The roll of reviewers and publications...
Okay, so how do you see the role of reviewers in the world of audio today? Just another guy sharing his experience, a form of entertainment, a waste of time cause they are all on the take, the thoughts of some egotistical blow-hard, the ramblings of a loon, what pray tell?
Discussion started by Dave Clark , on 1191 days ago
Looks like you covered it Dave ;) I am actually constantly surprised how neutral many reviews end up being given the tremendous external biases that come in to play. I do have a gripe with some reviewers who don't seem to have much experience listening and understanding what they are hearing. Unfortunately the main qualification in being a reviewer is to deliver consistently good writing on time. Whether they actually have the talent and understanding is frequently much less important.
Writing reviews for audio products would be fairly easy for me. However,I'd probably be banned from most audio shows like CES & Rocky Mountain Audio Fest, ect for telling the truth. No doubt I'd get lots of anonymous death threats as well. The best reviewer is the person that goes out to the shops and does their own A/B comparisons and decides what's right for themselves. On many occasions while out auditioning components, I've had to bite my tongue to avoid making unpleasant comments to a sales person regarding the sound of a particular product.
Some prerequisites in my book for reviewing:
Some thoughts on reviewers/the reviewing process
1. Having an open mind or as John Wooden said quite eloquently, "It's what we learn after we know it all that matters the most."
2. Some familiarity with a great variety of equipment in their system.
3. Having a stable reference system eg. not rotating equipment in and out of the system like changing underwear. (This can be intimately related to the discussion of whether or not reviewers should own vs. long term loans of the gear in their reference system). Or otherwise known as the best thing I've heard is the last component I've heard.
4. Being able to divorce oneself from their prejudices. In other words, describing the sound of the gear pro and con so the readers has an idea of what the equipment sounds like. I know it sounds obvious but I can't tell you the number of times I've walked away after reading a review and had no idea of the sound of the gear. To wit one of my faves was Jadis, imaging, enough said. I always felt the best at describing the sound of the gear from a neutral observer status was John Nork and HP.
5. Getting to the point of the review in the first paragraph. (How many times do reviewers want to show off everything they know and it takes two pages or more before one gets to the actual subject matter?
6. Making their tolerance/intolerances and listening tastes public record.
7. Being able to hear and write. Too often we find reviewers who can write and can't hear or those who can't write and can hear. It's tough finding reviewers that are the total package.
8. What drives me crazy are reviewers that have to constantly make up new terms to describe the sound--like they're the first to think of it. Our audio vocabulary/jargon is complicated enough without adding more terms to the audio dictionary.
9. Showing that they attend x number of concerts/year.
10. Using recordings of unamplified music to evaluate equipment.
That's all tonight folks!
Some thoughts on reviewers/the reviewing process
1. Having an open mind or as John Wooden said quite eloquently, "It's what we learn after we know it all that matters the most."
2. Some familiarity with a great variety of equipment in their system.
3. Having a stable reference system eg. not rotating equipment in and out of the system like changing underwear. (This can be intimately related to the discussion of whether or not reviewers should own vs. long term loans of the gear in their reference system). Or otherwise known as the best thing I've heard is the last component I've heard.
4. Being able to divorce oneself from their prejudices. In other words, describing the sound of the gear pro and con so the readers has an idea of what the equipment sounds like. I know it sounds obvious but I can't tell you the number of times I've walked away after reading a review and had no idea of the sound of the gear. To wit one of my faves was Jadis, imaging, enough said. I always felt the best at describing the sound of the gear from a neutral observer status was John Nork and HP.
5. Getting to the point of the review in the first paragraph. (How many times do reviewers want to show off everything they know and it takes two pages or more before one gets to the actual subject matter?
6. Making their tolerance/intolerances and listening tastes public record.
7. Being able to hear and write. Too often we find reviewers who can write and can't hear or those who can't write and can hear. It's tough finding reviewers that are the total package.
8. What drives me crazy are reviewers that have to constantly make up new terms to describe the sound--like they're the first to think of it. Our audio vocabulary/jargon is complicated enough without adding more terms to the audio dictionary.
9. Showing that they attend x number of concerts/year.
10. Using recordings of unamplified music to evaluate equipment.
That's all tonight folks!
