My response to "Boycott the sub-forum"

[Jud]

Trinity Sessions always bored me. Margo Timmins' breathiness got old pretty quick. I know, sacrilege. Give me the artificial production of Abbey Road any day.

 

Obviously just my own preference, and no objection if anyone feels differently.

[lucretius]

3 hours ago, AudioDoctor said:

All this talk about, recreating the live event has me chuckling...  Some of you set your speakers up with a laser measuring tape and you sit in the ideal spot, etc...  Has that ever happened at a live event?

 

Here is an example from my own experience. One of my favorite live events was seeing Kat Edmonson at The Dakota here in Minneapolis. It's a pretty small space and they get as many people in there as they can. I was sitting in the seat circled in red below. How should I recreate that live event when I play one of her albums? Does it need to be that specific album? Do I need to switch it up to play another album? Recreating the live event could get time consuming and really cut down on how much music I listen to...

 

edit: in this example, she was facing up.

 

 

 

Why would anyone produce a recording that attempts to recreate a live event from the perspective of a seat/position that was less than ideal? Presumably, it's only the best/ideal position that matters.

 

 

 

[STC]

1 hour ago, Rexp said:

The best recordings are the simplest with nothing 'created' like the Trinity Session mentioned above, details:

https://www.soundonsound.com/people/cowboy-junkies-sweet-jane

 

The keyword is Calrec Soundfield microphone. Google up how and what the mic used for.  
 

“1978: Calrec launches the Soundfield microphone, the world’s first single point-source microphone capable of recording sound in three-dimensions for surround-compatible playback”.

[STC]

29 minutes ago, lucretius said:

 

Why would anyone produce a recording that attempts to recreate a live event from the perspective of a seat/position that was less than ideal? Presumably, it's only the best/ideal position that matters.

 

 

 

We already got sound from any desired direction. In real time you can choose which direction of the sound you like. 

[Rexp]

2 hours ago, Jud said:

Trinity Sessions always bored me. Margo Timmins' breathiness got old pretty quick. I know, sacrilege. Give me the artificial production of Abbey Road any day.

 

Obviously just my own preference, and no objection if anyone feels differently.

Which version do you have? My vinyl copy sounds good, all the versions on Tidal are DOA. 

[StephenJK]

9 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Bill still records the best in the business in Nashville. He told me this recently. 

I don’t dispute that. I was speaking from my experience and commenting on a blanket statement that seemed to propose live music would always be better than a recording. 
 

That transports me back to those dark, crowded and smoky little clubs and bars with a band that couldn’t play very well or with a PA system so poorly done it was just a big, loud and muddy mix. I can think of hundreds of recordings that sound better than that. 
 

I’m a big fan of live music and depending on where we’ve been over the years have had season tickets for opera or symphony events. My wife and I also enjoy mainstream and independent rock bands - but like anyone else within our budget. Now living about four hours north of Toronto, an overnight stay for any concert is a four figure cost. 
 

I will say that in the past decade or so there seems to have been a dramatic increase in the sound quality of house PA systems - you can actually enjoy a well balanced and distributed sound where all the musicians can be heard.  

[STC]

Problem is the definition of live music is mixed up to refer to actual real instruments and people performing. 
 

How would you define a band playing various instruments with synt only like here?

 

 

 

[ShawnC]

1 hour ago, SJK said:

I was speaking from my experience and commenting on a blanket statement that seemed to propose live music would always be better than a recording. 
 

That transports me back to those dark, crowded and smoky little clubs and bars with a band that couldn’t play very well or with a PA system so poorly done it was just a big, loud and muddy mix. I can think of hundreds of recordings that sound better than that. 

 

I will say that in the past decade or so there seems to have been a dramatic increase in the sound quality of house PA systems - you can actually enjoy a well balanced and distributed sound where all the musicians can be heard.  

Live performances are also greatly enhanced through our sight.  Not saying that a blind person can't enjoy this either but visual ques are everywhere to enrich the show.  Lighting, stage design, back drop, the audience, your date or friends your with, food/drink, smell of the venue all attribute to the experience. 

 

Some bands, especially in rock/pop can't reproduce their albums live because there music is to complicated (too many overdubs) or the singer can't reproduce his/hers vocals.  Those bands (usually big popular ones) use prerecorded music throughout the show to address this issue.  The last thing they need is for the audience to be let down and stop buying there music because they can't perform it live.

 

A band I enjoyed but are terrible live is My Chemical Romance, the lead singer sounds terrible.   He puts his heart and soul in every recording but can barely reproduce this on stage.  There are plenty others, especially older rock bands Motley Crue (singing), Metallica (overdubbed guitars). Usually the visuals from the show, distract me from these short comings.

