Curious about Stereophile/Recording

Curious about Stereophile/Recording

I have been a reader of Stereophile for several years now. I will freely
and readily admit that I am a dedicated and devoted patron. I will also be
the first to say that I have never considered the magazine to be of any
real educational significance, or of much value to audio enthusiasts
seeking to arm themselves with reviews built on a solid foundation of fact
and logic, untainted by commercial or emotional bias; and most importantly,
free of that Voodoo Science foolishness that is so popular in "Audiophile"
Circles. I view Stereophile much in the same way that I view Rolling Stone,
Spin, and FLEX: As a source of lighthearted-take-with-a-grain-of-salt,
Marketing Driven and Sustained, Time-Killing Entertainment,,,injected
sparsely with advice that is hit or miss, and without much to back it up. I
do enjoy the letters to the editor and the Articles on Stereophile
Recording Sessions. As a sound engineer of 15 years, and a professional
musician for much longer(Basso Profundo/Bass Soloist,and Bass for Hire), I
am always interested to have a glimpse inside recording sessions that are
not my own. I have learned a lot by observing my peers successes and
failures, and by decoding the approaches responsible for the end result.

In the November 2007 issue a reader posed a question to John Atkinson that
has been at the back of my mind for a long time:

"Editor:

"I have used your Editors Choice CD to set up and check out my system. It
has been extremely useful-thank you for producing it."

(heres the good part)
"One thing puzzles me: Many of the recordings seem to have used multiple
microphones and a fair amount of electronic processing. I would have
thought these recordings would have used two microphones and much less
processing, if any. Why is there so much equipment involved, and what is
the difference, then, between "audiophile" and mainstream recording? Is
there something wrong with a simple two-mike, direct-to-two-track recording
process using accurate, high-quality microphones?"
-James A. Fouche-Schack (jamesafoucheschack@sbcglobal . net )

and his dodgy response, a retort that would fit right in in the Iowa
Caucus, CIA Tape Burning Hearing, or a Press Briefing at the White House:

"As ive tried to get across, in both the making of LIVE AT MERKIN HALL in
September, and in articles on the recording of other Stereophile CDs, there
is more to making an accurate two-channel recording than placing a single
pair of microphones in front of the performers. Stereo is an illusion, and
the success of that illusion depends on both art and artifice"== Jon
Atkinson

My take on it is that JA, a Senior Member of the Stereophile Staff, a man
apparently with all this experience and Scientific Data floating around in
his head, should be able to approach the recording in such a way that he
should not need any cheats/crutches(crutches= extra microphones, artificial
processing, etc). I have heard many recordings with only two microphones,
of ensembles as big as Attention Deficit Screen or whatever they called
themselves or bigger..and guess what..they sounded AMAZING. (A list of my
favorites will be at the end of this post)No, It isnt easy to pull off
(nothing that is worth doing is easy), takes a whole lot of trial and error
placement, preparation, extensive knowledge of the source material, and
beyond that, ABILITY. BUT...When done right, absolutely nothing trumps a
"pure stereo" recording.....

We, the listener, have to trust the judgement of the engineer to make
balance decisions, decisions on which mics to use and on what instruments,
How to EQ in post to accomodate the strengths/weaknesses of a particular
microphone(or pair of the same), width of the recording, balance of the
orchestra...and you know what...I dont trust John Atkinson to make any of
those decisions. I trust him to put the pair of microphones in the right
place, to take his time in doing so(I have spent many an hour moving mics
an inch or 2, listening, and moving back..and so on), and to get out of the
way. To stick his nose in the score(if available and that's assuming that
he reads music..and by what Ive seen of todays pro tools jockeys, that is
assuming a whole lot) and maybe do some minor adjustments on the faders..

A well placed coincident pair(Blumlein is superior in my opinion, provided
that hall conditions are accomodating,and that the musicians will fit
within the given 90 degree angle of incidence ) affords the engineer(or in
this case, JA) the chance to maintain a strict relationship between direct
and reverberant sound. This balance of direct and reverberant sound gives
our ear-brain system a series of cues. From these cues such information as
Length/Width/Depth/and even height of the acoustic space can be determined.
More microphones in the picture, more difficulties maintaining those
relationships..Lets not invite difficulties, eh John?

Multitrackers have to deal with The inherent problems associated with
collapsing various mics or pairs of mics down to stereo...Phase
Cancellation, High Frequency differences, so on and so forth...

anyway..I could go on and on and on, but I will not. I just find it
terribly (hypocritical? "antithetical" "ironic"?) funny that JA, a major
force in an "Audiophile" publication, seems to have no clue what he is
doing when he puts on the engineer hat. All this grandstanding,
sermonizing, and chest beating about "faithful reproduction"...and yet here
he is, giving the clueless acolytes of his the audio equivalent of bad
photoshop work. "Pasted on mics, pasted on effects, lacks believability"
(To quote a real engineer==Tony Faulkner)

"depends on both art and artifice" Yes, John. . it does. Unfortunately, sofar
as recording goes..you have neither. Stick to the written voodoo,and leave
the recording up to the guys that know what to do:(ALL done with a SINGLE
pair, all amazing)

(Opus 3 recordings/ Spirit and the Blues(by eric bibb and needed time),
test disc 1, Sampler

Waterlily Acoustics/Bourbon and Rosewater, A meeting by the river
RCA Living Stereo-ALL of em

Proprius-Jazz at the Pawnshop, Cantate Domino

Fone/Danielis Ludus

Pope Music--Sciarabin Symphony 7

any D+G recording(Dabringhaus and Grimm-Germany)

those are fine examples of what can be done with a single pair of
microphones..

