Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Scott[_6_] Scott[_6_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 642
Default Modern Reviewing Practices In Audio Rags Have Become Useless

On Sunday, August 4, 2013 6:27:55 AM UTC-7, Audio_Empire wrote:
On Saturday, August 3, 2013 6:50:38 AM UTC-7, Scott wrote:
On Friday, August 2, 2013 3:55:15 PM UTC-7, Audio_Empire wrote:

In article ,
Scott wrote:


snip
Again, it does not matter how the imaging got onto the recording.
What matters is how it images during playback. This phenomenon we
call imaging is not limited to music played on acoustic instruments.


This shows absolutely how out of touch with the reality of recording
and playback of music that this poster is.


So says the guy who flaunts his disdain for the music he claims to
know so much about.

He tells me that he thinks
that my entire assertion is wrong, and then he makes a clearly
clueless comment like the one above.


Who is clueless about how pop/rock music images? The guy who hates and
won't listen to it or the guy who loves it and has over 2,000 records
of it? Think about that for a moment.

Imaging, specifically image specificity relies on differences in
volume between right and left channels as well as timing cues and
phase differences to locate instruments in space.


Phase yes. Timing no. Talk about clueless. If there are timing
differences coming from right and left channels you don't get an
image.You get two sounds coming straight off the two speakers that are
out of sync. So imaging is a result of volume and phase properties,
NOT TIMING and one other thing, spectral balance.


When pop/rock
recordings are made, especially those relying on electronic
instruments, each instrument is miked separately, either using an
acoustical microphone such as a condenser mike (for some acoustic
instruments such a drum kits) dynamic mikes (usually for rock vocals)
and piezoelectric contact mikes - often called "frapping" (for some
acoustic instruments) and sometimes direct electronic connection for
electronic instruments like solid-body electric guitars, electronic
keyboard instruments, etc.).


Clearly as someone who hates the genre you have not done your homework
on how pop/rock recordings are made. But even when we are talking
about the ones that are actually made as you describe..IT DOESN'T
MATTER. What matters is what is heard as a result. And as someone who
actually listens to pop/rock music I can tell you from actual
experience rather than pure prejudice that you can get some pretty
fantastic imaging from some of those records.

These instruments are usually acoustically isolated from one another
in the studio space using moveable sound absorption "partitions"
called "gobos" . Each instrument/voice is miked or otherwise captured
separately and each instrument/voice is fed to the recording console
in the control room separately as well and is assigned it's own input
channel on that console. That means that each performer is captured
solo and the volume of each instrument or voice in the ensemble can be
raised or lowered in relationship to others at the desire of the
recording's producer and the engineers. Another parameter that is
controlled at this point is the position of each instrument or voice
from left to right on the two-channel "Buss" - although this is
usually done in the final mix to two channel. by using a control
called a "pan-pot" any of these separate instrument's "channels" can
be placed laterally across the stage from all the way stage right to
all the way stage left or anywhere in between. Given a two channel mix
down, only right to left localization is possible. There is no way to
place one instrument electronically behind or in front of another
instrument or to make one instrument see to be playing, physically
"above" another. This three-dimenionality we call "stereophonic sound"
is, strictly speaking, not possible using this type of recording
capture. Due to phase anomalies which may be accidentally captured
along with the wanted sound, some form of accidental "imaging" that
sounds like front-to-back imaging may end-up in the finished release.
But it cannot be purposely done and is not intentional or planned.
Make no mistake. Whether we are talking about a mix of electronic and
acoustical instruments capture in the above manner, or a symphony
orchestra recorded with a forest of microphones to 48, 64, 0r 96
channels of recording, the final two channel result is in NO WAY
stereophonic sound as it has no three-dimensional aspect to it. It
can't because none was captured. The only way true stereo, and
therefore real imaging info can be captured is by using a stereophonic
recording technique. Spaced omnis, A-B, XY, M-S, ORTF, and Blumlein
microphone techniques will all yield stereo. Multi-miking to
multi-channel monaural sound can yield only two or three channel mono
- right, center, left and that isn't stereo and that has no image.
This is just fact. There are no ifs, ands or buts about it. That this
poster believes that '...it does not matter how the imaging got onto
the recording. What matters is how it images during playback.."
clearly shows that he has no idea what he talking about.

I'm finished here with this argument.


A good call. I suggest you do some homework on how actual real world
pop/rock recordings have actually been made throughout the decades
before arguing any further. And better yet, you might consider
actually listening to some before commenting on how they sound. You
might want to start here and then give some of Bill Porter's
recordings an actual listen.

http://www.analogplanet.com/content/...orter-part-i-0

Here is a quote from that article describing the Bill Porter sound.
"The "Port+Sound" (if something so utterly neutral could be described
as a "sound") issounds like front-to-back imaging may end-up in the
finished release. ultra-dynamic and extremely wide-band. Bass is of
the intestine-shaking variety. The top end seems to sail on into
infinity, without a trace of the pinched, sandy glare found on many of
today's productions. The resulting "see-through," natural presentation
of vocal and instrumental timbre occurs on a soundstage that is
cinemascopic and deep, with individual instruments and Porter
recordings on high end stereos quite frequently. You see that is why
we are NOT clueless but actually are offering really well informed
opinions on the subject. How many Bill Porter recordings do you own
and listen to? I am going to go out on a limb and guess the answer is
zero. Now this is just one of many rock/pop recording engineers I can
point out that clearly show all your assertions about pop/rock music
and the recording techniques used for the genre are complete nonsense.
But there is not enough time in the day or space in this thread to do
so. So I leave you with just one recording engineer you might want to
familiarize yourself with before you argue any further on this
subject.


  #42   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Audio_Empire[_2_] Audio_Empire[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 235
Default Modern Reviewing Practices In Audio Rags Have Become Useless

On Sunday, August 4, 2013 10:20:56 AM UTC-7, MINe109 wrote:
In article ,

Audio_Empire wrote:


On Saturday, August 3, 2013 6:52:42 AM UTC-7, Robert Peirce wrote:
In article ,
Audio_Empire wrote:


For instance, you can't use pop/rock to test for image
specificity, because being multitrack and multi-miked with all
instruments


I'm told you can hear that on a good system. I don't listen critically
enough to know for sure.


I'd say that you CAN'T hear that because it doesn't exist with pan-potted
positioning of instruments. Of course, if the rock producer specifies an
don't know of any rock recordings that were recorded that way. Does anyone
else know? I would love to find out.


Cowboy Junkies' The Trinity Session was recorded on a single Calrec
Ambisonic Microphone.


Interesting. Although, strictly speaking, Ambisonics is not really Stereo, it will give a fair
stereophonic image when played back two-channel. I have some LPs from Unicorn Records
that were recorded Ambisonically. The only real criticism that I can level at them is that
they are somewhat distantly miked. Do you find that true with the Cowboy Junkies stuff?

You might also google "The Glyn Johns Drum Recording Method".