All very good points that sense Myles. I'm not a fan of constantly changing out components either- I recently left a popular forum for that very reason. Those guys were all about buying & selling to get the latest thing- no time left for music. I've always compared live un-amplified music against components. If someone says that a certain component is reference then I'll bring in one of my reference classical piano recordings- that always tells on a system, usually in a bad way as the recording reveals many faults on playback. I've attended plenty of classical guitar & piano recitals and I'm very familiar with a Ramirez classical guitar or grand Steinway sound where no amplification is used, just the player and their instrument. I stopped reading those reviews from the glossy mags in 2006 because when I went out to audition those components there was no relation between the review from the mag and what I heard at audition. In general, I felt that the reviews were not believable at all, it really made me wonder if the reviewer just wrote something down without even bothering to even hear the component in the first place. Just my opinion.
I gotta join in on this discussion for sure, but its been a LONG day in audio land! Fighting with CAT5e and HDMI Calrad plates all day.. uughh.
But, as a part-timing writer (who used to be fulltime)I try my very best to share my observations AND feelings that I get from the product, whether it be music or hardware. I also focus more on the sound of the system (when reviewing a particular component) because I believe EVERYTHING matters, and everything in a system has an effect on the sound; meaning - even thought I've only change one variable (perhaps a pair of speakers) - I can't be sure that the speakers themselves are "sounding" a certain way. It's the combination of everything else (line-stage, amplifier, cabling, etc.) AND the speakers that I am hearing! It's why I describe the sound of the music I listen to when reviewing equipment - what I am hearing as a whole.
I try to share what I hear, and express what I feel is a good buy when I find something outstanding (call me a bad critic, but if I don't like something I don't write about it - I'd rather not waste my readers time, hearing about something I don't like).
I also find other reviewers to be helpful, especially if their musical taste is in-line with mine.
As for Hp,
I know the man, as my original mentor and dear friend - and his hearing is still there.
I'm helping to get him current, musically, and with regard to digital libraries (computer-based stuff). But I still love to read his stuff, personally, because I know its from the heart.
Yours in Sound,
Michael Mercer
But, as a part-timing writer (who used to be fulltime)I try my very best to share my observations AND feelings that I get from the product, whether it be music or hardware. I also focus more on the sound of the system (when reviewing a particular component) because I believe EVERYTHING matters, and everything in a system has an effect on the sound; meaning - even thought I've only change one variable (perhaps a pair of speakers) - I can't be sure that the speakers themselves are "sounding" a certain way. It's the combination of everything else (line-stage, amplifier, cabling, etc.) AND the speakers that I am hearing! It's why I describe the sound of the music I listen to when reviewing equipment - what I am hearing as a whole.
I try to share what I hear, and express what I feel is a good buy when I find something outstanding (call me a bad critic, but if I don't like something I don't write about it - I'd rather not waste my readers time, hearing about something I don't like).
I also find other reviewers to be helpful, especially if their musical taste is in-line with mine.
As for Hp,
I know the man, as my original mentor and dear friend - and his hearing is still there.
I'm helping to get him current, musically, and with regard to digital libraries (computer-based stuff). But I still love to read his stuff, personally, because I know its from the heart.
Yours in Sound,
Michael Mercer
Mercer, start writing some stuff again, at least some music reviews...what, you have real job, or something, now?
A couple of other points that come to mind.
Why is it that all reviewers start out reviewing expensive equipment? What qualifications do they have? I've always felt that it takes a year or more for a reviewer to establish credibility. That credibility is established by starting at the bottom and working their way up.
Thne to follow up on MM comments. You raise a question a really interesting and important question: is there such a thing as a truly neutral component? Or are we always balancing out different colorations? I'd like to think the former (and as we plow more money into the system, that should in my mind be an important goal) but the only way of knowing in my book is trying that component with many other components and listen to see if there is a characteristic that hold over multiple trials.
When I did Ultimate Audio, I really tried, with mixed results unfortunately, to get a manufacturer to lend us say if we were reviewing their amps, their pream at the same time. It seemed to me that if the amplifier was going to perform at its best, it would be with its companion component. Then the reviewer could also use their own reference preamplifier at the same time in the review.
