Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Modern Reviewing Practices In Audio Rags Have Become Useless
Modern audio Journalism is really infuriating to me because the folks
who make up the bulk of all magazine writers reviewing in the field of audio today try to assess the performance of audio components using program material that is totally unsuited to the task at hand. I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm getting damned tired of picking up a magazine like 'Stereophile', 'The Absolute Sound', or even Britain's great 'Hi-Fi News and Record Review' to read about some new piece of equipment only to encounter something like this: "...the soundstage and image specificity of these speakers was phenomenal. The kick drum playing of the band "Terd's" drummer Peter Pothead, was solidly located just behind the bass guitar and to the left of lead singer Johnny Juice." I'm sorry, folks, that's all stuff and nonsense. It doesn't matter where Peter Pohthead's kick drum was located (hopefully it shows-up where the rest of the drum set shows up, but it doesn't have to..) physically. It was likely captured by a drum kit mike setup, with one mike for the kick drum, another for the snare, still another for the tom-tom, and yet a fourth mike for the cymbals. And each one of those drum components appears in the speakers where they were electronically PLACED using pan-pots, not where they physically appeared on the recording "stage". And Johnny Juice's lead guitar? Well, he is likely holding it, but if his Marshall guitar amp is setting kinda off to the side, then that's where his guitar will SOUND like it is - assuming you were there with the band in the studio when the session was recorded. Otherwise, again, it will appear on playback wherever the recording engineers put it. Johnny's booze and dope strained gravel voice? Well that appears dead center, because again, it's where the engineer put him (it's traditional). Any attempt by a reviewer to make decisions about sound quality, imaging, even frequency response using this kind of studio music is simply an exercise in abject futility. First of all. If you don't ever listen to real, live, amplified music, and listen often, you have no idea what real instruments are SUPPOSED to sound like. People who listen to pop music almost exclusively have likely NEVER attended a classical (or even a non-amplified jazz) concert. If you don't know what real music is supposed to sound like, how can you judge what a playback system is doing to the music? You can't. I know there are people who will tell you that they can tell the difference between a Fender Stratocaster Guitar and a Gibson or a Martin electric guitar. Perhaps they can, but what about the sound imparted by the different brands and styles of amplifiers used with these guitars? Can one tell the difference after the sound had gone through a fuzz box? I don't claim to know. Here's another question that comes to mind. In studio settings many instruments such as a saxophone or a trumpet are captured using a contact microphone. These mikes pick-up the actual vibrations of the body of the instrument itself rather than the sound (I.E. differences in air pressure) heard by a regular mike sitting in front of the instrument. I can tell you from experience that an instrument captured by a contact mike sounds almost nothing like the same instrument captured by a traditional mike. And all of this manipulation is occurring before the mike signals reach the control room and go through frequency shifters, voice multipliers, sound-on-sound and sound-with-sound processors, reverb generators, compressors, limiters, and a myriad of other special effects boxes that I'm not familiar with! When recording personnel record the instruments rather than the space these instruments occupy, all bets for accuracy are off. Now I make no apologies for, nor do I try to hide, my personal disdain for what has passed for popular music over the last 50 years or so. I also realize that mass taste has changed mightily in that time and I will defend with my very being the right of each individual to listen to the music he or she LIKES. But, this has nothing, whatsoever, to do with a genre's suitability to the task at hand. In 1970, for instance, an audio publication was about how classical music was reproduced on the equipment of the day and they actually had something REAL to compare the equipment against. Pop music was almost never mentioned and jazz only rarely. Now it's completely reversed. Every review I read tells me how The Who, or Cat Stevens, or Rod Stewart' latest album (along with a myriad of more recent groups and soloists that I have never heard of at all) sounds on this piece of equipment or that (jazz is still, rarely mentioned). These kinds of comparisons are totally meaningless! If the music doesn't exist in real space, then the accuracy of the playback totally becomes a matter personal tastes and as a means of communicating opinions from one group of people to another, it's arbitrary, and clearly NOT useful. 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. Frustrating! |
#2
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Modern Reviewing Practices In Audio Rags Have Become Useless
On 7/30/2013 3:52 PM, Audio_Empire wrote:
snip First of all. If you don't ever listen to real, live, amplified music, I assume you meant "un-amplified"? Pop music was almost never mentioned and jazz only rarely. Now it's completely reversed. Every review I read tells me how The Who, or Cat Stevens, or Rod Stewart' latest album (along with a myriad of more recent groups and soloists that I have never heard of at all) This would appear to say volumes about your knowledge of pop music. If the music doesn't exist in real space, then the accuracy of the playback totally becomes a matter personal tastes and as a means of communicating opinions from one group of people to another, it's arbitrary, and clearly NOT useful. Personal tastes, irrespective of listening tastes, are arbitrary, and NOT useful to others relative to what they may like or find "accurate". 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. It bears directly on how a system will sound with the referenced system - in the opinion of the reviewer. How is that less useful than a review of how a speaker system sounds with music that the reader couldn't care less about, and won't be listening too? Frustrating! They are entertainment, IMO, and nothing more, no matter what the musical selections are. Keith |
#3
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Modern Reviewing Practices In Audio Rags Have Become Useless
Audio_Empire wrote:
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. 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. Andrew. |
#4
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Modern Reviewing Practices In Audio Rags Have Become Useless
In article ,
Andrew Haley wrote: Audio_Empire wrote: 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. 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 . It might have made the kick-drum of some rock group sit up and do tricks, but it made organ music sound dreadful. 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. 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". --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: --- |
#5
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Modern Reviewing Practices In Audio Rags Have Become Useless
Audio_Empire wrote:
In article , Andrew Haley wrote: Audio_Empire wrote: 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. That's your claim. You can repeat it as much as you like. 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 . It might have made the kick-drum of some rock group sit up and do tricks, but it made organ music sound dreadful. 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. Or, perhaps, he didn't know good sound. Flabby bass usually sounds bad on all music with bass. 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". All music is artificial, with the possible exception of birdsong. I do know what real music sounds like and I do judge sound quality using artificial musical performances such as Dark Side of the Moon. It's an immaculate piece of work, with a great deal of attention paid to superb sound. I also listen to purely acoustic music, to the extent that recordings can be purely anything. "There are simply two kinds of music, good music and the other kind ..... the only yardstick by which the result should be judged is simply that of how it sounds. If it sounds good it's successful; if it doesn't it has failed." Andrew. |
#6
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Modern Reviewing Practices In Audio Rags Have Become Useless
In article , KH