Will do. Thanks.

  #43   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Audio_Empire[_2_] Audio_Empire[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 235
Default Modern Reviewing Practices In Audio Rags Have Become Useless

On Saturday, August 3, 2013 8:14:36 PM UTC-7, Arny Krueger wrote:
"Audio_Empire" wrote in message

...

"Audio_Empire" wrote in message
...

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


In a way that one sentence says way to much about your prejudices and width
of view.


It's not a prejudice, Arny. If anything, it is a "postjudice", if, indeed, there were such
a word. I've heard this stuff all my life, and I've always loathed it. Even as a teen,
I eschewed it. You call it a prejudice and a narrow width of view, I call it "good taste."
8^)

It shows that you perceive rock-and-roll as not being part of your life even
though its actually so pervasive that it is such a big part of your life
that you apparently can't restrain yourself from knocking it and trying to
separate yourself from it seemingly every change you get.


You certainly can't avoid it. It IS, as you say, very pervasive. I hear it in the
supermarket, coming from other peoples' apartments, their cars on the street
etc. It's even used as theme songs for popular TV shows. I feel that your right
to contribute to the downfall of Western Civilization by listening to this crap,
ends where my ears begin.

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.


Denial ain't just a river in Egypt and absence of evidence is not the same
as evidence of absence.


I think I've explained myself sufficiently for most people to realize that my
criteria for evaluation is not based on genre, but rather in recording
practices associated with some genres. Apparently, you haven't been following
this thread too closely, or you too would have gathered that.

And remember, I also include
"pop" in that criticism which includes country-and-western, as well as
most jazz.


More evidence of an incredibly narrow and short-sighted viewpoint.


What can I tell you? Studio-produced music is studio produced music. The above
statement by me is merely more evidence that my criticism is with the production
processes, not the music itself.

I like jazz and I listen to it, but I wouldn't use it solely
as a review tool.


Since so many people listen to rock, jazz, country western, and pop its hard
to explain how one can review audio gear without sampling them.


It's easy. I use acoustical instruments playing in real space where the space the
instruments occupy is captured stereophonically, not just the instrument itself
captured monophonically and pan-potted into a "sound stage".

One could argue that these genres are actually so similar in terms of
technical requirements for good reproduction that using any of them is
analogous with using all of them, but that doesn't seem to be the thrust of
the comments I'm responding to.


That's true. It why I lump them together as "pop".

  #44   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Audio_Empire[_2_] Audio_Empire[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 235
Default Modern Reviewing Practices In Audio Rags Have Become Useless

On Sunday, August 4, 2013 10:42:28 AM UTC-7, Scott wrote:
On Sunday, August 4, 2013 6:17:32 AM UTC-7, Audio_Empire wrote:
On Saturday, August 3, 2013 6:51:10 AM UTC-7, Robert Peirce wrote:
In article ,
Scott wrote:


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


You are both right and wrong. I stopped going to one concert series
because the house decided the music needed to be electronically
amplified and the instruments sounded wrong. They sounded wrong no
matter where I was sitting.


Ain't that the truth! I have actually walked out on concerts because they felt
the need for sound reinforcement. Usually in such cases I demand a refund
on my tickets. I get it too. My ploy is tell the manager that I go to live concert
performances to listen to LIVE unamplified music playing in a real space, not
to listen to some P.A. system. I tell them that if I wanted to listen to amplifiers
and speakers, I would have stayed home where I had MUCH better speakers and
amps than the P.A. junk in that theater! It always works.
Bottom line is I won't put up with indoor sound reinforcement of classical or jazz
performances played on acoustic instruments.


What concerts have you attended where you were unexpectedly faced
with this issue? All the classical concerts I go to are unamplified
with the exception of the Hollywood Bowl. And the Hollywood Bowl
makes it really clear that they use sound reinforcement. One would
have no excuse for being surprised by that fact. There are other
venues all over the world that also rely on sound reinforcement too
but none that I know of that are covert about it. So what venues
have surprised you with the use of sound reinforcement?


Quite a few, actually. In fact I tried to attend a local big-band jazz
concert just last weekend where sound reinforcement was evident. I
left. Same with a symphonic band concert held in a large church
several months ago. Now, I'll say this. I haven't yet attended an
indoor symphony concert where sound reinforcement was used, but I
understand that it is done. I've stopped attending outdoor concerts of
any kind for that reason. I just don't want to listen to a P.A.
system. It seems elementary purpose defeating to me. I realize that
sound reinforcement might be required at large outdoor venues, and
I'll gladly forego the "pleasure" of attending those. I was listening
to the BSO at Tanglewood on Internet radio last night and the thought
came to me that I was probably hearing a much better presentation than
were the attendees, grouped around the Koussevitzky "shed" listening
to the excellent performance by Charles Dutoit of Ravel's complete
"Daphnis et Chloe" through a P.A. System.

It is quite possible that some instruments in some halls will sound
dreadful, but you will still be able to recognize them. Some recordings
are so manipulated that you can't recognize the instruments.


True enough.


I don't consider the ability to merely recognize an instrument as
any kind of standard of excellence.


And who does? Surely, even you must realize that it's much more
complicated that just that.

I can recognize the sound of most instruments on cheap AM car radio.
The fact is you can get dreadful sound in almost any concert hall if
your seats are lousy. So bad live sound is very common.

And again, who said it wasn't?

things you can do in post-production that are impossible in real life.
If that helps, it helps, but you shouldn't think that is the sound of a
real instrument in a real space as some reviewers seem to think.


Also agreed. But experienced listeners SHOULD know the difference.


And, I might add that I don't think that I want to hear those things
"...done in post production that are impossible in real life.." Others
might and they're welcome to it, but....
  #45   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Stephen McElroy Stephen McElroy is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 25
Default Modern Reviewing Practices In Audio Rags Have Become Useless

In article ,
Audio_Empire wrote:

On Sunday, August 4, 2013 10:20:56 AM UTC-7, MINe109 wrote:
In article ,


Cowboy Junkies' The Trinity Session was recorded on a single Calrec
Ambisonic Microphone.


Interesting. Although, strictly speaking, Ambisonics is not really Stereo, it
will give a fair
stereophonic image when played back two-channel. I have some LPs from Unicorn
Records
that were recorded Ambisonically. The only real criticism that I can level at
them is that
they are somewhat distantly miked. Do you find that true with the Cowboy
Junkies stuff?


No, but according to wiki the vocals had an assist from a PA.

Stephen



  #46   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
KH KH is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 137
Default Modern Reviewing Practices In Audio Rags Have Become Useless

On 8/1/2013 7:32 PM, Audio_Empire wrote:
On Wednesday, July 31, 2013 7:46:42 PM UTC-7, KH wrote:
On 7/31/2013 10:29 AM, Audio_Empire wrote:

In article , KH


wrote:




On 7/30/2013 3:52 PM, Audio_Empire wrote:


snip



This would appear to say volumes about your knowledge of pop music.