==Taynen

Re: Curious about Stereophile/Recording

On Mon, 24 Dec 2007 08:37:20 -0800, Tynan Agviðr wrote
(in article <rsGdnQDzV-fdffLanZ2dnUVZ jydnZ2d@pghconnect . com >):

> I have been a reader of Stereophile for several years now. I will freely
> and readily admit that I am a dedicated and devoted patron. I will also be
> the first to say that I have never considered the magazine to be of any
> real educational significance, or of much value to audio enthusiasts
> seeking to arm themselves with reviews built on a solid foundation of fact
> and logic, untainted by commercial or emotional bias; and most importantly,
> free of that Voodoo Science foolishness that is so popular in "Audiophile"
> Circles. I view Stereophile much in the same way that I view Rolling Stone,
> Spin, and FLEX: As a source of lighthearted-take-with-a-grain-of-salt,
> Marketing Driven and Sustained, Time-Killing Entertainment,,,injected
> sparsely with advice that is hit or miss, and without much to back it up. I
> do enjoy the letters to the editor and the Articles on Stereophile
> Recording Sessions. As a sound engineer of 15 years, and a professional
> musician for much longer(Basso Profundo/Bass Soloist,and Bass for Hire), I
> am always interested to have a glimpse inside recording sessions that are
> not my own. I have learned a lot by observing my peers successes and
> failures, and by decoding the approaches responsible for the end result.
>
> In the November 2007 issue a reader posed a question to John Atkinson that
> has been at the back of my mind for a long time:
>
> "Editor:
>
> "I have used your Editors Choice CD to set up and check out my system. It
> has been extremely useful-thank you for producing it."
>
> (heres the good part)
> "One thing puzzles me: Many of the recordings seem to have used multiple
> microphones and a fair amount of electronic processing. I would have
> thought these recordings would have used two microphones and much less
> processing, if any. Why is there so much equipment involved, and what is
> the difference, then, between "audiophile" and mainstream recording? Is
> there something wrong with a simple two-mike, direct-to-two-track recording
> process using accurate, high-quality microphones?"
> -James A. Fouche-Schack (jamesafoucheschack@sbcglobal . net )
>
> and his dodgy response, a retort that would fit right in in the Iowa
> Caucus, CIA Tape Burning Hearing, or a Press Briefing at the White House:
>
> "As ive tried to get across, in both the making of LIVE AT MERKIN HALL in
> September, and in articles on the recording of other Stereophile CDs, there
> is more to making an accurate two-channel recording than placing a single
> pair of microphones in front of the performers. Stereo is an illusion, and
> the success of that illusion depends on both art and artifice"== Jon
> Atkinson
>
> My take on it is that JA, a Senior Member of the Stereophile Staff, a man
> apparently with all this experience and Scientific Data floating around in
> his head, should be able to approach the recording in such a way that he
> should not need any cheats/crutches(crutches= extra microphones, artificial
> processing, etc). I have heard many recordings with only two microphones,
> of ensembles as big as Attention Deficit Screen or whatever they called
> themselves or bigger..and guess what..they sounded AMAZING. (A list of my
> favorites will be at the end of this post)No, It isnt easy to pull off
> (nothing that is worth doing is easy), takes a whole lot of trial and error
> placement, preparation, extensive knowledge of the source material, and
> beyond that, ABILITY. BUT...When done right, absolutely nothing trumps a
> "pure stereo" recording.....
>
> We, the listener, have to trust the judgement of the engineer to make
> balance decisions, decisions on which mics to use and on what instruments,
> How to EQ in post to accomodate the strengths/weaknesses of a particular
> microphone(or pair of the same), width of the recording, balance of the
> orchestra...and you know what...I dont trust John Atkinson to make any of
> those decisions. I trust him to put the pair of microphones in the right
> place, to take his time in doing so(I have spent many an hour moving mics
> an inch or 2, listening, and moving back..and so on), and to get out of the
> way. To stick his nose in the score(if available and that's assuming that
> he reads music..and by what Ive seen of todays pro tools jockeys, that is
> assuming a whole lot) and maybe do some minor adjustments on the faders..
>
> A well placed coincident pair(Blumlein is superior in my opinion, provided
> that hall conditions are accomodating,and that the musicians will fit
> within the given 90 degree angle of incidence ) affords the engineer(or in
> this case, JA) the chance to maintain a strict relationship between direct
> and reverberant sound. This balance of direct and reverberant sound gives
> our ear-brain system a series of cues. From these cues such information as
> Length/Width/Depth/and even height of the acoustic space can be determined.
> More microphones in the picture, more difficulties maintaining those
> relationships..Lets not invite difficulties, eh John?
>
> Multitrackers have to deal with The inherent problems associated with
> collapsing various mics or pairs of mics down to stereo...Phase
> Cancellation, High Frequency differences, so on and so forth...
>
> anyway..I could go on and on and on, but I will not. I just find it
> terribly (hypocritical? "antithetical" "ironic"?) funny that JA, a major
> force in an "Audiophile" publication, seems to have no clue what he is
> doing when he puts on the engineer hat. All this grandstanding,
> sermonizing, and chest beating about "faithful reproduction"...and yet here
> he is, giving the clueless acolytes of his the audio equivalent of bad
> photoshop work. "Pasted on mics, pasted on effects, lacks believability"
> (To quote a real engineer==Tony Faulkner)
>
> "depends on both art and artifice" Yes, John. . it does. Unfortunately, sofar
> as recording goes..you have neither. Stick to the written voodoo,and leave
> the recording up to the guys that know what to do:(ALL done with a SINGLE
> pair, all amazing)
>
> (Opus 3 recordings/ Spirit and the Blues(by eric bibb and needed time),
> test disc 1, Sampler
>
> Waterlily Acoustics/Bourbon and Rosewater, A meeting by the river
> RCA Living Stereo-ALL of em

Most of the Living Stereo RCAs (certainly those recorded by Louis Layton)
were recorded using three spaced omnis into a three-track tape recorder (the
center one was used for the mono release and all three were blended for
Stereo)
>
> Proprius-Jazz at the Pawnshop, Cantate Domino
>
> Fone/Danielis Ludus
>
> Pope Music--Sciarabin Symphony 7
>
> any D+G recording(Dabringhaus and Grimm-Germany)

>
> those are fine examples of what can be done with a single pair of
> microphones..
>
> ==Taynen