wrote: On 7/30/2013 3:52 PM, Audio_Empire wrote: snip First of all. If you don't ever listen to real, live, amplified music, I assume you meant "un-amplified"? Pop music was almost never mentioned and jazz only rarely. Now it's completely reversed. Every review I read tells me how The Who, or Cat Stevens, or Rod Stewart' latest album (along with a myriad of more recent groups and soloists that I have never heard of at all) 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. If the music doesn't exist in real space, then the accuracy of the playback totally becomes a matter personal tastes and as a means of communicating opinions from one group of people to another, it's arbitrary, and clearly NOT useful. Personal tastes, irrespective of listening tastes, are arbitrary, and NOT useful to others relative to what they may like or find "accurate". 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. It bears directly on how a system will sound with the referenced system - in the opinion of the reviewer. How is that less useful than a review of how a speaker system sounds with music that the reader couldn't care less about, and won't be listening too? Because he will at least know that the reviewer is basing his opinion on the quality of reproduction of a known absolute. A string section is a string section, but an electric guitar can be made (and often is) to sound like anything the musician and engineer want it to sound like. I.E., It's not a REAL acoustic instrument that can be experienced with nothing between the player and the listener but real space. Frustrating! They are entertainment, IMO, and nothing more, no matter what the musical selections are. Again, we're not talking about the entertainment qualities of the music. That IS, and should be, a matter of personal taste. We are talking about judging the reproductive qualities of electro-mechanical devices designed to play music accurately. If one doesn't know what the music is SUPPOSED to sound like, how can one judge the accuracy of playback? We know what a violin is supposed to sound like. we know what a solo acoustic guitar is supposed to sound like, and we know what a technologically unaltered human voice sounds like. These things can be used * to a greater or lesser extent, to judge the reproductive accuracy of a playback system. Not just some some arbitrary "it sounds good", but it's ACCURACY. Wholly artificial non-acoustic studio music has none of these qualities. Anyone who says that they know what "Dark Side of the Moon" is SUPPOSED to sound like, unless they were there in the studio when the album was recorded, is either deluding himself, or lying. There is no third alternative. Now, one may LIKE what they hear when they play "Dark Side of the Moon" on a particular stereo system, but they have no way of knowing to any degree of certitude whether that pleasing playback is accurate to the original performance and that's my point. If all you are interested in is that the music is recognizable as being Pink Floyd, fine. But don't tell me that makes any piece of stereo gear accurate just because it does that. There is more to it than that and I maintain that one cannot make any determination beyond "it sounds good to me" using music that has no REAL SOUND without a studio and a cadre of engineer and producers between the performers and the listeners. --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: --- |
#7
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Modern Reviewing Practices In Audio Rags Have Become Useless
In article ,
Andrew Haley wrote: Audio_Empire wrote: In article , Andrew Haley wrote: Audio_Empire wrote: 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. That's your claim. You can repeat it as much as you like. I find it remarkable that anybody would try to refute this claim, especially since it's much more than that, it's actually not only fact, but it should be self-evident fact! 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 . It might have made the kick-drum of some rock group sit up and do tricks, but it made organ music sound dreadful. 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. Or, perhaps, he didn't know good sound. Flabby bass usually sounds bad on all music with bass. I don't doubt that. 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". All music is artificial, with the possible exception of birdsong. Now you're being purposely obtuse as I'm more than reasonably sure that you know exactly what I mean. I do know what real music sounds like and I do judge sound quality using artificial musical performances such as Dark Side of the Moon. It's an immaculate piece of work, with a great deal of attention paid to superb sound. I also listen to purely acoustic music, to the extent that recordings can be purely anything. How can you judge things like soundstage and imaging from such recordings that have have none? "There are simply two kinds of music, good music and the other kind .... the only yardstick by which the result should be judged is simply that of how it sounds. If it sounds good it's successful; if it doesn't it has failed." I just don't think understand, possible on purpose. I say LISTEN to what you like, but EVALUATE for publication using the best acoustical source material you can find. If magazine reviewers would follow that simple rule of thumb, they would do their readers and the industry a great service. --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: --- |
#8
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Modern Reviewing Practices In Audio Rags Have Become Useless
In article ,
ScottW wrote: On Wednesday, July 31, 2013 10:17:47 AM UTC-7, Andrew Haley wrote: Audio_Empire wrote: 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. Maximum accuracy is not always maximum pleasure. But it is the goal of high-fidelity. But anyway, whether it is or isn't "maximum pleasure" is beside the point. Using studio-recorded pop music as a "reference", the reviewer wouldn't be able to judge accuracy if he heard it! I've heard a live snare drum in my listening room, I didn't like it and I don't need nor want a speaker that can recreate that sound. Now we're back to taste again and grasping at straws, as well, I see. --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: --- |
#9
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Modern Reviewing Practices In Audio Rags Have Become Useless
On 7/31/2013 5:48 PM, Audio_Empire wrote:
In article , Andrew Haley wrote: Audio_Empire wrote: In article , Andrew Haley wrote: Audio_Empire wrote: 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. That's your claim. You can repeat it as much as you like. I find it remarkable that anybody would try to refute this claim, especially since it's much more than that, it's actually not only fact, but it should be self-evident fact! 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 . It might have made the kick-drum of some rock group sit up and do tricks, but it made organ music sound dreadful. 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. Or, perhaps, he didn't know good sound. Flabby bass usually sounds bad on all music with bass. I don't doubt that. 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". All music is artificial, with the possible exception of birdsong. Now you're being purposely obtuse as I'm more than reasonably sure that you know exactly what I mean. I do know what real music sounds like and I do judge sound quality using artificial musical performances such as Dark Side of the Moon. It's an immaculate piece of work, with a great deal of attention paid to superb sound. I also listen to purely acoustic music, to the extent that recordings can be purely anything. How can you judge things like soundstage and imaging from such recordings that have have none? "There are simply two kinds of music, good music and the other kind .... the only yardstick by which the result should be judged is simply that of how it sounds. If it sounds good it's successful; if it doesn't it has failed." I just don't think understand, possible on purpose. I say LISTEN to what you like, but EVALUATE for publication using the best acoustical source material you can find. If magazine reviewers would follow that simple rule of thumb, they would do their readers and the industry a great service. --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: --- Looks to me like you are both right - or both wrong, depending. If the prospective buyer is a rockaholic, he wants speakers that do rock really well, and there is nothing wrong with reviewing the speakers with that in mind. If accurate reproduction of acoustic material (and really other music too) is the prospective buyer's goal... this stuff is so simple, guys, you must just like to argue, eh? bl |
#10
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Modern Reviewing Practices In Audio Rags Have Become Useless
