Modern Reviewing Practices In Audio Rags Have Become Useless

[Audio_Empire[_2_]]

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!

[KH]

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

[Andrew Haley]

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.

[Audio_Empire]

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: ---

[Andrew Haley]

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.

[Audio_Empire]

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: ---

[Audio_Empire]

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: ---

[Audio_Empire]

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: ---

[Bob Lombard[_3_]]

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

[KH]

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

[Gary Eickmeier]

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

[Audio_Empire[_2_]]

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 ]

[Audio_Empire[_2_]]

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?

[Andrew Haley]

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.

[Andrew Haley]

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.

[Audio_Empire[_2_]]

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.

[Audio_Empire[_2_]]

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.

[Audio_Empire[_2_]]

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

[Gary Eickmeier]

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

[Andrew Haley]

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.

[Scott[_6_]]

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.

[Scott[_6_]]

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.

[Audio_Empire]

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: ---

[Scott[_6_]]

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

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

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

I didn't ask a question

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

> You are being too literal here.=20


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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

[Robert Peirce]

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.

[Robert Peirce]

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.

[Robert Peirce]

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.

[Robert Peirce]

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!

[Arny Krueger[_5_]]

"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.

[Arny Krueger[_5_]]

"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.

[Gary Eickmeier]

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

[Audio_Empire]

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: ---

[Audio_Empire]

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: ---

[Audio_Empire[_2_]]

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

[Audio_Empire[_2_]]

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.

[Audio_Empire[_2_]]

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.

[Scott[_6_]]

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.

[Stephen McElroy]

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

[Scott[_6_]]

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.

[Scott[_6_]]

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?

[Scott[_6_]]

On Sunday, August 4, 2013 6:27:55 AM UTC-7, Audio_Empire wrote:
> On Saturday, August 3, 2013 6:50:38 AM UTC-7, Scott wrote:
> > On Friday, August 2, 2013 3:55:15 PM UTC-7, Audio_Empire wrote:
> >
> > > In article >,
> > > Scott > wrote:
> >
> <snip>
> > Again, it does not matter how the imaging got onto the recording.
> > What matters is how it images during playback. This phenomenon we
> > call imaging is not limited to music played on acoustic instruments.
>
> This shows absolutely how out of touch with the reality of recording
> and playback of music that this poster is.

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

http://www.analogplanet.com/content/mr-natural-recording-engineer-bill-porter-part-i-0

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

[Audio_Empire[_2_]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Will do. Thanks.

[Audio_Empire[_2_]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Audio_Empire[_2_]]

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

> > > > This is such a surprisingly weird assertion. Had you not told us numerous
> > > > times that you record live classical music I would suspect that you have
> > > > never been to any sort of live classical performances at all. what exactly
> > > > does "live music" sound like? Because in my experience it sounds like a lot
> > > > of different things depending on the instruments, the musicians, the venue
> > > > and the seat I am sitting in. You seem to be treating the sound of "live
> > > > music" as this monolithic unwavering point of reference. It aint that. No
> > > > way. I shudder to think someone with a subscription to the overpriced balcony
> > > > seats at Davies Hall or Copley Hall would suffer the dire audio consequences
> > > > of thinking that their listening experience to live music in such halls from
> > > > those seats sets a standard by which playback should be measured and even
> > > > worse sets a standard by which they should actually adjust their aesthetic
> > > > values. The horror, the horror

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

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

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

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

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

> > True enough.

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

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

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

And again, who said it wasn't?

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

> > Also agreed. But experienced listeners SHOULD know the difference.

And, I might add that I don't think that I want to hear those things
"...done in post production that are impossible in real life.." Others
might and they're welcome to it, but....

[Stephen McElroy]

In article >,
Audio_Empire > wrote:

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

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

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

Stephen

[KH]

On 8/1/2013 7:32 PM, Audio_Empire wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 31, 2013 7:46:42 PM UTC-7, KH wrote:
>> On 7/31/2013 10:29 AM, Audio_Empire wrote:
>>
>>> In article >, KH >
>>
>>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>
>>>> On 7/30/2013 3:52 PM, Audio_Empire wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>
>>
>>>> This would appear to say volumes about your knowledge of pop music.
>>
>>>
>>
>>> I know enough * more than I want to. And if you are saying that I am
>>
>>> wrong here, then I believe it says more about your knowledge of music
>>
>>> and reproduction than it does about mine.
>>
>>
>>
>> I'm saying you clearly don't know the range of "pop" music, quite a lot
>>
>> of which is acoustic, because you don't care, and *you* don't listen to
>>
>> any, by your own admission, so you don't seem to be in a strong position
>>
>> to opine on it's suitability for auditioning.
>
> You continue to miss the point. If a piece of pop music is acoustic, then there
> I have absolutely no problem with some reviewer evaluating equipment using
> it. Just because I dislike pop/rock and it is no part of my musical life doesn't
> mean that reject it as an evaluation tool based on that dislike. My objections
> are based solely upon the suitability (or lack thereof) of the results of the
> production process for the task.

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

Keith

[Robert Peirce]

In article >,
Audio_Empire > wrote:

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

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

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

[Audio_Empire[_2_]]

On Sunday, August 4, 2013 12:48:51 PM UTC-7, Scott wrote:
> On Sunday, August 4, 2013 6:27:55 AM UTC-7, Audio_Empire wrote:
>
> > On Saturday, August 3, 2013 6:50:38 AM UTC-7, Scott wrote:
>
> > > On Friday, August 2, 2013 3:55:15 PM UTC-7, Audio_Empire wrote:
>
> > >
>
> > > > In article >,
>
> > > > Scott > wrote:
>
> > >
>
> > <snip>
>
> > > Again, it does not matter how the imaging got onto the recording.
>
> > > What matters is how it images during playback. This phenomenon we
>
> > > call imaging is not limited to music played on acoustic instruments.
>
> >
>
> > This shows absolutely how out of touch with the reality of recording
>
> > and playback of music that this poster is.
>

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

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

<snip>

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

[Andrew Haley]

Audio_Empire > wrote:

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

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

Andrew.

[Robert Peirce]

In article >,
Audio_Empire > wrote:

> > > For instance, you can't use pop/rock to test for image
> > > specificity, because being multitrack and multi-miked with all
> > > instruments
>
> > I'm told you can hear that on a good system. I don't listen critically
> > enough to know for sure.
>
> I'd say that you CAN'T hear that because it doesn't exist with pan-potted
> positioning of instruments.

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

[Audio_Empire[_2_]]

On Sunday, August 4, 2013 12:40:30 PM UTC-7, Scott wrote:
> On Sunday, August 4, 2013 6:16:57 AM UTC-7, Audio_Empire wrote:
>
> > On Saturday, August 3, 2013 6:52:42 AM UTC-7, Robert Peirce wrote:

> > > In article >,
>
> > > Audio_Empire > wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Because I take Pro Audio Magazine and read articles about how various recordings are
made perhaps? Possibly because I was involved in a number of these recordings when I worked
for Coast Recorders or Wally Heider back in the 70's and 80's as a recording engineer?

[Scott[_6_]]

On Sunday, August 4, 2013 6:34:54 PM UTC-7, Audio_Empire wrote:
> On Sunday, August 4, 2013 12:48:51 PM UTC-7, Scott wrote:
>=20
> > On Sunday, August 4, 2013 6:27:55 AM UTC-7, Audio_Empire wrote:
>=20
> >=20
>=20
> > > On Saturday, August 3, 2013 6:50:38 AM UTC-7, Scott wrote:
>=20
> >=20
>=20
> > > > On Friday, August 2, 2013 3:55:15 PM UTC-7, Audio_Empire wrote:
>=20
> >=20
>=20
> > > >
>=20
> >=20
>=20
> > > > > In article >,
>=20
> >=20
>=20
> > > > > Scott > wrote:
>=20
> >=20
>=20
> > > >
>=20
> >=20
>=20
> > > <snip>
>=20
> >=20
>=20
> > > > Again, it does not matter how the imaging got onto the recording.
>=20
> >=20
>=20
> > > > What matters is how it images during playback. This phenomenon we
>=20
> >=20
>=20
> > > > call imaging is not limited to music played on acoustic instruments=
..
>=20
> >=20
>=20
> > >
>=20
> >=20
>=20
> > > This shows absolutely how out of touch with the reality of recording
>=20
> >=20
>=20
> > > and playback of music that this poster is.
>=20
> >=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> > So says the guy who flaunts his disdain for the music he claims to
>=20
> > know so much about.
>=20
>=20
>=20
> Where did I say or even intimate that I knew much about rock/pop?

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

You: "I know enough =AD more than I want to. And if you are saying that I a=
m
wrong here, then I believe it says more about your knowledge of music
and reproduction than it does about mine."
=20
> I know
> about studio recording, but I never claimed to know much about rock excep=
t
>=20
> that I find the sound of it - anything with solid-body electric guitars, =
really - offensive

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


>=20
>=20
>=20
> <snip>
>=20
>=20
>=20
> How many professional rock recordings have you made (or even had a hand i=
n)=20
>=20
> again? I'd love to know.

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

[Scott[_6_]]

On Sunday, August 4, 2013 7:32:42 PM UTC-7, Andrew Haley wrote:
> Audio_Empire > wrote:
>=20
>=20
>=20
> > Quite a few, actually. In fact I tried to attend a local big-band
>=20
> > jazz concert just last weekend where sound reinforcement was
>=20
> > evident. I left. Same with a symphonic band concert held in a large
>=20
> > church several months ago. Now, I'll say this. I haven't yet
>=20
> > attended an indoor symphony concert where sound reinforcement was
>=20
> > used, but I understand that it is done. I've stopped attending
>=20
> > outdoor concerts of any kind for that reason. I just don't want to
>=20
> > listen to a P.A. system. It seems elementary purpose defeating to
>=20
> > me.
>=20
>=20
>=20
> Why? Aren't you there for the music? Why does it matter if the music
>=20
> is amplified? If the interpretation and the playing is good, won't
>=20
> you enjoy it anyway?
>=20
>=20
>=20
> Andrew.

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

[Audio_Empire[_2_]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Audio_Empire[_2_]]

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

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

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

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

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

Andrew.

[Andrew Haley]

Audio_Empire > wrote:
> On Sunday, August 4, 2013 7:32:42 PM UTC-7, Andrew Haley wrote:
>> Audio_Empire > wrote:
>
>> > Quite a few, actually. In fact I tried to attend a local big-band
>> > jazz concert just last weekend where sound reinforcement was
>> > evident. I left. Same with a symphonic band concert held in a large
>> > church several months ago. Now, I'll say this. I haven't yet
>> > attended an indoor symphony concert where sound reinforcement was
>> > used, but I understand that it is done. I've stopped attending
>> > outdoor concerts of any kind for that reason. I just don't want to
>> > listen to a P.A. system. It seems elementary purpose defeating to
>> > me.
>>
>> Why? Aren't you there for the music?
>
> Well, sure. I'm there to have a live musical experience listening to
> real instruments playing in real space. But I'm also there to
> "re-calibrate" my ears with live music.

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

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

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

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

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

Andrew.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Monday, August 5, 2013 9:20:56 AM UTC-7, Andrew Haley wrote:
> Audio_Empire > wrote:
>
> > On Sunday, August 4, 2013 7:32:42 PM UTC-7, Andrew Haley wrote:
>
> >> Audio_Empire > wrote:
>
> >
>
> >> > Quite a few, actually. In fact I tried to attend a local big-band
>
> >> > jazz concert just last weekend where sound reinforcement was
>
> >> > evident. I left. Same with a symphonic band concert held in a large
>
> >> > church several months ago. Now, I'll say this. I haven't yet
>
> >> > attended an indoor symphony concert where sound reinforcement was
>
> >> > used, but I understand that it is done. I've stopped attending
>
> >> > outdoor concerts of any kind for that reason. I just don't want to
>
> >> > listen to a P.A. system. It seems elementary purpose defeating to
>
> >> > me.
>
> >>
>
> >> Why? Aren't you there for the music?
>
> >
>
> > Well, sure. I'm there to have a live musical experience listening to
>
> > real instruments playing in real space. But I'm also there to
>
> > "re-calibrate" my ears with live music.
>
>
>
> It seems to me that this is the crux of our whole argument. I'm not
>
> there to listen to "real instruments playing in space", real or
>
> otherwise. I'm there to listen to the musicians, who hopefully have
>
> something to say. Whatever that is, they'll use the tools they want
>
> to use, and if some of them are electronic, fair enough. The whole
>
> idea that you might leave a concert for such a reason seems to me to
>
> be totally insane, especially if you have great performers.
>
>
>
> > I feel cheated spending money to listen to some lousy Public Address
>
> > system, and some unknown "sound-guy's" idea of how an ensemble
>
> > should sound.
>
>
>
> Or some genius sound guy with a really good PA: that argument cuts
>
> both ways.
>
>
>
> It seems to me that you're prioritizing your notion of the "ideal
>
> sound" above the whole point of musical performance, which is
>
> communication between musicians and an audience. The quality of the
>
> sound surely comes a very distant second to the emotional and
>
> intellectual communication between the audience and the performers,
>
> something that is very much a two-way street.
>
>
>
> I'm appalled that you'd walk out of what might be an electrifying
>
> performance by on-form and talented musicians for such a trivial
>
> reason.
>
>
>
> Andrew.

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

It does matter. A lot.

[Andrew Haley]

Scott > wrote:

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

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

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

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

Andrew.