As for Mr. Atkinson. He's right. What I think he was saying is that there is
no single cut-and-dried methodology which will yield perfect stereo
recordings every time. While I agree with you that under the correct
circumstances, a two-mike stereo pair (either X-Y with cardioids, spaced
array, Blumlien, ORTF, or M-S) will yield optimal stereo, it's often not
possible to use only two mikes. Sometimes the acoustics require closer
microphone placement and often, certain solo instruments will be too soft to
be heard that way. In a jazz band, for instance, it is often necessary to use
accent mikes on the solo instruments, otherwise the solos sound much too "en
ensemble". Generally, two types of ensembles can be successfully miked with
only two microphones (or one stereo mike). The first is a small ensemble like
a quartet where the players can be arranged in a semi-circle around a stereo
mike or a X-Y or a coincident pair. The second, somewhat paradoxically would
be a symphony orchestra. A stereo mike or a pair of cardioid mikes at roughly
90 degrees to one another and mounted on a "T-Bar" approximately 7" apart and
"flown" about 10 ft over the conductor's head and about 15 feet behind him
give a lovely stereo effect with great imaging. Also, I have found that if
there is a piano playing on-stage with the orchestra, (for Rachmaninoff's 3rd
Piano Concerto, for instance) and the lid is up. it is very probable that
accent mikes on the piano won't be necessary and the "mix" that the conductor
is hearing on the podium is also perfect for the X-Y pair. They are, after
all, playing the part of our "surrogate ears" and should "hear" what we would
hear were we there.

My only caveat with regard to Mr. Atkinson is the fact that he comes from the
world of rock n' roll. As a bass guitar player (I believe) his world is
dominated by multi-miking and even contact microphones (Eeeew w w ww!). And
regardless of what any of us might personally think of rock as an art form, I
think that we can all agree that a rock performance doesn't really exist
outside of a studio (and "live" concerts use their sound reinforcement
equipment to take that "studio" on the road.) So in Mr Atkinson's world, it's
all about mult-mikes, artificial reverb, mult-track, effects generators, fuzz
boxes, etc.

This brings me to a very pet peeve of mine. I see reviewers at Stereophile,
TAS and others using rock n' roll to review hi-fi equipment. To my way of
thinking this is ludicrous. How can you take a performance that doesn't exist
in real life and use it evaluate, say, speakers when the only way that
performance will sound the way the band is supposed to sound is if one has
the exact same full-range monitors that the mixing engineer and the producer
used to put the performance together? Otherwise, it can't sound right. But
how can a reviewer know? And moreover, different bands use different studios
with different monitoring speakers. It's not like acoustic instruments, each
of which always sound the same (except for, perhaps, room acoustics) no
matter where the instrument is played, and most people can recognize an
acoustic piano or a violin, or a trumpet, but what does a Fender electric
guitar sound like? It depends upon the amp/speaker combination used, doesn't
it? It also depends upon what other signal processing is used between the
guitar strings and the listener. I cannot see how any comments made by a
reviewer who is using rock n' roll as source material can have any bearing
whatsoever on the musical performance of any playback system. I've been told
that the reason why editors allow this is because rock n' roll (by which I
mean pop music) is what most of the readers listen to. No wonder Hi-Fi as a
hobby is dying and that many pundits are saying that the industry as a whole
has lost its way.

Re: Curious about Stereophile/Recording

On Dec 25, 11:43 am, Sonnova <sonn...@audiosanatorium . com > wrote:
..........
> This brings me to a very pet peeve of mine. I see reviewers at Stereophile,
> TAS and others using rock n' roll to review hi-fi equipment. To my way of
> thinking this is ludicrous. How can you take a performance that doesn't exist
> in real life and use it evaluate, say, speakers when the only way that
> performance will sound the way the band is supposed to sound is if one has
> the exact same full-range monitors that the mixing engineer and the producer
> used to put the performance together? Otherwise, it can't sound right. But
> how can a reviewer know? And moreover, different bands use different studios
> with different monitoring speakers. It's not like acoustic instruments, each ...
>
>

I find this pet peeve of yours very interesting. What's so wrong with
using a studio recording to test speakers? Good is good and you will
know. You can compare the way the speaker sounds to how the same
studio recording sound when using headphones. You know you got it
right when the speaker conveys all the music in fashion similar to the
way you hear it on headphones. The bass is there, The vocals sing, the
drums and cymbals attack with excitement etc. All the instruments,
relative to each other, sound right. But even without the benefit of
comparing to headphones, you will just know. Everything will sound
right. All this comparison is of course done with no tone control
enabled, no EQ etc. Nadda, just flat.

Is this method completely accurate? Probably not. But I bet it brings
you darned close to the ideal setup for a speaker as well as to find
good and bad speakers. I use all studio recording to position my
speakers and when I know I've got it right, every studio recording I
have then sounds good. If that is so, surely something is being done
right. My iTunes collection has music from many many studios:)

Anyway, how can a speaker, especially direct radiating ones which are
the vast majority of speakers out there, ever get anywhere near close
to reproducing a live event? It is a relentless pursuit of perfection
that I feel that only dipoles can ever approach to achieving.

CD

Re: Curious about Stereophile/Recording

On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 08:49:09 -0800, codifus wrote
(in article <fl0l2501a5n@news1.newsguy . com >):

> On Dec 25, 11:43 am, Sonnova <sonn...@audiosanatorium . com > wrote:
> ..........
>> This brings me to a very pet peeve of mine. I see reviewers at Stereophile,
>> TAS and others using rock n' roll to review hi-fi equipment. To my way of
>> thinking this is ludicrous. How can you take a performance that doesn't
>> exist
>> in real life and use it evaluate, say, speakers when the only way that
>> performance will sound the way the band is supposed to sound is if one has
>> the exact same full-range monitors that the mixing engineer and the producer
>> used to put the performance together? Otherwise, it can't sound right. But
>> how can a reviewer know? And moreover, different bands use different studios
>> with different monitoring speakers. It's not like acoustic instruments,
>> each ...
>>
>>
>
> I find this pet peeve of yours very interesting. What's so wrong with
> using a studio recording to test speakers? Good is good and you will
> know.

"Good" isn't the question here. "REAL" is the question here. What sounds good
to me may not sound good to you, but if the speakers are reproducing real
acoustical music captured in real space, then we're no longer talking about
my taste or yours, but rather how close to a real performance the speakers
sound. Of course, the reviewer has to have some idea of what a real
performance sounds like, and that requires that their be a real performance.

> You can compare the way the speaker sounds to how the same
> studio recording sound when using headphones. You know you got it
> right when the speaker conveys all the music in fashion similar to the
> way you hear it on headphones.