Now the problem(s)with this approach: manufacturers get so many review requests nowadays that they can only lend out so much gear; otherwise they can have ten if not hundreds of thousands of dollars tied up in review equipmemt. Second, years ago a good audio buddy had Acoustat 1+1 speakers and I suggested that he try to get ahold of, since he had entre to different equipment at that time, Acoustat amps. Figured that the two should make a good combo. Boy was I wrong!
Why is it that all reviewers start out reviewing expensive equipment? What qualifications do they have? I've always felt that it takes a year or more for a reviewer to establish credibility. That credibility is established by starting at the bottom and working their way up.
Thne to follow up on MM comments. You raise a question a really interesting and important question: is there such a thing as a truly neutral component? Or are we always balancing out different colorations? I'd like to think the former (and as we plow more money into the system, that should in my mind be an important goal) but the only way of knowing in my book is trying that component with many other components and listen to see if there is a characteristic that hold over multiple trials.
When I did Ultimate Audio, I really tried, with mixed results unfortunately, to get a manufacturer to lend us say if we were reviewing their amps, their pream at the same time. It seemed to me that if the amplifier was going to perform at its best, it would be with its companion component. Then the reviewer could also use their own reference preamplifier at the same time in the review.
Now the problem(s)with this approach: manufacturers get so many review requests nowadays that they can only lend out so much gear; otherwise they can have ten if not hundreds of thousands of dollars tied up in review equipmemt. Second, years ago a good audio buddy had Acoustat 1+1 speakers and I suggested that he try to get ahold of, since he had entre to different equipment at that time, Acoustat amps. Figured that the two should make a good combo. Boy was I wrong!
For the Locust buzzin about round here: Check my latest music review on PFO (Damian Lazarus - Smoke The Monster Out). Have a copy burned for you, will have my assistant Paul send Friday along w/ the rest - u bastid.
ThanX Dan.
Myles: You're right on the money. It would be spectacular if companies had enough gear for us to compare their own companion componentry to our own reference stuff, when reviewing a piece of equipment. I have yet to find a component that has SEEMED truly neutral, that is, to my ears, when in differing systems. There was this pre-amplifier that Hp gave me many years ago (honestly don't remember the model, it MAY have been the audible illusions modulus III) that seemed to be very consistent in its sound when in different systems - I went through many back then, when I had the patience - but other than that I stick to commenting on the system because of this question of coloration and the source of it.
OK, gotta hit the shower and go build a sound system for Mr. C (aka Richard West)! He's one of my favorite house DJ's, and if you were a fan of The Shamen - he's still rockin audiences around the world. Gonna be a good day.
ThanX Dan.
Myles: You're right on the money. It would be spectacular if companies had enough gear for us to compare their own companion componentry to our own reference stuff, when reviewing a piece of equipment. I have yet to find a component that has SEEMED truly neutral, that is, to my ears, when in differing systems. There was this pre-amplifier that Hp gave me many years ago (honestly don't remember the model, it MAY have been the audible illusions modulus III) that seemed to be very consistent in its sound when in different systems - I went through many back then, when I had the patience - but other than that I stick to commenting on the system because of this question of coloration and the source of it.
OK, gotta hit the shower and go build a sound system for Mr. C (aka Richard West)! He's one of my favorite house DJ's, and if you were a fan of The Shamen - he's still rockin audiences around the world. Gonna be a good day.
There begins this notion, put forth by Harry, that I happen to like very much: The sound of listening live to un-amplified instruments in an acoustic space is as close as we will be able to get to a stable reference from which to compare gear and recordings. This is because, regardless of venue, performer, instrument, etc - we all tend to be able to recognize the "liveness" of live sound.
For a reviewer, then, I would say that - as a prerequisite - it may be important that they consistently re-familiarize themselves with the experience of this ideal because it remains a stable reference that readers and reviewers alike can recognize naturally. This, of course, wouldn't necessarily apply to home theater reviews as most (but not all) of us are relatively unfamiliar with the actual sound of exploding UFOs.
Drawing from the experience of listening to live acoustic music, the reviewer must then articulate how close or far from the ideal the gear approaches. Writing compelling copy isn't easy! Once pen is put to paper, the writer acknowledges that they have to communicate something abstract in an entertaining and informative way. It's not nearly simple.
Imagine having to explain what a cherry tastes like, especially to someone who may never have eaten a fruit before? What could you say about the essence of that experience that would effectively transmit it to a reader? The writer must draw parallels from more broadly familiar experiences and impose them onto the subject in a way that the reader can relate to.