[Audio_Empire[_2_]]

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

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

> > >> Audio_Empire > wrote:

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

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

[Scott[_6_]]

On Monday, August 5, 2013 11:47:17 AM UTC-7, Andrew Haley wrote:
> Scott > wrote:
>
>
>
> > I would not walk out just because there is sound reinforcement but I
>
> > don't agree with you about this separation between sound (I would
>
> > add view to that as well) and the communication between the audience
>
> > and the performers. What we as audience members actually hear and
>
> > see is a pretty important part of that communication. The same exact
>
> > performance as seen and heard up close at Disney Hall is a totally
>
> > different experience as seen and heard from the back row at the
>
> > Hollywood Bowl.
>
>
>
> Sure, I agree with that. There is something very alienating about
>
> arena concerts. I went to one or two and swore that I never would
>
> again.
>
>
>
> > So there is a whole lot more to it than just the performance. I
>
> > don't care how good the performance is, you would never know it from
>
> > the back of the bowl. OTOH the visceral experience of an orchestra
>
> > from row EE dead center at Disney Hall is one that will follow you
>
> > for the rest of your life.
>
> >
>
> > It does matter. A lot.
>
>
>
> Absolutely so, but that's really not what I'm talking about here. Of
>
> course sound quality and proximity helps, but that's not what the
>
> experience is about.

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


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

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

[Andrew Haley]

Scott > wrote:
> On Monday, August 5, 2013 11:47:17 AM UTC-7, Andrew Haley wrote:
>
>> We're listening to people, not fiddles, and emotional communication
>> is the point.
>
> And emotional communication suffers serious loss through bad sound
> or with a bad view. Our emotional connection comes via what we hear
> and what we see.

> Isn't that why we are all audiophiles?

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

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

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

Andrew.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Monday, August 5, 2013 1:32:20 PM UTC-7, Andrew Haley wrote:
> Scott > wrote:
>=20
> > On Monday, August 5, 2013 11:47:17 AM UTC-7, Andrew Haley wrote:
>=20
> >=20
>=20
> >> We're listening to people, not fiddles, and emotional communication
>=20
> >> is the point.
>=20
> >=20
>=20
> > And emotional communication suffers serious loss through bad sound
>=20
> > or with a bad view. Our emotional connection comes via what we hear
>=20
> > and what we see.
>=20
>=20
>=20
> > Isn't that why we are all audiophiles?
>=20
>=20
>=20
> To obsess about the sound quality at the expense of everything else.

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

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

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

is that not missing out on great performances because you don't like the PA=
system? But, ironically yes, because if the PA system is bad enough and th=
e view is bad enough the great performance is missed, whether you go to the=
convert or not. =20
>=20
> / hall / whatever. To value recalibrating our hearing of "real music"
>=20
> over communicating with musicians. Hell, no!
>=20
>=20
>=20
> > To better connect with the recordings of the music we love through
>=20
> > better sound. That certainly is why I'm in it. Music is an aesthetic
>=20
> > experience so better aesthetics makes for a better experience.
>=20
>=20
>=20
> And who'd deny that? It's a question of which is to be the master,
>=20
> that's all.

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


> And I'm still appalled that Mr. Empire would miss out on
>=20
> a great musical experience because he doesn't like PA systems.
>=20
>=20
Clearly he didn't think the experience was all that great.=20

[Arny Krueger[_5_]]

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

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

> So you are saying that these recordings were recorded stereophonically?

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

[Robert Peirce]

In article >,
Andrew Haley > wrote:


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

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

[Robert Peirce]

In article >,
Scott > wrote:

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

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

[Robert Peirce]

In article >,
Andrew Haley > wrote:

> if some of them are electronic, fair enough.

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

[[email protected]]

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

[Audio_Empire[_2_]]

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

> > i gotta say, with classical music if there is sound reinforcement and I am
> > there it is for one of two reasons. Either someone I absolutely have to see
> > is playing or I got free tickets. Otherwise it is a deal breaker for me. What
> > blows my mind is that someone would show up and be surprised by the presence
> > of sound reinforcement. It's a big world and I guess all kinds of things
> > happen but I have never been to a classical concert that used sound
> > reinforcement that I didn't know about ahead of time.
>
> Another thing that irritates me is theatre. More and more that is being
> amplified as well. I have shown up for amplified shows without knowing
> it. With small group music you can usually figure out what instrument
> is coming through the PA system. In theatre it is often difficult to
> pick out the actor who is speaking or singing.

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

[Audio_Empire[_2_]]

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

> > Why? Aren't you there for the music? Why does it matter if the music
> > is amplified? If the interpretation and the playing is good, won't
> > you enjoy it anyway?
>
> In my case, my sound system at home was significantly better than the
> system in the hall. I used to listen to music on an AM radio, and I
> enjoyed it at the time. However, when better sound became available I
> enjoyed AM less.

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

[Audio_Empire[_2_]]

On Monday, August 5, 2013 4:34:24 PM UTC-7, Arny Krueger wrote:
> "Audio_Empire" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > On Sunday, August 4, 2013 12:40:30 PM UTC-7, Scott wrote:
>
> >> You can say it but it isn't true. I have many pop/rock albums that
> >> offer stunningly vivid imaging with sound stages that extend well past
> >> the speakers and offer loads of depth as well as width and give the
> >> instruments a tremendous sense of size and palpability. So you CAN
> >> hear that with the right pop/rock recordings.

> > So you are saying that these recordings were recorded stereophonically?

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

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

[Audio_Empire[_2_]]

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

> > if some of them are electronic, fair enough.

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

Most recordings are made by plugging the guitar directly into the mixing
console. However I'm quite sure that there are exceptions whereby the
guitar amp itself (necessary for the musicians to HEAR themselves) is
miked acoustically, but that doesn't seem to be the norm.

[Gary Eickmeier]

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

>> In my case, my sound system at home was significantly better than the
>> system in the hall. I used to listen to music on an AM radio, and I
>> enjoyed it at the time. However, when better sound became available I
>> enjoyed AM less.
>
> That's more or less what I've been saying. If I want to listen to speakers
> Mine are better than any PA speakers. Come to that, and I'd rather listen
> to the streaming Boston Symphony on Internet radio from WCRB in Boston
> than attend a SR'd concert.

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

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

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

Gary Eickmeier

[Audio_Empire[_2_]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Andrew Haley]

Scott > wrote:
> On Monday, August 5, 2013 1:32:20 PM UTC-7, Andrew Haley wrote:
>> To miss out on great performances because we don't like the PA System
>
> Wasn't it you who said this just a couple posts ago?
>
> "Sure, I agree with that. There is something very alienating about
> arena concerts. I went to one or two and swore that I never would
> again."
>
> is that not missing out on great performances because you don't like
> the PA system?

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

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

How would he know? He left.

Andrew.

[Andrew Haley]

Robert Peirce > wrote:
> In article >,
> Andrew Haley > wrote:
>
>> if some of them are electronic, fair enough.
>
> That's different. Electronic music has to be amplified. However, would
> you mic a guitar amp and pipe it through a PA?

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

Andrew.

[Andrew Haley]

Robert Peirce > wrote:
> In article >,
> Andrew Haley > wrote:
>
>
>> Why? Aren't you there for the music? Why does it matter if the music
>> is amplified? If the interpretation and the playing is good, won't
>> you enjoy it anyway?
>
> In my case, my sound system at home was significantly better than the
> system in the hall.

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

Andrew.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Tuesday, August 6, 2013 4:59:12 AM UTC-7, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
> "Audio_Empire" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > On Monday, August 5, 2013 4:36:17 PM UTC-7, Robert Peirce wrote:
>
>
>
> >> In my case, my sound system at home was significantly better than the
>
> >> system in the hall. I used to listen to music on an AM radio, and I
>
> >> enjoyed it at the time. However, when better sound became available I
>
> >> enjoyed AM less.
>
> >
>
> > That's more or less what I've been saying. If I want to listen to speakers
>
> > Mine are better than any PA speakers. Come to that, and I'd rather listen
>
> > to the streaming Boston Symphony on Internet radio from WCRB in Boston
>
> > than attend a SR'd concert.
>
>
>
> When they start amplifying orchestras and bands, balances get all screwed
>
> up. First, the musicians never learn how to balance themselves for the
>
> audience.

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



> The piano, for example, should have the lid open and the sound
>
> coming toward the audience, not shut and stuffed with microphones.

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

> The
>
> dynamics should be determined by th musicians, not the sound reinforcement
>
> engineer. As soon as the microphones are introduced, the musicians will
>
> start playing to them instead of to us.

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


> I have seen the horn section playing
>
> with the bell of the horn facing the floor, either through lack of
>
> showmanship or because of the damn microphones.


That is how the French horn is supposed to be played.
https://www.google.com/search?q=french+horn+section&safe=off&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=DwkBUs2-NMqAygHt5YGABw&ved=0CCsQsAQ&biw=1600&bih=741
When have you ever seen one played with the bell facing out?

[Arny Krueger[_5_]]

"Audio_Empire" > wrote in message
...
> On Monday, August 5, 2013 4:36:31 PM UTC-7, Robert Peirce wrote:
>> In article >,
>>
>> Scott > wrote:
>
>> > i gotta say, with classical music if there is sound reinforcement and I
>> > am
>> > there it is for one of two reasons. Either someone I absolutely have to
>> > see
>> > is playing or I got free tickets. Otherwise it is a deal breaker for
>> > me. What
>> > blows my mind is that someone would show up and be surprised by the
>> > presence
>> > of sound reinforcement. It's a big world and I guess all kinds of
>> > things
>> > happen but I have never been to a classical concert that used sound
>> > reinforcement that I didn't know about ahead of time.
>>
>> Another thing that irritates me is theatre. More and more that is being
>> amplified as well. I have shown up for amplified shows without knowing
>> it. With small group music you can usually figure out what instrument
>> is coming through the PA system. In theatre it is often difficult to
>> pick out the actor who is speaking or singing.

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

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

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

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

[Arny Krueger[_5_]]

"Robert Peirce" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Andrew Haley > wrote:
>
>> if some of them are electronic, fair enough.
>
> That's different. Electronic music has to be amplified. However, would
> you mic a guitar amp and pipe it through a PA

That is a generally accepted practice.

[Arny Krueger[_5_]]

"Audio_Empire" > wrote in message
...
> On Monday, August 5, 2013 7:03:57 PM UTC-7, Robert Peirce wrote:
>> In article >,
>>
>> Andrew Haley > wrote:
>
>> > if some of them are electronic, fair enough.
>
>> That's different. Electronic music has to be amplified. However, would
>> you mic a guitar amp and pipe it through a PA?

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

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

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

It goes either way.

[Arny Krueger[_5_]]

"Audio_Empire" > wrote in message
...
> On Monday, August 5, 2013 4:34:24 PM UTC-7, Arny Krueger wrote:
>> "Audio_Empire" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>> > On Sunday, August 4, 2013 12:40:30 PM UTC-7, Scott wrote:
>>
>> >> You can say it but it isn't true. I have many pop/rock albums that
>> >> offer stunningly vivid imaging with sound stages that extend well past
>> >> the speakers and offer loads of depth as well as width and give the
>> >> instruments a tremendous sense of size and palpability. So you CAN
>> >> hear that with the right pop/rock recordings.

>> > So you are saying that these recordings were recorded stereophonically?

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

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

Depth can also be artifically introduced by several means including adding
delays and spectral shaping.

[Arny Krueger[_5_]]

"ScottW" > wrote in message
...
> On Saturday, August 3, 2013 9:04:56 AM UTC-7, Arny Krueger wrote:
>> "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.

> An objective limit is not usually referred to as a reference for
> comparison.

You seem to have missed the point.

>> 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.

> Every test you mention can be done far more accurately and repeatable with
> a test signal specifically suited to the test. Music won't be it.

In essence, you've just repeated the earlier false statement without
providing any additional evidence.

In fact the accuracy and repeatability can be pretty much equal.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Tuesday, August 6, 2013 10:37:21 AM UTC-7, Arny Krueger wrote:
> "Audio_Empire" > wrote in message=20
>=20
> ...
>=20
> > On Monday, August 5, 2013 7:03:57 PM UTC-7, Robert Peirce wrote:
>=20
> >> In article >,
>=20
> >>
>=20
> >> Andrew Haley > wrote:
>=20
> >
>=20
> >> > if some of them are electronic, fair enough.
>=20
> >
>=20
> >> That's different. Electronic music has to be amplified. However, wou=
ld
>=20
> >> you mic a guitar amp and pipe it through a PA?
>=20
>=20
>=20
> > Most recordings are made by plugging the guitar directly into the mixin=
g
>=20
> > console.
>=20
>=20
>=20
> Probably not so much. Guitar players seem to be chauvenistic about their=
=20
>=20
> choices of guitar amps, and want them to be part of the signal path.

Most guitarists are very very into the sound of guitar. Even electric guita=
r and amps etc. And yeah, a lot of them want the amp to be the source not t=
he feed from the pickup. Techniques for playing and recording guitars in po=
p/rock music are all over the map.

>=20
>=20
>=20
> > However I'm quite sure that there are exceptions whereby the
>=20
> > guitar amp itself (necessary for the musicians to HEAR themselves) is
>=20
> > miked acoustically, but that doesn't seem to be the norm.
>=20
>=20
>=20
> It goes either way.