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. snip It bears directly on how a system will sound with the referenced system - in the opinion of the reviewer. How is that less useful than a review of how a speaker system sounds with music that the reader couldn't care less about, and won't be listening too? Because he will at least know that the reviewer is basing his opinion on the quality of reproduction of a known absolute. A string section is a string section, but an electric guitar can be made (and often is) to sound like anything the musician and engineer want it to sound like. And to someone who never listens to string sections, but listens to electric guitars routinely, of what value is an opinion on accuracy of "strings" reproduction? I know what your point is, but you fail to take into account that many audiophiles - including yours truly - listen to many types of music that doesn't qualify as "suitable" in your lexicon, but we nonetheless care a great deal about quality. You don't understand how that's possible; fair enough. But your opinion is no more valid than mine. I.E., It's not a REAL acoustic instrument that can be experienced with nothing between the player and the listener but real space. Frustrating! They are entertainment, IMO, and nothing more, no matter what the musical selections are. Again, we're not talking about the entertainment qualities of the music. No, I'm talking about *reviews* here, not music. You are describing reviews that have relevance to *you* as the only useful reviews. My point is that reviews are all subjective, and only useful as entertainment since there are no standards being employed. Even if "live, unamplified" is used as the "reference", there is zero evidence that I (or anyone else) would agree with any particular reviewer or review. snip I maintain that one cannot make any determination beyond "it sounds good to me" And yes, I would agree with that point. *Without* any qualifiers however. Keith |
#11
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Modern Reviewing Practices In Audio Rags Have Become Useless
Bob Lombard wrote:
Looks to me like you are both right - or both wrong, depending. If the prospective buyer is a rockaholic, he wants speakers that do rock really well, and there is nothing wrong with reviewing the speakers with that in mind. If accurate reproduction of acoustic material (and really other music too) is the prospective buyer's goal... this stuff is so simple, guys, you must just like to argue, eh? bl Right. Sometimes the goal of a recording is realism w respect to everything about the original performance. Sometimes the goal is pure entertainment, a composite of elements mixed together to shock, surprise, enlighten, but mainly to entertain. So if we consider the general case to be that the recording is always a new work of art based on some acoustical event or events, we can evaluate it on its own merits within our own system against other systems, but not against the real original because we don't have access to it except from our memory of similar events with similar instruments. We all know what a piano sounds like. We all know what a drum kit sounds like. Human voice, horns, strings, and so on. We also know what a live event sounds like, so we can judge how much like that this particular recording sounds in the context of our playback environment. So the recording is the reference, not the original event, and reviewer A can say what it sounds like on his system, and B on his, etc, and sometimes certain recordings end up as references for some effect that comes through on some systems but not on others. Some things could be happening at the bass end, for example, that do not come through on some anemic systems. Some spatial effects could come through on some sytems that others can't get on theirs. So barring going over to each other's homes and comparing, that's about the best we can do. I have learned some audible effects by reading others' descriptions. Sometimes they go into la la land and try to describe nonsense terms such as harmonic this or that, or micro dynamics, or sweat forming on lips, to show how perceptive they are, or to go overboard on their praise of some exotic piece of crap. You can usually tell when their descriptions are truthful to what systems can do and when they are bull****ting. I have stopped reading them altogether. It's just not all that entertaining any more to read some of them. I guess it depends on the person who is describing reproduction effects, if it is an experienced recording engineer or just a magazine type who is paid to get his crayons and adjectives out. But we all know that. Gary Eickmeier |
#12
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Modern Reviewing Practices In Audio Rags Have Become Useless
On Wednesday, July 31, 2013 5:04:51 PM UTC-7, Bob Lombard wrote:
On 7/31/2013 5:48 PM, Audio_Empire wrote: In article , Andrew Haley wrote: Audio_Empire wrote: In article , Andrew Haley wrote: Audio_Empire wrote: 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. That's your claim. You can repeat it as much as you like. I find it remarkable that anybody would try to refute this claim, especially since it's much more than that, it's actually not only fact, but it should be self-evident fact! 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 . It might have made the kick-drum of some rock group sit up and do tricks, but it made organ music sound dreadful. 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. Or, perhaps, he didn't know good sound. Flabby bass usually sounds bad on all music with bass. I don't doubt that. 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". All music is artificial, with the possible exception of birdsong. Now you're being purposely obtuse as I'm more than reasonably sure that you know exactly what I mean. I do know what real music sounds like and I do judge sound quality using artificial musical performances such as Dark Side of the Moon. It's an immaculate piece of work, with a great deal of attention paid to superb sound. I also listen to purely acoustic music, to the extent that recordings can be purely anything. How can you judge things like soundstage and imaging from such recordings that have have none? "There are simply two kinds of music, good music and the other kind .... the only yardstick by which the result should be judged is simply that of how it sounds. If it sounds good it's successful; if it doesn't it has failed." I just don't think understand, possible on purpose. I say LISTEN to what you like, but EVALUATE for publication using the best acoustical source material you can find. If magazine reviewers would follow that simple rule of thumb, they would do their readers and the industry a great service. --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: --- Looks to me like you are both right - or both wrong, depending. If the prospective buyer is a rockaholic, he wants speakers that do rock really well, and there is nothing wrong with reviewing the speakers with that in mind. If accurate reproduction of acoustic material (and really other music too) is the prospective buyer's goal... this stuff is so simple, guys, you must just like to argue, eh? bl Really, that's not the point. The publications in question should not be aiming their reviews at any particular type of music listener. They should be reviewing equipment for it's ability to reproduce all music. After all, these publications still review new Classical, Jazz and pop/rock releases. If they are only reviewing equipment for it's ability with rock, then I would think that they would have an editorial policy that reflects that goal. They don't. What you seem to be to saying is that a reader who is only interested in rock wants equipment that does rock really well, and I'm saying that someone who listens only to rock has no idea what reproductive accuracy is all about and would seem to care less. Fine, but that has nothing whatsoever to do with high-fidelity, because there are NO STANDARDS of reproduction for studio produced electronic music. [ Doublespacing removed. -- dsr ] |
#13
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Modern Reviewing Practices In Audio Rags Have Become Useless
