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

[semente]

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.

 

I agree that the ultimate goal is the enjoyment but the thing is that quite a few people enjoy an as accurate as possible reproduction of the recording.

 

Speakers taint the sound more than anything else in the system and because all of them result from a combination of compromises taste will undoubtedly play a part.

But some speakers are just too flawed to be considered accurate even in speaker terms...

 

And in my opinion, live acoustic music played and sang in a naturally reverberant space is better at exposing those flaws.

As an example, legato sound such as that of bowed instruments is much more effective at revealing frequency response aberrations than the syncopated sound of a guitar or a plucked double bass.

R

[semente]

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

It is not.

Sound assessment through listening is very difficult.

That's why people like @esldude don't believe it works.

I feel that despite it's shortcomings one can make it reasonably effective by using an adequate methodology which includes creating a database of references both of live and reproduced sound; in my opinion performance evaluation consists of comparing what we are listening to what we have previously experienced (but not in a direct A-B sense).

For me at least direct A-B comparisons hardly ever produce more that stress and boredom...

R

[semente]

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

 

And as I've said, all (well designed) loudspeakers are the result of a particular set of compromises and we are bound to make choices determined by the shortcomings which we find less disturbing.

 

R

[esldude]

Quick reply for now. Listening is useful to evaluate speakers and microphones. Even then good measures are very helpful. In between those two two your hearing is a bigger variable than the gear under test.

 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Computer Audiophile mobile app

[The Computer Audiophile]

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

 

I disagree with almost everything you said. In a respectful way of course.

 

If a violin was recorded in a small box, I want that violin to sound like a violin recorded in a small box. I like Nine Inch Nails and all the effects and distortion. Judging equipment using NIN material may be impossible for some people, but if you like the music and are familiar with it, it's possible to make judgements. In addition, if you listen to NIN, you'd want to make judgements with its music. Making judgements with music you never listen to is a recipe for disaster.

 

It doesn't matter if it's EQ'd. As long as the end result sounds EQ'd, then it's good.

[crenca]

I disagree with almost everything you said. In a respectful way of course.

 

If a violin was recorded in a small box, I want that violin to sound like a violin recorded in a small box. I like Nine Inch Nails and all the effects and distortion. Judging equipment using NIN material may be impossible for some people, but if you like the music and are familiar with it, it's possible to make judgements. In addition, if you listen to NIN, you'd want to make judgements with its music. Making judgements with music you never listen to is a recipe for disaster.

 

It doesn't matter if it's EQ'd. As long as the end result sounds EQ'd, then it's good.

 

the difference is that Orchestral/acoustic instruments and music have a basic and identifiable "sound" that studio music does not. Yes, every violin (at least by make) has a different "sound", but this sound is in a range that experience listeners/players can recognize. In other words it is known variable because it is based on actual live playing and is reproducible - so it can be used as a test of the fidelity of recording equipment, speakers, etc.

 

Nine Inch Nails on the other is a sound that is itself based on electronic manipulation, so it has no reference in reality and baring the reproduction of the same equipment and techniques, can not be used as a testable reference. The exception might be recorded live performances that the fan attends and then purchases later.

 

Unfortunately, the demise of acoustic music as performance and audience participation has led the questioning of it as a testable reference. Yes, it is not perfect but it offers something that studio/electronic production can not unless/until the studios themselves (and the production techniques) can be replicated to the listeners. With live Orchestral music, an interested person (such as a reviewer - this happens all the time if you read classical music reviews) can attend the performance and hear what was recorded on his reproduction gear - this is an actual basis for the evaluation of fidelity...

[Ralf11]

can't we get back to trashing Bob Stuart & MQA?

[Rt66indierock]

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.

 

I believe I said it didn’t sound like crickets. I tested the song in my office with the MP3 version and couldn’t hear the cricket sound. So they are below -50dB. And I’m sure you can’t hear this on a Nacamichi 600 because we tried at sounds levels up to 85 dB average in my home and I wouldn’t go any higher. And you seem to have missed the reason I put out the test. How “bad” the equipment could be and still hear the “crickets.” If you think a garage is quiet listening environment please explain how.

I told you the average volumes I can hear the “cricket sound.” Talking about my listening environment sounds good in your post but is not relevant either.

 

There is a lot of decent or better gear that can’t pass Scot Hull’s “cricket test” at the high volumes he listens at. And yes I could swap amplifiers in my home to one the same type that didn’t survive a trip across country to DC from the Pacific NW and get the volume down a bit from 80 dB. But that would be testing for sounds not creating a system with components that match the sound I desire.

