MQA, The Press, The Industry, Consumers, etc ...

[fragoulisnaval]

We should always have in the back of our mind that the deeper we put our hand in our pocket for a sound producing product (or every other product that is), our eyes are taking also their part in the "hearing process". So , to the consumer that is buying "products that cannot justify their price tag", once criticism is simply dealt with :

 

"You cannot afford that, that is why you envy, so you are not being objective".

 

I have faced numerous times....

[semente]

Not at all. Just go buy them.

 

Or offer to let people send in their product for a shootout. If makers of product demure, then simply publicize those without the strength of their convictions as it relates to their gear.

 

You could even detail how the shootout will be done and give a period for those willing to take part. All publicity goes to those taking part without naming anyone else.

 

So any of these 3 approaches are viable.

 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Computer Audiophile mobile app

I don't know if this is what you meant but it might be interesting to have consumers submitting their own equipment for review.

 

This is already being done by http://www.photozone.de

 

R

[MarkS]

Not sure how to link it here directly, but there is an interesting interview with Bob Stuart up on Home Page | Stereophile.com discussing some MQA issues.

[esldude]

I don't know if this is what you meant but it might be interesting to have consumers submitting their own equipment for review.

 

This is already being done by Welcome to Photozone!

 

R

 

No it actually was not what I meant, which is why I responded to firedog's post. It could be done. It has the issues firedog mentioned. On the other hand it has been done in the past. Spectral gear was often loaned to reviewers by customers as Spectral didn't seek the attention. There have been various low production products reviewed this way over the years. I don't know that anyone made it a regular practice for how to get review gear in to do a review. Yes, it could be, and as you point out is being done.

[Rt66indierock]

We should always have in the back of our mind that the deeper we put our hand in our pocket for a sound producing product (or every other product that is), our eyes are taking also their part in the "hearing process". So , to the consumer that is buying "products that cannot justify their price tag", once criticism is simply dealt with :

 

"You cannot afford that, that is why you envy, so you are not being objective".

 

I have faced numerous times....

 

Actually my problem with a lot of audio equipment today is that it is not better some very pedestrian stuff from the past.

[semente]

Actually my problem with a lot of audio equipment today is that it is not better some very pedestrian stuff from the past.

So the industry is giving high-enders access to performance that before was only available to the masses; what's wrong with that?

 

R

[Rt66indierock]

So the industry is giving high-enders access to performance that before was only available to the masses; what's wrong with that?

 

R

 

So you agree current high-end and high performance don't always go together?

[semente]

Most definitely!

 

R

[crenca]

As far as doing actual comparisons instead of the usual "review", while I agree the latter is the status quo that is sort of the point IMO in that the status quo has some problems when it comes to actually serving the consumer. It is almost as if it is designed (actually, I think it is) to serve the interests of the reviewers and manufactures. Here is a story where the longtime reviewer is asking his readers which industry accomendation/status quo is worse - but I want to throw my hands up and say "they are BOTH bad!":

 

Tale of Two Reviewers - A Story About Industry Accommodations - Audiophile Review

 

 

Also, here is a shootout that has it's problems but I found quite refreshing and informative:

 

 

https://parttimeaudiophile.com/2013/11/27/magnepan-and-tekton-meet-pass-labs-odyssey-job-merrill-red-wine-audio-first-watt-and-vitus-audio/

[Rt66indierock]

Well Steven Stone missed the biggest problem. He has a lack of objectivity if he had purchased the equipment. He and I went a few rounds about The Doors “Riders on the Storm” after Newport about MQA.

 

Scot Hull used his cricket test so I’m going to question any results he got.

 

crenca these two reviews are the reason you should check the reviewer’s bio very carefully.

[crenca]

crenca these two reviews are the reason you should check the reviewer’s bio very carefully.

 

Say more, say more. The first I was using as a negative example - the author was complaining about a detail in an arrangement that was wrong (from a consumers perspective) from the get go. The second I was using as an positive example of a methodology - the "shoot out" and that it can be done.

[Rt66indierock]

Ok here goes. Steven Stone is photographer who records orchestral music. He also writes for a variety of audio publications and a guitar magazine. Nothing bad per se but it shows a bias toward unamplified acoustic music. And the resulting bias toward equipment that reproduces that kind of music follows.