 

Artist that keep it simple on the recording, usually equals great live performances.   That's what there trying to do in the first place.  I appreciate bands that say if we can't reproduce live, what we put on the record, we won't record it.   

 

[STC]

The point is even if the lead singer sounds terrible you know that it is real sound. during playback you instinctively know that it is reproduction because the phantom images are created by two sound which contradicts with real sound where it is only coming from a single source. 
 

another example. Isn’t this is also live?
 

 

[Jud]

5 hours ago, Rexp said:

Which version do you have? My vinyl copy sounds good, all the versions on Tidal are DOA. 

 

Well, I don't have Tidal and I bought it long ago, whether too long ago for CD I don't remember. There was certainly no problem with the sound - half the time you were in the church, and the other half figuratively staring at Margo's epiglottitis.

[Allan F]

15 hours ago, tmtomh said:

So someone who believes in measurements might, for example, rule out certain pieces of equipment if they measure poorly...

 

Using technical knowledge and measurements does not enable us to come to an instant certainty about what's going on, but it does enable us to reasonably discern what factors are extremely unlikely to be relevant, and what factors are possible or highly likely to be relevant.

 

Which may or may not predict sound quality. Most subjectivists don't ignore published measurements. As you suggest, they may use them to limit the products for consideration, e.g. a speaker frequency response curve that falls off a cliff below 60Hz. But their purchase choices are based on trusting their ears. And when it comes to the controversial topic of cables, measurements if they are indeed even available, tell us little. The majority of people who enjoy this hobby have neither the equipment nor the knowledge - or the desire to obtain them - in order to use measurements as a diagnostic tool.

[Allan F]

4 hours ago, Jud said:

 

Well, I don't have Tidal and I bought it long ago, whether too long ago for CD I don't remember. There was certainly no problem with the sound - half the time you were in the church, and the other half figuratively staring at Margo's epiglottitis.

 

Why don't you tell us what you really think of Margo Timmins and The Trinity Sessions, Jud?

[Bill Brown]

Nice, reluctantly I say "civil," conversation during the last day or so. 

 

I don't want to come across as the most enlightened dude by any stretch, but I think the best approach has to be a synthesis of all available information based on learned reliability.  This to me means of balance of subjective and objective assessments based on the source and my own ears.

 

There are measurements that I think have correlation with perception; they are important to me and I seek them out when available.  With some caveats I am able to get meaningful information from JA's (though I wish his speaker directivity plots weren't normalized), Archimago's, mans', Miska's, ASR's (to a certain degree), Mitcho's DSP explorations, and others.  There are measurers of raw loudspeaker drivers that I trust highly and look forward to.

 

Perhaps in contrast to some other members who are of the objective tilt, I have significant confidence in some reviewers' subjective impressions (as an aside, are there "second order" effects that can't yet be measured?  I just don't know).  It took many, in most cases VERY many years to reach this point, where I was able to determine that their subjective preferences correlated with mine.

 

Many of these reviewers are those who have been referred to here as the "old guard," a term that makes me uncomfortable.  No one deserves blind obedience, but I believe that time /experience has value in the potential to bring wisdom and subjective listening skills and that this shouldn't be dismissed casually.  I just realized that perhaps this is a characteristic of modern western society.

 

KR could be considered a member of the "old guard," but I like to read his subjective impressions and do.  I have the same regard for JA's ears, like to read REG, and others.  With JVS, HR, some others, I find myself scrolling past the (dare I call it) "fluff' to the measurement section.  I remain "gut-level" skeptical of the evaluations of most of those purely subjective reviewers who have proliferated with the advent of the internet; I am open to changing that over time.

 

Relying on information only from one side or the other of the spectrum just seems to me like not taking full advantage of all the available information.

 

Bill

[AudioDoctor]

14 hours ago, Jud said:

Trinity Sessions always bored me. Margo Timmins' breathiness got old pretty quick. I know, sacrilege. Give me the artificial production of Abbey Road any day.

 

Obviously just my own preference, and no objection if anyone feels differently.

 

Damnit Jud, take this crap to the sacrilege-Fi dungeon. 
 

😉

[AudioDoctor]

13 hours ago, lucretius said:

 

Why would anyone produce a recording that attempts to recreate a live event from the perspective of a seat/position that was less than ideal? Presumably, it's only the best/ideal position that matters.

 

 

 

 

My point is, that was my experience of the live performance, and it was a great experience despite the less than ideal seating position. in that space, I don't think there is an ideal position, it's too small.