In article , 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. snip It bears directly on how a system will sound with the referenced system - in the opinion of the reviewer. How is that less useful than a review of how a speaker system sounds with music that the reader couldn't care less about, and won't be listening too? Because he will at least know that the reviewer is basing his opinion on the quality of reproduction of a known absolute. A string section is a string section, but an electric guitar can be made (and often is) to sound like anything the musician and engineer want it to sound like. And to someone who never listens to string sections, but listens to electric guitars routinely, of what value is an opinion on accuracy of "strings" reproduction? Not important. What is important is that the reviewer KNOWS what a string section sounds like and therefore he can tell how accurate the reproducing system is to that sound. Then he can tell his readers that this system is very accurate. They can then go listen to their pop/rock music knowing that it will accurately reproduce that as well. The reverse, is unfortunately not the case, and that's my point. I know what your point is, but you fail to take into account that many audiophiles - including yours truly - listen to many types of music that doesn't qualify as "suitable" in your lexicon, but we nonetheless care a great deal about quality. You don't understand how that's possible; fair enough. But your opinion is no more valid than mine. If that's what you think my point is, then you are wrong. You have NO idea what I'm getting at. I.E., It's not a REAL acoustic instrument that can be experienced with nothing between the player and the listener but real space. Frustrating! They are entertainment, IMO, and nothing more, no matter what the musical selections are. Again, we're not talking about the entertainment qualities of the music.. No, I'm talking about *reviews* here, not music. You are describing reviews that have relevance to *you* as the only useful reviews. AGAIN, YOU MISS THE POINT COMPLETELY. High-Fidelity is defined as: "The reproduction of sound with little distortion, giving a result very similar to the original." How can it do that when no one knows what the original is supposed to sound like? We all know what an acoustic guitar or a grand piano sounds like and can easily tell when we hear a system that makes it sound different from what we expect - because we all KNOW (unless we've lived in a cave somewhere) what we expect the instruments to sound like. But pop/rock is TOTALLY a studio creation. If you weren't there when the sound was "realized" how can you judge any playback system's accuracy to that sound. You can't and that's that! My point is that reviews are all subjective, and only useful as entertainment since there are no standards being employed. While that might or might not be true (depending on the reviewer) at least if they are using real unamplified music as a reference, they have a chance of getting it right. Using studio manufactured music, they don't even have a valid starting point, never mind the destination. Even if "live, unamplified" is used as the "reference", there is zero evidence that I (or anyone else) would agree with any particular reviewer or review. Again, that's grasping at straws. If a person knows what a grand piano, for instance, sounds like, then he is going to have a pretty good idea whether the grand piano he is hearing sounds like a grand piano or a kazoo. Sorry to use such a gross example, but you continue to conflate the unsuitability of pop and rock as an evaluation tool with it's legitimacy as an art form. As long as you (and others) continue to take umbrage at my disdain for the program material as music rather than focus on the fact that it's the FORM the music takes here that I'm complaining about, not its content, then you are continually going to misunderstand what I'm trying to say. snip I maintain that one cannot make any determination beyond "it sounds good to me" And yes, I would agree with that point. *Without* any qualifiers however. Then what's the use of the concept of high-fidelity? Fidelity to what? |
#14
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Modern Reviewing Practices In Audio Rags Have Become Useless
Audio_Empire wrote:
In article , Andrew Haley wrote: Audio_Empire wrote: In article , Andrew Haley wrote: Audio_Empire wrote: 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. That's your claim. You can repeat it as much as you like. I find it remarkable that anybody would try to refute this claim, especially since it's much more than that, it's actually not only fact, but it should be self-evident fact! I don't need to refute it because you've never provided any evidence to support it. 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". All music is artificial, with the possible exception of birdsong. Now you're being purposely obtuse as I'm more than reasonably sure that you know exactly what I mean. I do know what you mean, and I believe it's fundamentally incorrect. Your notion of "natural" versus "artificial" sound is nonsense. A musical instrument is artifical, whether it is powered mechanically or electrically. They all are acoustic; they all produce sound. I do know what real music sounds like and I do judge sound quality using artificial musical performances such as Dark Side of the Moon. It's an immaculate piece of work, with a great deal of attention paid to superb sound. I also listen to purely acoustic music, to the extent that recordings can be purely anything. How can you judge things like soundstage and imaging from such recordings that have have none? If a recording has none, then you can't judge it. "There are simply two kinds of music, good music and the other kind .... the only yardstick by which the result should be judged is simply that of how it sounds. If it sounds good it's successful; if it doesn't it has failed." I just don't think understand, possible on purpose. I say LISTEN to what you like, but EVALUATE for publication using the best acoustical source material you can find. That doesn't make sense. We're listening for pleasure, so we evaluate for pleasure. It would be unwise not to listen to recordings of purely mechanical instruments, particularly the voice, during loudspeaker evaluation. However, such recordings are not often the best tests of bass response. I've certainly heard well-regarded speakers that fail miserably when pushed hard with bass-heavy recordings. If magazine reviewers would follow that simple rule of thumb, they would do their readers and the industry a great service. There is no fundamental difference between recording the sound of a band of musicians with electrical instruments and mechanical instruments. Some engineers use spot mikes on every instrument of an orchestra, then pan-pot the result. Some engineers make the most of the room sound. But people are going to listen to the *best music*, not the *best- recorded music*. Of course. And, of course, it makes sense to evaluate loudspeakers with the recordings people will listen to. The era of hi-fi buffs listening to special "hi-fi" recordings that no-one else ever bought is over, and not before time. As I've said here before, Floyd Toole's proposal for a standardized evaluation of studio monitor loudspeakers and rooms makes sense. Once we have that, we can replicate it in the home. He also talks about the correlation between loudspeaker measurements and listener preference. He points out that much about what makes loudspeakers and rooms sound good is known, but is not much used by the industry: "... much seems to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt. Most of the evidence fits together in a logical pattern, and although not simple, it is eminently comprehensible." Andrew. |
#15
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Modern Reviewing Practices In Audio Rags Have Become Useless
Bob Lombard wrote:
Looks to me like you are both right - or both wrong, depending. If the prospective buyer is a rockaholic, he wants speakers that do rock really well, and there is nothing wrong with reviewing the speakers with that in mind. If accurate reproduction of acoustic material (and really other music too) is the prospective buyer's goal... this stuff is so simple, guys, you must just like to argue, eh? I don't think so. A well-designed loudspeaker should reproduce the sound it's fed, whatever the source of that sound. The idea of a "speaker that does rock really well" is fundamentally misguided. The ideal speaker doesn't have any sound of its own. Andrew. |
#16
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Modern Reviewing Practices In Audio Rags Have Become Useless
In article ,
Andrew Haley wrote: Bob Lombard wrote: Looks to me like you are both right - or both wrong, depending. If the prospective buyer is a rockaholic, he wants speakers that do rock really well, and there is nothing wrong with reviewing the speakers with that in mind. If accurate reproduction of acoustic material (and really other music too) is the prospective buyer's goal... this stuff is so simple, guys, you must just like to argue, eh? I don't think so. A well-designed loudspeaker should reproduce the sound it's fed, whatever the source of that sound. The idea of a "speaker that does rock really well" is fundamentally misguided. The ideal speaker doesn't have any sound of its own. Andrew. That is correct and is basically part and parcel of my point. All speaker characteristics (as well as the characteristics of other components such as amps, DACS, CD players and turntables. etc.) can be assessed using properly recorded acoustic music, and if the component is good using that, it will be good with studio-produced pop and rock. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for the reverse. For instance, you can't use pop/rock to test for image specificity, because being multitrack and multi-miked with all instruments pan-potted into place by the recording team, it has none. There's no image height, no front to back no stereo depth. |