And many other ways. Here is an example of a couple of true geniuses making=
amazing live sound using electric and acoustic instruments. I have seen th=
se two play together in small concert halls, bars churches and gatherings. =
They make beautiful live music that is pretty far from all acoustic but the=
y know what they are doing and put a lot of work into their sound. In this =
video the one mic is doing the whole recording and the two guitars are bein=
g played through the little amp on the ground.=20

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DPNStL70cLlk

[Scott[_6_]]

On Tuesday, August 6, 2013 10:37:35 AM UTC-7, Arny Krueger wrote:
> "Audio_Empire" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > On Monday, August 5, 2013 4:34:24 PM UTC-7, Arny Krueger wrote:
>
> >> "Audio_Empire" > wrote in message
>
> >>
>
> >> ...
>
> >>
>
> >> > On Sunday, August 4, 2013 12:40:30 PM UTC-7, Scott wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >> >> You can say it but it isn't true. I have many pop/rock albums that
>
> >> >> offer stunningly vivid imaging with sound stages that extend well past
>
> >> >> the speakers and offer loads of depth as well as width and give the
>
> >> >> instruments a tremendous sense of size and palpability. So you CAN
>
> >> >> hear that with the right pop/rock recordings.
>
>
>
> >> > So you are saying that these recordings were recorded stereophonically?
>
>
>
> >> No, It is possible to position instruments well past the speakers from
>
> >> > multitrack recordings. Add some of the track to the opposite channel
>
> >> > with
>
> >> > the phase inverted, and voila, you've got a track that sounds like it
>
> >> > is
>
> >> > coming from the outside of the space between the speakers.
>
>
>
> > I wasn't questioning the width, I know that can be artificially introduced
>
> > one
>
> > of several ways. It was the depth from multitrack that I was questioning.
>
>
>
> Depth can also be artifically introduced by several means including adding
>
> delays and spectral shaping.

Absolutely. Or just by being further from the mic. The room reverb picked up from the mic also adds to the sense of depth. Depth is as much determined by the relative loudness and spectral content as anything else.

[Audio_Empire[_2_]]

On Tuesday, August 6, 2013 7:47:56 AM UTC-7, Scott wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 6, 2013 4:59:12 AM UTC-7, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
>
> > "Audio_Empire" > wrote in message

> > ...

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

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

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

> > When they start amplifying orchestras and bands, balances get all screwed
> > up. First, the musicians never learn how to balance themselves for the
> > audience.

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

>
> > The piano, for example, should have the lid open and the sound
> > coming toward the audience, not shut and stuffed with microphones.

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

> > The
> > dynamics should be determined by th musicians, not the sound reinforcement
> > engineer. As soon as the microphones are introduced, the musicians will
> > start playing to them instead of to us.

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

> > I have seen the horn section playing
> > with the bell of the horn facing the floor, either through lack of
> > showmanship or because of the damn microphones.

> That is how the French horn is supposed to be played.
>
>https://www.google.com/search?q=french+horn+section&safe=off&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=DwkBUs2-NMqAygHt5YGABw&ved=0CCsQsAQ&biw=1600&bih=741
>
> When have you ever seen one played with the bell facing out?

I have, once. Many years ago (I was still in high-school), I attended
a U.S.Navy Band concert in The State Department Auditorium in
Washington D.C. It was winter, so they couldn't play outside, at the
Watergate, like they did in the summer months. Anyway the band was
playing a suite from Richard Rogers' magnificent score for the early
1950's TV documentary, "Victory At Sea" There was one part
('Guadalcanal March'?) where all the french horn players stood up,
held their horns over their heads so that the bells pointed at the
audience and played a fanfare. Anyway it was quite spectacular, but I
haven't seen it again since.

[Audio_Empire[_2_]]

On Tuesday, August 6, 2013 5:15:35 AM UTC-7, Andrew Haley wrote:
> Scott > wrote:
>
> > On Monday, August 5, 2013 1:32:20 PM UTC-7, Andrew Haley wrote:
>
> >> To miss out on great performances because we don't like the PA System
> > > Wasn't it you who said this just a couple posts ago?

> > "Sure, I agree with that. There is something very alienating about
> > arena concerts. I went to one or two and swore that I never would
> > again."
>
> > is that not missing out on great performances because you don't like
> > the PA system?
>
> Not really. I think it's because the whole thing turns into an event
> that seems more like a Nuremberg rally than a concert.

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

> >> And I'm still appalled that Mr. Empire would miss out on a great
> >> musical experience because he doesn't like PA systems.
> > Clearly he didn't think the experience was all that great.

> How would he know? He left.

Have you ever stuck your head in a fire? No? Then how do you know
that it would be an unpleasant experience?

See, some things one just KNOWS aren't good either because it's
common knowledge or because they've had a related experience.
For instance, everybody has burned themselves on a stove or a
hot pot at some point. Therefore one doesn't have to actually
stick their head in a proverbial fire to know that it's not something
one would want to do. I know what a PA system sounds like, or
more precisely, I know that one doesn't sound anywhere near
as good as do the same instruments unamplified. Since I attend
live performances as much for the sound as I do for the music,
staying for a sound reinforced performance would be, in my
estimation, elementary purpose defeating. I don't want to waste
my time on a less than satisfactory experience. I don't see how
I could possibly make the situation any clearer that that, Andrew.

> Andrew.

[Arny Krueger[_5_]]

"Audio_Empire" > wrote in message
...

> See, some things one just KNOWS aren't good either because it's
> common knowledge or because they've had a related experience.
> For instance, everybody has burned themselves on a stove or a
> hot pot at some point. Therefore one doesn't have to actually
> stick their head in a proverbial fire to know that it's not something
> one would want to do.

OK

> I know what a PA system sounds like, or
> more precisely, I know that one doesn't sound anywhere near
> as good as do the same instruments unamplified.

Unless of course the instrument can't be properly heard or won't be in
balance with the rest of the ensemble unless amplified.

I've performed this little balancing act 100s of times. Very commonly
needed.

Unless of course the room has poor acoustics and the sound system can make
some headway overcoming them.

Been there and done that too.

[Audio_Empire[_2_]]

On Tuesday, August 6, 2013 7:32:25 PM UTC-7, Arny Krueger wrote:
> "Audio_Empire" > wrote in message
>
> ...

> > See, some things one just KNOWS aren't good either because it's
> > common knowledge or because they've had a related experience.
> > > For instance, everybody has burned themselves on a stove or a
> > hot pot at some point. Therefore one doesn't have to actually
> > stick their head in a proverbial fire to know that it's not something
> > one would want to do.

> OK

> > I know what a PA system sounds like, or
> > more precisely, I know that one doesn't sound anywhere near
> > as good as do the same instruments unamplified.
>

> Unless of course the instrument can't be properly heard or won't be in
> balance with the rest of the ensemble unless amplified.
> I've performed this little balancing act 100s of times. Very commonly
> needed.
>
> Unless of course the room has poor acoustics and the sound system can make
> some headway overcoming them.
> Been there and done that too.

What you say is undoubtably true, and I don't doubt for a moment that
SR often makes the difference between a decent presentation and one
that is hopeless from the perspective of being heard by the audience.

But that's not my point at all. The reasons for SR are not really
important to me. What is important to me is that the SR exists and
thus deprives me of the experience that I want. The fact that the
venue REQUIRES it is not my problem as a attendee. I either accept the
presence of the SR or I don't. I don't. What others might do in a
situation where they are confronted by a live concert that isn't
really live is for them to decide. I've made my decision and that's
not to attend such concerts - even if they were free.

[Gary Eickmeier]

Scott wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 6, 2013 4:59:12 AM UTC-7, Gary Eickmeier wrote:

>> When they start amplifying orchestras and bands, balances get all
>> screwed
>> up. First, the musicians never learn how to balance themselves for
>> the audience.
>
> They are not supposed to. They are supposed to play as normal and let
> the sound guys figure out the rest.

The sound guys can't perform alongside the musicians. The musicians,
especially when they have a solo, will seek out the nearest microphone and
play to it.
>
>> The piano, for example, should have the lid open and the sound
>> coming toward the audience, not shut and stuffed with microphones.
>
> Actually pianos are designed to be played either way. Can't say that
> I have ever been to a concert where the mic was shoved under a closed
> lid though.

A concert piano sounds just fine with no amplification because they
routinely set up the instrument at the front and play to the audience and
balance themselves with the orchestra. But go to a jazz concert and suddenly
all principles of good sound depend on the microphones and engineers. The
piano is shoved to the back unless it is a headline player, and the only way
you can hear it is thru the sound system.
>
>> I have seen the horn section playing
>> with the bell of the horn facing the floor, either through lack of
>> showmanship or because of the damn microphones.
>
>> That is how the French horn is supposed to be played.
> https://www.google.com/search?q=french+horn+section&safe=off&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=DwkBUs2-NMqAygHt5YGABw&ved=0CCsQsAQ&biw=1600&bih=741
> When have you ever seen one played with the bell facing out?

Who said anything about French horns?

Gary Eickmeier

[Bob Lombard[_3_]]

On 8/8/2013 3:05 PM, ScottW wrote:
> Here you go.
> http://cdn.rohde-schwarz.com/dl_downloads/dl_common_library/dl_manuals/gb_1/u/upv_1/UPV_User_Manual_e.pdf
> This is the user manual for Rohde & Schwarz UPV Audio Analyzer. This
> is not a toy. It's a professional tool for designers and production
> test. Pick a test and you will find that the system has a factory
> programmed source specifically optimized for that test to provide the
> highest accuracy and speed possible for that test. While the system
> can use pre-recorded signals including music for some tests (not all),
> I think you'll find that for any parametric tests you've listed above,
> the extremely low noise precision signal generators are used.
>>
>>
>> In fact the accuracy and repeatability can be pretty much equal.
> Virtually every piece of test equipment improves it's accuracy and repeatability by averaging. Non-repetitive music samples do not lend themselves to this and for measurements like THD+N (ref pg 130)..you will note that "sinusoidal signals are required".
>
> ScottW
>
Scott, please forgive (or at least ignore) my ignorance. How do these
tests /directly/ relate to the accurate reproduction of music - assuming
that a microphone is a requirement for capturing it, so starting from there?

bl

[Arny Krueger[_5_]]

"ScottW" > wrote in message
...
On Tuesday, August 6, 2013 10:38:18 AM UTC-7, Arny Krueger wrote:

>> "ScottW" > wrote in message

>> >> 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.

> > Every test you mention can be done far more accurately and repeatable
> > with
> > a test signal specifically suited to the test. Music won't be it.

>> In essence, you've just repeated the earlier false statement without
>> providing any additional evidence.

> Here you go.

> http://cdn.rohde-schwarz.com/dl_downloads/dl_common_library/dl_manuals/gb_1/u/upv_1/UPV_User_Manual_e.pdf

> This is the user manual for Rohde & Schwarz UPV Audio Analyzer.

But it is just a user manual and not a refereed technical paper or
university textbook.

> In fact the accuracy and repeatability can be pretty much equal.

Virtually every piece of test equipment improves it's accuracy and
repeatability by averaging. Non-repetitive music samples do not lend
themselves to this and for measurements like THD+N (ref pg 130)..you will
note that "sinusoidal signals are required".

This manul is relevant only to the piece of equipment for this is the user
manual and does not even in slightest establish limits for modern
measurement technology.

Obviously, so-called "Non repetitive music samples" can be themselves
repeated.

This evidence lacks relevance and authority.

[Andrew Haley]

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

That's definitely true. I particularly hate the sound of bellowing
coloratura opera singers. That technique was developed to allow
singers to be heard over an orchestra, and one of the greatest
blessings of amplification is that singing in a natural voice can be
heard by an audience.

Andrew.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Thursday, August 8, 2013 3:09:18 PM UTC-7, Bob Lombard wrote:
> On 8/8/2013 3:05 PM, ScottW wrote:
> > Here you go.
> >
> > http://cdn.rohde-schwarz.com/dl_downloads/dl_common_library/dl_manuals/gb_1/u/upv_1/UPV_User_Manual_e.pdf
> > This is the user manual for Rohde & Schwarz UPV Audio Analyzer. This
> > is not a toy. It's a professional tool for designers and production
> > test. Pick a test and you will find that the system has a factory
> > programmed source specifically optimized for that test to provide the
> > highest accuracy and speed possible for that test. While the system
> > can use pre-recorded signals including music for some tests (not all),
> > I think you'll find that for any parametric tests you've listed above,
> > the extremely low noise precision signal generators are used.
> >>
> >> In fact the accuracy and repeatability can be pretty much equal.
>
> > Virtually every piece of test equipment improves it's accuracy and
> > repeatability by averaging. Non-repetitive music samples do not lend themselves
> > to this and for measurements like THD+N (ref pg 130)..you will note that
> > "sinusoidal signals are required".
> >
> > ScottW
> >
>
> Scott, please forgive (or at least ignore) my ignorance. How do these
> tests /directly/ relate to the accurate reproduction of music - assuming
> that a microphone is a requirement for capturing it, so starting from there?
>
> bl

It doesn't relate to the accurate reproduction of music. It relates to
the accurate transfer of audio signals. Those are not the same thing.
If we are talking live acoustic music then the original 3 dimensional
soundfield is out of reach and no recording and playback system even
tries to accurately reproduce it. It's just not how audio works.
Audio, in the case of high end audio and acoustic music that was
originally performed on acoustic instruments in a real space is more
about creating an aural illusion of the original event from a chosen
listener perspective. Some believe that accuracy from the source
signal (the CD, SACD,LP etc) to the speaker terminals is important in
achieving that aural illusion. others like myself don't believe there
is always such a correlation and in some instances certain distortions
to that signal will enhance the aural illusion of realism.

[Oregonian Haruspex]

On 2013-08-06 02:39:07 +0000, said:

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

I wonder the same thing myself. My first experience with audio rags
came in the 1990s (pardon my young age) but the amount of mumbo jumbo
in these publications strains the imagination.

Stereo imaging is another topic. For live recorded music, your stereo
impression is less that of the spread of the musicians, and more the
specific delay and reverberation caused by the room's shape and audio
impression.