 

Scot Hull is basically a tech salesman. He has an interesting LinkedIn profile for sure. The cricket test is Roadhouses and Automobiles by Chris Jones. Scot believes if you can’t hear the crickets in the background you need better equipment. First are they actually crickets because they sound a lot like the chirps of elevator number two at my old place in Silver Springs Maryland. So the first thing I did was fire up the YouTube HD version in my office. I needed to turn up the volume to 82 dBs to hear the crickets. At home I connected my decade old at the time Denon home theater receiver to my home speakers because that record will never grace a turntable in my home and played the same YouTube HD file. With this combination I only needed to turn the volume up to 80dB. Starting to see problems with the cricket test? So I put the word out from coast to coast to see how bad the equipment could be and still hear the crickets at less than 80dB. The current leader in the clubhouse is in the Pacific Northwest. In his garage is vintage equipment, Sherwood receiver, Sansui speakers and a Dual 601 turntable. He claimed 76dB. I verified it the summer of 2015. I believe we have test that is meaningless.

[esldude]

Ok here goes. Steven Stone is photographer who records orchestral music. He also writes for a variety of audio publications and a guitar magazine. Nothing bad per se but it shows a bias toward unamplified acoustic music. And the resulting bias toward equipment that reproduces that kind of music follows.

 

Scot Hull is basically a tech salesman. He has an interesting LinkedIn profile for sure. The cricket test is Roadhouses and Automobiles by Chris Jones. Scot believes if you can’t hear the crickets in the background you need better equipment. First are they actually crickets because they sound a lot like the chirps of elevator number two at my old place in Silver Springs Maryland. So the first thing I did was fire up the YouTube HD version in my office. I needed to turn up the volume to 82 dBs to hear the crickets. At home I connected my decade old at the time Denon home theater receiver to my home speakers because that record will never grace a turntable in my home and played the same YouTube HD file. With this combination I only needed to turn the volume up to 80dB. Starting to see problems with the cricket test? So I put the word out from coast to coast to see how bad the equipment could be and still hear the crickets at less than 80dB. The current leader in the clubhouse is in the Pacific Northwest. In his garage is vintage equipment, Sherwood receiver, Sansui speakers and a Dual 601 turntable. He claimed 76dB. I verified it the summer of 2015. I believe we have test that is meaningless.

 

Well the cricket test is okay. Interpretation is maybe not what is being claimed. Firstly it isn't crickets. It sounds like birds around a pond near dark which might include some crickets, but mostly birds. The RMS level of this sound is about -60 db give or take 3 or 4 db. I am pretty sure you could hear this on cassette tape with Dolby NR. What it amounts to is can you hear this low level sound? Firstly the main factor is how loud is your listening environment, and what level are you playing this back. If you are playing this back at low levels then the crickets are too quiet to hear. No matter the quality of the gear.

 

So is there decent gear that would fail to let you hear the crickets. If you turn it up enough I doubt it. Is there gear that might let you hear the crickets at a lower loudness level vs another piece of gear in the same location. Maybe, but probably not.

 

You can download the 5 second zipped mp3 I am attaching. I isolated the "crickets" and applied 35 db gain to make it plainly audible.

crickets.mp3.zip

[semente]

Ok here goes. Steven Stone is photographer who records orchestral music. He also writes for a variety of audio publications and a guitar magazine. Nothing bad per se but it shows a bias toward unamplified acoustic music. And the resulting bias toward equipment that reproduces that kind of music follows.

 

But the initial purpose of high fidelity was to record and reproduce classical music.

I don't see any problems in using live acoustic music to evaluate performance.

In fact I think that one can only assess performance with minimally mic'ed acoustic music.

 

R

[The Computer Audiophile]

... In fact I think that one can only assess performance with minimally mic'ed acoustic music.R

 

Does that mean all equipment sounds the same when listening to music that isn't "minimally mic'ed acoustic music?"

[semente]

Does that mean all equipment sounds the same when listening to music that isn't "minimally mic'ed acoustic music?"

 

Of course not.

 

But studio recordings are fabricated: instruments are either connected straight into the table or close mic'ed, as are vocals, often in mono, the ensemble is hardly ever playing together, the sound is as dry as it gets due to the quasi-anechoic characteristics of the studio, and the independently recorded tracks are then EQ'd and spatial effects are added through panning and reverb.