No, you can't. Headphones are just as apt to be colored as are loudspeakers.

The bass is there, The vocals sing, the
> drums and cymbals attack with excitement etc. All the instruments,
> relative to each other, sound right. But even without the benefit of
> comparing to headphones, you will just know. Everything will sound
> right. All this comparison is of course done with no tone control
> enabled, no EQ etc. Nadda, just flat.

Right to who? You, me, someone else? Here's an analogy. You walk into an
appliance store and they have a wall full of color TVs all displaying the
same program which goes to a commercial. The commercial has a very red new
Ferrari in it. But you notice that EVERY screen on that wall has that red
Ferrari a slightly different shade of red. If you've never seen that model
and year Ferrari in red, in the flesh, how would you know which of the
renditions before you in that appliance store is the correct red?
>
> Is this method completely accurate? Probably not. But I bet it brings
> you darned close to the ideal setup for a speaker as well as to find
> good and bad speakers. I use all studio recording to position my
> speakers and when I know I've got it right, every studio recording I
> have then sounds good. If that is so, surely something is being done
> right. My iTunes collection has music from many many studios:)

Again, sounding "good" is not the point of high fidelity. The point of high
fidelity is as close an approximation of the experience of listening to live
music, recreated in the home as is technologically and artistically possible.

> Anyway, how can a speaker, especially direct radiating ones which are
> the vast majority of speakers out there, ever get anywhere near close
> to reproducing a live event?

Nobody expects that it will, BUT, where it errs is at least as important as
where it does not. "Studio " music (I like that term, BTW - much less
prejudicial than saying "rock" or "pop"), for instance, cannot tell you
anything about the soundstage qualities of a component, because individually
miked, or directly connected electronic instruments have NO soundstage. They
are simply a number of electronic signals mixed together in a mixing console
where the engineer "pan-pots" each instrument somewhere between far stage
left and far stage right and usually sticks the vocalist in the center. You
can't tell how accurate is the reproduction of the guitar, because the guitar
has no identifiable sound. The resultant guitar sound is a culmination of the
brand and model of guitar used, the electronics used to process the sound and
the amount of "sweetening" used by the recording engineer. Who knows what a
Fender Rhodes sounds like? I've never heard a Fender Rhodes, in fact, without
an instrument amplifier and speaker, a Fender Rhodes has NO sound. No, one
cannot pursue the muse when the muse isn't there.

> It is a relentless pursuit of perfection
> that I feel that only dipoles can ever approach to achieving.

Well, at least we agree on one thing.

Re: Curious about Stereophile/Recording

"Sonnova" <sonnova@audiosanatorium . com > wrote in message
news:fl390c01m19@news4.newsguy . com ...
>
> Again, sounding "good" is not the point of high fidelity. The point of high
> fidelity is as close an approximation of the experience of listening to live
> music, recreated in the home as is technologically and artistically possible.
>

Too many compromises required in the home listening environment IMO
to achieve true fidelity to a live event.
Even if achieved, it will only be for that one recording or that one
venue and that one perspective.
Other recordings will require changes to be live.

Giving up the pursuit of pure fidelity for sounding "good"
on a wide variety of recordings is IMO a very satisfying exchange.

After all, the fundamental purpose of my home audio system
is to provide pleasure. If it doesn't sound good to me,
I don't think it's purpose will be well served.

ScottW

Re: Curious about Stereophile/Recording

On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 08:51:16 -0800, ScottW wrote
(in article <fl8ia402lhh@news4.newsguy . com >):

> "Sonnova" <sonnova@audiosanatorium . com > wrote in message
> news:fl390c01m19@news4.newsguy . com ...
>>
>> Again, sounding "good" is not the point of high fidelity. The point of high
>> fidelity is as close an approximation of the experience of listening to live
>> music, recreated in the home as is technologically and artistically
>> possible.
>>
>
> Too many compromises required in the home listening environment IMO
> to achieve true fidelity to a live event.

While that is true, it doesn't alter what I said AS A GOAL. Hence the words"
"...as close an approximation of the experience of listening to live
music, recreated in the home as is technologically and artistically
possible." Obviously as technology improves, we'll be able to get closer.
Sometimes, in my system, I get glimpses of the "holy grail", don't you? Those
glimpses are truly magical and serve to remind me of why I have this
life-long passion in the first place.

> Even if achieved, it will only be for that one recording or that one
> venue and that one perspective.
> Other recordings will require changes to be live.

Irrelevant. There has to be a goal. The goal high-fidelity was set many
decades ago. The pursuit of that goal is worthy and makes people strive for
it. Otherwise, what's the point?

> Giving up the pursuit of pure fidelity for sounding "good"
> on a wide variety of recordings is IMO a very satisfying exchange.

But without a reference, it's ultimately a meaningless one.
>
> After all, the fundamental purpose of my home audio system
> is to provide pleasure. If it doesn't sound good to me,
> I don't think it's purpose will be well served.

I dunno about you, but for most of us the pleasure comes from the sound of
music. If one's system doesn't sound like music, then there is no pleasure.
There's no getting around it. The purpose of a music system is to REPRODUCE
music. In this context, the word reproduce means to produce again; i.e.
present a facsimile of the original, adding and subtracting nothing in the
process.

Re: Curious about Stereophile/Recording

"Sonnova" <sonnova@audiosanatorium . com > wrote in message
news:flb85j01dl8@news3.newsguy . com ...
> On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 08:51:16 -0800, ScottW wrote
> (in article <fl8ia402lhh@news4.newsguy . com >):
>
>> "Sonnova" <sonnova@audiosanatorium . com > wrote in message
>> news:fl390c01m19@news4.newsguy . com ...
>>>
>>> Again, sounding "good" is not the point of high fidelity. The point of high
>>> fidelity is as close an approximation of the experience of listening to live
>>> music, recreated in the home as is technologically and artistically
>>> possible.
>>>
>>
>> Too many compromises required in the home listening environment IMO
>> to achieve true fidelity to a live event.
>
> While that is true, it doesn't alter what I said AS A GOAL. Hence the words"
> "...as close an approximation of the experience of listening to live
> music, recreated in the home as is technologically and artistically
> possible." Obviously as technology improves, we'll be able to get closer.
> Sometimes, in my system, I get glimpses of the "holy grail", don't you? Those
> glimpses are truly magical and serve to remind me of why I have this
> life-long passion in the first place.
>
>> Even if achieved, it will only be for that one recording or that one
>> venue and that one perspective.
>> Other recordings will require changes to be live.
>
> Irrelevant. There has to be a goal. The goal high-fidelity was set many
> decades ago. The pursuit of that goal is worthy and makes people strive for
> it. Otherwise, what's the point?