I know enough * more than I want to. And if you are saying that I am


wrong here, then I believe it says more about your knowledge of music


and reproduction than it does about mine.




I'm saying you clearly don't know the range of "pop" music, quite a lot

of which is acoustic, because you don't care, and *you* don't listen to

any, by your own admission, so you don't seem to be in a strong position

to opine on it's suitability for auditioning.


You continue to miss the point. If a piece of pop music is acoustic, then there
I have absolutely no problem with some reviewer evaluating equipment using
it. Just because I dislike pop/rock and it is no part of my musical life doesn't
mean that reject it as an evaluation tool based on that dislike. My objections
are based solely upon the suitability (or lack thereof) of the results of the
production process for the task.


Then you should be more clear in your denunciations of "pop" being
universally unsuitable for auditioning. The fact is that there is a
great deal of "pop" that is acoustic, or has an acoustic component (e.g.
an orchestral backing). Yet you name a few artists - from long ago no
less (albeit ones I listen to) - as though they represent the range of
"pop" music. That is *my* point - you don't *know* the range of "pop"
music, thus your wholesale exclusion of it is ridiculous. There is a
great deal of "pop" that meets "your" criteria, as well as a great deal
that doesn't, but meets the needs and desires of *other* audiophiles.

Keith


  #47   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Robert Peirce Robert Peirce is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 140
Default Modern Reviewing Practices In Audio Rags Have Become Useless

In article ,
Audio_Empire wrote:

I think that it makes more sense to buy the most neutral and realistic
sounding loudspeakers that you can find (and afford). Ostensibly, such
speaker will sound good with any kind of music - quite an advantage if
you have an eclectic taste in music or, if you find that your tastes
have changed.


That is my approach, but I listen to pretty much everything.

My point was that if there is one type of music you like and that is all
you like (and I guess will ever like) it makes sense to go with speakers
that sound best playing that music even if they aren't going to be that
great for other types of music. If your tastes change you are out of
luck.

  #48   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Audio_Empire[_2_] Audio_Empire[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 235
Default Modern Reviewing Practices In Audio Rags Have Become Useless

On Sunday, August 4, 2013 12:48:51 PM UTC-7, Scott wrote:
On Sunday, August 4, 2013 6:27:55 AM UTC-7, Audio_Empire wrote:

On Saturday, August 3, 2013 6:50:38 AM UTC-7, Scott wrote:


On Friday, August 2, 2013 3:55:15 PM UTC-7, Audio_Empire wrote:




In article ,


Scott wrote:




snip


Again, it does not matter how the imaging got onto the recording.


What matters is how it images during playback. This phenomenon we


call imaging is not limited to music played on acoustic instruments.




This shows absolutely how out of touch with the reality of recording


and playback of music that this poster is.



So says the guy who flaunts his disdain for the music he claims to
know so much about.


Where did I say or even intimate that I knew much about rock/pop? I know
about studio recording, but I never claimed to know much about rock except
that I find the sound of it - anything with solid-body electric guitars, really - offensive

snip

How many professional rock recordings have you made (or even had a hand in)
again? I'd love to know.

  #49   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Andrew Haley Andrew Haley is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 155
Default Modern Reviewing Practices In Audio Rags Have Become Useless

Audio_Empire wrote:

Quite a few, actually. In fact I tried to attend a local big-band
jazz concert just last weekend where sound reinforcement was
evident. I left. Same with a symphonic band concert held in a large
church several months ago. Now, I'll say this. I haven't yet
attended an indoor symphony concert where sound reinforcement was
used, but I understand that it is done. I've stopped attending
outdoor concerts of any kind for that reason. I just don't want to
listen to a P.A. system. It seems elementary purpose defeating to
me.


Why? Aren't you there for the music? Why does it matter if the music
is amplified? If the interpretation and the playing is good, won't
you enjoy it anyway?

Andrew.
  #50   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Robert Peirce Robert Peirce is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 140
Default Modern Reviewing Practices In Audio Rags Have Become Useless

In article ,
Audio_Empire wrote:

For instance, you can't use pop/rock to test for image
specificity, because being multitrack and multi-miked with all
instruments


I'm told you can hear that on a good system. I don't listen critically
enough to know for sure.


I'd say that you CAN'T hear that because it doesn't exist with pan-potted
positioning of instruments.


That's what I was trying to say. You can hear that it doesn't exist.
Again, I don't know that from first hand experience.


  #51   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Audio_Empire[_2_] Audio_Empire[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 235
Default Modern Reviewing Practices In Audio Rags Have Become Useless

On Sunday, August 4, 2013 12:40:30 PM UTC-7, Scott wrote:
On Sunday, August 4, 2013 6:16:57 AM UTC-7, Audio_Empire wrote:

On Saturday, August 3, 2013 6:52:42 AM UTC-7, Robert Peirce wrote:


In article ,


Audio_Empire wrote:


For instance, you can't use pop/rock to test for image
specificity, because being multitrack and multi-miked with all instruments


I'm told you can hear that on a good system. I don't listen critically
enough to know for sure.


I'd say that you CAN'T hear that because it doesn't exist with
pan-potted positioning of instruments. Of course, if the rock
producer specifies an overall stereo pair of mikes in addition to
the multi-mike, multi-channel-mono practices that are the norm, then


you might hear it. But I don't know of any rock recordings that were
recorded that way. Does anyone else know? I would love to find out.


You can say it but it isn't true. I have many pop/rock albums that
offer stunningly vivid imaging with sound stages that extend well past
the speakers and offer loads of depth as well as width and give the
instruments a tremendous sense of size and palpability. So you CAN
hear that with the right pop/rock recordings.


So you are saying that these recordings were recorded stereophonically?
Permit me to doubt. Why would anyone do that? There is no commercial
reason to do that. The larger audience for this material doesn't care about
things like that, and all producers care about is air play and sales.

When you say you don't know of any rock recordings that use stereo
pairs of microphones I just have to ask, what pop/rock recordings are
you so familiar with that you can tell us just how they were recorded?


Because I take Pro Audio Magazine and read articles about how various recordings are
made perhaps? Possibly because I was involved in a number of these recordings when I worked
for Coast Recorders or Wally Heider back in the 70's and 80's as a recording engineer?
  #52   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Scott[_6_] Scott[_6_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 642
Default Modern Reviewing Practices In Audio Rags Have Become Useless

On Sunday, August 4, 2013 6:34:54 PM UTC-7, Audio_Empire wrote:
On Sunday, August 4, 2013 12:48:51 PM UTC-7, Scott wrote:
=20
On Sunday, August 4, 2013 6:27:55 AM UTC-7, Audio_Empire wrote:

=20
=20

=20
On Saturday, August 3, 2013 6:50:38 AM UTC-7, Scott wrote:

=20
=20

=20
On Friday, August 2, 2013 3:55:15 PM UTC-7, Audio_Empire wrote:

=20
=20

=20

=20
=20

=20
In article ,

=20
=20

=20
Scott wrote:

=20
=20

=20

=20
=20

=20
snip

=20
=20

=20
Again, it does not matter how the imaging got onto the recording.