Realism is not a goal.

How can one judge sound unless the instruments are supposed to sound like instruments and soundstage like a real acoustic space?

Can you assess image quality using a disney animation movie?

What you can do is compare what you are listening with the way you think a particular recording should sound like.

Yes there are aspects of performance that can be assessed with studio recordings but ultimately it's down to taste...

 

Classical music recordings on the other hand generally aim at capturing a live event from the audience perspective there's a fair chance of them resembling reality.

 

 

Here's is an excerpt from an old EMI document:

 

 

HIGH FIDELITY IN RECORDING

 

The pursuit of "High Fidelity" has spread rapidly in recent years. No longer is it regarded as a mysterious cult practised only by the technically initiated; an ever-growing number of music lovers and record enthusiasts are coming to realise that there is far more in a good record than they have yet got out of it, and in striving for ever higher standards of reproduction they are reaping the reward of greatly increased pleasure and enjoyment in their listening.

It may be as well to start by finding an acceptable definition of what "High Fidelity" really means — partly because it may not necessarily mean the same thing to everybody; partly because musical listening and appreciation must be largely subjective; partly because it will help to bring our objective into clearer focus.

 

 

High Fidelity - A Definition

 

Let us say, then, that High Fidelity implies the creation, in the listener's normal surroundings, of the ILLUSION of the actual performance as it would have been heard under the most favourable conditions.

This definition postulates several important considerations. There are bound to be wide variations in listeners' normal surroundings: in the size and shape of their rooms, the acoustic conditions and so on. The scale of the reproduction is also important, in the same sense as the perspective of a photograph. A picture taken with a tele-photo lens tends to look foreshortened when viewed at normal distances, but if it were viewed at a distance comparable with the scale of the photograph, the perspective would appear in its proper proportions.The analogy is not, perhaps, quite exact, but it may serve to illustrate the point that there is an optimum level of reproduction if the scale and perspective of the original performance are to be preserved in their true proportions.

Again, consider the case of a listener in the auditorium of a concert hall sitting, let us say, at one end of the front row, only a few feet away from the bass section of the orchestra. His subjective impression of the tonal balance and perspective of the orchestral sound might be quite different from that of another listener at the opposite end of the same row, while neither would receive the same impression as a listener in the back row. The divergences would be even more marked in an acoustically bad hall.

Therefore we say that the purpose of High Fidelity is to create the ILLUSION of the actual performance as it would be heard under the most favourable conditions.

It will now be obvious that its attainment must encompass a sequence of operations in which these and many other variables must be taken into account at some stage from the recording of the performance to its reproduction by the listener in his home. Part of this task falls to the recording engineers, but at the reproducing end the responsibility falls entirely on the listener, his reproducing equipment and the way he uses it.

It is the paramount concern of the manufacturers of "His Master's Voice", Columbia and Parlophone records (Electric and Musical Industries Ltd.) to supply a product which, used in conjunction with suitable reproducing equipment, will bring into any home the complete illusion of the original performance, and it is hoped that the information in this booklet will materially help interested listeners to extract the full beauty of the reproduction of which these records are capable, to their greater satisfaction and enjoyment.

 

 

Recording

 

Music is a universal language, and gramophone recordings, like a written or printed score, must be truly international. A work recorded in one country must be capable of being played in any other country with a uniformity of faithfulness to the original performance. This happy result has been secured by general agreement on standards of records, speeds, groove shapes and frequency characteristics embodied in the latest British Standard Specification No. 1928/155, which has now been adopted as a world standard by international agreement. All E.M.I. records are now made to these standards, no matter where the recording originated.

This may have been in a recording studio, a concert hall, a cathedral, a theatre or opera house. or even in the open air. Such a wide variation in recording conditions means that there can be no hard and fast rules about the acoustics of recording; only the long experience and judgment of the recording engineers enable them to reconcile all the variables and produce a result which accurately conveys the authentic "atmosphere" or the original performance.

