bcgator....such a bastion of unquestionable insight on the human condition as it pertains to audio and a true master grammarian. Now that the acknowledgements portion of our program is done, let's move on to hm1's rather meaningless, albeit correct, statement regarding the recording process and it's irreducible effect on the resultant listening experience. We can not change what we can not change....move on. There has always been variability in the recording chain. To argue the point is absurd as it is outside the realm of our control. As I stated, we are left with the fundamentals of music as is demonstrable in the live concert experience. Of course, acoustic instruments would be considered the most accurate representation of said experience, but even an amplified concert shares some DNA with the former. The common denominator(s) is zero added distortion, unrestrained dynamic range and full frequency extension. One could even argue that certain amplified instruments still retain their unique acoustic signatures through the recording process. Our ears know when something sounds live or not...still the best tool ever! When you hear those unique clues of a live performance in a stereo system, you have achieved something very special. Enjoy the process and play around with what works for you and remember to relieve yourself of the stress regarding things outside of your control.
Forward or laid back
To quote a recent comment by a member: "The most salient characteristic (to me) is that the acoustic presentation of some of these speakers seemed quite forward (row D), whereas that of others was really quite laid back (row M). There was also, quite often, a second correlation between that forward presentation and a (relative) brightness in the treble. As far as I can tell, these features are often preferred and indeed seem to be aimed for in the voicing of many models during their development. To my ears, speakers in this category were the Treos, O/93s, and Veneres. Somewhere in the middle were the CM10s and the Liutos. A bit more laid back were the Dynaudios and the Vienna Acoustics"
You may be in the minority but then so am i! However, little do these audiophile misanthropes know that they do not or can not hear or appreciate the sound of an orchestra or a vocalist in a natural concert hall setting!
I agree again on another point. I can not STAND most of these so called " reviewers" who have lynched the press with their stupid ass observations about live acoustic sound and what it is to appreciate its truthfulness. Every word they utter is punch, Liveliness, BOOGIE (lmao) , exciting, drive etc, etc. Is that how a frickin orchestra or a female ( operatic) voice should sound??? I read their source material used and I want to throw up!! ( not because of the music per say , but that this is the material they use to evaluate loudspeakers??? ( Maybe they've picked the wrong hobby..?) They can spend their money on these components and fool themselves into believing this hobby they enjoy (high end audio) is fulfilling their supposedly objective needs; which is all well and good. It's not , however, the" real " sound of unamplified music.
I guess, in the final evaluation, their " employers" no little either, or why would they adhere to or accept the rantings of kids who are engulfed in this music for evaluating music reproduction in the home??????
So admittedly, not having heard everything of the newest designs around today, I can still proudly look back and thank a few people ( some gone now) who have truly..... contributed to the development of natural sound reproduction: Nelson Pass, Spencer Hughes, Peter Walker, to name a few!
PS. I used to publish a small subscription newsletter review myself in the early 1980's.
You may be in the minority but then so am i! However, little do these audiophile misanthropes know that they do not or can not hear or appreciate the sound of an orchestra or a vocalist in a natural concert hall setting!
I agree again on another point. I can not STAND most of these so called " reviewers" who have lynched the press with their stupid ass observations about live acoustic sound and what it is to appreciate its truthfulness. Every word they utter is punch, Liveliness, BOOGIE (lmao) , exciting, drive etc, etc. Is that how a frickin orchestra or a female ( operatic) voice should sound??? I read their source material used and I want to throw up!! ( not because of the music per say , but that this is the material they use to evaluate loudspeakers??? ( Maybe they've picked the wrong hobby..?) They can spend their money on these components and fool themselves into believing this hobby they enjoy (high end audio) is fulfilling their supposedly objective needs; which is all well and good. It's not , however, the" real " sound of unamplified music.
I guess, in the final evaluation, their " employers" no little either, or why would they adhere to or accept the rantings of kids who are engulfed in this music for evaluating music reproduction in the home??????
So admittedly, not having heard everything of the newest designs around today, I can still proudly look back and thank a few people ( some gone now) who have truly..... contributed to the development of natural sound reproduction: Nelson Pass, Spencer Hughes, Peter Walker, to name a few!
PS. I used to publish a small subscription newsletter review myself in the early 1980's.
- ...
- 42 posts total
hm1- I don’t think you get away that easily. Please re-read my previous post: the question of "perspective" that you seem to be complaining about really starts with the recording. And much of what I described pertains to orchestral recordings and other acoustic instruments as well as hard rock. Multi-miking and mixing changes the perspective, even of the best symphony in the best hall. So, your complaint about gear that deliberately pushes the perspective forward or is more laid back seemed to miss the first (and in my estimation often controlling) factor in this- the recording itself. This is true no matter how "accurate" you judge the system to be. Much of what you described about the "truth" of the audiophile quality recording has only served to limit many people from listening to music they like. I got over that after years of audiophilia - I will listen to a wide variety of music, and admittedly, some of these recordings are not ’system demo’ material. Unfortunately, as the poster above said, we have little control over the recording process or product as consumers. I’m familiar with the the audiophile memes of accuracy, acoustic instrument portrayal, etc. I just don’t hold myself captive to it. |
hm1 " ... if the speaker in your system at home sounds like the amplified electric guitar on stage, you’re not listening to an accurate loudspeaker ..." This doesn’t make sense. If the recording is of an amplified electric guitar on stage and and your audio system makes it sound like an amplified electric guitar on stage, then your system is relatively accurate. Speakers aren’t "smart." They don’t know what signal they are being fed. They just try to reproduce the signal; the better they can do that, the more accurate they are. |
At first I thought the title "Forward or laid back" was a a question for debate or preference but I now see it is really an adamant statement of "Not forward or laid back". Neutral this and that. Fair enough. But why start a new thread instead of responding where the quote originated? I'm guessing you did not want to rant all over someones thread. That's a positive for a first time poster I suppose. Thank you. |
My main and essential points are as follows. If we assume a loudspeaker is designed to deliver an essentially flat or neutral response with particular emphasis on the in room characteristics of the reproduction, it would be quite obvious that Acoustic instruments and vocals were or should have been the test material that was used for final evaluation. Why?...because people are most familiar with the sound of real instruments and voices. Heavily-processed electronic synthesizers have no real-life reference of naturalness, since those sounds don’t exist in nature. Same thing for movie sound effects—no one knows what an Exploding Death Star or the Enterprise’s warp engines are supposed to sound like, because they don’t exist in real life. If that is a criticism to audiophiles who enjoy and use hard rock and electronic music to evaluate loudspeaker performance, so be it. I do not trust their opinions. Simple and to the point! |
- 42 posts total