[esldude]

I believe I said it didn’t sound like crickets. I tested the song in my office with the MP3 version and couldn’t hear the cricket sound. So they are below -50dB. And I’m sure you can’t hear this on a Nacamichi 600 because we tried at sounds levels up to 85 dB average in my home and I wouldn’t go any higher. And you seem to have missed the reason I put out the test. How “bad” the equipment could be and still hear the “crickets.” If you think a garage is quiet listening environment please explain how.

I told you the average volumes I can hear the “cricket sound.” Talking about my listening environment sounds good in your post but is not relevant either.

 

There is a lot of decent or better gear that can’t pass Scot Hull’s “cricket test” at the high volumes he listens at. And yes I could swap amplifiers in my home to one the same type that didn’t survive a trip across country to DC from the Pacific NW and get the volume down a bit from 80 dB. But that would be testing for sounds not creating a system with components that match the sound I desire.

 

Not sure I understand the points of your post. It is not crickets just like you said. A garage being quiet? Depends upon where it is. It might be quiet. I have some music that was recorded in a church. The church is in a dense remote forest in the Ozarks I believe. It has a glass roof and open sides other than support beams. It is a very quiet place.

 

85 db in your room, "crickets" 60 db below that. Most places are at least mid 30 db in ambient noise. Crickets are a maybe, maybe not sonic artefact at that level. I agree with you the cricket test really doesn't mean much about soundstaging or fine detail retrieval. Mostly about dynamic range of the gear, and the setting.

[esldude]

Its not that you can't evaluate gear listening. Or that you can't use electronic creation music for that. Or that well done classical orchestral music is probably superior for evaluation if you know the sound. The main point to me is we are splitting hairs. Thinking acoustical orchestral music is on some highly superior plane to using NIN is a step too far. For most gear listening to music isn't a great evaluation tool. Same for something like MQA which maybe gets Bob and his minions back into this.

 

Maybe this is how audiophiles get the rep for:

 

Music lovers use their system to listen to music.

 

Audiophiles use music to listen to their systems.

[crenca]

can't we get back to trashing Bob Stuart & MQA?

 

Actually, with MQA's main hook (at least to audiophiles) being it's alleged SQ improvements, the discussion as to what fidelity is and how to evaluate is relevant. We had a thread not long ago about MQA's alleged improvement of the rain in the Doors "Riders on the Storm" - turns out that what the rain (or rather the recording of the rain) is in-of-itself is in question, let alone what it means to "improve" it or make it "more real", etc.

 

A further thought: I use typically use several tracks of James Taylor, Mark Knopfler, and Kurt Elling to evaluate the (mail voice) range of any given playback chain - but the simple fact is I don't really know what they sound like because I have only ever heard recordings of them (excepting James Taylor whom I have seen "live", but only again through mics/boards/eq/amplification/PA speakers - so I have not actually every heard his voice "live").

 

However, I have heard actual orchestral instruments FOR REAL (non-amplified/processed) many many times (I am a season ticket holder of my local symphony, etc.). Their is a real orthodoxy as to acceptable sound of classical instruments/music and it simply is a different world when it comes to evaluating fidelity. There is less fundamental variability in the sound/timbre of each and every Orchestral instrument in the whole world (at least those accepted in a professional orchestra) than there is from a single electric guitar when you consider all the various pickups/effects peddles/head/amp speaker/processing that can and does occur...

[Rt66indierock]

Not sure I understand the points of your post. It is not crickets just like you said. A garage being quiet? Depends upon where it is. It might be quiet. I have some music that was recorded in a church. The church is in a dense remote forest in the Ozarks I believe. It has a glass roof and open sides other than support beams. It is a very quiet place.

85 db in your room, "crickets" 60 db below that. Most places are at least mid 30 db in ambient noise. Crickets are a maybe, maybe not sonic artefact at that level. I agree with you the cricket test really doesn't mean much about soundstaging or fine detail retrieval. Mostly about dynamic range of the gear, and the setting.

 

As I believe I stated in this thread my office at night is 30 - 33 dB with my computer on quieter with it off. Home is quieter still. I answered your assertion about what could be heard with a cassette player. And I doubt the "crickets" are at -60dB since I confirmed the garage setup playing Roadhouses and Automobiles at 77 dB two summers ago and that would make the background noise in the garage 17 dB which is highly highly unlikely.

