[Scott[_6_]]

On Friday, August 2, 2013 3:55:15 PM UTC-7, Audio_Empire wrote:
In article ,
Scott wrote:
=20
On Wednesday, July 31, 2013 9:52:36 AM UTC-7, Audio_Empire wrote:
In article ,
Andrew Haley wrote:
Audio_Empire wrote:
=20
I realize that the magazines like 'Stereophile' et al have to try=
to
cater to todays equipment buyers in order to remain "relevant" wi=
th
their readers, but what is going on in audio reviewing today is a=
kin
to somebody testing an asphalt paving machine using using salt-wa=
ter
taffy instead of asphalt. The results obtained from such a test h=
ave
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.
=20
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.
=20
That's incorrect for a start. I repeat. If you don't have a good idea=
=20
what real music sounds like, then you have no basis for judging wheth=
er=20
a piece of reproducing equipment is accurate or not.
=20
This is such a surprisingly weird assertion. Had you not told us numero=
us=20
times that you record live classical music I would suspect that you hav=
e=20
never been to any sort of live classical performances at all. what exac=
tly=20
does "live music" sound like? Because in my experience it sounds like a=
lot=20
of different things depending on the instruments, the musicians, the ve=
nue=20
and the seat I am sitting in. You seem to be treating the sound of "liv=
e=20
music" as this monolithic unwavering point of reference. It aint that. =
No=20
way. I shudder to think someone with a subscription to the overpriced b=
alcony=20
seats at Davies Hall or Copley Hall would suffer the dire audio consequ=
ences=20
of thinking that their listening experience to live music in such halls=
from=20
those seats sets a standard by which playback should be measured and ev=
en=20
worse sets a standard by which they should actually adjust their aesthe=
tic=20
values. The horror, the horror
=20
Can you tell the sonic difference between a real acoustical violin and=20
one of those funny, open-framed electric violins when you hear it?

I can tell the difference between a real acoustic violin and a real electri=
c violin. Be it electric or acoustic they are both REAL. I reject your asse=
rtion that electric instruments are not real. We are not imagining them. Th=
ey are real

well,=20
if the answer to that question is yes (and I suspect it is), then you've=
=20
answered your own question.

I didn't ask a question

An Amati, a Guarneri, and a Stradivarius all=20
sound unique, but all sound like REAL violins and most people know one=20
when they hear it. The electric violin doesn't sound like a real violin=
=20
any more than a Fender Stratocaster sounds like a real Spanish=20
acoustical guitar. =20

Again i reject your idea that electric instruments are not real. They are.=
=20

Case in point. A=20
speaker system, reviewed by a rocker several years ago was declared t=
o=20
have the best bass that the reviewer in question had ever heard. When=
I=20
got to audition the same speaker, I found that the bass was wooly, an=
d=20
had a huge mid-bass peak .=20
=20
Well did you audition it with the same ancillary equipment in the same =
room=20
with the speakers in the same position? If not you can't really pass=20
judgement on the review.
=20
It might have made the kick-drum of some rock=20
group sit up and do tricks, but it made organ music sound dreadful.=20
=20
Let's be more "accurate" here. IYO it made the specific organ music you=
used=20
for your audition sound horrible to you with those speakers in that roo=
m with=20
that system.=20
=20
Yet that "organ music" I used is one of the best organ recordings ever=20
made. On a good system, it sounds very realistic.=20

You singled out the speakers. Good speakers can sound bad in the wrong syst=
em, or in the wrong room or simply set up poorly.

Problem was, the reviewer didn't know the difference because he only=
=20
auditioned the speaker with music he liked and that music was all=20
electronic studio produced and manipulated sound. I.E. not real=20
instruments playing in real space.=20
=20
You don't know that. You don't know the reviewer's experience with othe=
r=20
source material and live music. You don't know that.
=20
I do know what he SAID he used that gave him the "killer bass" . If he=20
used something else, he didn't mention it. Besides, what would it=20
matter. he declared a speaker with mediocre bass at best to have great=20
bass. Kinda blows his credibility that he knows what good bass sounds=20
like.=20

But, again, you don't know that the speakers didn't have great bass in his =
system in the room he heard them in.

Those of us who have been listening to The Dark Side Of The Moon fo=
r
the last forty years continue to be delighted when a system reveals
some subtle detail we hadn't heard before. That's priceless.
=20
Hopefully, you know what real music sounds like and don't judge sound=
=20
quality using solely artificial musical performances such as "Dark Si=
de=20
of the Moon".
=20
Dark Side of the Moon is REAL music.
=20
Of course, it's real music. But it's an artificial PERFORMANCE because=20
it does not exist outside of the studio.

The same thing can be said about any classical recording that has had any e=
diting.

You are being too literal here.=20


Only because you are making semantic arguments. You are dismissing pop musi=
c by labeling it as not real. But it is real.=20

When I say "real music" in this context, I mean acoustical instruments=20
captured playing in real space.

But by using the term "real music" you are using prejudicial language that =
infers there is something wrong with music played with electric instruments=
.. And I am calling you on it.


You guys are really touchy about your rock-and-roll aren't you?

No. But I do like it. And it is real music. And it is something that I list=
en to on my system. And I do care about the sound quality of it.=20


You seem=20
to see my attack on the use of rock music as an evaluation tool as an=20
attack on the music itself in spite of the fact that I've said over and=
=20
over that my personal disdain for the genre has nothing to do with my=20
assessment of it as a tool for reviewers.

You are mischaracterizing it and some of us are calling you on it. And you =
are using that mischaracterization as your reason for dismissing it as a le=
gitimate source for evaluating audio equipment. The argument simply doesn't=
hold water. I really don't car whether or not you like one genre of music =
or another.

And remember, I also include=20
"pop" in that criticism which includes country-and-western, as well as=20
most jazz. I like jazz and I listen to it, but I wouldn't use it solely=
=20
as a review tool. I might use a specific example to test some aspects of=
=20
playback, but I certainly wouldn't use it to ascertain soundstage=20
capabilities, because almost all jazz is recorded as "three-channel=20
mono" and as such has no real soundstage (unless you consider everything=
=20
grouped into three "bunches", right, left and center as being a=20
"soundstage" =EF=BF=BD I don't). So it's so much the genre that I object=
to as=20
an evaluation tool as it is the production methodologies for studio=20
produced music.

Again, it does not matter how the imaging got onto the recording. What matt=
ers is how it images during playback. This phenomenon we call imaging is no=
t limited to music played on acoustic instruments.