=20
=20

=20
What matters is how it images during playback. This phenomenon we

=20
=20

=20
call imaging is not limited to music played on acoustic instruments=

..
=20
=20

=20

=20
=20

=20
This shows absolutely how out of touch with the reality of recording

=20
=20

=20
and playback of music that this poster is.

=20
=20

=20
=20
=20
So says the guy who flaunts his disdain for the music he claims to

=20
know so much about.

=20
=20
=20
Where did I say or even intimate that I knew much about rock/pop?


Post #3 KH "This would appear to say volumes about your knowledge of pop mu=
sic."

You: "I know enough =AD more than I want to. And if you are saying that I a=
m
wrong here, then I believe it says more about your knowledge of music
and reproduction than it does about mine."
=20
I know
about studio recording, but I never claimed to know much about rock excep=

t
=20
that I find the sound of it - anything with solid-body electric guitars, =

really - offensive

You basically said you knew enough about it to support your many assertions=
about it and how it has been recorded over the years.Nothing ambiguous whe=
n your knowledge was challenged and your response was "I know enough, more =
than I want to."


=20
=20
=20
snip
=20
=20
=20
How many professional rock recordings have you made (or even had a hand i=

n)=20
=20
again? I'd love to know.


How many have you? But more significantly how many have you actually looked=
into? I may not have made any rock recordings but I certainly have done my=
homework on how a good many of them actually were made. It doesn't jive wi=
th your assertions that is for sure. Did you even bother to look up Bill Po=
rter? I bet not....

  #53   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Scott[_6_] Scott[_6_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 642
Default Modern Reviewing Practices In Audio Rags Have Become Useless

On Sunday, August 4, 2013 7:32:42 PM UTC-7, Andrew Haley wrote:
Audio_Empire wrote:
=20
=20
=20
Quite a few, actually. In fact I tried to attend a local big-band

=20
jazz concert just last weekend where sound reinforcement was

=20
evident. I left. Same with a symphonic band concert held in a large

=20
church several months ago. Now, I'll say this. I haven't yet

=20
attended an indoor symphony concert where sound reinforcement was

=20
used, but I understand that it is done. I've stopped attending

=20
outdoor concerts of any kind for that reason. I just don't want to

=20
listen to a P.A. system. It seems elementary purpose defeating to

=20
me.

=20
=20
=20
Why? Aren't you there for the music? Why does it matter if the music
=20
is amplified? If the interpretation and the playing is good, won't
=20
you enjoy it anyway?
=20
=20
=20
Andrew.


i gotta say, with classical music if there is sound reinforcement and I am =
there it is for one of two reasons. Either someone I absolutely have to see=
is playing or I got free tickets. Otherwise it is a deal breaker for me. W=
hat blows my mind is that someone would show up and be surprised by the pre=
sence of sound reinforcement. It's a big world and I guess all kinds of thi=
ngs happen but I have never been to a classical concert that used sound rei=
nforcement that I didn't know about ahead of time.

  #54   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Audio_Empire[_2_] Audio_Empire[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 235
Default Modern Reviewing Practices In Audio Rags Have Become Useless

On Sunday, August 4, 2013 7:33:12 PM UTC-7, Robert Peirce wrote:
In article ,

Audio_Empire wrote:


For instance, you can't use pop/rock to test for image
specificity, because being multitrack and multi-miked with all
instruments



I'm told you can hear that on a good system. I don't listen critically
enough to know for sure.


I'd say that you CAN'T hear that because it doesn't exist with pan-potted
positioning of instruments.


That's what I was trying to say. You can hear that it doesn't exist.
Again, I don't know that from first hand experience.


Sorry I misunderstood you. You are right though. And logic would certainly tell
anyone who knows the nature of studio recording that this would have to be true
and is...

  #55   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Audio_Empire[_2_] Audio_Empire[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 235
Default Modern Reviewing Practices In Audio Rags Have Become Useless

On Sunday, August 4, 2013 7:32:42 PM UTC-7, Andrew Haley wrote:
Audio_Empire wrote:


Quite a few, actually. In fact I tried to attend a local big-band
jazz concert just last weekend where sound reinforcement was
evident. I left. Same with a symphonic band concert held in a large
church several months ago. Now, I'll say this. I haven't yet
attended an indoor symphony concert where sound reinforcement was
used, but I understand that it is done. I've stopped attending
outdoor concerts of any kind for that reason. I just don't want to
listen to a P.A. system. It seems elementary purpose defeating to
me.




Why? Aren't you there for the music?


Well, sure. I'm there to have a live musical experience listening to real
instruments playing in real space. But I'm also there to "re-calibrate"
my ears with live music. I feel cheated spending money to listen to
some lousy Public Address system, and some unknown "sound-guy's"
idea of how an ensemble should sound. Like I said, I have better
equipment at home. If I want to listen to amplifiers and speakers,
I can just stay home. Saves money too...

Why does it matter if the music
is amplified? If the interpretation and the playing is good, won't
you enjoy it anyway?


Not like I want to enjoy it, no. I'll only be enjoying a portion of the
experience, and having to pay for the "privilege" as well.

Andrew.



  #56   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Andrew Haley Andrew Haley is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 155
Default Modern Reviewing Practices In Audio Rags Have Become Useless

Audio_Empire wrote:
On Sunday, August 4, 2013 7:32:42 PM UTC-7, Andrew Haley wrote:
Audio_Empire wrote:


Quite a few, actually. In fact I tried to attend a local big-band
jazz concert just last weekend where sound reinforcement was
evident. I left. Same with a symphonic band concert held in a large
church several months ago. Now, I'll say this. I haven't yet
attended an indoor symphony concert where sound reinforcement was
used, but I understand that it is done. I've stopped attending
outdoor concerts of any kind for that reason. I just don't want to
listen to a P.A. system. It seems elementary purpose defeating to
me.


Why? Aren't you there for the music?


Well, sure. I'm there to have a live musical experience listening to
real instruments playing in real space. But I'm also there to
"re-calibrate" my ears with live music.


It seems to me that this is the crux of our whole argument. I'm not
there to listen to "real instruments playing in space", real or
otherwise. I'm there to listen to the musicians, who hopefully have
something to say. Whatever that is, they'll use the tools they want
to use, and if some of them are electronic, fair enough. The whole
idea that you might leave a concert for such a reason seems to me to
be totally insane, especially if you have great performers.

I feel cheated spending money to listen to some lousy Public Address
system, and some unknown "sound-guy's" idea of how an ensemble
should sound.


Or some genius sound guy with a really good PA: that argument cuts
both ways.