The reviewer must then also have assembled a well-vetted "reference" system that rings all the appropriate bells in terms of approximating the live music experience. Through that process, a collection of appropriate recordings would also have been thoroughly vetted to arrive at a familiar catalog of sound. This doesn't happen overnight. It takes some years of experience, and no small expense in the gear acquisition merry-go-round.
I believe it also takes a dose of humility to realize that there exists no obligation of the reader to believe one's writing, no matter how studied and considered one's opinion may be. Two reviewers, both of them studied and erudite, can often reach differing conclusions about the same device even if they seem to track one another along the way (i.e. they might agree about aspects of the performance, but disagree on the value of the proposition or the importance of the device's strength or weakness).
Ultimately, the reviewer should be creating some manner of value for the reader, satisfying their curiosity about the gear or music being reviewed in a way that lends the reader some glimpse of an authentic experience.
Just my 2 centavos, amigos ...
Chris
For a reviewer, then, I would say that - as a prerequisite - it may be important that they consistently re-familiarize themselves with the experience of this ideal because it remains a stable reference that readers and reviewers alike can recognize naturally. This, of course, wouldn't necessarily apply to home theater reviews as most (but not all) of us are relatively unfamiliar with the actual sound of exploding UFOs.
Drawing from the experience of listening to live acoustic music, the reviewer must then articulate how close or far from the ideal the gear approaches. Writing compelling copy isn't easy! Once pen is put to paper, the writer acknowledges that they have to communicate something abstract in an entertaining and informative way. It's not nearly simple.
Imagine having to explain what a cherry tastes like, especially to someone who may never have eaten a fruit before? What could you say about the essence of that experience that would effectively transmit it to a reader? The writer must draw parallels from more broadly familiar experiences and impose them onto the subject in a way that the reader can relate to.
The reviewer must then also have assembled a well-vetted "reference" system that rings all the appropriate bells in terms of approximating the live music experience. Through that process, a collection of appropriate recordings would also have been thoroughly vetted to arrive at a familiar catalog of sound. This doesn't happen overnight. It takes some years of experience, and no small expense in the gear acquisition merry-go-round.
I believe it also takes a dose of humility to realize that there exists no obligation of the reader to believe one's writing, no matter how studied and considered one's opinion may be. Two reviewers, both of them studied and erudite, can often reach differing conclusions about the same device even if they seem to track one another along the way (i.e. they might agree about aspects of the performance, but disagree on the value of the proposition or the importance of the device's strength or weakness).
Ultimately, the reviewer should be creating some manner of value for the reader, satisfying their curiosity about the gear or music being reviewed in a way that lends the reader some glimpse of an authentic experience.
Just my 2 centavos, amigos ...
Chris
@Chris: I think what you say echoes the idea of building credibility! The other point you make regarding "Two reviewers, both of them studied and erudite, can often reach differing conclusions about the same device even if they seem to track one another along the way (i.e. they might agree about aspects of the performance, but disagree on the value of the proposition or the importance of the device's strength or weakness)," is very important to appreciating the usefullness of a magazine. One will not agree with all the writers--but needs to find those who when the reader goes back and listens, tends to agree with (or understands their preferences). In the old day, often found myself agreeing with TAS's Donleycott and HP; I didn't always agree with Nork -but understood where he was coming from.
I'm sorry, but I can't go with you on your first premise Chris (I've been waiting for that . While live un-amplified music is indeed a reference, it is by nature a flawed one at best. Even a recording of that same live event only at best approaches what we would have heard there.
Mics do not hear as we do. Even the best of cables phase shift (ELI the ICE man anyone?) and those shifts alter both the response and spatial cues we hear. Hall reverberance and timing of reflections are a simple manifestation of a single point of measurement, or an additive multiple mic sum. As stereo is just a pleasant manipulation of these effects and placement may be as haphazard as where the engineer's mood had him place the pan pot on that mixer channel, it is a bit flawed as well. Add 6 more mics, and, well you get the idea. As we've discussed in a few other topics, the equipment in the recording process and quantity manufacturing introduce all sorts of gremlins and problems themselves, and the result is anything but "pure". By the time we get software of the simplest of recordings of an event, it has been processed and duplicated (remember, each stage of amplification is not amplification but a modulation copy of a power supply rail), a dozen or more times.