For music that is recorded in the studio, generally every instrument is
mic'd separately and the stereo spread is whatever the engineer(s)
decide. Heck, lots of music these days is recorded over multiple
sessions, with only part of the ensemble being present at any point in
time!

The best stereo recordings I have heard were recorded out of doors,
with the microphones separated by a large distance, thus eliminating
much of the reverb and delay except that which comes off the ground.
The worst are generally those which have the mics on the same mount,
but pointed in different directions.

[Audio_Empire]

In article >,
Oregonian Haruspex > wrote:

> On 2013-08-06 02:39:07 +0000, said:
>
> > Pardon a couple of comments from my personal experience and viewpoint.
> > Concerning the statement that "Modern Reviewing Practices In Audio
> > Rags Have Become Useless," I've been reading reviews for 60 years, and
> > my question is, "When were they not generally useless?" I don't want
> > to exaggerate, and I have treasured a small number of useful reviewers
> > during that period; but gee, they've been rare. // As for imaging, it
> > is a much misunderstood subject. We can't judge the imaging of a
> > playback system or a piece of gear unless the source HAS an image; and
> > this is very rare. Unfortunately, imaging IS important; for its
> > evolutionary role (enabling us to locate predators or prey) precedes
> > music's esthetic function; and we have difficulty paying attention to
> > sound we cannot locate. (I say "we" because while this is true of me,
> > I also observe it in others.) // On an altogether separate separate
> > subject, I've started a blog for pianists and musicians generally, at
> > www.JamesBoyk.com .
>
> I wonder the same thing myself. My first experience with audio rags
> came in the 1990s (pardon my young age) but the amount of mumbo jumbo
> in these publications strains the imagination.

That's often true, but it's beside the point. Take imaging, for
instance. If a reviewer talks about sound-stage and image specificity
using a recording known to well embody those characteristics, such as
certain Mercury Living Presence or RCA Victor Red Seals from the 1950's,
or a modern Reference Recording, then even if the audio
enthusiast/reader is unfamiliar with the work (or even the genre), he
will likely know that these recordings are known for real stereo imaging
and minimalist miking technique and if they image well using the
equipment under review, then most likely, that equipment does a good
job at sound stage presentation, and the reviewer gains SOME credibility
that if the reader where to acquire that same recording, played thought
that same equipment, he would have a similar experience - even if he
doesn't generally listen to that genre of music. The recordings are a
known quantity and as such are a touchstone to which anybody who has
ever heard live, unamplified music played in a real space. The
experience is readily transferrable. OTOH, when someone uses studio-
recorded pop with it's multi-track mono, isolating gobos (or, the gods
forbid) even recorded in different studios at different times, it's a
crap shoot. There is so much pop recorded and so many different tastes
in pop music, that once you stray from a few universally known acts
(like the Who, or The Stones, etc. The chance that any reader is
familiar enough with the reviewer's examples to understand what he's
trying to say about the equipment is slim.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

[Scott[_6_]]

On Saturday, August 10, 2013 5:27:43 AM UTC-7, Oregonian Haruspex wrote:
> On 2013-08-06 02:39:07 +0000, said:
>
> > Pardon a couple of comments from my personal experience and viewpoint.
> > Concerning the statement that "Modern Reviewing Practices In Audio
> > Rags Have Become Useless," I've been reading reviews for 60 years, and
> > my question is, "When were they not generally useless?" I don't want
> > to exaggerate, and I have treasured a small number of useful reviewers
> > during that period; but gee, they've been rare. // As for imaging, it
> > is a much misunderstood subject. We can't judge the imaging of a
> > playback system or a piece of gear unless the source HAS an image; and
> > this is very rare. Unfortunately, imaging IS important; for its
> > evolutionary role (enabling us to locate predators or prey) precedes
> > music's esthetic function; and we have difficulty paying attention to
> > sound we cannot locate. (I say "we" because while this is true of me,
> > I also observe it in others.) // On an altogether separate separate
> > subject, I've started a blog for pianists and musicians generally, at
> > www.JamesBoyk.com .
>
> I wonder the same thing myself. My first experience with audio rags
> came in the 1990s (pardon my young age) but the amount of mumbo jumbo
> in these publications strains the imagination.
>
> Stereo imaging is another topic. For live recorded music, your stereo
> impression is less that of the spread of the musicians, and more the
> specific delay and reverberation caused by the room's shape and audio
> impression.

Not IME. With some recordings you can get a pretty vivid 3D rendering
of musicians on a stage. I think in many cases the best imaging is
actually far more explicit with playback than in real life. I like
this better than truly accurate imaging because in real life the
imaging is augmented by visual cues. Real life imaging without the
visual cues can be pretty vague and blurred. In this case a little
over compensation works well to enhance an illusion of live music.

> For music that is recorded in the studio, generally every instrument is
> mic'd separately and the stereo spread is whatever the engineer(s)
> decide. Heck, lots of music these days is recorded over multiple
> sessions, with only part of the ensemble being present at any point in
> time!

You really can';t make any meaningful generalizations. We are talking
about over 60 years of recorded music. Techniques run the gamut.

> The best stereo recordings I have heard were recorded out of doors,
> with the microphones separated by a large distance, thus eliminating
> much of the reverb and delay except that which comes off the ground.
> The worst are generally those which have the mics on the same mount,
> but pointed in different directions.

can you name titles? I can't imagine such recordings even coming close
to those made by certain audiophile labels or the golden age classical
recordings or some of the current crop of high quality classical
recordings.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Saturday, August 10, 2013 8:12:29 PM UTC-7, Audio_Empire wrote:
> In article >,
>
> Oregonian Haruspex > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 2013-08-06 02:39:07 +0000, said:
>
> >
>
> > > Pardon a couple of comments from my personal experience and viewpoint..
>
> > > Concerning the statement that "Modern Reviewing Practices In Audio
>
> > > Rags Have Become Useless," I've been reading reviews for 60 years, and
>
> > > my question is, "When were they not generally useless?" I don't want
>
> > > to exaggerate, and I have treasured a small number of useful reviewers
>
> > > during that period; but gee, they've been rare. // As for imaging, it
>
> > > is a much misunderstood subject. We can't judge the imaging of a
>
> > > playback system or a piece of gear unless the source HAS an image; and
>
> > > this is very rare. Unfortunately, imaging IS important; for its
>
> > > evolutionary role (enabling us to locate predators or prey) precedes
>
> > > music's esthetic function; and we have difficulty paying attention to
>
> > > sound we cannot locate. (I say "we" because while this is true of me,
>
> > > I also observe it in others.) // On an altogether separate separate
>
> > > subject, I've started a blog for pianists and musicians generally, at
>
> > > www.JamesBoyk.com .
>
> >
>
> > I wonder the same thing myself. My first experience with audio rags
>
> > came in the 1990s (pardon my young age) but the amount of mumbo jumbo
>
> > in these publications strains the imagination.
>
>
>
> That's often true, but it's beside the point. Take imaging, for
>
> instance. If a reviewer talks about sound-stage and image specificity
>
> using a recording known to well embody those characteristics, such as
>
> certain Mercury Living Presence or RCA Victor Red Seals from the 1950's,
>
> or a modern Reference Recording, then even if the audio
>
> enthusiast/reader is unfamiliar with the work (or even the genre), he
>
> will likely know that these recordings are known for real stereo imaging
>
> and minimalist miking technique and if they image well using the
>
> equipment under review, then most likely, that equipment does a good
>
> job at sound stage presentation, and the reviewer gains SOME credibility
>
> that if the reader where to acquire that same recording, played thought
>
> that same equipment, he would have a similar experience - even if he
>
> doesn't generally listen to that genre of music. The recordings are a
>
> known quantity and as such are a touchstone to which anybody who has
>
> ever heard live, unamplified music played in a real space. The
>
> experience is readily transferrable. OTOH, when someone uses studio-
>
> recorded pop with it's multi-track mono, isolating gobos (or, the gods
>
> forbid) even recorded in different studios at different times, it's a
>
> crap shoot. There is so much pop recorded and so many different tastes
>
> in pop music, that once you stray from a few universally known acts
>
> (like the Who, or The Stones, etc. The chance that any reader is
>
> familiar enough with the reviewer's examples to understand what he's
>
> trying to say about the equipment is slim.
>

"if the reader where to acquire that same recording, played thought that same equipment, he would have a similar experience"

This is the crux of the issue *right here* This is true regardless of how are recording is made. transference of experience is not limited to minimalist recordings of acoustic instruments. If the reader were to acquire the same studio recordings of pop/rock music as the reviewer played through that same equipment, he would also have a similar experience.

[Audio_Empire]

In article >, Scott >
wrote:

> On Saturday, August 10, 2013 5:27:43 AM UTC-7, Oregonian Haruspex wrote:
> > On 2013-08-06 02:39:07 +0000, said:

>
> > The best stereo recordings I have heard were recorded out of doors,
> > with the microphones separated by a large distance, thus eliminating
> > much of the reverb and delay except that which comes off the ground.
> > The worst are generally those which have the mics on the same mount,
> > but pointed in different directions.
>
> can you name titles? I can't imagine such recordings even coming close
> to those made by certain audiophile labels or the golden age classical
> recordings or some of the current crop of high quality classical
> recordings.

I agree. I've made recordings out-of-doors (not my call) and mostly they
were junk. Extremely dry, with absolutely no sense of space. If, like me,
you agree that the best recordings are those where the instruments
themselves are not miked, but rather the space they occupy is miked,
then you can see that out-of-doors, you are forced to mike the
instruments because obviously, one can't mike infinity (all outdoors).
With no boundaries (walls, ceiling) the sound just disappears. I don't
find it possible to make good STEREO recordings outside. You might be
able to make good multi-channel mono recordings by close-miking
everything and then mixing them together to synthesize right, left and
center channels and then add some artificial reverb, but that's not
really stereo (by definition and in MY personal estimation).

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

[Gary Eickmeier]

Audio_Empire wrote:


> I agree. I've made recordings out-of-doors (not my call) and mostly
> they were junk. Extremely dry, with absolutely no sense of space. If,
> like me, you agree that the best recordings are those where the
> instruments themselves are not miked, but rather the space they
> occupy is miked, then you can see that out-of-doors, you are forced
> to mike the instruments because obviously, one can't mike infinity
> (all outdoors). With no boundaries (walls, ceiling) the sound just
> disappears. I don't find it possible to make good STEREO recordings
> outside. You might be able to make good multi-channel mono recordings
> by close-miking everything and then mixing them together to
> synthesize right, left and center channels and then add some
> artificial reverb, but that's not really stereo (by definition and in
> MY personal estimation).

Well, the main difference is that with that kind of miking the final result
would be to place the musicians in the playback space, usually with few
depth clues. Secondarily, you don't get the full sound power output of the
instruments either, because you are recording the direct output along only
one axis, which makes for poorer sound quality of any instrument.

Bottom line, instead of the music blowing, it would suck. Heh....

Gary Eickmeier

[Scott[_6_]]

On Sunday, August 11, 2013 1:03:45 PM UTC-7, Audio_Empire wrote:
> In article >, Scott >
> wrote:
>
> > On Saturday, August 10, 2013 5:27:43 AM UTC-7, Oregonian Haruspex wrote:
> > > On 2013-08-06 02:39:07 +0000, said:
> >
> > > The best stereo recordings I have heard were recorded out of doors,
> > > with the microphones separated by a large distance, thus eliminating
> > > much of the reverb and delay except that which comes off the ground.
> > > The worst are generally those which have the mics on the same mount,
> > > but pointed in different directions.
> >
> > can you name titles? I can't imagine such recordings even coming close
> > to those made by certain audiophile labels or the golden age classical
> > recordings or some of the current crop of high quality classical
> > recordings.
>
> I agree. I've made recordings out-of-doors (not my call) and mostly they
> were junk. Extremely dry, with absolutely no sense of space. If, like me,
> you agree that the best recordings are those where the instruments
> themselves are not miked, but rather the space they occupy is miked,
> then you can see that out-of-doors, you are forced to mike the
> instruments because obviously, one can't mike infinity (all outdoors).
> With no boundaries (walls, ceiling) the sound just disappears. I don't
> find it possible to make good STEREO recordings outside. You might be
> able to make good multi-channel mono recordings by close-miking
> everything and then mixing them together to synthesize right, left and
> center channels and then add some artificial reverb, but that's not
> really stereo (by definition and in MY personal estimation).

This is something we absolutely DO agree on. If I had to make a list
of the top 50 best *sounding* recordings they would most, if not all
be minimalist recordings of acoustic instruments in concert halls or
some other venue with a good acoustic for music.

[Audio_Empire]

In article >,
"Gary Eickmeier" > wrote:

> Audio_Empire wrote:
ment.
>
> Bottom line, instead of the music blowing, it would suck. Heh....
>
> Gary Eickmeier

True enough. With no reinforcement from walls /ceiling most of the
acoustic energy is dissipated. It gives a dry sound lacking in impact.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

[[email protected]]

> Stereo imaging is another topic. For live recorded music, your stereo im=
pression is less that of the spread of the musicians, and more the specific=
delay and reverberation caused by the room's shape and audio impression. F=
or music that is recorded in the studio, generally every instrument is mic'=
d separately and the stereo spread is whatever the engineer(s) decide.... T=
he best stereo recordings I have heard were recorded out of doors,=20
with the microphones separated by a large distance, thus eliminating much o=
f the reverb and delay except that which comes off the ground. The worst ar=
e generally those which have the mics on the same mount, but pointed in dif=
ferent directions.