It seems to me that you're prioritizing your notion of the "ideal
sound" above the whole point of musical performance, which is
communication between musicians and an audience. The quality of the
sound surely comes a very distant second to the emotional and
intellectual communication between the audience and the performers,
something that is very much a two-way street.

I'm appalled that you'd walk out of what might be an electrifying
performance by on-form and talented musicians for such a trivial
reason.

Andrew.

  #57   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Scott[_6_] Scott[_6_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 642
Default Modern Reviewing Practices In Audio Rags Have Become Useless

On Monday, August 5, 2013 9:20:56 AM UTC-7, Andrew Haley wrote:
Audio_Empire wrote:

On Sunday, August 4, 2013 7:32:42 PM UTC-7, Andrew Haley wrote:


Audio_Empire wrote:




Quite a few, actually. In fact I tried to attend a local big-band


jazz concert just last weekend where sound reinforcement was


evident. I left. Same with a symphonic band concert held in a large


church several months ago. Now, I'll say this. I haven't yet


attended an indoor symphony concert where sound reinforcement was


used, but I understand that it is done. I've stopped attending


outdoor concerts of any kind for that reason. I just don't want to


listen to a P.A. system. It seems elementary purpose defeating to


me.




Why? Aren't you there for the music?




Well, sure. I'm there to have a live musical experience listening to


real instruments playing in real space. But I'm also there to


"re-calibrate" my ears with live music.




It seems to me that this is the crux of our whole argument. I'm not

there to listen to "real instruments playing in space", real or

otherwise. I'm there to listen to the musicians, who hopefully have

something to say. Whatever that is, they'll use the tools they want

to use, and if some of them are electronic, fair enough. The whole

idea that you might leave a concert for such a reason seems to me to

be totally insane, especially if you have great performers.



I feel cheated spending money to listen to some lousy Public Address


system, and some unknown "sound-guy's" idea of how an ensemble


should sound.




Or some genius sound guy with a really good PA: that argument cuts

both ways.



It seems to me that you're prioritizing your notion of the "ideal

sound" above the whole point of musical performance, which is

communication between musicians and an audience. The quality of the

sound surely comes a very distant second to the emotional and

intellectual communication between the audience and the performers,

something that is very much a two-way street.



I'm appalled that you'd walk out of what might be an electrifying

performance by on-form and talented musicians for such a trivial

reason.



Andrew.


I would not walk out just because there is sound reinforcement but I don't agree with you about this separation between sound (I would add view to that as well) and the communication between the audience and the performers. What we as audience members actually hear and see is a pretty important part of that communication. The same exact performance as seen and heard up close at Disney Hall is a totally different experience as seen and heard from the back row at the Hollywood Bowl. So there is a whole lot more to it than just the performance. I don't care how good the performance is, you would never know it from the back of the bowl. OTOH the visceral experience of an orchestra from row EE dead center at Disney Hall is one that will follow you for the rest of your life.

It does matter. A lot.

  #58   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Andrew Haley Andrew Haley is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 155
Default Modern Reviewing Practices In Audio Rags Have Become Useless

Scott wrote:

I would not walk out just because there is sound reinforcement but I
don't agree with you about this separation between sound (I would
add view to that as well) and the communication between the audience
and the performers. What we as audience members actually hear and
see is a pretty important part of that communication. The same exact
performance as seen and heard up close at Disney Hall is a totally
different experience as seen and heard from the back row at the
Hollywood Bowl.


Sure, I agree with that. There is something very alienating about
arena concerts. I went to one or two and swore that I never would
again.

So there is a whole lot more to it than just the performance. I
don't care how good the performance is, you would never know it from
the back of the bowl. OTOH the visceral experience of an orchestra
from row EE dead center at Disney Hall is one that will follow you
for the rest of your life.

It does matter. A lot.


Absolutely so, but that's really not what I'm talking about here. Of
course sound quality and proximity helps, but that's not what the
experience is about. We're listening to people, not fiddles, and
emotional communication is the point.

Andrew.

  #59   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Audio_Empire[_2_] Audio_Empire[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 235
Default Modern Reviewing Practices In Audio Rags Have Become Useless

On Monday, August 5, 2013 9:47:27 AM UTC-7, Scott wrote:
On Monday, August 5, 2013 9:20:56 AM UTC-7, Andrew Haley wrote:
=20
Audio_Empire wrote:


On Sunday, August 4, 2013 7:32:42 PM UTC-7, Andrew Haley wrote:


Audio_Empire wrote:


I would not walk out just because there is sound reinforcement but I don'=

t agree with you about this separation between sound (I would add view to t=
hat as well) and the communication between the audience and the performers.=
What we as audience members actually hear and see is a pretty important pa=
rt of that communication. The same exact performance as seen and heard up c=
lose at Disney Hall is a totally different experience as seen and heard fro=
m the back row at the Hollywood Bowl. So there is a whole lot more to it th=
an just the performance. I don't care how good the performance is, you woul=
d never know it from the back of the bowl. OTOH the visceral experience of =
an orchestra from row EE dead center at Disney Hall is one that will follow=
you for the rest of your life.=20
=20
=20
=20
It does matter. A lot.


There, at least, we agree. It matters to me, at least.=20

  #60   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Scott[_6_] Scott[_6_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 642
Default Modern Reviewing Practices In Audio Rags Have Become Useless

On Monday, August 5, 2013 11:47:17 AM UTC-7, Andrew Haley wrote:
Scott wrote:



I would not walk out just because there is sound reinforcement but I


don't agree with you about this separation between sound (I would


add view to that as well) and the communication between the audience


and the performers. What we as audience members actually hear and


see is a pretty important part of that communication. The same exact


performance as seen and heard up close at Disney Hall is a totally


different experience as seen and heard from the back row at the


Hollywood Bowl.




Sure, I agree with that. There is something very alienating about

arena concerts. I went to one or two and swore that I never would

again.



So there is a whole lot more to it than just the performance. I


don't care how good the performance is, you would never know it from


the back of the bowl. OTOH the visceral experience of an orchestra


from row EE dead center at Disney Hall is one that will follow you


for the rest of your life.




It does matter. A lot.




Absolutely so, but that's really not what I'm talking about here. Of

course sound quality and proximity helps, but that's not what the

experience is about.


Well it is what the experience is about to the extent that it affects the experience. And to it affects the experience profoundly.


We're listening to people, not fiddles, and

emotional communication is the point.


And emotional communication suffers serious loss through bad sound or with a bad view. Our emotional connection comes via what we hear and what we see.
Isn't that why we are all audiophiles? To better connect with the recordings of the music we love through better sound. That certainly is why I'm in it. Music is an aesthetic experience so better aesthetics makes for a better experience.



  #61   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Andrew Haley Andrew Haley is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 155
Default Modern Reviewing Practices In Audio Rags Have Become Useless

Scott wrote:
On Monday, August 5, 2013 11:47:17 AM UTC-7, Andrew Haley wrote:

We're listening to people, not fiddles, and emotional communication
is the point.