Lots of self-imposed rules that don't "have" to be.

I disagree with the goal.
For example...having a kid who dabbled with drums
I have had the pleasure of hearing a live snare drum in my listening
room. I don't require or even desire a system capable of that
dynamic range.

>
>> Giving up the pursuit of pure fidelity for sounding "good"
>> on a wide variety of recordings is IMO a very satisfying exchange.
>
> But without a reference, it's ultimately a meaningless one.

So you have turned your back on every piece of recorded music
you don't have the benefit of having heard live?
All studio creations are beyond consideration.
I find that approach far too restrictive.

IME a personally subjective appraoch is potentially more individually
satisfying than pursuit of that live recreation.

>>
>> After all, the fundamental purpose of my home audio system
>> is to provide pleasure. If it doesn't sound good to me,
>> I don't think it's purpose will be well served.
>
> I dunno about you, but for most of us the pleasure comes from the sound of
> music. If one's system doesn't sound like music, then there is no pleasure.
> There's no getting around it. The purpose of a music system is to REPRODUCE
> music. In this context, the word reproduce means to produce again; i.e.
> present a facsimile of the original, adding and subtracting nothing in the
> process.

Yet your goal is not attainable. Consider the possibility of recreating the
initial transient wave and the resulting listening room response if you do so?
I suggest that objective adherence to the original without adding or subtracting
as you claim may not lead to the optimal compromise for maximum pleasure.
IMO the objective is not to recreate an audio event, it is to create in the mind
of
the listener an illusion of an audio event.
A little smoke and a few mirrors can sometimes greatly benefit the illusion.

ScottW

Re: Curious about Stereophile/Recording

On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 11:03:47 -0800, ScottW wrote
(in article <flbeej0tep@news4.newsguy . com >):

> "Sonnova" <sonnova@audiosanatorium . com > wrote in message
> news:flb85j01dl8@news3.newsguy . com ...
>> On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 08:51:16 -0800, ScottW wrote
>> (in article <fl8ia402lhh@news4.newsguy . com >):
>>
>>> "Sonnova" <sonnova@audiosanatorium . com > wrote in message
>>> news:fl390c01m19@news4.newsguy . com ...
>>>>
>>>> Again, sounding "good" is not the point of high fidelity. The point of
>>>> high
>>>> fidelity is as close an approximation of the experience of listening to
>>>> live
>>>> music, recreated in the home as is technologically and artistically
>>>> possible.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Too many compromises required in the home listening environment IMO
>>> to achieve true fidelity to a live event.
>>
>> While that is true, it doesn't alter what I said AS A GOAL. Hence the words"
>> "...as close an approximation of the experience of listening to live
>> music, recreated in the home as is technologically and artistically
>> possible." Obviously as technology improves, we'll be able to get closer.
>> Sometimes, in my system, I get glimpses of the "holy grail", don't you?
>> Those
>> glimpses are truly magical and serve to remind me of why I have this
>> life-long passion in the first place.
>>
>>> Even if achieved, it will only be for that one recording or that one
>>> venue and that one perspective.
>>> Other recordings will require changes to be live.
>>
>> Irrelevant. There has to be a goal. The goal high-fidelity was set many
>> decades ago. The pursuit of that goal is worthy and makes people strive for
>> it. Otherwise, what's the point?
>
> Lots of self-imposed rules that don't "have" to be.
>
> I disagree with the goal.

Then its not high-fidelity.

> For example...having a kid who dabbled with drums
> I have had the pleasure of hearing a live snare drum in my listening
> room. I don't require or even desire a system capable of that
> dynamic range.

Then it's not high-fidelity.

>>> Giving up the pursuit of pure fidelity for sounding "good"
>>> on a wide variety of recordings is IMO a very satisfying exchange.
>>
>> But without a reference, it's ultimately a meaningless one.
>
> So you have turned your back on every piece of recorded music
> you don't have the benefit of having heard live?
> All studio creations are beyond consideration.
> I find that approach far too restrictive.

Don't be ridiculous. I want my system to sound musical, I.E. as much like
real music played in real space as is possible. This has nothing to do with
"accuracy", you understand. Accuracy WOULD require that one turned one's back
on every piece of recorded music that one hadn't heard live or othat didn't
measure-up. I've heard lots of what were called very accurate audio systems.
They sounded cold and clinical most of the time and definitely did not sound
like music. A little euphonic coloration sometimes serves to "fill the gap"
between what we want and what we can achieve.
>
> IME a personally subjective appraoch is potentially more individually
> satisfying than pursuit of that live recreation.

"impressionist audio". Now there's a concept.

>
>>>
>>> After all, the fundamental purpose of my home audio system
>>> is to provide pleasure. If it doesn't sound good to me,
>>> I don't think it's purpose will be well served.
>>
>> I dunno about you, but for most of us the pleasure comes from the sound of
>> music. If one's system doesn't sound like music, then there is no pleasure.
>> There's no getting around it. The purpose of a music system is to REPRODUCE
>> music. In this context, the word reproduce means to produce again; i.e.
>> present a facsimile of the original, adding and subtracting nothing in the
>> process.
>
> Yet your goal is not attainable.