[esldude]

As I believe I stated in this thread my office at night is 30 - 33 dB with my computer on quieter with it off. Home is quieter still. I answered your assertion about what could be heard with a cassette player. And I doubt the "crickets" are at -60dB since I confirmed the garage setup playing Roadhouses and Automobiles at 77 dB two summers ago and that would make the background noise in the garage 17 dB which is highly highly unlikely.

 

You can't really argue the level of the crickets. It is what it is. In those portions you can isolate it, the RMS level is fluctuating around -60 db. That isn't I hear or don't issue. It is simply the level of the "crickets" in that track . BTW, I got that from the MP3 of it.

 

Now you don't have to have the entire thing above ambient to hear it. Those sounds are right around the octave our hearing is most sensitive. So we can hear 15-20 db into such noise. Most ambient noise has a pinkish character. So at 3-5 khz yes a garage in a quiet time might have only 20 db or so in that range. If the gear doesn't add much you might hear it that way. In different conditions with noise around that 3-5 khz range the total level might be similar, yet might obscure those crickets.

 

So given ambient levels, common listening levels and the level of the crickets it isn't surprising the crickets are there sometimes and not others. That is one manner of accessing resolution if one is a bit more rigorous about it. But it isn't some incredible test of gear on a pass fail bases representing general quality. Which I think is something we both agree upon about this so called "cricket" test.

[Rt66indierock]

You can't really argue the level of the crickets. It is what it is. In those portions you can isolate it, the RMS level is fluctuating around -60 db. That isn't I hear or don't issue. It is simply the level of the "crickets" in that track . BTW, I got that from the MP3 of it.

 

Now you don't have to have the entire thing above ambient to hear it. Those sounds are right around the octave our hearing is most sensitive. So we can hear 15-20 db into such noise. Most ambient noise has a pinkish character. So at 3-5 khz yes a garage in a quiet time might have only 20 db or so in that range. If the gear doesn't add much you might hear it that way. In different conditions with noise around that 3-5 khz range the total level might be similar, yet might obscure those crickets.

 

So given ambient levels, common listening levels and the level of the crickets it isn't surprising the crickets are there sometimes and not others. That is one manner of accessing resolution if one is a bit more rigorous about it. But it isn't some incredible test of gear on a pass fail bases representing general quality. Which I think is something we both agree upon about this so called "cricket" test.

 

My average listen volume is between 67 dB and 72 dB. I can't hear the crickets at those levels on any equipment I've heard since 2012. For me there pass/fail tests but to get there requires a lot testing.

[Rt66indierock]

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

 

My comments are under Steve and you should look at KIH#34 and KIH#35 as well. There is not a lot of guessing going on. And there is a lot measuring beyond what I will post on an audio site.

 

You are stating your opinion based on your experience. I was taught audio including testing and evaluation, passed a professional exam which included testing, written articles about testing in auditing financial statements and the golf industry about equipment testing. I’ll take my knowledge when all you doing is repeating the philosophy that caused The Absolute Sound to go broke in the early nineties.

 

But most importantly at Newport this year I could play classic rock that would make the system sound good and fill the rooms. At RMAF a few vendors were happy to see me so they could get some music that would sound decent because of power and room issues. My point is just because you can’t analyze the music I listen to doesn’t mean that I can’t. And many other people can as well sorry.

[firedog]

Steven Stone records acoustic and orchestral music.

 

When he reviews gear, he writes about the sound of the playback with his own recordings - and obviously he knows how they "should" sound. I think this is a very useful addition to audio equipment reviews.

[semente]

I disagree with almost everything you said. In a respectful way of course.

 

If a violin was recorded in a small box, I want that violin to sound like a violin recorded in a small box. I like Nine Inch Nails and all the effects and distortion. Judging equipment using NIN material may be impossible for some people, but if you like the music and are familiar with it, it's possible to make judgements. In addition, if you listen to NIN, you'd want to make judgements with its music. Making judgements with music you never listen to is a recipe for disaster.

 

It doesn't matter if it's EQ'd. As long as the end result sounds EQ'd, then it's good.

 

I agree that one should use music that one listens to, but in my opinion some types of music/recording are more effective.

What I look for in speakers is tonal balance (or frequency response) detail retrieval at low levels, distortion at high levels, driver and cabinet resonances, the ability to reproduce complex passages with multiple instruments, and I find that well recorded classical music is better at revealing such qualities.