And emotional communication suffers serious loss through bad sound
or with a bad view. Our emotional connection comes via what we hear
and what we see.


Isn't that why we are all audiophiles?


To obsess about the sound quality at the expense of everything else.
To miss out on great performances because we don't like the PA System
/ hall / whatever. To value recalibrating our hearing of "real music"
over communicating with musicians. Hell, no!

To better connect with the recordings of the music we love through
better sound. That certainly is why I'm in it. Music is an aesthetic
experience so better aesthetics makes for a better experience.


And who'd deny that? It's a question of which is to be the master,
that's all. And I'm still appalled that Mr. Empire would miss out on
a great musical experience because he doesn't like PA systems.

Andrew.

  #62   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Scott[_6_] Scott[_6_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 642
Default Modern Reviewing Practices In Audio Rags Have Become Useless

On Monday, August 5, 2013 1:32:20 PM UTC-7, Andrew Haley wrote:
Scott wrote:
=20
On Monday, August 5, 2013 11:47:17 AM UTC-7, Andrew Haley wrote:

=20
=20

=20
We're listening to people, not fiddles, and emotional communication

=20
is the point.

=20
=20

=20
And emotional communication suffers serious loss through bad sound

=20
or with a bad view. Our emotional connection comes via what we hear

=20
and what we see.

=20
=20
=20
Isn't that why we are all audiophiles?

=20
=20
=20
To obsess about the sound quality at the expense of everything else.


That is a false premise. Improving sound quality at the expense of what? Ot=
her than money. Same music collection right? No one has to give up anything=
to get better sound.

=20
To miss out on great performances because we don't like the PA System


Wasn't it you who said this just a couple posts ago?=20
"Sure, I agree with that. There is something very alienating about
arena concerts. I went to one or two and swore that I never would
again."

is that not missing out on great performances because you don't like the PA=
system? But, ironically yes, because if the PA system is bad enough and th=
e view is bad enough the great performance is missed, whether you go to the=
convert or not. =20
=20
/ hall / whatever. To value recalibrating our hearing of "real music"
=20
over communicating with musicians. Hell, no!
=20
=20
=20
To better connect with the recordings of the music we love through

=20
better sound. That certainly is why I'm in it. Music is an aesthetic

=20
experience so better aesthetics makes for a better experience.

=20
=20
=20
And who'd deny that? It's a question of which is to be the master,
=20
that's all.


How does one become the master? I would love to pick the artists, the progr=
ams, the venues and my seats for all concerts. Reality gets in the way. The=
most we can do to be the master is pick the concerts we want to go to and =
get the best seats we can get. That is what I do. It works really well. But=
it does preclude paying 150 bucks for seats that are still over 100 feet f=
rom the stage at the Hollywood Bowl. Saying no to that is as much me being =
the master as is anything anyone can do.


And I'm still appalled that Mr. Empire would miss out on
=20
a great musical experience because he doesn't like PA systems.
=20
=20

Clearly he didn't think the experience was all that great.=20

  #63   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Arny Krueger[_5_] Arny Krueger[_5_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 239
Default Modern Reviewing Practices In Audio Rags Have Become Useless

"Audio_Empire" wrote in message
...
On Sunday, August 4, 2013 12:40:30 PM UTC-7, Scott wrote:


You can say it but it isn't true. I have many pop/rock albums that
offer stunningly vivid imaging with sound stages that extend well past
the speakers and offer loads of depth as well as width and give the
instruments a tremendous sense of size and palpability. So you CAN
hear that with the right pop/rock recordings.


So you are saying that these recordings were recorded stereophonically?


No, It is possible to position instruments well past the speakers from
multitrack recordings. Add some of the track to the opposite channel with
the phase inverted, and voila, you've got a track that sounds like it is
coming from the outside of the space between the speakers.

  #64   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Robert Peirce Robert Peirce is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 140
Default Modern Reviewing Practices In Audio Rags Have Become Useless

In article ,
Andrew Haley wrote:


Why? Aren't you there for the music? Why does it matter if the music
is amplified? If the interpretation and the playing is good, won't
you enjoy it anyway?


In my case, my sound system at home was significantly better than the
system in the hall. I used to listen to music on an AM radio, and I
enjoyed it at the time. However, when better sound became available I
enjoyed AM less.
  #65   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Robert Peirce Robert Peirce is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 140
Default Modern Reviewing Practices In Audio Rags Have Become Useless

In article ,
Scott wrote:

i gotta say, with classical music if there is sound reinforcement and I am
there it is for one of two reasons. Either someone I absolutely have to see
is playing or I got free tickets. Otherwise it is a deal breaker for me. What
blows my mind is that someone would show up and be surprised by the presence
of sound reinforcement. It's a big world and I guess all kinds of things
happen but I have never been to a classical concert that used sound
reinforcement that I didn't know about ahead of time.


Another thing that irritates me is theatre. More and more that is being
amplified as well. I have shown up for amplified shows without knowing
it. With small group music you can usually figure out what instrument
is coming through the PA system. In theatre it is often difficult to
pick out the actor who is speaking or singing.


  #66   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Robert Peirce Robert Peirce is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 140
Default Modern Reviewing Practices In Audio Rags Have Become Useless

In article ,
Andrew Haley wrote:

if some of them are electronic, fair enough.


That's different. Electronic music has to be amplified. However, would
you mic a guitar amp and pipe it through a PA?

  #67   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
[email protected] boyk@performancerecordings.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3
Default Modern Reviewing Practices In Audio Rags Have Become Useless

Pardon a couple of comments from my personal experience and viewpoint.
Concerning the statement that "Modern Reviewing Practices In Audio
Rags Have Become Useless," I've been reading reviews for 60 years, and
my question is, "When were they not generally useless?" I don't want
to exaggerate, and I have treasured a small number of useful reviewers
during that period; but gee, they've been rare. // As for imaging, it
is a much misunderstood subject. We can't judge the imaging of a
playback system or a piece of gear unless the source HAS an image; and
this is very rare. Unfortunately, imaging IS important; for its
evolutionary role (enabling us to locate predators or prey) precedes
music's esthetic function; and we have difficulty paying attention to
sound we cannot locate. (I say "we" because while this is true of me,
I also observe it in others.) // On an altogether separate separate
subject, I've started a blog for pianists and musicians generally, at
www.JamesBoyk.com .
  #68   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Audio_Empire[_2_] Audio_Empire[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 235
Default Modern Reviewing Practices In Audio Rags Have Become Useless

On Monday, August 5, 2013 4:36:31 PM UTC-7, Robert Peirce wrote:
In article ,

Scott wrote:


i gotta say, with classical music if there is sound reinforcement and I am
there it is for one of two reasons. Either someone I absolutely have to see
is playing or I got free tickets. Otherwise it is a deal breaker for me. What
blows my mind is that someone would show up and be surprised by the presence
of sound reinforcement. It's a big world and I guess all kinds of things
happen but I have never been to a classical concert that used sound
reinforcement that I didn't know about ahead of time.