#17
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Modern Reviewing Practices In Audio Rags Have Become Useless
On Thursday, August 1, 2013 6:58:35 AM UTC-7, Andrew Haley wrote:
Audio_Empire wrote: In article , Andrew Haley wrote: Audio_Empire wrote: In article , Andrew Haley wrote: Audio_Empire wrote: 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. That's your claim. You can repeat it as much as you like. I find it remarkable that anybody would try to refute this claim, especially since it's much more than that, it's actually not only fact, but it should be self-evident fact! I don't need to refute it because you've never provided any evidence to support it. If you knew anything about the subject, you would find my "claim" to be self evident. I.E. It doesn't need "evidence" it just "is" like the sun rising in the east and setting in the west. 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". All music is artificial, with the possible exception of birdsong. Now you're being purposely obtuse as I'm more than reasonably sure that you know exactly what I mean. I do know what you mean, and I believe it's fundamentally incorrect. Your notion of "natural" versus "artificial" sound is nonsense. A musical instrument is artifical, whether it is powered mechanically or electrically. They all are acoustic; they all produce sound. Who said anything about "artificial" sound. I said acoustic interments where the space they occupy is captured as opposed to mostly electronic instruments where the instrument itself is capture and then manipulated in a mixing console and highly processed using various special effects devices. The sound is hardly "artificial" in either case. I do know what real music sounds like and I do judge sound quality using artificial musical performances such as Dark Side of the Moon. It's an immaculate piece of work, with a great deal of attention paid to superb sound. I also listen to purely acoustic music, to the extent that recordings can be purely anything. You seem to be the one using the term "artificial", not me. How can you judge things like soundstage and imaging from such recordings that have have none? If a recording has none, then you can't judge it. And pop and rock, being multi-channel mono, has none. So using it to judge playback performance gives the reviewer an incomplete picture of the capabilities of the equipment at hand right off the bat. Thanks for making my point for me. "There are simply two kinds of music, good music and the other kind .... the only yardstick by which the result should be judged is simply that of how it sounds. If it sounds good it's successful; if it doesn't it has failed." I just don't think understand, possible on purpose. I say LISTEN to what you like, but EVALUATE for publication using the best acoustical source material you can find. That doesn't make sense. It makes perfect sense. use the program material that DOES THE JOB. We're listening for pleasure, so we evaluate for pleasure. It would be unwise not to listen to recordings of purely mechanical instruments, particularly the voice, during loudspeaker evaluation. On the contrary. I know a well respected reviewer whose wife is a singer. He uses recordings of her voice as part of his loudspeaker evaluation because he KNOWS the sound of his wife's voice so well. Human voice can tell a lot about how a speaker performs, especially if one knows the voice intimately. However, such recordings are not often the best tests of bass response. I've certainly heard well-regarded speakers that fail miserably when pushed hard with bass-heavy recordings. If magazine reviewers would follow that simple rule of thumb, they would do their readers and the industry a great service. There is no fundamental difference between recording the sound of a band of musicians with electrical instruments and mechanical instruments. Some engineers use spot mikes on every instrument of an orchestra, then pan-pot the result. Some engineers make the most of the room sound. These are still preferable as an acoustic instrument has a known sound. But, you are right. Multi-miked and multi-track (as in more than two) acoustic instrument recordings are not ideal. But people are going to listen to the *best music*, not the *best- recorded music*. Of course. Doesn't matter to me what they "listen" to, it's what they review components for publication with that concerns me. And, of course, it makes sense to evaluate loudspeakers with the recordings people will listen to. I don't see why, especially if said recordings fail to exercise all aspects of the reproduction, which, of course, is exactly where studio-bound recordings fail. The era of hi-fi buffs listening to special "hi-fi" recordings that no-one else ever bought is over, and not before time. Too bad. it means that the whole hobby is now running open-loop with no As I've said here before, Floyd Toole's proposal for a standardized evaluation of studio monitor loudspeakers and rooms makes sense. That could well be. The danger there, of course, is standardization often stagnates real development. And of course standardizing studio monitor performance will do much more for pop and rock than it will do for recording companies like Reference Recordings and Chesky. Once we have that, we can replicate it in the home. He also talks about the correlation between loudspeaker measurements and listener preference. He points out that much about what makes loudspeakers and rooms sound good is known, but is not much used by the industry: "... much seems to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt. Most of the evidence fits together in a logical pattern, and although not simple, it is eminently comprehensible." Agreed. |
#18
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Modern Reviewing Practices In Audio Rags Have Become Useless
On Wednesday, July 31, 2013 7:46:42 PM UTC-7, KH wrote:
On 7/31/2013 10:29 AM, Audio_Empire wrote: =20 In article , KH =20 wrote: =20 =20 On 7/30/2013 3:52 PM, Audio_Empire wrote: =20 snip =20 =20 =20 This would appear to say volumes about your knowledge of pop music. =20 =20 I know enough =AD more than I want to. And if you are saying that I am =20 wrong here, then I believe it says more about your knowledge of music =20 and reproduction than it does about mine. =20 =20 =20 I'm saying you clearly don't know the range of "pop" music, quite a lot= =20 =20 of which is acoustic, because you don't care, and *you* don't listen to= =20 =20 any, by your own admission, so you don't seem to be in a strong position= =20 =20 to opine on it's suitability for auditioning. You continue to miss the point. If a piece of pop music is acoustic, then t= here=20 I have absolutely no problem with some reviewer evaluating equipment using= =20 it. Just because I dislike pop/rock and it is no part of my musical life do= esn't=20 mean that reject it as an evaluation tool based on that dislike. My objecti= ons=20 are based solely upon the suitability (or lack thereof) of the results of t= he=20 production process for the task. You also seem to think that my criticism is predicated on the fact that I, = personally have no common ground with these reviewers and that since their results are= =20 obtained using recordings with which I am unfamiliar, I condemn them. Nothi= ng could be further from the truth. My criticisms are based upon my knowledge = of=20 recording practices and how I know that many pop and rock groups' performan= ces=20 cannot exist outside of a studio as witnessed by the undeniable fact that w= hen these=20 performers go on concert tours, THEY HAVE TO TAKE THEIR STUDIOS WITH THEM, = or their concert performances can't exist and their popular works won't sound = like their recordings of the same works. . =20 |
#19
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Modern Reviewing Practices In Audio Rags Have Become Useless
Andrew Haley wrote:
As I've said here before, Floyd Toole's proposal for a standardized evaluation of studio monitor loudspeakers and rooms makes sense. Once we have that, we can replicate it in the home. He also talks about the correlation between loudspeaker measurements and listener preference. He points out that much about what makes loudspeakers and rooms sound good is known, but is not much used by the industry: "... much seems to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt. Most of the evidence fits together in a logical pattern, and although not simple, it is eminently comprehensible." Andrew. I think Toole has the beginnings of an idea about evaluation, but his universe of speakers and rooms is limited to box speakers that can fit on a turntable and an IEC standard listening room or a recording studio. There are a lot more possibilities. I like to describe the problem in terms of what we can hear about speakers and rooms. 1. Physical size - we can hear how big the presentation in front of us is. This can vary from a small living room to the stage of a performing theater. We can hear the difference between a boombox and a large home theater with 5 to 10 speakers in it. 2. Power - we can hear the acoustic power output of the speakers. They should be able to reproduce everything from the 1812 Overture to a string quartet. Birdsongs to E.Power Biggs. 3. Signal fidelity - we can hear frequency response, noise, distortion beyond a certain point. This problem has been largely solved at this point in audio history. 4. Spatial characteristics - we can hear the imaging of individual instruments, balances between and among instruments, spaciousness of the frontal soundstage, depth, surround sound if any. A system should be able to reproduce everything from the Beethoven 9th to a single solo guitar. I agree with Andrew that speakers should not be tuned for certain kinds of reproduction, they should be able to play anything and everything that is thrown at them with EASE. Gary Eickmeier |
#20
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Modern Reviewing Practices In Audio Rags Have Become Useless
Audio_Empire wrote:
On Thursday, August 1, 2013 6:58:35 AM UTC-7, Andrew Haley wrote: Audio_Empire wrote: In article , Andrew Haley wrote: Audio_Empire wrote: In article , Andrew Haley wrote: Audio_Empire wrote: 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. That's your claim. You can repeat it as much as you like. I find it remarkable that anybody would try to refute this claim, especially since it's much more than that, it's actually not only fact, but it should be self-evident fact! I don't need to refute it because you've never provided any evidence to support it. If you knew anything about the subject, you would find my "claim" to be self evident. I.E. It doesn't need "evidence" it just "is" like the sun rising in the east and setting in the west. Haha, QED! Your notion of "natural" versus "artificial" sound is nonsense. A musical instrument is artifical, whether it is powered mechanically or electrically. They all are acoustic; they all produce sound. Who said anything about "artificial" sound. You did: 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". I said acoustic interments where the space they occupy is captured as opposed to mostly electronic instruments where the instrument itself is capture and then manipulated in a mixing console and highly processed using various special effects devices. The sound is hardly "artificial" in either case. Of course it is. It's not natural, is it? How can you judge things like soundstage and imaging from such recordings that have have none? If a recording has none, then you can't judge it. And pop and rock, being multi-channel mono, has none. So using it to judge playback performance gives the reviewer an incomplete picture of the capabilities of the equipment at hand right off the bat. Thanks for making my point for me. No, I was simply replying to your tautology. If a recording has no soundstage, then there is none to judge. We're listening for pleasure, so we evaluate for pleasure. It would be unwise not to listen to recordings of purely mechanical instruments, particularly the voice, during loudspeaker evaluation. On the contrary. I know a well respected reviewer whose wife is a singer. He uses recordings of her voice as part of his loudspeaker evaluation because he KNOWS the sound of his wife's voice so well. Human voice can tell a lot about how a speaker performs, especially if one knows the voice intimately. Which is why it would be unwise not to use such recordings. You seem to be agreeing, but then you say "On the contrary." If magazine reviewers would follow that simple rule of thumb, they would do their readers and the industry a great service. There is no fundamental difference between recording the sound of a band of musicians with electrical instruments and mechanical instruments. Some engineers use spot mikes on every instrument of an orchestra, then pan-pot the result. Some engineers make the most of the room sound. These are still preferable as an acoustic instrument has a known sound. Not known to whom? This is the argument from ignorance, no more than "I don't know what it sounds like, so no-one does." And, of course, it makes sense to evaluate loudspeakers with the recordings people will listen to. I don't see why, especially if said recordings fail to exercise all aspects of the reproduction, which, of course, is exactly where studio-bound recordings fail. All recordings fail to some extent: that's why you have to listen to different recordings. The recordings are good for different things. For example, if you want to know about clean, crisp bass response an acoustic bass isn't going t do it; an electric bass is perfect. As I've said here before, Floyd Toole's proposal for a standardized evaluation of studio monitor loudspeakers and rooms makes sense. That could well be. The danger there, of course, is standardization often stagnates real development. And of course standardizing studio monitor performance will do much more for pop and rock than it will do for recording companies like Reference Recordings and Chesky. Who, to a large extent, don't matter. What matters is the best music. Andrew. |
#21
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Modern Reviewing Practices In Audio Rags Have Become Useless
On Tuesday, July 30, 2013 3:52:45 PM UTC-7, Audio_Empire wrote:
Modern audio Journalism is really infuriating to me because the folks who make up the bulk of all magazine writers reviewing in the field of audio today try to assess the performance of audio components using program material that is totally unsuited to the task at hand. I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm getting damned tired of picking up a magazine like 'Stereophile', 'The Absolute Sound', or even Britain's great 'Hi-Fi News and Record Review' to read about some new piece of equipment only to encounter something like this: "...the soundstage and image specificity of these speakers was phenomenal. The kick drum playing of the band "Terd's" drummer Peter Pothead, was solidly located just behind the bass guitar and to the left of lead singer Johnny Juice." While I am not reading many reviews of audio equipment these days I think pretty much everything you are asserting above and in the rest of this thread is quite wrong. When we are talking about stereo playback, imaging is imaging regardless of the source material and recording techniques. If the aural illusion is that a kick drum images "solidly" just behind the aural image of the bass guitar and to the left of the singer that is a legitimate observation. And one can use that source material to compare the imaging characteristics of other systems and other components inserted into any given system. I'm sorry, folks, that's all stuff and nonsense. It doesn't matter where Peter Pohthead's kick drum was located (hopefully it shows-up where the rest of the drum set shows up, but it doesn't have to..) physically. Actually that is nonsense. It doesn't matter that it doesn't matter where the kick drum was located during the recording. What matters is how it images during playback. It was likely captured by a drum kit mike setup, with one mike for the kick drum, another for the snare, still another for the tom-tom, and yet a fourth mike for the cymbals. And each one of those drum components appears in the speakers where they were electronically PLACED using pan-pots, not where they physically appeared on the recording "stage". And Johnny Juice's lead guitar? Well, he is likely holding it, but if his Marshall guitar amp is setting kinda off to the side, then that's where his guitar will SOUND like it is - assuming you were there with the band in the studio when the session was recorded. Otherwise, again, it will appear on playback wherever the recording engineers put it. Johnny's booze and dope strained gravel voice? Well that appears dead center, because again, it's where the engineer put him (it's traditional). Any attempt by a reviewer to make decisions about sound quality, imaging, even frequency response using this kind of studio music is simply an exercise in abject futility. So what? Same can be said of any multimiked classical recording. Recording techniques vary from recording to recording. Doesn't matter. If the consumer wants the music and is interested in sound quality then how any given recording sounds in any given system IS meaningful. There is nothing "futile" about it if listeners like the music. First of all. If you don't ever listen to real, live, amplified music, and listen often, you have no idea what real instruments are SUPPOSED to sound like. 1. Electric guitars and synthesizers ARE real instruments. 