I'm afraid you have all this backward (and no, it's not a subjective matter=
). A good place to start learning about the subject is the stereo miking de=
mo created in the Caltech Music Lab, which has long been recognized as auth=
oritative by well-known experts, and has been adopted by NPR Microphone Wor=
kshops. As a service to the audio field, I've made it available on my label=
at shop.PerformanceRecordings.com . -James Boyk
Founder/Director, Caltech Music Lab 1979-2004
CV www.PerformanceRecordings.com/cv.html

[Audio_Empire[_2_]]

On Sunday, August 18, 2013 5:53:03 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> > Stereo imaging is another topic. For live recorded music, your stereo
> > impression is less that of the spread of the musicians, and more the specific
> > delay and reverberation caused by the room's shape and audio impression.
> >
> > For music that is recorded in the studio, generally every instrument
> > is mic'd separately and the stereo spread is whatever the engineer(s)
> > decide....
> >
> > The best stereo recordings I have heard were recorded out of doors,
> > with the microphones separated by a large distance, thus eliminating
> > much of the reverb and delay except that which comes off the ground.
> > The worst are generally those which have the mics on the same mount,
> > but pointed in different directions.

This is counter to my experience. Frankly, recording music
out-of-doors is fraught with difficulties. First of all, there is wind
noise. It doesn't take much of a breeze to ruin a recording, and while
wind "socks" help, they aren't 100% effective by any stretch of the
imagination. Secondly, without any enclosure for the musicians, the
amount of acoustical energy reaching the mikes is hugely attenuated.
Thirdly, there is no reverb, so the music sounds dry and lifeless. and
is definitely NOT something that I would want to listen to.

Also, the idea that Blumlein-style microphone technique ("The worst
are generally those which have the mics on the same mount, but pointed
in different directions.") is somehow the worst type of microphone
setup is as wrong as one can be. So called "purist" microphone
placement (A-B, X-Y, M-S, ORTF, etc,) yields by FAR the best stereo
sound stage and the best imaging (for speaker reproduction).

> I'm afraid you have all this backward (and no, it's not a subjective
> matter).

That is quite correct.

> A good place to start learning about the subject is the stereo miking
> demo created in the Caltech Music Lab, which has long been recognized
> as authoritative by well-known experts, and has been adopted by NPR
> Microphone Workshops. As a service to the audio field, I've made it
> available on my label at shop.PerformanceRecordings.com . -James Boyk

Thanks, I;ll take a look at it.

Audio_Empire

[~misfit~[_3_]]

Somewhere on teh intarwebs 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."
>
> 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!

I'm sorry, I haven't read through the whole thread including replies yet. I
don't have time right now (it's a rare dry day and my lawns are so very
long) but I have something that I'd like to try to say.

I understand completely your frustration - you have a way of explaining
things that works well.

However I'd like to posit that there *is* a modern standard of reference (if
you will) and that is whatever recording the listener (and reader) is
familiar with. After all, it's the reproduction of the *recording* that the
reviewers are reviewing, not a group of instruments in a certain space.

Please, bare with me for a few moments and allow me to present another
scenario. Early electric music, when recorded was mono and simple
(relatively). Then, with the advent of stereo and 'studio recording' the
recording engineer was faced with the problem of making all of the
seperately recorded tracks into one whole that sounds pleasing. This
recording is in no way intended to be an accurate representation of the
space in which the artists were playing at the time/s. Instead it has become
/virtual reality/, an idealised sound - abstract.

This mixing and engineering has become an art in itself - the 'staging' of
the band in a created reality. That's why music sounded much better when
'artists' like Phil Spector, Alan Parsons and Butch Vig took control of the
knobs. These were men of vision for their time and were able to imagine the
space in which they wanted the band to be playing - then create it. It's not
meant to be the reproduction of a physical reality, it's an artificial
construct and, as such is reproducible - accurately or not.

This artificial construct will sound very similar on high-end audio systems
(although they all will colour it to some degree). It is the playback of
this manipulated recording that the reviewers are reviewing, comparing it to
how they've heard it on 'great' systems. It has nothing to do with how the
band sounds when they're playing in a space. That's the fundamental
difference between what you are familiar with and what the readership of
these magazines are familiar with. In my opinion it in no way invalidates
these contemporary reviews and a system that can accurately reproduce what
you refer to as 'pop music' will, in all likelihood also be good at
reproducing a symphony in a hall - or a string quartet in a large room.

When I was more mobile (and affluent) I'd take a few 'reference CDs' with me
to listen to on a system. (Rickie Lee Jones in particular, also Peter
Gabriels 'So' and a few others) I know these 'recordings' (if you'll allow
the use of the word - they're really constructs) so very well, having
listened to them many, many times on diverse systems (yet I've never heard
either performer live). I know how they /can/ image, I know the parts where
Rickie very quietly 'breathes' along with the bass line - and I know that it
takes a formidable speaker (as an example) to not only reproduce those two
diverse sounds, one very soft, one deep and powerful, concurrently. On a
mass-produced lo-fi system you could listen for decades and never hear it.
On the system I'm listening to now with it's tri-amped quasi-ribbon tweeter
top end, lower-midrange section and 10" deep bass drivers (it's a small
room) it's unmissable.

Once again, I'm not arguing with you - I agree with all that you say. I'm
simply putting forward a different viewpoint based on a different musical
genre and a different 'standard' and trying to do so as eloquently as you
put forth your opinions. Forgive me if I fail.

For a time, four years or so spanning the turn of the decade, late 1970s and
early 1980s, I travelled with a band and was responsible for their live
soundmixing. When the time came for them to lay down some recordings I
'consulted' with the sound engineer, giving input into the band's live
sound, telling him when his mix drifted too far from how the band sounds
live (so that people who were faniliar with the band live - my mix -
wouldn't buy a recording and hear something completely different.

Back then it was rare for a band to sound even similar live to how they
sounded on their recordings. You didn't go to a concert to hear the band -
you were best to do that at home on your hi-fi (if you owned one). You'd go
to a concert for the experience. In fact the only band I've ever heard live
after listening to their albums repeatedly that sounded almost the same was
Dire Straights - that was spooky - going to a concert and hearing almost
exactly what you'd hear coming from your hi-fi. Normally, then, the
experiences only had a few things in common w/r/t the way they sounded. (It
may be common-place now for all I know as I no longer go to concerts.)

So, not being intimately familar with live, unamplified music from a
location close enough to the performers (as in where a conductor might
stand) where I can get a sense of the spatial diversity I'd be a poor judge
of a stereo system listening to such a recording. However, give me my
original copy of Rickie Lee Jones' first album and I think that I'd be able
to give a fair judgement of the fidelity of the system.

After all's said and done it's not generally the source material that we
discuss here it's the equipment that reproduces it (and in this thread the
legitimacy of magazine reviews of that equipment).

Regards,
--
/Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long, way when religious belief has a
cozy little classification in the DSM."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
[Sent from my OrbitalT ocular implant interface.]

[Audio_Empire[_2_]]

In article >,
"~misfit~" > wrote:

> Somewhere on teh intarwebs Audio_Empire wrote:

<snip>

> >
> > 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!
>=20
> I'm sorry, I haven't read through the whole thread including replies yet.=
I=20
> don't have time right now (it's a rare dry day and my lawns are so very=
=20
> long) but I have something that I'd like to try to say.
>=20
> I understand completely your frustration - you have a way of explaining=
=20
> things that works well.
>=20
> However I'd like to posit that there *is* a modern standard of reference =
(if=20
> you will) and that is whatever recording the listener (and reader) is=20
> familiar with. After all, it's the reproduction of the *recording* that t=
he=20
> reviewers are reviewing, not a group of instruments in a certain space.

How can they be familiar with a recording, if as music, it doesn't exist ou=
tside of a studio? Even when these bands play concerts, they take their stu=
dios with them so that their concert performances sound just like the recor=
dings they made of these same songs! I'll grant that one can be so familia=
r with a performance that one can anticipate each note with great accuracy,=
and can tell instantly, if the performance that they are listening to at a=
ny given time is NOT the performance that they are used to hearing. But I d=
on't think that familiarity can help with sonic judgements. Nobody has hear=
d 'The Who', for instance, without their whole studio behind them, nor have=
they heard the band through other than speakers; either their own, or the =
sound-reinforcement systems at a concert.=20
>=20
> Please, bare with me for a few moments and allow me to present another=20
> scenario. Early electric music, when recorded was mono and simple=20
> (relatively). Then, with the advent of stereo and 'studio recording' the=
=20
> recording engineer was faced with the problem of making all of the=20
> seperately recorded tracks into one whole that sounds pleasing. This=20
> recording is in no way intended to be an accurate representation of the=
=20
> space in which the artists were playing at the time/s. Instead it has bec=
ome=20
> /virtual reality/, an idealised sound - abstract.

I understand, and I agree. I am not complaining here about the music as a l=
istening experience (with all that involves), I'm criticizing the use of th=
ese types of music and performances as REVIEWING TOOLS to gauge the accurac=
y of audio equipment.=20
>=20
> This mixing and engineering has become an art in itself - the 'staging' o=
f=20
> the band in a created reality. That's why music sounded much better when=
=20
> 'artists' like Phil Spector, Alan Parsons and Butch Vig took control of t=
he=20
> knobs. These were men of vision for their time and were able to imagine t=
he=20
> space in which they wanted the band to be playing - then create it. It's =
not=20
> meant to be the reproduction of a physical reality, it's an artificial=20
> construct and, as such is reproducible - accurately or not.

Again, I understand that, but it's irrelevant to my point, which is that yo=
u can't use music that has no real soundstage to gauge soundstage, nor can =
you use music recorded in such a way that the instruments don't sound like =
that instrument would sound in an un-amplified listening situation (as in t=
he case of instruments that are recorded using contact microphones). I've h=
eard these arguments before, and I remain adamant that this kind of music i=
s simply irrelevant to the goal of high-fidelity reproduction, and as much =
as the modern audiophile community might revere it, it's wishful thinking t=
o believe that any meaningful conclusions about the Fi of equipment can be =
gathered by using it as a reviewing tool.=20

> This artificial construct will sound very similar on high-end audio syste=
ms=20
> (although they all will colour it to some degree). It is the playback of=
=20
> this manipulated recording that the reviewers are reviewing, comparing it=
to=20
> how they've heard it on 'great' systems. It has nothing to do with how th=
e=20
> band sounds when they're playing in a space. That's the fundamental=20
> difference between what you are familiar with and what the readership of=
=20
> these magazines are familiar with. In my opinion it in no way invalidates=
=20
> these contemporary reviews and a system that can accurately reproduce wha=
t=20
> you refer to as 'pop music' will, in all likelihood also be good at=20
> reproducing a symphony in a hall - or a string quartet in a large room.

I still maintain that if your final comment in the above paragraph is true,=
it's happenstance, because the conclusions drawn using pop music as a sour=
ce simply have no relationship to the reality of music reproduction.=20

> When I was more mobile (and affluent) I'd take a few 'reference CDs' with=
me=20
> to listen to on a system. (Rickie Lee Jones in particular, also Peter=20
> Gabriels 'So' and a few others) I know these 'recordings' (if you'll allo=
w=20
> the use of the word - they're really constructs) so very well, having=20
> listened to them many, many times on diverse systems (yet I've never hear=
d=20
> either performer live). I know how they /can/ image, I know the parts whe=
re=20
> Rickie very quietly 'breathes' along with the bass line - and I know that=
it=20
> takes a formidable speaker (as an example) to not only reproduce those tw=
o=20
> diverse sounds, one very soft, one deep and powerful, concurrently. On a=
=20
> mass-produced lo-fi system you could listen for decades and never hear it=
..=20
> On the system I'm listening to now with it's tri-amped quasi-ribbon tweet=
er=20
> top end, lower-midrange section and 10" deep bass drivers (it's a small=
=20
> room) it's unmissable.

Perhaps so, but I don't see what that has to do with a system's performance=
on live music played in a real space. What it shows is that these performa=
nces sound GOOD to the listener through THAT equipment, and that's down to =
individual taste, not accuracy. I.E., I know what a real bowed bass viol so=
unds like and when a system's bass is accurate, that's what I hear in the l=
istening room. Whatever differs from that is NOT the sound of a bass viol. =
What some rock-band's bass guitar sounds like through their on-stage amplif=
ier/speaker, I have no idea (and neither does any other listener). So when =
the bass line comes across as being tubby or wooly with poor low frequency =
transient response, what does it tell us? Is it the playback system? Is it =
the bass player's on-stage amp/speaker?, is it the way the bass player has =
his guitar set-up, or is it something that the producer/engineers have done=
to the bass in production to "punch it up"? There's no way to know.=20

> Once again, I'm not arguing with you - I agree with all that you say. I'm=
=20
> simply putting forward a different viewpoint based on a different musical=
=20
> genre and a different 'standard' and trying to do so as eloquently as you=
=20
> put forth your opinions. Forgive me if I fail.

I understand. I just don't buy that using this music to test audio equipmen=
t can give a complete or accurate picture of how a piece of equipment actua=
lly sounds beyond the "It sounds good to me and my tastes" level of critici=
sm.=20
>=20
> For a time, four years or so spanning the turn of the decade, late 1970s =
and=20
> early 1980s, I travelled with a band and was responsible for their live=
=20
> soundmixing. When the time came for them to lay down some recordings I=20
> 'consulted' with the sound engineer, giving input into the band's live=20
> sound, telling him when his mix drifted too far from how the band sounds=
=20
> live (so that people who were faniliar with the band live - my mix -=20
> wouldn't buy a recording and hear something completely different.