Another thing that irritates me is theatre. More and more that is being
amplified as well. I have shown up for amplified shows without knowing
it. With small group music you can usually figure out what instrument
is coming through the PA system. In theatre it is often difficult to
pick out the actor who is speaking or singing.


Most of this is a case of "doing it because they CAN rather than because
they SHOULD" Theater existed for centuries without SR. One exception
of course, is outdoor theater where wireless mikes on the actors is a
boon. I don't mind amplified voices where it helps one hear the dialog
but not for music.
  #69   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Audio_Empire[_2_] Audio_Empire[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 235
Default Modern Reviewing Practices In Audio Rags Have Become Useless

On Monday, August 5, 2013 4:36:17 PM UTC-7, Robert Peirce wrote:
In article ,

Andrew Haley wrote:


Why? Aren't you there for the music? Why does it matter if the music
is amplified? If the interpretation and the playing is good, won't
you enjoy it anyway?


In my case, my sound system at home was significantly better than the
system in the hall. I used to listen to music on an AM radio, and I
enjoyed it at the time. However, when better sound became available I
enjoyed AM less.


That's more or less what I've been saying. If I want to listen to speakers
Mine are better than any PA speakers. Come to that, and I'd rather listen
to the streaming Boston Symphony on Internet radio from WCRB in Boston
than attend a SR'd concert.
  #70   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Audio_Empire[_2_] Audio_Empire[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 235
Default Modern Reviewing Practices In Audio Rags Have Become Useless

On Monday, August 5, 2013 4:34:24 PM UTC-7, Arny Krueger wrote:
"Audio_Empire" wrote in message

...

On Sunday, August 4, 2013 12:40:30 PM UTC-7, Scott wrote:


You can say it but it isn't true. I have many pop/rock albums that
offer stunningly vivid imaging with sound stages that extend well past
the speakers and offer loads of depth as well as width and give the
instruments a tremendous sense of size and palpability. So you CAN
hear that with the right pop/rock recordings.


So you are saying that these recordings were recorded stereophonically?


No, It is possible to position instruments well past the speakers from
multitrack recordings. Add some of the track to the opposite channel with
the phase inverted, and voila, you've got a track that sounds like it is
coming from the outside of the space between the speakers.


I wasn't questioning the width, I know that can be artificially introduced one
of several ways. It was the depth from multitrack that I was questioning.


  #71   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Audio_Empire[_2_] Audio_Empire[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 235
Default Modern Reviewing Practices In Audio Rags Have Become Useless

On Monday, August 5, 2013 7:03:57 PM UTC-7, Robert Peirce wrote:
In article ,

Andrew Haley wrote:


if some of them are electronic, fair enough.


That's different. Electronic music has to be amplified. However, would
you mic a guitar amp and pipe it through a PA?


Most recordings are made by plugging the guitar directly into the mixing
console. However I'm quite sure that there are exceptions whereby the
guitar amp itself (necessary for the musicians to HEAR themselves) is
miked acoustically, but that doesn't seem to be the norm.
  #72   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Gary Eickmeier Gary Eickmeier is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,449
Default Modern Reviewing Practices In Audio Rags Have Become Useless

"Audio_Empire" wrote in message
...
On Monday, August 5, 2013 4:36:17 PM UTC-7, Robert Peirce wrote:


In my case, my sound system at home was significantly better than the
system in the hall. I used to listen to music on an AM radio, and I
enjoyed it at the time. However, when better sound became available I
enjoyed AM less.


That's more or less what I've been saying. If I want to listen to speakers
Mine are better than any PA speakers. Come to that, and I'd rather listen
to the streaming Boston Symphony on Internet radio from WCRB in Boston
than attend a SR'd concert.


When they start amplifying orchestras and bands, balances get all screwed
up. First, the musicians never learn how to balance themselves for the
audience. The piano, for example, should have the lid open and the sound
coming toward the audience, not shut and stuffed with microphones. The
dynamics should be determined by th musicians, not the sound reinforcement
engineer. As soon as the microphones are introduced, the musicians will
start playing to them instead of to us. I have seen the horn section playing
with the bell of the horn facing the floor, either through lack of
showmanship or because of the damn microphones. Not all musicians even know
how to play to a mike in the first place. They will wander away or get too
close, destroying balances once again, unpredictably.

But of course the main point is we come to hear the sound of the
instruments, not the speakers. Most of the time you will not even hear the
concert in stereo if it is amplified.

I once attended a Tony Bennett concert. In the middle of his performance he
would insist on doing one number sans microphone, and belt one out to the
audience so they could hear what he really sounded like. THAT is
musicianship!

Gary Eickmeier
  #73   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Audio_Empire[_2_] Audio_Empire[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 235
Default Modern Reviewing Practices In Audio Rags Have Become Useless

On Monday, August 5, 2013 1:32:20 PM UTC-7, Andrew Haley wrote:
Scott wrote:

On Monday, August 5, 2013 11:47:17 AM UTC-7, Andrew Haley wrote:


We're listening to people, not fiddles, and emotional communication
is the point.


You might be listening to people, I'm listening to '"fiddles".
That's what I go to concerts to hear. If I want to listen to
people, I can stay home and listen to a recording of Jascha
Heifetz playing the Sibelius violin concerto on SACD. 8^)

And emotional communication suffers serious loss through bad sound
or with a bad view. Our emotional connection comes via what we hear
and what we see.
Isn't that why we are all audiophiles?


To obsess about the sound quality at the expense of everything else.
To miss out on great performances because we don't like the PA System
/ hall / whatever. To value recalibrating our hearing of "real music"
over communicating with musicians. Hell, no!


I don't "communicate with musicians" at a concert, I listen to them.
And no, I won't lower my standards just because the rest of the
world lowers theirs.

To better connect with the recordings of the music we love through
better sound. That certainly is why I'm in it. Music is an aesthetic
experience so better aesthetics makes for a better experience.


And who'd deny that? It's a question of which is to be the master,
that's all. And I'm still appalled that Mr. Empire would miss out on
a great musical experience because he doesn't like PA systems.


You are just going to have to remain appalled, I'm afraid. I consider
listening to a PA system to be slightly lower on the scale of event
speciality than listening to a live concert via radio at home (I have
better amps and speakers than PA systems have) and far below listening
to a performance unamplified. Yes, I love music, but I love the SOUND
of music equally. One is as important as the other to me.

  #74   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Andrew Haley Andrew Haley is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 155
Default Modern Reviewing Practices In Audio Rags Have Become Useless

Scott wrote:
On Monday, August 5, 2013 1:32:20 PM UTC-7, Andrew Haley wrote:
To miss out on great performances because we don't like the PA System


Wasn't it you who said this just a couple posts ago?