 

R

 

R

[semente]

Its not that you can't evaluate gear listening. Or that you can't use electronic creation music for that. Or that well done classical orchestral music is probably superior for evaluation if you know the sound. The main point to me is we are splitting hairs. Thinking acoustical orchestral music is on some highly superior plane to using NIN is a step too far. For most gear listening to music isn't a great evaluation tool. Same for something like MQA which maybe gets Bob and his minions back into this.

 

Maybe this is how audiophiles get the rep for:

 

Music lovers use their system to listen to music.

 

Audiophiles use music to listen to their systems.

 

I don't agree that all audiophiles use music to listen to their systems, though most of have at some point been a bit obsessive letting critical listening take over music listening and have played the same audiophile approved tracks over and over...

 

But one thing is certain, if your system is not very accurate then you'll definitely be listening to more of your system and less of the recording.

 

R

[The Computer Audiophile]

Music lovers use their system to listen to music.

 

Audiophiles use music to listen to their systems.

 

This may be the case for some people, but who are we to judge?

 

I'm a hardcore audiophile that uses high end audio "tools" to listen to my favorite music. I look at HiFi gear as tools that help me reproduce music I enjoy immensely. That said, I'm no better than the person who buys HiFi gear to play a 32/384 file of sticks breaking in the forrest, just to hear how go his equipment is. Peoples' motives may be different, but who cares?

[Rt66indierock]

This may be the case for some people, but who are we to judge?

 

I'm a hardcore audiophile that uses high end audio "tools" to listen to my favorite music. I look at HiFi gear as tools that help me reproduce music I enjoy immensely. That said, I'm no better than the person who buys HiFi gear to play a 32/384 file of sticks breaking in the forrest, just to hear how go his equipment is. Peoples' motives may be different, but who cares?

 

Let me be a bit judgmental. Was listening to sticks breaking his only choice in 32/384? Cookie Marenco of Blue Coast Records said there less than 2,600 DSD titles available at RMAF 2016.

[Kal Rubinson]

Let me be a bit judgmental. Was listening to sticks breaking his only choice in 32/384? Cookie Marenco of Blue Coast Records said there less than 2,600 DSD titles available at RMAF 2016.

That cannot be right. I have about that number on my NAS right now and still have about 500-1000 to rip.

[Rt66indierock]

That cannot be right. I have about that number on my NAS right now and still have about 500-1000 to rip.

 

Kal, I'm reporting what she said in the seminar. Had she said ten or a hundred times more I would have asked a follow up question about the lack of music available in the styles I listen to. Cookie didn't seem optimistic about the format despite an excellent demonstration of the quality available from a $700 recorder.

 

She may not have counted converted to DSD titles. Could that be the difference?

 

Have fun at the New York show. Sunday I'm praying for runners, there is a lot of carnage at end of a marathon. I've had to help several when I was finishing half marathons. And of course for their security.

[Kal Rubinson]

She may not have counted converted to DSD titles. Could that be the difference?

That is possible and indicates the danger of throwing out an unqualified number.

[semente]

My comments are under Steve and you should look at KIH#34 and KIH#35 as well. There is not a lot of guessing going on. And there is a lot measuring beyond what I will post on an audio site.

 

You are stating your opinion based on your experience. I was taught audio including testing and evaluation, passed a professional exam which included testing, written articles about testing in auditing financial statements and the golf industry about equipment testing. I’ll take my knowledge when all you doing is repeating the philosophy that caused The Absolute Sound to go broke in the early nineties.

 

But most importantly at Newport this year I could play classic rock that would make the system sound good and fill the rooms. At RMAF a few vendors were happy to see me so they could get some music that would sound decent because of power and room issues. My point is just because you can’t analyze the music I listen to doesn’t mean that I can’t. And many other people can as well sorry.

 

I won't read any more of SE's reviews, thank you.

 

I understand your point but I still find that minimally mic'ed acoustic music recorded in a natural reverberant space is more adequate to evaluate accuracy even though it surely won't be of any use to those who don't listen to the genre(s) but wish to know whether or not a certain equipment sounds pleasant or suits their system.

 

For me, evaluating performance is just a matter of identifying differences and judging them according to one's taste (which is not static throughout an audiophile's life).

 

R

[semente]

There's a mistake in my last sentence:

 

For me, evaluating performance is not just a matter of identifying differences and judging them according to one's taste (which is not static throughout an audiophile's life).