Perfection in any discipline is unobtainable, yet people continue to try. The
result is that the art and science gets better, closer to the ideal for the
effort. Its what drives people to strive, both in their own careers and in
their advocations. The ball player wants to pitch the perfect game, welder
wants to weld a perfect seam, the amplifier builder wants to build the
perfect amplifier, the speaker maker the perfect speaker. They cannot achieve
these goals but the continue to try. One of my hobbies is photography. I
stand in nature's glory and I snap a photo of it. Does my photo look EXACTLY
like the scene I photographed? Of course not. Whether film or digital, the
photographic process cannot approach what the human eye sees. The
photographic process hasn't the range of tone from solid black (no light) to
pure white (looking into the sun) The human eye can look at a sunlit scene
through a window and watch a child playing on the floor of a darker room
simultaneously. A camera cannot. It can expose for one or the other but not
both. Color in photography is not perfect either. While one can manipulate
exposure and lighting to get one color right, it's usually at the expense of
others. Also human sight is three dimensional and photography is two
dimensional. But, in the light of these imperfections, do I go out and
purposely purchase photographic equipment that distorts reality? Do I buy
lenses which are blurry or film that gives colors which have no relation to
what one is photographing? Of course not. I can see the real scene in front
of me. I know that my representation of it won't be perfect, but it doesn't
mean that I don't want it to be. It doesn't mean that I strive for pictures
that are bizarre distortions of the original. No, subconsciously, I want that
picture to be as close to the scene I saw with my eye as is possible, knowing
all the while that it can't be. Its the same withe audio.

> Consider the possibility of recreating the
> initial transient wave and the resulting listening room response if you do
so?
> I suggest that objective adherence to the original without adding or
> subtracting as you claim may not lead to the optimal compromise for maximum
pleasure.

Like I said, real acoustical music played in a real space is the reference.
The difference between the way a system sounds and the way that music sounds
is the measure of how successful we are at approximating the reference. Just
like the photograph, we know that the reproduction is flawed, but that
doesn't mean that we don't use every trick in the photographic book to "help
the illusion" along. We expose for the shadows and develop for the
highlights, we use flash to soften contrast, we use long lenses to
foreshorten distance, etc. We audiophiles also do similar things. We often
choose euphonic colorations in our equipment choices because it might make
the system sound more like real music. We do these things because capturing
reality is the goal.

> IMO the objective is not to recreate an audio event, it is to create in the
> mind of the listener an illusion of an audio event.

Well, of course! Since the reality is impossible, that's all anybody can do
is create an illusion of reality. That's what I've been talking about through
this entire thread.

> A little smoke and a few mirrors can sometimes greatly benefit the illusion.

That;s what I've been saying. But in order to have an illusion, one must
have some concept of what the illusion is supposed to conjure. In the final
analysis, isn't it the absolute reference of real music playing in a real
space?

Re: Curious about Stereophile/Recording

On 27 Dec 2007 16:49:09 GMT, codifus <codifus@optonline . net > wrote:

>Anyway, how can a speaker, especially direct radiating ones which are
>the vast majority of speakers out there, ever get anywhere near close
>to reproducing a live event?

More channels/more speakers.

>It is a relentless pursuit of perfection
>that I feel that only dipoles can ever approach to achieving.

Only if you can control the room in which the dipoles are reflecting.
IMHO, dipoles are the least accurate, in some ways, because they
depend on room reflections.

Kal

Re: Curious about Stereophile/Recording

On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 08:43:00 -0800, Kalman Rubinson wrote
(in article <fl392k01m2d@news4.newsguy . com >):

> On 27 Dec 2007 16:49:09 GMT, codifus <codifus@optonline . net > wrote:
>
>> Anyway, how can a speaker, especially direct radiating ones which are
>> the vast majority of speakers out there, ever get anywhere near close
>> to reproducing a live event?
>
> More channels/more speakers.
>
>> It is a relentless pursuit of perfection
>> that I feel that only dipoles can ever approach to achieving.
>
> Only if you can control the room in which the dipoles are reflecting.
> IMHO, dipoles are the least accurate, in some ways, because they
> depend on room reflections.
>
> Kal

Never seen a room where their wasn't someplace where a dipole speaker didn't
sound good. In my present room, my Martin-Logans sound so good I just about
have to pinch myself everytime I sit down to listen to music!

Re: Curious about Stereophile/Recording

"Sonnova" <sonnova@audiosanatorium . com > wrote in message
news:HeCdnbl82q-FruzanZ2dnUVZ_uOmnZ2d@pghconnect . com ...
>
> This brings me to a very pet peeve of mine. I see reviewers at
> Stereophile,
> TAS and others using rock n' roll to review hi-fi equipment. To my way of
> thinking this is ludicrous. How can you take a performance that doesn't
> exist
> in real life and use it evaluate, say, speakers when the only way that
> performance will sound the way the band is supposed to sound is if one has
> the exact same full-range monitors that the mixing engineer and the
> producer
> used to put the performance together? Otherwise, it can't sound right. But
> how can a reviewer know? And moreover, different bands use different
> studios
> with different monitoring speakers. It's not like acoustic instruments,
> each
> of which always sound the same (except for, perhaps, room acoustics) no
> matter where the instrument is played, and most people can recognize an
> acoustic piano or a violin, or a trumpet, but what does a Fender electric
> guitar sound like? It depends upon the amp/speaker combination used,
> doesn't
> it?

Yes, but then one should know what a Marshall amp sounds like as well.

I agree with your general comment about rock music being mostly studio, and
a rock concert being mostly taking a studio on the road. That complicates
things terribly (and often makes them sound terrible.)

But, the "sound" of a good rock recording should basically be the sound of
acoustic drums, the sound of miked voice (same as in classical music), the
sound of pianos (if used, although electric keyboards are sometimes used),
and the sound of guitar/amp combos. The monitor speakers should have
nothing to do with it (well, no more than in acoustic jazz or classical,
where monitor speakers are also used.

Most of the problems occur because they compress and overprocess the sound,
not because you can't tell what a Marshall amp sounds like.

Furthermore, I think you give too much credence to "acoustic instruments,
each of which always sound the same." They certainly don't.

Not disagreeing with your general observations, but you're oversimplifying.
Acoustic music reproduction has its problems too, and some rock music
doesn't.