"Sure, I agree with that. There is something very alienating about
arena concerts. I went to one or two and swore that I never would
again."

is that not missing out on great performances because you don't like
the PA system?


Not really. I think it's because the whole thing turns into an event
that seems more like a Nuremberg rally than a concert.

And who'd deny that? It's a question of which is to be the master,
that's all.


And I'm still appalled that Mr. Empire would miss out on a great
musical experience because he doesn't like PA systems.

Clearly he didn't think the experience was all that great.


How would he know? He left.

Andrew.

  #75   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Andrew Haley Andrew Haley is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 155
Default Modern Reviewing Practices In Audio Rags Have Become Useless

Robert Peirce wrote:
In article ,
Andrew Haley wrote:

if some of them are electronic, fair enough.


That's different. Electronic music has to be amplified. However, would
you mic a guitar amp and pipe it through a PA?


Sure, that's normal. What else would you do?

Andrew.



  #76   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Andrew Haley Andrew Haley is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 155
Default Modern Reviewing Practices In Audio Rags Have Become Useless

Robert Peirce wrote:
In article ,
Andrew Haley wrote:


Why? Aren't you there for the music? Why does it matter if the music
is amplified? If the interpretation and the playing is good, won't
you enjoy it anyway?


In my case, my sound system at home was significantly better than the
system in the hall.


Me too. Sound at home is almost always better than the system in a
hall. Most of the time that's probably true of everyone in this
group. But the musicians are playing in the hall, not in my home.
They're real flesh and blood, not a recording.

Andrew.

  #77   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Scott[_6_] Scott[_6_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 642
Default Modern Reviewing Practices In Audio Rags Have Become Useless

On Tuesday, August 6, 2013 4:59:12 AM UTC-7, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
"Audio_Empire" wrote in message

...

On Monday, August 5, 2013 4:36:17 PM UTC-7, Robert Peirce wrote:




In my case, my sound system at home was significantly better than the


system in the hall. I used to listen to music on an AM radio, and I


enjoyed it at the time. However, when better sound became available I


enjoyed AM less.




That's more or less what I've been saying. If I want to listen to speakers


Mine are better than any PA speakers. Come to that, and I'd rather listen


to the streaming Boston Symphony on Internet radio from WCRB in Boston


than attend a SR'd concert.




When they start amplifying orchestras and bands, balances get all screwed

up. First, the musicians never learn how to balance themselves for the

audience.


They are not supposed to. They are supposed to play as normal and let the sound guys figure out the rest.



The piano, for example, should have the lid open and the sound

coming toward the audience, not shut and stuffed with microphones.


Actually pianos are designed to be played either way. Can't say that I have ever been to a concert where the mic was shoved under a closed lid though.

The

dynamics should be determined by th musicians, not the sound reinforcement

engineer. As soon as the microphones are introduced, the musicians will

start playing to them instead of to us.


Are you talking about orchestras? I have never seen that. And orchestras are routinely miked at concerts for archival purposes. I have never seen an orchestra change their positioning to play to microphones. Their posture is a pretty important part of how they play their instruments.


I have seen the horn section playing

with the bell of the horn facing the floor, either through lack of

showmanship or because of the damn microphones.



That is how the French horn is supposed to be played.
https://www.google.com/search?q=fren...w=1600&bih=741
When have you ever seen one played with the bell facing out?



  #78   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Arny Krueger[_5_] Arny Krueger[_5_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 239
Default Modern Reviewing Practices In Audio Rags Have Become Useless

"Audio_Empire" wrote in message
...
On Monday, August 5, 2013 4:36:31 PM UTC-7, Robert Peirce wrote:
In article ,

Scott wrote:


i gotta say, with classical music if there is sound reinforcement and I
am
there it is for one of two reasons. Either someone I absolutely have to
see
is playing or I got free tickets. Otherwise it is a deal breaker for
me. What
blows my mind is that someone would show up and be surprised by the
presence
of sound reinforcement. It's a big world and I guess all kinds of
things
happen but I have never been to a classical concert that used sound
reinforcement that I didn't know about ahead of time.


Another thing that irritates me is theatre. More and more that is being
amplified as well. I have shown up for amplified shows without knowing
it. With small group music you can usually figure out what instrument
is coming through the PA system. In theatre it is often difficult to
pick out the actor who is speaking or singing.


Most of this is a case of "doing it because they CAN rather than because
they SHOULD" Theater existed for centuries without SR. One exception
of course, is outdoor theater where wireless mikes on the actors is a
boon. I don't mind amplified voices where it helps one hear the dialog
but not for music.


The usual reason for using amplification is that the room is too large for
good coverage by the natural voice, whether vocal or instrumental. Some of
this is driven by economics. Larger audiences are required to pay rental,
wages, and overhead.

In the past actors and singers developed their voices with a premium being
placed on loudness. Electronics makes it possible to develop voices with
loudness traded off for tone and control.

In the case of music, there is an economic stimulus to reduce the cost of
delivering instrumental and vocal voices which provides an additional
stimulus for the use of electronics. Particularly theatrical productions
use technology to create the enjoyable sound of a larger and more complex
musical accompaniment with fewer live musicians.


  #79   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Arny Krueger[_5_] Arny Krueger[_5_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 239
Default Modern Reviewing Practices In Audio Rags Have Become Useless

"Robert Peirce" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Andrew Haley wrote:

if some of them are electronic, fair enough.


That's different. Electronic music has to be amplified. However, would
you mic a guitar amp and pipe it through a PA


That is a generally accepted practice.


  #80   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Arny Krueger[_5_] Arny Krueger[_5_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 239
Default Modern Reviewing Practices In Audio Rags Have Become Useless

"Audio_Empire" wrote in message
...
On Monday, August 5, 2013 7:03:57 PM UTC-7, Robert Peirce wrote:
In article ,

Andrew Haley wrote:


if some of them are electronic, fair enough.


That's different. Electronic music has to be amplified. However, would
you mic a guitar amp and pipe it through a PA?


Most recordings are made by plugging the guitar directly into the mixing
console.


Probably not so much. Guitar players seem to be chauvenistic about their
choices of guitar amps, and want them to be part of the signal path.

However I'm quite sure that there are exceptions whereby the
guitar amp itself (necessary for the musicians to HEAR themselves) is
miked acoustically, but that doesn't seem to be the norm.


It goes either way.


Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Industry rags Arkansan Raider Pro Audio 50 February 26th 12 08:47 PM
"Are Modern Recording Practices Damaging Music?" William Sommerwerck Pro Audio 64 February 20th 12 05:35 AM
Do we need science in subjective audio "reviewing"? [email protected] High End Audio 7 August 1st 08 07:36 AM
Do we need science in subjective audio "reviewing"? [email protected] High End Audio 23 July 24th 08 12:40 AM
Testing audio latency of modern operating systems Matteo B. Pro Audio 3 February 12th 05 12:27 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:31 PM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"