 

 

Recording Characteristics

 

The recording characteristic determines the response of the recording system with respect to frequency. In practice, it is almost impossible to define a comprehensive recording characteristic, because, to be of any value to the record user, it must take in the whole of the system, including microphones, microphone placing, and studio acoustics. For example, consider an ideal system in which all the components of the chain, including microphones, have a perfectly flat response. Imagine that two microphones are in use, placed say five feet apart in an acoustically dead, non-reverberant space, and that the direct sound is approaching in the line of the microphones. At a frequency of 220 c/s, with a wavelength of 5 feet, the microphone outputs will be in phase, and the output will be almost double that from a single microphone. At 110 c/s, for which 5 feet is a half-wavelength, the microphone outputs will he in anti-phase, and the combined output will be almost zero.

In a practical case, this result is very greatly modified by reflected sound from studio walls, etc., and, of course, by the direction of the initial sound wave, so that the true response of the system is different for every instrument in the orchestra. When recording the larger instrumental combinations, it is rarely possible to obtain a good simulation of natural sound on a single channel using one micro-phone, since a microphone with ideal directional properties has not yet been devised.

 

Fig. 1. An orchestral recording session in progress at E.M.I. Studios. No. 1 Studio,where this photograph was taken, is the largest, and is specially designed for orchestral recordings.Other types of Studios are used for recording smaller groups, instrumentalists, vocalists, etc.

 

This example illustrates one of several reasons why it is necessary to be very careful when quoting and assessing a recording characteristic.

At the E.M.I. Studios, it is the practice to equalise each item in the recording channel, including microphones, to as flat a response as practicable, in order to ensure a good theoretical starting-point. It is then the job of the recording engineer to adjust conditions in the studio, and to combine the outputs of the various microphones, in order to produce from the monitoring loudspeaker a sound which satisfies the musical director and the artist, as well as his own technical judgment and critical comparison with the original sound as heard in the studio. The relationship between the waves on the recorded disc and the signals fed to the monitoring loudspeaker is held within very close limits, and it is this relationship which defines the recording characteristic.

When the recording is replayed through a system having a frequency response which is the inverse of the recording characteristic as defined above, through the same loudspeaker in the same room, the sound is in fact virtually indistinguishable from the original sound as heard on the monitor. This inverse characteristic is recommended as the ideal replay characteristic, though it should be borne in mind that, from the record user's point of view, it may be modified to some extent by the type of loudspeaker in use, by the acoustics of the listening room, and by the personal taste of the listener. To cope with such modification, most reproducers are fitted with tone controls.

This interpretation of the term "Recording Characteristic" permits originals from any source to be re-recorded at the studios, and for the re-recording characteristic to be adjusted, so that the finished record will match the recommended replay characteristic, whatever its original characteristic may have been. The optimum characteristic is dependent on the size of the groove and stylus tip, so that different recording and replay characteristics are required to make the best of the two sizes of groove in common use.

[semente]

This has been discussed often in the forum:

 

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f8-general-forum/recording-methods-and-fidelity-26878/

[Rt66indierock]

But the initial purpose of high fidelity was to record and reproduce classical music.

I don't see any problems in using live acoustic music to evaluate performance.

In fact I think that one can only assess performance with minimally mic'ed acoustic music.

 

R

 

I disagree please see my comments on John Darko's site KIH#37. We discussed this topic. I never listen to minimally mic'ed acoustic music so it is useless as an evaluation tool for me.

[semente]

I disagree please see my comments on John Darko's site KIH#37. We discussed this topic. I never listen to minimally mic'ed acoustic music so it is useless as an evaluation tool for me.

 

Which ones are your comments?

The article is unbelievably simpletonic...

 

I understand that minimally mic'ed acoustic music may be useless to you but in my opinion and experience it's more effective to assess "transparency" through comparison than through guessing and taste.

For me, assessing performance through listening should be the equivalent of measuring: observational.

One cannot characterise performance through tasting, not in a way that can be exchangeable or meaningful to others.

 

But after a decade of participating in web forums from different parts of the globe I have concluded that many people who don't listen to minimally mic'ed acoustic music are not looking for transparency but for euphony, or a sound that they find enjoyable.

And from this perspective it makes sense to use whatever music you see fit.

 

The ultimate goal of one's system is undoubtedly the listening pleasure of it's owner.

 

R

[esldude]

 

Listen to this 2 min. 44 second video.

 

Minimally recorded voice and claps. 15 spaces/places.

 

Which is accurate? All of them.

 

Would you know without the video? No.

