roll aren't you? You seem
to see my attack on the use of rock music as an evaluation tool as an
attack on the music itself in spite of the fact that I've said over and
over that my personal disdain for the genre has nothing to do with my
assessment of it as a tool for reviewers. And remember, I also include
"pop" in that criticism which includes country-and-western, as well as
most jazz. I like jazz and I listen to it, but I wouldn't use it solely
as a review tool. I might use a specific example to test some aspects of
playback, but I certainly wouldn't use it to ascertain soundstage
capabilities, because almost all jazz is recorded as "three-channel
mono" and as such has no real soundstage (unless you consider everything
grouped into three "bunches", right, left and center as being a
"soundstage" * I don't). So it's so much the genre that I object to as
an evaluation tool as it is the production methodologies for studio
produced music.
---
news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints:
---