Re: Curious about Stereophile/Recording

On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 08:50:25 -0800, jeffc wrote
(in article <fl39gh01me9@news4.newsguy . com >):

> "Sonnova" <sonnova@audiosanatorium . com > wrote in message
> news:HeCdnbl82q-FruzanZ2dnUVZ_uOmnZ2d@pghconnect . com ...
>>
>> This brings me to a very pet peeve of mine. I see reviewers at
>> Stereophile,
>> TAS and others using rock n' roll to review hi-fi equipment. To my way of
>> thinking this is ludicrous. How can you take a performance that doesn't
>> exist
>> in real life and use it evaluate, say, speakers when the only way that
>> performance will sound the way the band is supposed to sound is if one has
>> the exact same full-range monitors that the mixing engineer and the
>> producer
>> used to put the performance together? Otherwise, it can't sound right. But
>> how can a reviewer know? And moreover, different bands use different
>> studios
>> with different monitoring speakers. It's not like acoustic instruments,
>> each
>> of which always sound the same (except for, perhaps, room acoustics) no
>> matter where the instrument is played, and most people can recognize an
>> acoustic piano or a violin, or a trumpet, but what does a Fender electric
>> guitar sound like? It depends upon the amp/speaker combination used,
>> doesn't
>> it?
>
> Yes, but then one should know what a Marshall amp sounds like as well.
>
> I agree with your general comment about rock music being mostly studio, and
> a rock concert being mostly taking a studio on the road. That complicates
> things terribly (and often makes them sound terrible.)
>
> But, the "sound" of a good rock recording should basically be the sound of
> acoustic drums, the sound of miked voice (same as in classical music), the
> sound of pianos (if used, although electric keyboards are sometimes used),
> and the sound of guitar/amp combos. The monitor speakers should have
> nothing to do with it (well, no more than in acoustic jazz or classical,
> where monitor speakers are also used.

I disagree. Nobody ever tries to make a violin sound like a tuba in classical
(or rarely, in jazz). A rock recording (sometimes) has fuzz boxes to add
distortion to the guitar, modulating synthesizers that change vocals into
"guitar" sounds, etc. And while you might know the sound of a Marshal amp,
what does that say about the electronic instrument that is plugged right into
a recording console? And none of this alters the fact that there is no
soundstage.
>
> Most of the problems occur because they compress and overprocess the sound,
> not because you can't tell what a Marshall amp sounds like.

I agree with that.
>
> Furthermore, I think you give too much credence to "acoustic instruments,
> each of which always sound the same." They certainly don't.

They sound enough alike to distinguish a violin from a cello and to not
confuse the two, or an oboe from an cor anglais, or a trombone from a
saxophone. An orchestra sounds like an orchestra, and if you know what an
orchestra sounds like, you would, if you are a critical listener, know what
doesn't sound like an orchestra too.

I just don't see how one can use a performance that doesn't exist in real
space to judge the sound of anything.

> Not disagreeing with your general observations, but you're oversimplifying.
> Acoustic music reproduction has its problems too, and some rock music
> doesn't.

We'll have to agree to dosgarre on that point, but I see where you're coming
from.

Re: Curious about Stereophile/Recording

"Sonnova" <sonnova@audiosanatorium . com > wrote in message
news:fl5tdt02qk3@news2.newsguy . com ...
>>
>> But, the "sound" of a good rock recording should basically be the sound
>> of
>> acoustic drums, the sound of miked voice (same as in classical music),
>> the
>> sound of pianos (if used, although electric keyboards are sometimes
>> used),
>> and the sound of guitar/amp combos. The monitor speakers should have
>> nothing to do with it (well, no more than in acoustic jazz or classical,
>> where monitor speakers are also used.
>
> I disagree. Nobody ever tries to make a violin sound like a tuba in
> classical
> (or rarely, in jazz).

Actually, sometimes they do, depending on what you consider "classical".
And as you said, sometimes they do in jazz.

> A rock recording (sometimes) has fuzz boxes to add
> distortion to the guitar, modulating synthesizers that change vocals into
> "guitar" sounds, etc.

And sometimes they don't.

> And while you might know the sound of a Marshal amp,
> what does that say about the electronic instrument that is plugged right
> into
> a recording console? And none of this alters the fact that there is no
> soundstage.

There doesn't have to be a recording console, as there sometimes is not.

>> Furthermore, I think you give too much credence to "acoustic instruments,
>> each of which always sound the same." They certainly don't.
>
> They sound enough alike to distinguish a violin from a cello and to not
> confuse the two, or an oboe from an cor anglais, or a trombone from a
> saxophone. An orchestra sounds like an orchestra, and if you know what an
> orchestra sounds like, you would, if you are a critical listener, know
> what
> doesn't sound like an orchestra too.
>
> I just don't see how one can use a performance that doesn't exist in real
> space to judge the sound of anything.

Well rock music does exist in real space, as long as they don't plug
everything in. It's the nature of the recording studio, not the type of
music per se, the dictates this. I suppose that's my point. The fact that
there's a guitar amp in the chain isn't the point. It's how they mike
everything and feed it through a 40 channel mixing board that's the problem.
Read about Cowboy Junkies "Trinity Session" as one example of good rock
sound.

Re: Curious about Stereophile/Recording

On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 09:01:18 -0800, jeffc wrote
(in article <fl8isu02mj9@news4.newsguy . com >):

> "Sonnova" <sonnova@audiosanatorium . com > wrote in message
> news:fl5tdt02qk3@news2.newsguy . com ...
>>>
>>> But, the "sound" of a good rock recording should basically be the sound
>>> of
>>> acoustic drums, the sound of miked voice (same as in classical music),
>>> the
>>> sound of pianos (if used, although electric keyboards are sometimes
>>> used),
>>> and the sound of guitar/amp combos. The monitor speakers should have
>>> nothing to do with it (well, no more than in acoustic jazz or classical,
>>> where monitor speakers are also used.
>>
>> I disagree. Nobody ever tries to make a violin sound like a tuba in
>> classical
>> (or rarely, in jazz).
>
> Actually, sometimes they do, depending on what you consider "classical".
> And as you said, sometimes they do in jazz.
>
>> A rock recording (sometimes) has fuzz boxes to add
>> distortion to the guitar, modulating synthesizers that change vocals into
>> "guitar" sounds, etc.
>
> And sometimes they don't.
>
>> And while you might know the sound of a Marshal amp,
>> what does that say about the electronic instrument that is plugged right
>> into
>> a recording console? And none of this alters the fact that there is no
>> soundstage.
>
> There doesn't have to be a recording console, as there sometimes is not.