That's very true. The "road" sound and the studio sound must be the same on=
a band's popular works, or the fans will be disappointed with the live per=
formance (and vice versa).=20

>=20
> Back then it was rare for a band to sound even similar live to how they=
=20
> sounded on their recordings. You didn't go to a concert to hear the band =
-=20
> you were best to do that at home on your hi-fi (if you owned one). You'd =
go=20
> to a concert for the experience. In fact the only band I've ever heard li=
ve=20
> after listening to their albums repeatedly that sounded almost the same w=
as=20
> Dire Straights - that was spooky - going to a concert and hearing almost=
=20
> exactly what you'd hear coming from your hi-fi. Normally, then, the=20
> experiences only had a few things in common w/r/t the way they sounded. (=
It=20
> may be common-place now for all I know as I no longer go to concerts.)

I think today's concert goers expect their favorite songs to sound, in-conc=
ert, like they do on the band's recordings. Luckily, that goal is obtainabl=
e today with modern S.R. equipment and talented mixing personnel.

> So, not being intimately familar with live, unamplified music from a=20
> location close enough to the performers (as in where a conductor might=20
> stand) where I can get a sense of the spatial diversity I'd be a poor jud=
ge=20
> of a stereo system listening to such a recording. However, give me my=20
> original copy of Rickie Lee Jones' first album and I think that I'd be ab=
le=20
> to give a fair judgement of the fidelity of the system.

Well, first of all, the best classical recordings are not recorded from the=
conductor's point of view, but rather from the perspective of a prime seat=
in the audience. The trick is to get the various instrument sounds in an o=
rchestra to coalesce into the sound of a symphony orchestra, not the sound =
of 80 individual instruments all playing at once - which is more or less wh=
at the conductor hears. But, of course, that's what he needs to hear as opp=
osed to what the concert goer needs to hear.=20

> After all's said and done it's not generally the source material that we=
=20
> discuss here it's the equipment that reproduces it (and in this thread th=
e=20
> legitimacy of magazine reviews of that equipment).

But without real music with which to judge said equipment, the evaluations =
are meaningless
because they come down to someone's personal taste rather than accuracy. IO=
W, without a
reference, there's no way to know where you are. I feel that is where the a=
rt and science of
reviewing is today.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Thursday, September 26, 2013 7:30:50 PM UTC-7, Audio_Empire wrote:
> In article >,
>=20
> "~misfit~" > wrote:
>=20
>=20
>=20
> > Somewhere on teh intarwebs Audio_Empire wrote:
>=20
>=20
>=20
> <snip>
>=20
>=20
>=20
> > >
>=20
> > > I realize that the magazines like 'Stereophile' et al have to try to
>=20
> > > cater to todays equipment buyers in order to remain "relevant" with
>=20
> > > their readers, but what is going on in audio reviewing today is akin
>=20
> > > to somebody testing an asphalt paving machine using using salt-water
>=20
> > > taffy instead of asphalt. The results obtained from such a test have
>=20
> > > absolutely no bearing on how the paving machine will perform when
>=20
> > > paving roads with hot asphalt! Likewise a speaker review (for
>=20
> > > instance) using studio recorded pop music bears little or no relation
>=20
> > > to how that speaker system might perform with REAL, live acoustical
>=20
> > > music and anybody who thinks that it does, is deluded.
>=20
> > >
>=20
> > > Frustrating!
>=20
> >=20
>=20
> > I'm sorry, I haven't read through the whole thread including replies ye=
t. I=20
>=20
> > don't have time right now (it's a rare dry day and my lawns are so very=
=20
>=20
> > long) but I have something that I'd like to try to say.
>=20
> >=20
>=20
> > I understand completely your frustration - you have a way of explaining=
=20
>=20
> > things that works well.
>=20
> >=20
>=20
> > However I'd like to posit that there *is* a modern standard of referenc=
e (if=20
>=20
> > you will) and that is whatever recording the listener (and reader) is=
=20
>=20
> > familiar with. After all, it's the reproduction of the *recording* that=
the=20
>=20
> > reviewers are reviewing, not a group of instruments in a certain space.
>=20
>=20
>=20
> How can they be familiar with a recording, if as music, it doesn't exist =
outside of a studio? Even when these bands play concerts, they take their s=
tudios with them so that their concert performances sound just like the rec=
ordings they made of these same songs! I'll grant that one can be so famil=
iar with a performance that one can anticipate each note with great accurac=
y, and can tell instantly, if the performance that they are listening to at=
any given time is NOT the performance that they are used to hearing. But I=
don't think that familiarity can help with sonic judgements. Nobody has he=
ard 'The Who', for instance, without their whole studio behind them, nor ha=
ve they heard the band through other than speakers; either their own, or th=
e sound-reinforcement systems at a concert.


One simply needs to listen to a recording often enough and on enough differ=
ent playback systems to be "familiar with the recording." It's almost a tau=
tological argument. And I disagree with you about it not helping with sonic=
judgements. In fact I would argue that it is crucial in making sonic judge=
ments that one be familiar with the recordings they use. Then one is actual=
ly able to compare the playback gear and eliminate the source material as a=
variable.

>=20
> >=20
>=20
> > Please, bare with me for a few moments and allow me to present another=
=20
>=20
> > scenario. Early electric music, when recorded was mono and simple=20
>=20
> > (relatively). Then, with the advent of stereo and 'studio recording' th=
e=20
>=20
> > recording engineer was faced with the problem of making all of the=20
>=20
> > seperately recorded tracks into one whole that sounds pleasing. This=20
>=20
> > recording is in no way intended to be an accurate representation of the=
=20
>=20
> > space in which the artists were playing at the time/s. Instead it has b=
ecome=20
>=20
> > /virtual reality/, an idealised sound - abstract.
>=20
>=20
>=20
> I understand, and I agree. I am not complaining here about the music as a=
listening experience (with all that involves), I'm criticizing the use of =
these types of music and performances as REVIEWING TOOLS to gauge the accur=
acy of audio equipment.=20


Who says the reviewers are gauging "accuracy?"=20
>=20
> >=20
>=20
> > This mixing and engineering has become an art in itself - the 'staging'=
of=20
>=20
> > the band in a created reality. That's why music sounded much better whe=
n=20
>=20
> > 'artists' like Phil Spector, Alan Parsons and Butch Vig took control of=
the=20
>=20
> > knobs. These were men of vision for their time and were able to imagine=
the=20
>=20
> > space in which they wanted the band to be playing - then create it. It'=
s not=20
>=20
> > meant to be the reproduction of a physical reality, it's an artificial=
=20
>=20
> > construct and, as such is reproducible - accurately or not.
>=20
>=20
>=20
> Again, I understand that, but it's irrelevant to my point, which is that =
you can't use music that has no real soundstage to gauge soundstage, nor ca=
n you use music recorded in such a way that the instruments don't sound lik=
e that instrument would sound in an un-amplified listening situation (as in=
the case of instruments that are recorded using contact microphones). I've=
heard these arguments before, and I remain adamant that this kind of music=
is simply irrelevant to the goal of high-fidelity reproduction, and as muc=
h as the modern audiophile community might revere it, it's wishful thinking=
to believe that any meaningful conclusions about the Fi of equipment can b=
e gathered by using it as a reviewing tool.=20

Any stereo recording has a soundstage even if it does not originate from a =
physical soundstage at a live performance. As for how instruments sound in =
a live performance, well who knows? Live acoustic music can sound quite dif=
ferent depending on all the variables. So there is no "sound" of live music=
that we can call a reference. There are many sounds of live music and a go=
od deal of it is not something I would want my playback to sound like. Mean=
ing and meaningful conclusions are a personal judgement call. what may be m=
eaningless to you may be quite meaningful to someone else. Someone using st=
udio recordings that i am familiar with may very well have some observation=
s that I would find quite meaningful.=20

>=20
>=20
>=20
> > This artificial construct will sound very similar on high-end audio sys=
tems=20
>=20
> > (although they all will colour it to some degree). It is the playback o=
f=20
>=20
> > this manipulated recording that the reviewers are reviewing, comparing =
it to=20
>=20
> > how they've heard it on 'great' systems. It has nothing to do with how =
the=20
>=20
> > band sounds when they're playing in a space. That's the fundamental=20
>=20
> > difference between what you are familiar with and what the readership o=
f=20
>=20
> > these magazines are familiar with. In my opinion it in no way invalidat=
es=20
>=20
> > these contemporary reviews and a system that can accurately reproduce w=
hat=20
>=20
> > you refer to as 'pop music' will, in all likelihood also be good at=20
>=20
> > reproducing a symphony in a hall - or a string quartet in a large room.
>=20
>=20
>=20
> I still maintain that if your final comment in the above paragraph is tru=
e, it's happenstance, because the conclusions drawn using pop music as a so=
urce simply have no relationship to the reality of music reproduction.=20


Sorry but playback of pop music is part of the reality of many others' want=
s and needs as audiophiles even if it isn't a part of yours. So there is a =
clear relationship.

>=20
>=20
>=20
> > When I was more mobile (and affluent) I'd take a few 'reference CDs' wi=
th me=20
>=20
> > to listen to on a system. (Rickie Lee Jones in particular, also Peter=
=20
>=20
> > Gabriels 'So' and a few others) I know these 'recordings' (if you'll al=
low=20
>=20
> > the use of the word - they're really constructs) so very well, having=
=20
>=20
> > listened to them many, many times on diverse systems (yet I've never he=
ard=20
>=20
> > either performer live). I know how they /can/ image, I know the parts w=
here=20
>=20
> > Rickie very quietly 'breathes' along with the bass line - and I know th=
at it=20
>=20
> > takes a formidable speaker (as an example) to not only reproduce those =
two=20
>=20
> > diverse sounds, one very soft, one deep and powerful, concurrently. On =
a=20
>=20
> > mass-produced lo-fi system you could listen for decades and never hear =
it.=20
>=20
> > On the system I'm listening to now with it's tri-amped quasi-ribbon twe=
eter=20
>=20
> > top end, lower-midrange section and 10" deep bass drivers (it's a small=
=20
>=20
> > room) it's unmissable.
>=20
>=20
>=20
> Perhaps so, but I don't see what that has to do with a system's performan=
ce on live music played in a real space. What it shows is that these perfor=
mances sound GOOD to the listener through THAT equipment, and that's down t=
o individual taste, not accuracy. I.E., I know what a real bowed bass viol =
sounds like and when a system's bass is accurate, that's what I hear in the=
listening room. Whatever differs from that is NOT the sound of a bass viol=
.. What some rock-band's bass guitar sounds like through their on-stage ampl=
ifier/speaker, I have no idea (and neither does any other listener). So whe=
n the bass line comes across as being tubby or wooly with poor low frequenc=
y transient response, what does it tell us? Is it the playback system? Is i=
t the bass player's on-stage amp/speaker?, is it the way the bass player ha=
s his guitar set-up, or is it something that the producer/engineers have do=
ne to the bass in production to "punch it up"? There's no way to know.=20



There is more to audio and music than the recording and playback of acousti=
c instruments. maybe not for you but for most other audiophiles. And the fa=
ct you seem to completely ignore is there is no one sound of acoustic instr=
uments.What does a bass viol sound like? Does it have one sound and only on=
e sound? Are all bass viols the same? Are all musicians who play them the s=
ame? Are all the halls they are played in the same? Do they sound the same =
no matter where you sit? No, No, No, No. So you have the same issue with a =
bass viol as you do with a rock bass. that is a fact.



>=20
>=20
>=20
> > Once again, I'm not arguing with you - I agree with all that you say. I=
'm=20
>=20
> > simply putting forward a different viewpoint based on a different music=
al=20
>=20
> > genre and a different 'standard' and trying to do so as eloquently as y=
ou=20
>=20
> > put forth your opinions. Forgive me if I fail.
>=20
>=20
>=20
> I understand. I just don't buy that using this music to test audio equipm=
ent can give a complete or accurate picture of how a piece of equipment act=
ually sounds beyond the "It sounds good to me and my tastes" level of criti=
cism.=20


But "It sounds good to me" is the bottom line. everything else is academic
>=20
> >=20
>=20
> > For a time, four years or so spanning the turn of the decade, late 1970=
s and=20
>=20
> > early 1980s, I travelled with a band and was responsible for their live=
=20
>=20
> > soundmixing. When the time came for them to lay down some recordings I=
=20
>=20
> > 'consulted' with the sound engineer, giving input into the band's live=
=20
>=20
> > sound, telling him when his mix drifted too far from how the band sound=
s=20
>=20
> > live (so that people who were faniliar with the band live - my mix -=20
>=20
> > wouldn't buy a recording and hear something completely different.
>=20
>=20
>=20
> That's very true. The "road" sound and the studio sound must be the same =
on a band's popular works, or the fans will be disappointed with the live p=
erformance (and vice versa).=20

In reality they are generally quite different.=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> >=20
>=20
> > Back then it was rare for a band to sound even similar live to how they=
=20
>=20
> > sounded on their recordings. You didn't go to a concert to hear the ban=
d -=20
>=20
> > you were best to do that at home on your hi-fi (if you owned one). You'=
d go=20
>=20
> > to a concert for the experience. In fact the only band I've ever heard =
live=20
>=20
> > after listening to their albums repeatedly that sounded almost the same=
was=20
>=20
> > Dire Straights - that was spooky - going to a concert and hearing almos=
t=20
>=20
> > exactly what you'd hear coming from your hi-fi. Normally, then, the=20
>=20
> > experiences only had a few things in common w/r/t the way they sounded.=
(It=20
>=20
> > may be common-place now for all I know as I no longer go to concerts.)
>=20
>=20
>=20
> I think today's concert goers expect their favorite songs to sound, in-co=
ncert, like they do on the band's recordings. Luckily, that goal is obtaina=
ble today with modern S.R. equipment and talented mixing personnel.


You are incorrect on that on all accounts. as a concert goer I have no such=
expectations and that goal clearly is not obtainable.

