[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=fren...w=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=fren...w=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_down...r_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_down...r_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_down...r_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: ---