 

Second, the youtube video I posted about the recording of Stacey Kent's album. How should I attempt to recreate that recording in my home? It's a lost cause from the start.

 

 

So, with that understood, I can just sit back and enjoy the music instead of worrying about whether or not I am recreating any live events.

[Ajax]

Hi All,

 

I have been reading more and contributing less lately as I get the impression that irrespective of the validity of one's argument it largely falls on deaf ears. We are all set in our ways, on both sides of the fence, and trying to convince someone who has held strong beliefs for a long time IMO is folly, especially if that person is over 40.

 

I call this conditioning and we all suffer from it. Whether it be due to our home environment and our parents beliefs or what is ingrained into us during our teen years by our peers or schools when we are most impressionable.  

 

I've been a long time member of this forum and a huge fan of Chris's valiant efforts to walk the tightrope between freedom of speech and civility, however, I'm in total disagreement with the creation of the Objectives sub forum. Segregation is never healthy - in South Africa it was called Apartheid .... although obviously too strong an analogy for an audio forum.

 

I think both @Archimago and @tmtomh have articulated the position of the objective member extremely well. I am an engineer (civil) and would just like to add for the benefit of the subjectives here that we are trained to ask "why" and to substantiate the facts. My introduction to engineering at university was via applied maths where it was instilled in me to prove everything from first principles, to ensure that I really understood what was going on and how the forces of nature work. (Compare that to a school kid today given a computer (and calculator) at an early age and then asking him at school leaving age to write something freehand or do a complicated division).

 

The point I am trying to make is that it is inherent in our education and training to assume nothing and to always ask for "proof". If I designed a bridge or an office building and it subsequently fell down, and people were killed, I would not be able to rely on my "intuition" or my experience. I would need to show my calculations and be able to "prove" that I acted in accordance with the particular design code.

 

Engineers are charged with the responsibility of taking the science and implementing it, and it is therefore extremely hard for us to sit back and ignore comments that fly in the face of facts and commonsense.

 

No doubt they could have been more accomodating but I get why Bill (@wgscott) and @mans resorted to ridicule and sarcasm. They simply couldn't get their message through. They are a great loss to this forum and I will miss them both. 

 

 

 

[sandyk]

29 minutes ago, Ajax said:

Engineers are charged with the responsibility of taking the science and implementing it, and it is therefore extremely hard for us to sit back and ignore comments that fly in the face of the facts and commonsense.

 

That is the basic problem here. Some Engineers believe that they are infallible in their areas of training and expertise.

 This applies to all aspects of Engineering where we occasionally see loss of life where some minor detail has been overlooked, even by Inspectors and Government Regulators who are entrusted to check that the equipment  or design is as safe as humanly possible .

That's not to say that Engineers overall don't do  a fantastic job.

[fas42]

7 hours ago, Jud said:

 

Well, I don't have Tidal and I bought it long ago, whether too long ago for CD I don't remember. There was certainly no problem with the sound - half the time you were in the church, and the other half figuratively staring at Margo's epiglottitis.

 

I always enjoy this, er, 'audiophile' recording, 🙂. The recording quality has zero to do with it, it's the feel of the balance between the instruments and the voice - the sense of "lazy, hazy days of summer", the 'dreaminess' of the slow, steady movement through each song is quite hypnotic ... it gets a big tick from me, as a near perfect creative act of music making ...

[fas42]

37 minutes ago, Ajax said:

The point I am trying to make is that it is inherent in our education and training to assume nothing and to always ask for "proof". If I designed a bridge or an office building and it subsequently fell down, and people were killed, I would not be able to rely on my "intuition" or my experience. I would need to show my calculations and be able to "prove" that I acted in accordance with the particular design code.

 

 

Every teacher in a classroom knows the difference between having a conversation with a student, where there is good communication, and back and forth; versus one where the student is stinking with "attitude" ...and so do people reading forum threads discern what's going on ...

[Solstice380]

18 hours ago, STC said:

Exactly! Whatever stage, depth, highs and lows created were one man’s (or a team) preference. What should the recording translate in your system is a performance that sounds like real instruments and venue that would make the recording to sound most realistic. 

 

I think this is the point - if we are talking about the most realistic recreation of an event (concert, recording session/monitors).  Total immersion by making my listening room sound like the venue.  Wouldn’t a possible method to do that be / require recording at different locations around the venue and the multichannel Playback from speakers at those locations around your listening room?

 

It is absolutely amazing and awesome what we have been able to wring out of 2 channel, but with the computing power and bandwidths available now it will be VR for the next generations.