[Audio_Empire[_2_]]

In article >,
ScottW > wrote:

> On Thursday, September 26, 2013 7:30:50 PM UTC-7, Audio_Empire wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Again, I understand that, but it's irrelevant to my point, which is that
> > you >can't use music that has no real soundstage to gauge soundstage, nor
> > can you >use music recorded in such a way that the instruments don't sound
> > like that >instrument would sound in an un-amplified listening situation
> > (as in the case >of instruments that are recorded using contact
> > microphones). I've heard these >arguments before, and I remain adamant that
> > this kind of music is simply >irrelevant to the goal of high-fidelity
> > reproduction, and as much as the modern >audiophile community might revere
> > it, it's wishful thinking to believe that any >meaningful conclusions about
> > the Fi of equipment can be gathered by using it as >a reviewing tool.
>
> Free...free at a last from the chains of Fi. It does open some
> possibilities.
> and FWIW....I don't think I've ever heard a live rock music event sound sound
> as good as my system. The sacrilege of indulging in pure sonic pleasure
> unbound by fidelity.
> Thanks, you just convinced me to try out a low cost tube buffer kit on my
> sometimes too fi passive pre (I can't bring myself to call it a pre-amp).
>
> ScottW

Be my guest. Just realize that the results reflect your taste and not accuracy.
believe me, that's fine, but then you're NOT reviewing equipment for a general
audience. The problem arises when people with your attitude start using your
personal tastes to tell others how something sounds. Like you say, for yourself,
the sky's the limit!

[Audio_Empire[_2_]]

In article >,
Scott > wrote:
<snip>

> > How can they be familiar with a recording, if as music, it doesn't exis=
t=20
> > outside of a studio? Even when these bands play concerts, they take the=
ir=20
> > studios with them so that their concert performances sound just like th=
e=20
> > recordings they made of these same songs! I'll grant that one can be s=
o=20
> > familiar with a performance that one can anticipate each note with grea=
t=20
> > accuracy, and can tell instantly, if the performance that they are=20
> > listening to at any given time is NOT the performance that they are use=
d to=20
> > hearing. But I don't think that familiarity can help with sonic judgeme=
nts.=20
> > Nobody has heard 'The Who', for instance, without their whole studio be=
hind=20
> > them, nor have they heard the band through other than speakers; either=
=20
> > their own, or the sound-reinforcement systems at a concert.
>=20
>=20
> One simply needs to listen to a recording often enough and on enough=20
> different playback systems to be "familiar with the recording." It's almo=
st a=20
> tautological argument. And I disagree with you about it not helping with=
=20
> sonic judgements. In fact I would argue that it is crucial in making soni=
c=20
> judgements that one be familiar with the recordings they use. Then one is=
=20
> actually able to compare the playback gear and eliminate the source mater=
ial=20
> as a variable.

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that you can't know what any of the =
instruments and voices in such a recording actually sound like because you =
don't know (A) how these instruments are captured, or (B) how the recording=
engineers/producers manipulate those captured instruments/voices after the=
y are captured. The performance does not exist in real space. You can't kno=
w what it sounds like because it doesn't sound like anything outside of the=
ensemble's imagination.=20
> >=20
> > > Please, bare with me for a few moments and allow me to present anothe=
r=20
> >=20
> > > scenario. Early electric music, when recorded was mono and simple=20
> >=20
> > > (relatively). Then, with the advent of stereo and 'studio recording' =
the=20
> >=20
> > > recording engineer was faced with the problem of making all of the=20
> >=20
> > > seperately recorded tracks into one whole that sounds pleasing. This=
=20
> >=20
> > > recording is in no way intended to be an accurate representation of t=
he=20
> >=20
> > > space in which the artists were playing at the time/s. Instead it has=
=20
> > > become=20
> >=20
> > > /virtual reality/, an idealised sound - abstract.
> >=20
> >=20
> >=20
> > I understand, and I agree. I am not complaining here about the music as=
a=20
> > listening experience (with all that involves), I'm criticizing the use =
of=20
> > these types of music and performances as REVIEWING TOOLS to gauge the=
=20
> > accuracy of audio equipment.=20
>=20
>=20
> Who says the reviewers are gauging "accuracy?"

Well, they are SUPPOSED to be reviewing for accuracy. If not they are just =
aurally masterbating and their "reviews are a waste of everybody's time.=20

> > > This mixing and engineering has become an art in itself - the 'stagin=
g'=20
> > > of=20
> >=20
> > > the band in a created reality. That's why music sounded much better w=
hen=20
> >=20
> > > 'artists' like Phil Spector, Alan Parsons and Butch Vig took control =
of=20
> > > the=20
> >=20
> > > knobs. These were men of vision for their time and were able to imagi=
ne=20
> > > the=20
> >=20
> > > space in which they wanted the band to be playing - then create it. I=
t's=20
> > > not=20
> >=20
> > > meant to be the reproduction of a physical reality, it's an artificia=
l=20
> >=20
> > > construct and, as such is reproducible - accurately or not.
> >=20
> >=20
> >=20
> > Again, I understand that, but it's irrelevant to my point, which is tha=
t=20
> > you can't use music that has no real soundstage to gauge soundstage, no=
r=20
> > can you use music recorded in such a way that the instruments don't sou=
nd=20
> > like that instrument would sound in an un-amplified listening situation=
(as=20
> > in the case of instruments that are recorded using contact microphones)=
..=20
> > I've heard these arguments before, and I remain adamant that this kind =
of=20
> > music is simply irrelevant to the goal of high-fidelity reproduction, a=
nd=20
> > as much as the modern audiophile community might revere it, it's wishfu=
l=20
> > thinking to believe that any meaningful conclusions about the Fi of=20
> > equipment can be gathered by using it as a reviewing tool.=20
>=20
> Any stereo recording has a soundstage even if it does not originate from =
a=20
> physical soundstage at a live performance.

That's not a soundstage. That's track placement and it's wholly artificial =
because it relies totally on the percentage of a given track or instrumenta=
l channel that's mixed into each ultimate stereo channel. It produces instr=
ument placement from right-to-left - in a straight line - between the speak=
ers, but it has no image height and no depth, and is therefore two dimensio=
nal. It cannot be used to determine a component's ability to resolve three-=
dimensional images.=20


> As for how instruments sound in a=20
> live performance, well who knows? Live acoustic music can sound quite=20
> different depending on all the variables. So there is no "sound" of live=
=20
> music that we can call a reference. There are many sounds of live music a=
nd a=20
> good deal of it is not something I would want my playback to sound like.=
=20
> Meaning and meaningful conclusions are a personal judgement call. what ma=
y be=20
> meaningless to you may be quite meaningful to someone else. Someone using=
=20
> studio recordings that i am familiar with may very well have some=20
> observations that I would find quite meaningful.=20

There is no reason to continue this. We are at an impasse. I'm not going to=
convince you and you are not going to convince me. That's clear.=20

[~misfit~[_3_]]

Somewhere on teh intarwebs Scott wrote:
> On Thursday, September 26, 2013 7:30:50 PM UTC-7, Audio_Empire wrote:
[snipped]
>> I think today's concert goers expect their favorite songs to sound,
>> in-concert, like they do on the band's recordings. Luckily, that
>> goal is obtainable today with modern S.R. equipment and talented
>> mixing personnel.
>
> You are incorrect on that on all accounts. as a concert goer I have
> no such expectations and that goal clearly is not obtainable.

I thought that too until I went to a Dire Straights concert in the early
80s. I was so amazed I listened to their records a little more and then went
to see them in concert the next three times they came to New Zealand.
Uncanny! If not for the very slight differences I'd have thought they were
lip-synching and playing unplugged guitars...

I haven't been to many concerts since the 80s. Maybe five or so in the 90s
and a couple in the 00s. None of those came close to what Dire Straights
were doing - but that was fine with me, I considered those experiences to be
abberations, not what I expected to hear in concert.
--
/Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long, way when religious belief has a
cozy little classification in the DSM."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
[Sent from my OrbitalT ocular implant interface.]

[~misfit~[_3_]]

Somewhere on teh intarwebs Audio_Empire wrote:
> In article >,
> "~misfit~" > wrote:
>
>> Somewhere on teh intarwebs Audio_Empire wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>>
>>> 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!
>>
>> I'm sorry, I haven't read through the whole thread including replies
>> yet. I don't have time right now (it's a rare dry day and my lawns
>> are so very long) but I have something that I'd like to try to say.

Having read more of the thread now I see that I wasn't the only one to raise
this sort of subject. Apologies for ressurecting a thread that had already
covered quite a lot of what I wanted to say.

>> I understand completely your frustration - you have a way of
>> explaining things that works well.
>>
>> However I'd like to posit that there *is* a modern standard of
>> reference (if you will) and that is whatever recording the listener
>> (and reader) is familiar with. After all, it's the reproduction of
>> the *recording* that the reviewers are reviewing, not a group of
>> instruments in a certain space.
>
> How can they be familiar with a recording, if as music, it doesn't
> exist outside of a studio?

In the same way that I'm *intimately* familiar with Rickie Lee Jones'
eponymous album. I have heard it hundreds and hundreds (and hundreds) of
times over the last three and a bit decades on everything from systems that
cost as much as a small house (at the time) to a portable Sony CD player -
even in the form of a self-ripped 320bit mp3 on various computer-based
systems and mp3 players through headphones / ear buds.

It exists outside of the studio - it exists in great detail in my memory.

> Even when these bands play concerts, they
> take their studios with them so that their concert performances sound
> just like the recordings they made of these same songs! I'll grant
> that one can be so familiar with a performance that one can
> anticipate each note with great accuracy, and can tell instantly, if
> the performance that they are listening to at any given time is NOT
> the performance that they are used to hearing. But I don't think that
> familiarity can help with sonic judgements. Nobody has heard 'The
> Who', for instance, without their whole studio behind them, nor have
> they heard the band through other than speakers; either their own, or
> the sound-reinforcement systems at a concert.
>>
>> Please, bare with me for a few moments and allow me to present
>> another scenario. Early electric music, when recorded was mono and
>> simple (relatively). Then, with the advent of stereo and 'studio
>> recording' the recording engineer was faced with the problem of
>> making all of the seperately recorded tracks into one whole that
>> sounds pleasing. This recording is in no way intended to be an
>> accurate representation of the space in which the artists were
>> playing at the time/s. Instead it has become /virtual reality/, an
>> idealised sound - abstract.
>
> I understand, and I agree. I am not complaining here about the music
> as a listening experience (with all that involves), I'm criticizing
> the use of these types of music and performances as REVIEWING TOOLS
> to gauge the accuracy of audio equipment.


I hear you and understand what you're saying. However these magazines need
to stay relevant to the buying public if they want to continue to hang on to
what's left of their readership. By far the largest percentage of buyers of
audio equipment listen to music as I do. I'm sorry but it's a fact that if
these reviewers aimed their reviews to appeal to you and your standards then
they would be out of their jobs within a month. It's just a fact of life.

>> This mixing and engineering has become an art in itself - the
>> 'staging' of the band in a created reality. That's why music sounded
>> much better when 'artists' like Phil Spector, Alan Parsons and Butch
>> Vig took control of the knobs. These were men of vision for their
>> time and were able to imagine the space in which they wanted the
>> band to be playing - then create it. It's not meant to be the
>> reproduction of a physical reality, it's an artificial construct
>> and, as such is reproducible - accurately or not.
>
> Again, I understand that, but it's irrelevant to my point, which is
> that you can't use music that has no real soundstage to gauge
> soundstage, nor can you use music recorded in such a way that the
> instruments don't sound like that instrument would sound in an
> un-amplified listening situation (as in the case of instruments that
> are recorded using contact microphones). I've heard these arguments
> before, and I remain adamant that this kind of music is simply
> irrelevant to the goal of high-fidelity reproduction, and as much as
> the modern audiophile community might revere it, it's wishful
> thinking to believe that any meaningful conclusions about the Fi of
> equipment can be gathered by using it as a reviewing tool.

Then do we need to euthanise the term 'high-fidelity' as it is applied to
audio equipment once and for all? After all the number of people who buy
audio systems using the standards that you espouse must be miniscule. No
offence intended, I'm honestly curious about this and interested. As I use
the term hi-fi fairly frequently I feel I should understand what it means -
and if it means the same thing to everyone and, if not, what percentages use
it how.

>> This artificial construct will sound very similar on high-end audio
>> systems (although they all will colour it to some degree). It is the
>> playback of this manipulated recording that the reviewers are
>> reviewing, comparing it to how they've heard it on 'great' systems.
>> It has nothing to do with how the band sounds when they're playing
>> in a space. That's the fundamental difference between what you are
>> familiar with and what the readership of these magazines are
>> familiar with. In my opinion it in no way invalidates these
>> contemporary reviews and a system that can accurately reproduce what
>> you refer to as 'pop music' will, in all likelihood also be good at
>> reproducing a symphony in a hall - or a string quartet in a large
>> room.
>
> I still maintain that if your final comment in the above paragraph is
> true, it's happenstance, because the conclusions drawn using pop
> music as a source simply have no relationship to the reality of music
> reproduction.

I didn't mention it in my first reply but I'm having trouble with the
definition of the term you're using; 'Pop music'. From reading your post it
seems that you apply it to everything except non-amplified music?