Sound stage and imaging as we know them, are just results of two point source speakers and their timing reflections in our rooms, nothing more, nothing less. Even if you throw on a mono recording, and move one speakers position relative to the other, it will shift the presentation, causing a different perspective and tonal response to be presented from each speaker. If the recording of the event is documented with two spread mics or stereo pairs (or even binaural), they still don't hear as we do, even if we were at that same live event. Not including pan pots of course. And if there is a pan pot variable, as it shifts the presentation, the amplitude of each channel changes, and we all know a major flaw of systems is amplitude compression or distortion, manifesting itself as the system sounding better at a certain level, or speakers "opening up" once driven at a more copacetic point in the interaction with the amplifier. Above or below that "opening up" amplitude, there is amplitude distortion, below- one of compression, above- one of the drivers getting out of control. Think of Maggie's versus a subwoofer, they don't have the same dynamic response due to linear versus logarithmic efficiency. I've gone off on a tangent a bit, let me veer back to the topic at hand.
Now, in Chris' defense, it may at the same time also be the case that live unamplified music COULD BE one of the simplest recordings available and operating on that premise we can surmise that it is closest to an ideal because it has the lowest number of stages of amplification/processing/recording. So it MAY BE closest to ideal, and is therefore a helpful "liveness" reference. But that does not mean that going out and listening to live music gives you the best reference. Mentally, I believe it is not unlike cleaning your ears with a Q-tip. It sort of resets your brain's perceptions to a default status. But since a system has no chance of ever attaining the sound of a live event due to the source being a mere recording, trying to make equipment sound like a live event would make the equipment both wrong and inaccurate.
I also hate being perceived only as a Devil's advocate, so I will offer up some olive branches for common ground.
We need some sort of musical reference, don't we? Well we do and we don't. I'd say the best we can achieve is to learn our musical recordings as references through hearing them a zillion times through a zillion systems and having the wisdom to know that none of them is going to present it the same or ever as "correct". If there's one thing the high end has taught me (aside from an unexpected liking of all musical genres), it's that there is no right, just different presentations. I was a musician for years, I know the sound of a live bass or drum set, a cymbal or a woodwind or string instrument. But I've never been fooled into thinking something was live when it was not. O.k., there have been times when listening when you get fooled by a sound off to the left and behind you, but those are hardly consistent.
'Stats present some events realistically, as do planar dynamics, OTL's, or even big ass SS amps running huge dynamics. Wave launch seems to be a key here. Valves have a euphonic presentation that seems more realistic, but also less so at the frequency extremes. It's all flawed, but all trying to achieve a realistic presentation, which is to say, make us believe in a little magic. But if you're looking for a recording to duplicate a live event, expect to be disappointed.
I know this is a reviewer discussion, but I had to get that off my chest as I whole heartedly disagree with the premise and I feel reviewers should question it's validity themselves, even if it is a defacto standard nowadays. Thanks guys. And my apologies to Chris for being the victim of the assault :) Oh, and I love HP's writing too.
Mics do not hear as we do. Even the best of cables phase shift (ELI the ICE man anyone?) and those shifts alter both the response and spatial cues we hear. Hall reverberance and timing of reflections are a simple manifestation of a single point of measurement, or an additive multiple mic sum. As stereo is just a pleasant manipulation of these effects and placement may be as haphazard as where the engineer's mood had him place the pan pot on that mixer channel, it is a bit flawed as well. Add 6 more mics, and, well you get the idea. As we've discussed in a few other topics, the equipment in the recording process and quantity manufacturing introduce all sorts of gremlins and problems themselves, and the result is anything but "pure". By the time we get software of the simplest of recordings of an event, it has been processed and duplicated (remember, each stage of amplification is not amplification but a modulation copy of a power supply rail), a dozen or more times.