2.Any instrument is SUPPOSED to sound how the maker intended them to sound. Electric instruments are no different. People who listen to pop music almost exclusively have likely NEVER attended a classical (or even a non-amplified jazz) concert. Really? How do you know that? Got any hard data to support a claim of how all those unnamed unknown human beings actually behave in the real world? If you don't know what real music is supposed to sound like, how can you judge what a playback system is doing to the music? You can't. 1. You are inventing a false objective standard "what real music is supposed to sound like" 2. You are inventing universal criteria for judging sound quality that simply isn't universal. Not everyone wants what you want. I know there are people who will tell you that they can tell the difference between a Fender Stratocaster Guitar and a Gibson or a Martin electric guitar. Perhaps they can, but what about the sound imparted by the different brands and styles of amplifiers used with these guitars? One can ask the very smae question about the sound imparted by microphones and mic techniques imparted on the sound of live acoustic instruments. That's audio. The same issues exist for classical and pop music. Can one tell the difference after the sound had gone through a fuzz box? I don't claim to know. Here's another question that comes to mind. In studio settings many instruments such as a saxophone or a trumpet are captured using a contact microphone. These mikes pick-up the actual vibrations of the body of the instrument itself rather than the sound (I.E. differences in air pressure) heard by a regular mike sitting in front of the instrument. I can tell you from experience that an instrument captured by a contact mike sounds almost nothing like the same instrument captured by a traditional mike. And all of this manipulation is occurring before the mike signals reach the control room and go through frequency shifters, voice multipliers, sound-on-sound and sound-with-sound processors, reverb generators, compressors, limiters, and a myriad of other special effects boxes that I'm not familiar with! When recording personnel record the instruments rather than the space these instruments occupy, all bets for accuracy are off. Same is true with classical music. If you think you are seeking accuracy (accuracy being an accurate recreation of the original sound field) you are really slaying windmills. Now I make no apologies for, nor do I try to hide, my personal disdain for what has passed for popular music over the last 50 years or so. OK we do agree on that point. I also realize that mass taste has changed mightily in that time and I will defend with my very being the right of each individual to listen to the music he or she LIKES. But, this has nothing, whatsoever, to do with a genre's suitability to the task at hand. In 1970, for instance, an audio publication was about how classical music was reproduced on the equipment of the day and they actually had something REAL to compare the equipment against. Really? Who, besides James Boyk was comparing their recordings to the original acoustic event? Certainly cant be done with any commercial recordings. Pop music was almost never mentioned and jazz only rarely. Now it's completely reversed. Every review I read tells me how The Who, or Cat Stevens, or Rod Stewart' latest album (along with a myriad of more recent groups and soloists that I have never heard of at all) sounds on this piece of equipment or that (jazz is still, rarely mentioned). Sounds like you are angry becuase you just can't relate to the reviewer's perspective. Oh well.... These kinds of comparisons are totally meaningless! To you. Not to people who listen to Cat Stevens, The Who and Rod Stewart. I listen to all of those artists by the way. If the music doesn't exist in real space, then the accuracy of the playback totally becomes a matter personal tastes and as a means of communicating opinions from one group of people to another, it's arbitrary, and clearly NOT useful. Once music hits the mics it no longer exists in a real space. Stereo recording and playback has never been about recreating an original acoustic event.. It has always been about creating an aural illusion. Ultimately judgement is a matter of personal taste. Yours is no exception. So if you want useful reviews, find reviewers that share your taste. 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. Horrible analogy. What you describe is reviewers using well known source material, that can be accessed by consumers to evaluate equipment. It works just fine with classical and pop music. The results obtained from such a test have absolutely no bearing on how the paving machine will perform when paving roads with hot asphalt! Wrong. An audio signal, be it from a classical recording or pop share the same basic elements of amplitude and time. Your analogy fails on it's face since that is not the case with it. 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. As someone who actually readily listens to both classical and pop music on his stereo and is a very frequent attendee of live classical concerts I would assert from my experience that you are plainly wrong on this point. |
#22
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Modern Reviewing Practices In Audio Rags Have Become Useless
On Wednesday, July 31, 2013 9:52:36 AM UTC-7, Audio_Empire wrote:
In article , Andrew Haley wrote: Audio_Empire wrote: 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 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. 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. 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. |
#23
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Modern Reviewing Practices In Audio Rags Have Become Useless
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: --- |
#24
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Modern Reviewing Practices In Audio Rags Have Become Useless
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. |
#25
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Modern Reviewing Practices In Audio Rags Have Become Useless
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. 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. That being said, this is sometimes an improvement. There are some 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. |
#26
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
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 pan-potted into place by the recording team, it has none. There's no image height, no front to back no stereo depth. I'm told you can hear that on a good system. I don't listen critically enough to know for sure. |
#27
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Modern Reviewing Practices In Audio Rags Have Become Useless
In article ,
Andrew Haley wrote: Bob Lombard wrote: Looks to me like you are both right - or both wrong, depending. If the prospective buyer is a rockaholic, he wants speakers that do rock really well, and there is nothing wrong with reviewing the speakers with that in mind. If accurate reproduction of acoustic material (and really other music too) is the prospective buyer's goal... this stuff is so simple, guys, you must just like to argue, eh? I don't think so. A well-designed loudspeaker should reproduce the sound it's fed, whatever the source of that sound. The idea of a "speaker that does rock really well" is fundamentally misguided. The ideal speaker doesn't have any sound of its own. I think he was specifically excluding ideal speakers, should such exist. Since no speaker of which I am aware is perfect, it makes sense to choose speakers that sound best with the kind of music (or sound) you like. |
#28
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Modern Reviewing Practices In Audio Rags Have Become Useless
In article ,
ScottW wrote: I've heard a live snare drum in my listening room, I didn't like it and I don't need nor want a speaker that can recreate that sound. That's a good point. I used to play trumpet. I wouldn't want to hear any instrument like that at full song in my living room. I want to be 50 or 100' away! |
#29
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Modern Reviewing Practices In Audio Rags Have Become Useless
"ScottW" wrote in message
... On Wednesday, July 31, 2013 10:29:54 AM UTC-7, Audio_Empire wrote: FWIW....music is a horrible objective accuracy test source. I don't know of any kind of objective test that can use music as a source beyond a reference comparison. If you don't have a reference that you are comparing to, you aren't doing a test. Speaks to an apparent lack of familiarity with modern objective testing techniques that like proper subjective testing uses music as a reference comparison. Basically we have the ready means to numerically compare a source signal to what it becomes after passing through some process. We can numerically quanitify changes in gain, timing, spectral response and nonlinear distortion as well as qunaitify the addition of noise by this means. |