 

If given some more similar could you choose by listening alone which was which? Especially if one had just a bit of reverb added vs none added. No.

 

Listening with music to determine ultimate accuracy is simply not a great method. Listening for preference, for enjoyment for what makes you sing in your soul. Yes.

 

Otherwise, test tones etal are the way to judge accuracy. Cleaner, more accurate, reliable and consistent.

 

Case closed.

[The Computer Audiophile]

How can one judge sound unless the instruments are supposed to sound like instruments and soundstage like a real acoustic space?

 

You're fooling yourself if you think you can judge realism or an instrument sound just because it's acoustic. Ask any violinist if all violins sound the same. The answer is, of course not. Unless you were at the recording, you can't judge for realism. Even then, memory of the event is worse than identifying suspects in a visual lineup.

[semente]

Otherwise, test tones etal are the way to judge accuracy. Cleaner, more accurate, reliable and consistent.

 

Case closed.

 

 

Why do you even bother to reply if you don't believe that it is possible to assess performance through listening?

 

I agree that the best way to judge accuracy is through measurements but these aren't always available to those of us who don't have the equipment or the knowledge and for those the case is not closed: some people have no alternative.

Besides, there are certain aspects of sound that can only be assessed through listening, more obviously with speakers where even a very comprehensive set of measurements is not enough to fully characterise their sound but with other equipment as well (you may contest this claim).

 

Hand claps are a good test as is human voice, even spoken word (there's a recording of vocals made at the BBC's Kingswood Warren anechoic chamber available from Harbeth User Group if you feel like trying).

But both these and instruments will sound differently with different mics, mic techniques or even mic positions so we must make do with the best recordings we can find (like Mario's).

 

 

It'll always be a bit subjective in the end...

 

 

R

[Axiom05]

In the end, you can only choose what sounds best to you. Even the most accurate speaker in the world (whatever that actually means) is no good if you don't enjoy music played through it. Everyone's idea of "accurate" is going to be based on their own experience & preferences.

[semente]

You're fooling yourself if you think you can judge realism or an instrument sound just because it's acoustic. Ask any violinist if all violins sound the same. The answer is, of course not. Unless you were at the recording, you can't judge for realism. Even then, memory of the event is worse than identifying suspects in a visual lineup.

 

The idea is to use reality as a benchmark and reality is live acoustic music played and sang in a naturally reverberant space, not a guitar connected to a desk, or a girl with headphones singing to a mic place inches from her mouth.

It's not enough to have a violin for it can also be recorded in a fridge-sized booth with a mic pinched to it's strings.

 

Would you judge the image quality of your DVD player or your TV using a Disney animation or a realist movie, say a documentary?

 

Besides, this type of music often uses recording techniques that respect realism both of timbre as well as space, the equipment used is generally of better quality and there's minimal tampering during editing, mixing and mastering stages.

 

Studio recorded music is often EQ'ed to sound "dramatic" but hardly ever to sound "realistic"; the processing is part of the creative process.

 

And it's not just pop and rock, most jazz nowadays sounds like concert-amplified music.

 

Lastly, no other genre can match the variety of timbres, the harmonic and sonic complexity of orchestral music, especially if it is accompanied by a choir; it's the ultimate test.

 

R

[Axiom05]

The idea is to use reality as a benchmark and reality is live acoustic music played and sang in a naturally reverberant space, not a guitar connected to a desk, or a girl with headphones singing to a mic place inches from her mouth.

It's not enough to have a violin for it can also be recorded in a fridge-sized booth with a mic pinched to it's strings.

 

Would you judge the image quality of your DVD player or your TV using a Disney animation or a realist movie, say a documentary?

 

Besides, this type of music often uses recording techniques that respect realism both of timbre as well as space, the equipment used is generally of better quality and there's minimal tampering during editing, mixing and mastering stages.

 

Studio recorded music is often EQ'ed to sound "dramatic" but hardly ever to sound "realistic"; the processing is part of the creative process.

 

And it's not just pop and rock, most jazz nowadays sounds like concert-amplified music.

 

Lastly, no other genre can match the variety of timbres, the harmonic and sonic complexity of orchestral music, especially if it is accompanied by a choir; it's the ultimate test.

 

R

 

If it was this simple, everyone would own the same speakers.