Sound stage and imaging as we know them, are just results of two point source speakers and their timing reflections in our rooms, nothing more, nothing less. Even if you throw on a mono recording, and move one speakers position relative to the other, it will shift the presentation, causing a different perspective and tonal response to be presented from each speaker. If the recording of the event is documented with two spread mics or stereo pairs (or even binaural), they still don't hear as we do, even if we were at that same live event. Not including pan pots of course. And if there is a pan pot variable, as it shifts the presentation, the amplitude of each channel changes, and we all know a major flaw of systems is amplitude compression or distortion, manifesting itself as the system sounding better at a certain level, or speakers "opening up" once driven at a more copacetic point in the interaction with the amplifier. Above or below that "opening up" amplitude, there is amplitude distortion, below- one of compression, above- one of the drivers getting out of control. Think of Maggie's versus a subwoofer, they don't have the same dynamic response due to linear versus logarithmic efficiency. I've gone off on a tangent a bit, let me veer back to the topic at hand.
Now, in Chris' defense, it may at the same time also be the case that live unamplified music COULD BE one of the simplest recordings available and operating on that premise we can surmise that it is closest to an ideal because it has the lowest number of stages of amplification/processing/recording. So it MAY BE closest to ideal, and is therefore a helpful "liveness" reference. But that does not mean that going out and listening to live music gives you the best reference. Mentally, I believe it is not unlike cleaning your ears with a Q-tip. It sort of resets your brain's perceptions to a default status. But since a system has no chance of ever attaining the sound of a live event due to the source being a mere recording, trying to make equipment sound like a live event would make the equipment both wrong and inaccurate.
I also hate being perceived only as a Devil's advocate, so I will offer up some olive branches for common ground.
We need some sort of musical reference, don't we? Well we do and we don't. I'd say the best we can achieve is to learn our musical recordings as references through hearing them a zillion times through a zillion systems and having the wisdom to know that none of them is going to present it the same or ever as "correct". If there's one thing the high end has taught me (aside from an unexpected liking of all musical genres), it's that there is no right, just different presentations. I was a musician for years, I know the sound of a live bass or drum set, a cymbal or a woodwind or string instrument. But I've never been fooled into thinking something was live when it was not. O.k., there have been times when listening when you get fooled by a sound off to the left and behind you, but those are hardly consistent.
'Stats present some events realistically, as do planar dynamics, OTL's, or even big ass SS amps running huge dynamics. Wave launch seems to be a key here. Valves have a euphonic presentation that seems more realistic, but also less so at the frequency extremes. It's all flawed, but all trying to achieve a realistic presentation, which is to say, make us believe in a little magic. But if you're looking for a recording to duplicate a live event, expect to be disappointed.
I know this is a reviewer discussion, but I had to get that off my chest as I whole heartedly disagree with the premise and I feel reviewers should question it's validity themselves, even if it is a defacto standard nowadays. Thanks guys. And my apologies to Chris for being the victim of the assault :) Oh, and I love HP's writing too.
Lots of good points here. While no system can recreate a live event exactly, all I've ever wanted from a system is to play music however most seem to only play sound. Every concert hall/venue is different for acoustics but there are certain elements that I expect to hear on playback through a music playback system. Most don't deliver in this area. Some have told me that a certain world reference CD/SACD is so resolving & detailed that my brain can't process the info or that the components in my system aren't good enough to allow for the dynamics that the player is delivering & that's why I get headaches after a few minutes of listening. Funny, I never seem to get a headache at a live show or with my current hi fi components. :)
I have posed a question under another 'Discussion' thread that both Greg and Scott have already started to contribute to with their comments below. I am with both Scott and Greg on this...
Scott, I think in the terms of “neutrality” being a statement of tonality, live music is the reference point. A violin played thorough my system should sound like a violin played at orchestra hall in tonality at least. Yes the soundstage is manipulated through the system of playback, but the tonality should match the reference.
Piano is our friend John’s bugaboo. Sharp leading edge, full body and seamless decay. The reference is a piano. It is easy enough to run into the living room and hit middle C to see if it performed the same as it does through the reviewers system.
If we are discussing rock music, the event is the result of electronically manipulated sound, yet it still remains the standard reference point.
I guess I look at the tonality as the issue at point, not the sound staging. Sound staging is a result of our two speaker system, not an actual event. Sound staging is far less relevant live!
Piano is our friend John’s bugaboo. Sharp leading edge, full body and seamless decay. The reference is a piano. It is easy enough to run into the living room and hit middle C to see if it performed the same as it does through the reviewers system.
If we are discussing rock music, the event is the result of electronically manipulated sound, yet it still remains the standard reference point.