OH? And how does the "performance" get recorded? Rock concerts take thier
studios with them on the road in the form of sound reinforcement systems. The
purpose of those systems is to recreate a studio facility in front of an
audience. A facility without which the performance would not be able to exist
at all.
>
>>> Furthermore, I think you give too much credence to "acoustic instruments,
>>> each of which always sound the same." They certainly don't.
>>
>> They sound enough alike to distinguish a violin from a cello and to not
>> confuse the two, or an oboe from an cor anglais, or a trombone from a
>> saxophone. An orchestra sounds like an orchestra, and if you know what an
>> orchestra sounds like, you would, if you are a critical listener, know
>> what
>> doesn't sound like an orchestra too.
>>
>> I just don't see how one can use a performance that doesn't exist in real
>> space to judge the sound of anything.
>
> Well rock music does exist in real space, as long as they don't plug
> everything in.

You mean as long as they don't plug ANYTHING in. OTOH, I agree with you that
if the ensemble consists only of acoustic instruments and these instruments
are properly stereo miked, then indeed, such a performance can be used to
judge equipment. You seem to have mistaken my argument here. I am not saying
that rock-'n-roll cannot be used to judge the sonic performance of playback
equipment. I'm saying that a performance of ANY KIND OF MUSIC that exists
only in a studio environment should not be used. It doesn't matter if it's
rock, or if it's a synthesizer playing Bach Cantatas, it cannot be used to
judge the accuracy of any playback system, because there is no way to judge,
even superficially, what such a performance REALLY sounds like.

> It's the nature of the recording studio, not the type of
> music per se, the dictates this.

I don't know where you got the idea that I was picking-on rock, here. I was
careful to state that I prefer the term "studio produced" to any other term
to describe what I'm talking about because it's essentially non-prejudicial.
While it's true that the nature of much rock-'n-roll is studio-bound, its not
the only music with this particular distinction. Also, I'm not saying that
one shouldn't listen to rock, if that's what blows one's skirt up, I'm saying
that it is of very limited usefulness when evaluating playback systems and
that most audio magazines have fallen into the trap of letting their
reviewers test equipment with this type of music as their source material and
it's of almost no real use for that purpose. Nothing more, nothing less.

> I suppose that's my point. The fact that
> there's a guitar amp in the chain isn't the point. It's how they mike
> everything and feed it through a 40 channel mixing board that's the problem.
> Read about Cowboy Junkies "Trinity Session" as one example of good rock
> sound.

The point is that with 40 channels (or even 8) there is NO stereo (just
multi-track mono) and there is no sound-stage and there is no imaging. The
instruments mostly have no sound of their own unless they are played through
a speaker system. The only time the performance actually comes together is
when the first playback of the final mix occurs in the control room. At that
point and only at that point does the performance become a performance. So,
the absolute sound of that performance would be to have, at one's disposal,
the exact same playback system as the system upon which the recording was
mixed down. Otherwise, the listener has NO IDEA of how the performance is
supposed to sound. This is fine for the average listener. He doesn't care
about those errors, he just wants to hear the music. But a writer/reviewer
HAS to care and when he uses such recordings to make points about the sound
of a component he's testing, his evaluations have no credibility because
source material is not valid.

Re: Curious about Stereophile/Recording

"Sonnova" <sonnova@audiosanatorium . com > wrote in message
news:flb89e01dvd@news3.newsguy . com ...
>>
>>> And while you might know the sound of a Marshal amp,
>>> what does that say about the electronic instrument that is plugged right
>>> into
>>> a recording console? And none of this alters the fact that there is no
>>> soundstage.
>>
>> There doesn't have to be a recording console, as there sometimes is not.
>
> OH? And how does the "performance" get recorded?

Uh, with microphones and a recorder.

> Rock concerts take thier
> studios with them on the road in the form of sound reinforcement systems.
> The
> purpose of those systems is to recreate a studio facility in front of an
> audience. A facility without which the performance would not be able to
> exist
> at all.

You are living in a very sheltered world if you think that's the only way
rock/pop recordings can and have been made.

> You mean as long as they don't plug ANYTHING in.

No, they can plug the guitars in. Nothing else needs to be plugged in
(unless they specifically prefer electric keyboard over acoustic piano, but
plenty of rock records record acoustic piano.)

> OTOH, I agree with you that
> if the ensemble consists only of acoustic instruments and these
> instruments
> are properly stereo miked, then indeed, such a performance can be used to
> judge equipment. You seem to have mistaken my argument here. I am not
> saying
> that rock-'n-roll cannot be used to judge the sonic performance of
> playback
> equipment. I'm saying that a performance of ANY KIND OF MUSIC that exists
> only in a studio environment should not be used. It doesn't matter if it's
> rock, or if it's a synthesizer playing Bach Cantatas, it cannot be used to
> judge the accuracy of any playback system, because there is no way to
> judge,
> even superficially, what such a performance REALLY sounds like.

It depends on what the studio is like. Lots of classical music is recorded
in the studio (not in front of an audience, but in the recording studio.)
The acoustic space and method of recording is up to the recording engineers
and producers.

You seem to be equating "studio" with a bunch of musicians singled off in
their little cubicles recording into their own little channel, maybe even
dubbed over one at a time. Sometimes happens, sometimes doesn't.

>Also, I'm not saying that
> one shouldn't listen to rock, if that's what blows one's skirt up, I'm
> saying
> that it is of very limited usefulness when evaluating playback systems and
> that most audio magazines have fallen into the trap of letting their
> reviewers test equipment with this type of music as their source material
> and
> it's of almost no real use for that purpose. Nothing more, nothing less.

Some is some isn't. Check out Cowboy Junkies Trinity Session, as I said,
for one very well known example.

>> I suppose that's my point. The fact that
>> there's a guitar amp in the chain isn't the point. It's how they mike
>> everything and feed it through a 40 channel mixing board that's the
>> problem.
>> Read about Cowboy Junkies "Trinity Session" as one example of good rock
>> sound.
>
> The point is that with 40 channels (or even 8) there is NO stereo (just
> multi-track mono) and there is no sound-stage and there is no imaging.

Well there can be imaging and stereo as the recording engineer intended it.
It just doesn't exist in a real acoustic space to begin with, yeah.