The Rickie Lee Jones album I've referenced several times - the album that is
my own personal 'gold standard' for evaluating audio equipment (and probably
my favourite album of all time) - is more jazz than anything. It was
recorded in 1978 using the best jazz session musicians available at the
time. The bass is mostly acoustic played by Red Callander, not a bass guitar
(except for where the liner notes refer to a 'Fender bass' played by Willie
Weeks - arguably the most in-demand session musician of all time) and, while
there is a small amount of electric guitar and an even smaller amount of
synthesizer (Randy Newman) it features a lot of saxophone (played by Tom
Scott), awesome trumpet by Chuck Findlay as well as 'horns' in general. The
recording also strongly features 'orchestral arrangements' by Johnny Mandel
(who worked with Count Bassie, Frank Sinatra et al) and Nick DeCaro (who
also plays the accordian on a track or two). Heck, it's even got a mandolin!

In short it's not what I think of when the term 'pop music' is used.

>> When I was more mobile (and affluent) I'd take a few 'reference CDs'
>> with me to listen to on a system. (Rickie Lee Jones in particular,
>> also Peter Gabriels 'So' and a few others) I know these 'recordings'
>> (if you'll allow the use of the word - they're really constructs) so
>> very well, having listened to them many, many times on diverse
>> systems (yet I've never heard either performer live). I know how
>> they /can/ image, I know the parts where Rickie very quietly
>> 'breathes' along with the bass line - and I know that it takes a
>> formidable speaker (as an example) to not only reproduce those two
>> diverse sounds, one very soft, one deep and powerful, concurrently.
>> On a mass-produced lo-fi system you could listen for decades and
>> never hear it. On the system I'm listening to now with it's
>> tri-amped quasi-ribbon tweeter top end, lower-midrange section and
>> 10" deep bass drivers (it's a small room) it's unmissable.
>
> Perhaps so, but I don't see what that has to do with a system's
> performance on live music played in a real space. What it shows is
> that these performances sound GOOD to the listener through THAT
> equipment, and that's down to individual taste, not accuracy. I.E., I
> know what a real bowed bass viol sounds like and when a system's bass
> is accurate, that's what I hear in the listening room. Whatever
> differs from that is NOT the sound of a bass viol. What some
> rock-band's bass guitar sounds like through their on-stage
> amplifier/speaker, I have no idea (and neither does any other
> listener). So when the bass line comes across as being tubby or wooly
> with poor low frequency transient response, what does it tell us? Is
> it the playback system? Is it the bass player's on-stage
> amp/speaker?, is it the way the bass player has his guitar set-up, or
> is it something that the producer/engineers have done to the bass in
> production to "punch it up"? There's no way to know.

Except in the case where you're listening to a recording as described
above - pretty much the best 'pop music' ever recorded. In fact I'd humbly
go to far as to say that my 30+ years of familiararity with that recording
(and taking into account it's sheer quality) - not to mention my familiarity
with real acoustic instruments - mean that when I listen to it on a system I
*can* make informed comments on it's Fi.

>> Once again, I'm not arguing with you - I agree with all that you
>> say. I'm simply putting forward a different viewpoint based on a
>> different musical genre and a different 'standard' and trying to do
>> so as eloquently as you put forth your opinions. Forgive me if I
>> fail.
>
> I understand. I just don't buy that using this music to test audio
> equipment can give a complete or accurate picture of how a piece of
> equipment actually sounds beyond the "It sounds good to me and my
> tastes" level of criticism.

There were a few years in the 80s when my involvement in, and appreciation
of high quality audio gear lead me to seek out highly-regarded, 'audiophile'
quality recordings so that I could marvel at the quality of my stereo
system, use them as a reference when I made changes to it and play them when
an audiophile friend visited. However after a while I had an epiphany; In my
pursuit of fidelity with my audio system I'd ended up at a place where
recordings that I spent a lot of time listening to weren't actually the
music that I enjoyed most - or even at all in some cases. I was listening to
my *stereo* rather than music which I enjoyed, music which had lead me to my
search for the best reproduction I could attain (with my budget).

>> For a time, four years or so spanning the turn of the decade, late
>> 1970s and early 1980s, I travelled with a band and was responsible
>> for their live soundmixing. When the time came for them to lay down
>> some recordings I 'consulted' with the sound engineer, giving input
>> into the band's live sound, telling him when his mix drifted too far
>> from how the band sounds live (so that people who were faniliar with
>> the band live - my mix - wouldn't buy a recording and hear something
>> completely different.
>
> That's very true. The "road" sound and the studio sound must be the
> same on a band's popular works, or the fans will be disappointed with
> the live performance (and vice versa).


Yes, if not the same then at least very similar - unless a band gets to the
stage where their fans don't care so much, they go to see them for the
experience rather than the sound.

[snipped]
>> After all's said and done it's not generally the source material
>> that we discuss here it's the equipment that reproduces it (and in
>> this thread the legitimacy of magazine reviews of that equipment).
>
> But without real music with which to judge said equipment, the
> evaluations are meaningless
> because they come down to someone's personal taste rather than
> accuracy. IOW, without a
> reference, there's no way to know where you are. I feel that is where
> the art and science of
> reviewing is today.

As I've said all along - I do see your point. However I feel that there's a
valid facet of 'accuracy' that you might be dismissing - perhaps because of
where you're coming from. My point is that this other side of reviewing *is*
in fact valid - and is in fact the only side that 98% of the readers care
(or even know) about.

After all's said and done, if you don't cater to your readership then you
won't have one for long.

Regards,
--
/Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long, way when religious belief has a
cozy little classification in the DSM."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
[Sent from my OrbitalT ocular implant interface.]

[Audio_Empire[_2_]]

On Monday, September 30, 2013 10:17:32 AM UTC-7, ScottW wrote:
> On Friday, September 27, 2013 4:01:48 PM UTC-7, Audio_Empire wrote:
>
>
>
> >
>
> > Be my guest. Just realize that the results reflect your taste and not > accuracy. believe me, that's fine, but then you're NOT reviewing equipment for a general
>
> > audience. The problem arises when people with your attitude start using your
>
> > personal tastes to tell others how something sounds. Like you say, for yourself, >the sky's the limit!
>
>
>
> That's why I like the concept of a buffer...with the click of a switch it's gone. And the price is tolerable for a little curiosity.
>
>
>
> I do agree that reviewers should commit to a higher standard. I've long suggested that it makes great sense for reviewers to include DBT results in their reviews for items that it would be relatively easy to do (amps, preamps cables, DACs come to mind. Speakers and sources (due to sync difficulties) would not be easy).
>
> With a PC controlled DBT switch box....it would be fairly easy to setup a DBT test system that could be self executed with reviewer never having access to the results until published. Only simple honesty required by the reviewer in setup.
>
> Few seem willing and even fewer publishers.
>
> The claim has been their readers aren't interested. I think it's more their advertisers "lack of interest".

It would be interesting. I wonder if such a computer program actually exists?

I agree with you that the magazines' advertisers would certainly not like DBTs. If, indeed,
DBTs don't work and always give a null result for everything, then the inclusion of a DBT
would tend to show that a $40,000 MSB DAC sounds exactly like <$50 Chinese DAC. That
wouldn't do, would it? If, on the other hand, the DBT did show varying degrees of difference
between components, makers of amps. preamps and digital appliances costing tens of thousands
of dollars might find that their products are bested by similar components costing an order
of magnitude less than their products. That wouldn't be too good either.

[Gary Eickmeier]

Audio_Empire wrote:

> I agree with you that the magazines' advertisers would certainly not
> like DBTs. If, indeed,
> DBTs don't work and always give a null result for everything, then
> the inclusion of a DBT
> would tend to show that a $40,000 MSB DAC sounds exactly like <$50
> Chinese DAC. That
> wouldn't do, would it? If, on the other hand, the DBT did show
> varying degrees of difference
> between components, makers of amps. preamps and digital appliances
> costing tens of thousands
> of dollars might find that their products are bested by similar
> components costing an order
> of magnitude less than their products. That wouldn't be too good
> either.

In a world in which the reviewers stopped the delusional nonsense and
learned how to do a valid listening test, people would be reading them
mainly for descriptions of new products coming out, the author's opinion on
what features are groundbreaking and worth buying. We all know that we
cannot rely on someone else's ears or taste, but if we just knew what was
going on in the land of the high end, we could go audition the stuff or
ourselves.

Like political ads, I have never believed a word of the flowery descriptions
that I read in those magazines, so why do they do it? Pandering to the
manufacturers to suck a few rich people into them. I just wish I had a
nickel for every veil that has been lifted since it all began.

Gary Eickmeier

[Audio_Empire]

In article >,
ScottW > wrote:

> On Monday, September 30, 2013 4:01:53 PM UTC-7, Audio_Empire wrote:
> > On Monday, September 30, 2013 10:17:32 AM UTC-7, ScottW wrote:
> >
>
> > > I do agree that reviewers should commit to a higher standard. I've long
> > > suggested that it makes great sense for reviewers to include DBT results
> > > in their reviews for items that it would be relatively easy to do (amps,
> > > preamps cables, DACs come to mind. Speakers and sources (due to sync
> > > difficulties) would not be easy).
> >
> > > With a PC controlled DBT switch box....it would be fairly easy to setup a
> > > DBT test system that could be self executed with reviewer never having
> > > access to the results until published. Only simple honesty required by
> > > the reviewer in setup.
> >
> > > Few seem willing and even fewer publishers.
> >
> > > The claim has been their readers aren't interested. I think it's more
> > > their advertisers "lack of interest".
> >
> >
> >
> > It would be interesting. I wonder if such a computer program actually
> > exists?
>
> Not that I'm aware of. I bounced it off an audiophile test engineer where I
> used to work many years ago. He said if all you want is a zipped raw data
> file e-mailed, he could write that code in an hour. The DBT box with
> digital interface might take a few days to design...a few weeks to proto,
> another day to debug.
> >
> >
> >
> > I agree with you that the magazines' advertisers would certainly not like
> > DBTs. If, indeed,
> >
> > DBTs don't work and always give a null result for everything, then the
> > >inclusion of a DBT would tend to show that a $40,000 MSB DAC sounds
> > exactly >like <$50 Chinese DAC. That wouldn't do, would it? If, on the
> > other hand, the DBT did show varying degrees of difference
> > between components, makers of amps. preamps and digital appliances costing
> > >tens of thousands of dollars might find that their products are bested by
> > similar components costing an order
> >
> > of magnitude less than their products. That wouldn't be too good either.
>
> I'm not sure how that would happen. I'm assuming the reviewer would DBT
> against their personal references (whatever they are...megabuck and
> economy)...so the DBT would only show if the item under review was same or
> audibly different to the reference. Once that's established, which is
> preferred, I suppose could be done blind. I wouldn't be surprised if many
> reviewers can identify a difference in an A B test...but can't identify which
> one in ABX test. Makes it hard to establish a reliable preference.
> Reliable preference requires a significant enough difference to be
> established in memory. Subtle differences that can be detected in quick
> switch tests might not establish a reliable preference which than begs the
> question....do they matter?
>
> ScottW

"do they matter?" Well, that's a different can of worms altogether.
Once it can be established that audible differences between amps,
preamps, DACs, CD players, etc., do, actually, scientifically, exist,
the questions then become, do those differences actually matter, and
which sounds better (as opposed to just "different") and then who
arbitrates the concept of what constitutes "better"? Do we go for
"accurate" being better (which would be my criterion, but as we've seen
in other debates here, 'accurate' may have no meaning to many listeners,
since the kinds of music to which they almost exclusively listen,
doesn't really exist in real space. Not only is accuracy not possible in
these circumstances, it's also not important. The only thing that is
important, it seems, is that the equipment sounds good to the individual
listener. Also, most of the differences I've heard between components
(speakers and record playing equipment excepted) are extremely small,
and frankly, in the absence of a direct comparison, tend to fade into
obscurity as soon as the comparison is removed. IOW, these differences
are picayune at worst and only the most neurotic and
obsessive-compulsive of audiophiles would really care. No modern
equipment that I have come in contact with actually sounds bad. Even the
cheapest amps and DACs and CD players sound fine. All have wide
frequency response, vanishingly low audible distortion, and decent
dynamic range. So, I'd say that for the most part, the answer is no, for
the great majority of listeners, they don't really matter.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

[Audio_Empire]

In article >,
"Gary Eickmeier" > wrote:

> Audio_Empire wrote:
>
> > I agree with you that the magazines' advertisers would certainly not
> > like DBTs. If, indeed,
> > DBTs don't work and always give a null result for everything, then
> > the inclusion of a DBT
> > would tend to show that a $40,000 MSB DAC sounds exactly like <$50
> > Chinese DAC. That
> > wouldn't do, would it? If, on the other hand, the DBT did show
> > varying degrees of difference
> > between components, makers of amps. preamps and digital appliances
> > costing tens of thousands
> > of dollars might find that their products are bested by similar
> > components costing an order
> > of magnitude less than their products. That wouldn't be too good
> > either.
>
> In a world in which the reviewers stopped the delusional nonsense and
> learned how to do a valid listening test, people would be reading them
> mainly for descriptions of new products coming out, the author's opinion on
> what features are groundbreaking and worth buying. We all know that we
> cannot rely on someone else's ears or taste, but if we just knew what was
> going on in the land of the high end, we could go audition the stuff or
> ourselves.

Basically, Gary, that's all these publications are good for NOW.
Listening impressions are all well and good, and might be entertaining
reading, but other than as a way to generate a short-list, based on such
parameters as price, feature set, and aesthetic appeal, somebody else's
impressions of a piece of gear can only serve to whet one's appetite,
not provide the meal.

> Like political ads, I have never believed a word of the flowery descriptions
> that I read in those magazines, so why do they do it? Pandering to the
> manufacturers to suck a few rich people into them. I just wish I had a
> nickel for every veil that has been lifted since it all began.

The audiophile who takes any reviewers word for sound and suitability of
any component and buys based on that word is one foolish audiophile.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---