I guess I look at the tonality as the issue at point, not the sound staging. Sound staging is a result of our two speaker system, not an actual event. Sound staging is far less relevant live!
Ok Scott's has some very valid points (and it kinda made me insane that with all apologies to Brian Cheney, that he was quoted as saying listeners at CES couldn't hear the difference between the live musicians and the recorded event in his room; to my ears, the two were day and night. I don't know what these people were listening to.)that I don't think take away from still using unamplified, even live music recorded music, as a reference. Clearly mikes don't hear like human ears (and can we say only picks up say 80% of the music Scott?) but the best engineers have the ability to compensate to some extent/large degree in order to make the recording sound like the real event. To me, that was the secret of the producers/engineers at RCA, Mercury, Decca, EMI, etc. And as much as I like rock music, it can pretty much sound like the musicians want the instruments to sound. Plus there are just some reproduction qualities that rock can't give us-say with a well recorded live jazz recording.
Now I guess one quality I always admired, maybe even slightly jealous of, about David Wilson when he reviewed for TAS (besides his unsurpassed meticulousness) was the use of his own recordings to evaluate the fidelity of the DUT. The best example of this was I guess back in the early 20s of TAS where Dave was reviewing the Rowland and ARC preamplifier -- and Dave's conclusion was the ARC basically sounded better but that the Rowland was more faithful to the original recording.
Now I think that was in part what got me into R2R --the hope of getting closer to the real event--and I've even been lucky enough to pick up a master tape for my own education at home (I've heard many masters in the studio, including being lucky enough to hear the original RCAs many years ago thanks to David Chesky!) And after listening to the master tapes, one does have to ask the question: is the absolute fidelity to the actual playing or the recording? I think the answer has to be the equipment has to reproduce what's on the tape!
But I definitely find myself in agreement with JD's comments. While the final few percent of what is perfect might be arguable, instruments are defined by their harmonic construction. Violins have to sound like violins, not the complete disaster that early digital gave us. Pianos have to have body, frequency extension (esp. if it's Moravec playing a Boesendorfer; to wit, a Boesendorfer should never sound like a Steinway :( ), and harmonic overtones. Drums have to have weight, impact and extension, etc. In fact, the earliest digital LPs actually sounded like they were playing at the wrong speed because they lacked almost all harmonic content (that begs the question what were the engineers listening to? Of course the answer is the bean counters who wanted to foist this technology on the public) so lacking in harmonic content were they. One of the worst/best examples of these early digital disasters was a CBS digital release of if I remember correctly, of Bernstein? doing Shostakovitch's 5th. This was an unmitigated digital disaster. It was so bad as to be totally unlistenable-- and that was a shame since Bernstein is known for his interpretations of Shostakovitch!
Now I guess one quality I always admired, maybe even slightly jealous of, about David Wilson when he reviewed for TAS (besides his unsurpassed meticulousness) was the use of his own recordings to evaluate the fidelity of the DUT. The best example of this was I guess back in the early 20s of TAS where Dave was reviewing the Rowland and ARC preamplifier -- and Dave's conclusion was the ARC basically sounded better but that the Rowland was more faithful to the original recording.
Now I think that was in part what got me into R2R --the hope of getting closer to the real event--and I've even been lucky enough to pick up a master tape for my own education at home (I've heard many masters in the studio, including being lucky enough to hear the original RCAs many years ago thanks to David Chesky!) And after listening to the master tapes, one does have to ask the question: is the absolute fidelity to the actual playing or the recording? I think the answer has to be the equipment has to reproduce what's on the tape!
But I definitely find myself in agreement with JD's comments. While the final few percent of what is perfect might be arguable, instruments are defined by their harmonic construction. Violins have to sound like violins, not the complete disaster that early digital gave us. Pianos have to have body, frequency extension (esp. if it's Moravec playing a Boesendorfer; to wit, a Boesendorfer should never sound like a Steinway :( ), and harmonic overtones. Drums have to have weight, impact and extension, etc. In fact, the earliest digital LPs actually sounded like they were playing at the wrong speed because they lacked almost all harmonic content (that begs the question what were the engineers listening to? Of course the answer is the bean counters who wanted to foist this technology on the public) so lacking in harmonic content were they. One of the worst/best examples of these early digital disasters was a CBS digital release of if I remember correctly, of Bernstein? doing Shostakovitch's 5th. This was an unmitigated digital disaster. It was so bad as to be totally unlistenable-- and that was a shame since Bernstein is known for his interpretations of Shostakovitch!