#30
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Modern Reviewing Practices In Audio Rags Have Become Useless
"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 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 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. 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. 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. 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. |
#31
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Modern Reviewing Practices In Audio Rags Have Become Useless
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. 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. That being said, this is sometimes an improvement. There are some 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. And for those of us who are recording engineers and can compare what we hear when we get home to what we heard live, we know that they do not sound the same, no matter how much "accuracy" you have in your speakers, no matter how accurate your microphones, no matter what your recording technique. It is not an accuracy problem, it is an acoustical problem and there is nothing we can do about it. The recording is a new work of art, based on a live event or a manufactured event in the studio. It must be evaluated on its own. A playback system can have lifelike qualities, can communicate the major qualities of a live event within the limitations of your playback space, but cannot sound exactly the same because playback must take place on a system with different spatial qualities in a room of a different size and acoustics. The only basis we have of comparing systems and/or recordings is by way of thinking of the recording as a new performance. Then you can ask on whose equipment and in whose room it sounds more realistic, enables the suspension of disbelief better. Toward this end, what we can hear about speakers and rooms is the 4 points I quoted in a previous post. Gary Eickmeier |
#32
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Modern Reviewing Practices In Audio Rags Have Become Useless
In article ,
Robert Peirce wrote: In article , ScottW wrote: I've heard a live snare drum in my listening room, I didn't like it and I don't need nor want a speaker that can recreate that sound. That's a good point. I used to play trumpet. I wouldn't want to hear any instrument like that at full song in my living room. I want to be 50 or 100' away! They have this new thing called a volume control. With a real stereo recording, you can move as far away from the action as you want - and still hear a reasonable facsimile of the original event. Yes, in that way a stereo is superior to a live event. You get to pick your favorite spot in the house from which to listen. And no, I don't believe that anyone wants to literally have a complete symphony orchestra (or a rock band) in their living room. --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: --- |
#33
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Modern Reviewing Practices In Audio Rags Have Become Useless
In article ,
Robert Peirce wrote: In article , Andrew Haley wrote: Bob Lombard wrote: Looks to me like you are both right - or both wrong, depending. If the prospective buyer is a rockaholic, he wants speakers that do rock really well, and there is nothing wrong with reviewing the speakers with that in mind. If accurate reproduction of acoustic material (and really other music too) is the prospective buyer's goal... this stuff is so simple, guys, you must just like to argue, eh? I don't think so. A well-designed loudspeaker should reproduce the sound it's fed, whatever the source of that sound. The idea of a "speaker that does rock really well" is fundamentally misguided. The ideal speaker doesn't have any sound of its own. I think he was specifically excluding ideal speakers, should such exist. Since no speaker of which I am aware is perfect, it makes sense to choose speakers that sound best with the kind of music (or sound) you like. 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. --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: --- |
#34
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Modern Reviewing Practices In Audio Rags Have Become Useless
On Saturday, August 3, 2013 6:52:42 AM UTC-7, Robert Peirce wrote:
In article , =20 Audio_Empire wrote: For instance, you can't use pop/rock to test for image=20 =20 specificity, because being multitrack and multi-miked with all instrume= nts I'm told you can hear that on a good system. I don't listen critically= =20 enough to know for sure. I'd say that you CAN'T hear that because it doesn't exist with pan-potted p= ositioning of instruments. Of course, if the rock producer specifies an ove= rall 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 a= ny rock recordings that were recorded that way. Does anyone else know? I wo= uld love to find out.=20 |
#35
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Modern Reviewing Practices In Audio Rags Have Become Useless
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. 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. That being said, this is sometimes an improvement. There are some 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. |
#36
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Modern Reviewing Practices In Audio Rags Have Become Useless
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. He tells me that he thinks that my entire assertion is wrong, and then he makes a clearly clueless comment like the one above. 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. 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.). 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. |
#37
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Modern Reviewing Practices In Audio Rags Have Become Useless
On Saturday, August 3, 2013 8:16:41 PM UTC-7, Audio_Empire wrote:
In article , Robert Peirce wrote: In article , ScottW wrote: I've heard a live snare drum in my listening room, I didn't like it and I don't need nor want a speaker that can recreate that sound. That's a good point. I used to play trumpet. I wouldn't want to hear any instrument like that at full song in my living room. I want to be 50 or 100' away! They have this new thing called a volume control. With a real stereo recording, you can move as far away from the action as you want - and still hear a reasonable facsimile of the original event. Yes, in that way a stereo is superior to a live event. You get to pick your favorite spot in the house from which to listen. And no, I don't believe that anyone wants to literally have a complete symphony orchestra (or a rock band) in their living room. Changing the "volume" is an inaccuracy. There is more to the sound of acoustic instruments that identify their distance from the listener than just the volume. So if the SPLs are not in line with the other audible characteristics of an acoustic instrument played from a particular distance it just sounds less real. Really, in a great concert hall you actually get a small increase in perceived SPLs as you move from the front row the the mid orchestra section. If the spectral content and transients of, say, a horn as heard from a specific does not match the SPLs it doesn't sound closer or further away as much as it just sounds less real. |
#38
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Modern Reviewing Practices In Audio Rags Have Become Useless
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 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. Cowboy Junkies' The Trinity Session was recorded on a single Calrec Ambisonic Microphone. You might also google "The Glyn Johns Drum Recording Method". Stephen |
#39
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Modern Reviewing Practices In Audio Rags Have Become Useless
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: [ Posters: if you find yourself replying to a message that has double-spaced empty quote lines, please remove them. Thanks -- dsr ] 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? 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. 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. That being said, this is sometimes an improvement. There are some 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. |
#40
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Modern Reviewing Practices In Audio Rags Have Become Useless
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. 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? |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Industry rags | Pro Audio | |||
"Are Modern Recording Practices Damaging Music?" | Pro Audio | |||
Do we need science in subjective audio "reviewing"? | High End Audio | |||
Do we need science in subjective audio "reviewing"? | High End Audio | |||
Testing audio latency of modern operating systems | Pro Audio |