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

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

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

Audio_Empire wrote:

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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Audio_Empire Audio_Empire is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 179
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Andrew Haley Andrew Haley is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 155
Default Modern Reviewing Practices In Audio Rags Have Become Useless

Audio_Empire wrote:
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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Audio_Empire Audio_Empire is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 179
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Audio_Empire Audio_Empire is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 179
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Audio_Empire Audio_Empire is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 179
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Bob Lombard[_3_] Bob Lombard[_3_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
KH KH is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 137
Default Modern Reviewing Practices In Audio Rags Have Become Useless

On 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Gary Eickmeier Gary Eickmeier is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,449
Default Modern Reviewing Practices In Audio Rags Have Become Useless

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Gary Eickmeier Gary Eickmeier is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,449
Default Modern Reviewing Practices In Audio Rags Have Become Useless

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

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

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

On 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Audio_Empire Audio_Empire is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 179
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Scott[_6_] Scott[_6_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 642
Default Modern Reviewing Practices In Audio Rags Have Become Useless

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

In article ,
Scott wrote:

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

In article ,
Audio_Empire wrote:

For instance, you can't use pop/rock to test for image
specificity, because being multitrack and multi-miked with all instruments
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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Robert Peirce Robert Peirce is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 140
Default Modern Reviewing Practices In Audio Rags Have Become Useless

In article ,
Andrew Haley wrote:

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

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

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

"Audio_Empire" wrote in message
...

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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Gary Eickmeier Gary Eickmeier is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,449
Default Modern Reviewing Practices In Audio Rags Have Become Useless

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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Audio_Empire Audio_Empire is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 179
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Audio_Empire Audio_Empire is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 179
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Audio_Empire[_2_] Audio_Empire[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 235
Default Modern Reviewing Practices In Audio Rags Have Become Useless

On Saturday, August 3, 2013 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Audio_Empire[_2_] Audio_Empire[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 235
Default Modern Reviewing Practices In Audio Rags Have Become Useless

On Saturday, August 3, 2013 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Audio_Empire[_2_] Audio_Empire[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 235
Default Modern Reviewing Practices In Audio Rags Have Become Useless

On Saturday, August 3, 2013 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Scott[_6_] Scott[_6_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 642
Default Modern Reviewing Practices In Audio Rags Have Become Useless

On 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Stephen McElroy Stephen McElroy is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 25
Default Modern Reviewing Practices In Audio Rags Have Become Useless

In article ,
Audio_Empire wrote:

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

On Sunday, August 4, 2013 6:17:32 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Scott[_6_] Scott[_6_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 642
Default Modern Reviewing Practices In Audio Rags Have Become Useless

On Sunday, August 4, 2013 6:16:57 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

Posting Rules

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


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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:31 PM.

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

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"