[tmtomh]

3 hours ago, Allan F said:

 

Which may or may not predict sound quality. Most subjectivists don't ignore published measurements. As you suggest, they may use them to limit the products for consideration, e.g. a speaker frequency response curve that falls off a cliff below 60Hz. But their purchase choices are based on trusting their ears. And when it comes to the controversial topic of cables, measurements if they are indeed even available, tell us little. The majority of people who enjoy this hobby have neither the equipment nor the knowledge - or the desire to obtain them - in order to use measurements as a diagnostic tool.

 

This comment illustrates a key part of the problem with this conversation.

 

I wrote that objectivists don't rely on measurements alone - they use them to rule out some gear, and then they still have to consider other factors, and of course they still listen and evaluate on that basis. I also wrote that subjectivists don't purely use their ears, and also take measurements into account.

 

You've responded with selective and completely one-sided "agreement," concurring that subjectivists use measurements to rule out bad gear - precisely what I wrote about what objectivists do - and you've acknowledged exactly... nothing about what objectivists do.

 

In essence, I said, "Both objectivists and subjectivists are more nuanced than the stereotype," and you responded, "Yes I agree, subjectivists are more nuanced than the stereotype."

 

As for the "controversial" topic of cables, the question of whether or not measurements tell us a lot or "tell us little," is precisely the source of the controversy. So you can assert that cable measurements tell us little, but it's nothing more than an assertion, since there are plenty of us who believe that cable measurements are quite useful.

 

Similarly, your own comment shows that the majority of people who enjoy this hobby do in fact use measurements as a diagnostic tool ("e.g. a speaker frequency curve falls off a cliff below 60Hz"). The differences among us are about how much of a diagnostic tool, in regard to which equipment, and in regard to which measurements. 

 

So it's hard to see your articulated viewpoint here as anything other than a tautological formulation: If someone uses measurements in a way and to a degree that you agree with, they're a subjectivist, because you like subjectivists and you don't like objectivists. If someone believes that speaker measurements are of use, they are - or at least can be - a subjectivist, since that's okay with you. But if someone believes that cable measurements are of use, they are an objectivist, and therefore they are bad because they are factually incorrect since you know that cable measurements are of little use. 

 

It's a perfect example of the attitude that generates push-back from objectivists on this forum. The form that push-back has taken has at times been out of line - but the push-back itself is entirely justified.

 

[vmartell22]

On 2/19/2020 at 4:52 PM, pkane2001 said:

 

Right. Nobody from the objectivist camp has contributed anything of value here for 12 years. Now it makes sense why you’d banish them all to a sub-forum.

 

We need to define value here - which is hard. I have been trying to stay out of this, but I just want to say  that  this post is one example of why the fray keeps getting hotter.  Because really, since there is no agreed definition  of what "value" is, all it means that @pkane2001 disagrees with everyone in the objective side.  To phrase in terms of "value", turns that idea into an insult.

 

Haven't read the whole thread yet, since I came to it a bit late - but I assume this post will have reactions - let's see!  🍿

 

v

[vmartell22]

15 minutes ago, vmartell22 said:

 

We need to define value here - which is hard. I have been trying to stay out of this, but I just want to say  that  this post is one example of why the fray keeps getting hotter.  Because really, since there is no agreed definition  of what "value" is, all it means that @pkane2001 disagrees with everyone in the objective side.  To phrase in terms of "value", turns that idea into an insult.

 

Haven't read the whole thread yet, since I came to it a bit late - but I assume this post will have reactions - let's see!  🍿

 

v

 

Ha! - Finished the thread - no reaction other than mine!  - ah well - still think is an example of why things become uncivil pretty fast, all the time.

 

Back to lurking

 

v

[Rexp]

7 minutes ago, vmartell22 said:

 

Ha! - Finished the thread - no reaction other than mine!  - ah well - still think is an example of why things become uncivil pretty fast, all the time.

 

Back to lurking

 

v

Maybe others spotted the obvious sarcasm.. 

[pkane2001]

31 minutes ago, vmartell22 said:

 

We need to define value here - which is hard. I have been trying to stay out of this, but I just want to say  that  this post is one example of why the fray keeps getting hotter.  Because really, since there is no agreed definition  of what "value" is, all it means that @pkane2001 disagrees with everyone in the objective side.  To phrase in terms of "value", turns that idea into an insult.

 

Haven't read the whole thread yet, since I came to it a bit late - but I assume this post will have reactions - let's see!  🍿

 

v

 

I'm glad that you reacted to just my post in this thread from 200+ others. But I'm sure if you read the context of that post, as well as my other posts, you may see it in a slightly different light.