Good points guys, and in my earlier ramblings, I missed tonality, on which JD is spot on (some of those cable guys are pretty bright, and JD has very good ears). Tonality is really one of the most important attributes of reproduction. Our brains can fill in many of the others, but tonality and harmonic content are paramount to an enjoyable presentation.
I'll move over into the new topic area for further musings. And now, back to the reviewers discussion!
I'll move over into the new topic area for further musings. And now, back to the reviewers discussion!
Scott: You write:
"'m sorry, but I can't go with you on your first premise Chris (I've been waiting for that . While live un-amplified music is indeed a reference, it is by nature a flawed one at best. Even a recording of that same live event only at best approaches what we would have heard there.
Mics do not hear as we do. Even the best of cables phase shift (ELI the ICE man anyone?) and those shifts alter both the response and spatial cues we hear. Hall reverberance and timing of reflections are a simple manifestation of a single point of measurement, or an additive multiple mic sum. As stereo is just a pleasant manipulation of these effects and placement may be as haphazard as where the engineer's mood had him place the pan pot on that mixer channel, it is a bit flawed as well."
I think built in to this assumption is a pitfall: That this has anything to do with how microphones work (objectively). I'll posit that it doesn't, because the same could be said that microphones do not vibrate as violin strings do, or resonate as sax reeds do, etc. It has nothingt o do with the technicalities involved, IMHO ... and everything to do with what it sounds like to the listener despite the technicalities.
So - live acoustic music remains a reference because of its firm basis in the acoustic reality that our ears live in. An acoustic instrument making a sound in an acoustic space that is also shared by our ears is the single most authentic perception-based reference we can have. If, regardless of the technical modes, a sound system can reproduce those perceptual cues we as humans employ to decode the difference between live and recorded music - we have accomplished something important.
A studio recording can't necessarily be a perception-based reference because there is no broad, universal understanding of what studio-sound should sound like. But we all, as a species, tend to recognize the sound of live music vs. the sound of recorded music ... no matter the mics, the cables, or the venues involved.
Cheers!
Chris
"'m sorry, but I can't go with you on your first premise Chris (I've been waiting for that . While live un-amplified music is indeed a reference, it is by nature a flawed one at best.
Mics do not hear as we do. Even the best of cables phase shift (ELI the ICE man anyone?) and those shifts alter both the response and spatial cues we hear. Hall reverberance and timing of reflections are a simple manifestation of a single point of measurement, or an additive multiple mic sum. As stereo is just a pleasant manipulation of these effects and placement may be as haphazard as where the engineer's mood had him place the pan pot on that mixer channel, it is a bit flawed as well."
I think built in to this assumption is a pitfall: That this has anything to do with how microphones work (objectively). I'll posit that it doesn't, because the same could be said that microphones do not vibrate as violin strings do, or resonate as sax reeds do, etc. It has nothingt o do with the technicalities involved, IMHO ... and everything to do with what it sounds like to the listener despite the technicalities.
So - live acoustic music remains a reference because of its firm basis in the acoustic reality that our ears live in. An acoustic instrument making a sound in an acoustic space that is also shared by our ears is the single most authentic perception-based reference we can have. If, regardless of the technical modes, a sound system can reproduce those perceptual cues we as humans employ to decode the difference between live and recorded music - we have accomplished something important.
A studio recording can't necessarily be a perception-based reference because there is no broad, universal understanding of what studio-sound should sound like. But we all, as a species, tend to recognize the sound of live music vs. the sound of recorded music ... no matter the mics, the cables, or the venues involved.
Cheers!
Chris
I enjoy reading reviews especially those regarding big boy speakers. I must admit however that with certain journalists I read on with a grain of salt...make that a shaker full of salt. It's pretty hard to maintain a semblance of credibility when you have a room full of exotic equipment on semi-permanent loan. Recently I've found myself reading reviews primarily for the music used in the "evaluation". I keep a living word document (the non biblical type) where I copy and paste cd and LP titles into then every so often go to amazon to listen to snippets of the albums. I still end up buying the occasional stinker.
You need to be a member of this group before you can participate in this discussion
