Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Reviewing - what music do you use for a review and what do you listen for?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Reviewing - what music do you use for a review and what do you listen for?

    Okay - we have the Reviewer's Choice of Source Material thread. Upon seeing its title Bill Hart and @garylkoh (and myself) expected to read about music that reviewers used when assessing audio gear. The thread didn't go in that direction - its still a fine thread - yet the topic is still a good one, so let's take it up here.

    Do you have specific music, regardless of format, that you use to gauge a piece of gear? And, what do you use that music for - what do you listen for and why? ==> Specificity is appreciated. I'd love hearing from my fellow reviewers, but this thread is not limited to reviewers. We all evaluate equipment in some way, so everyone feel free to contribute. I'm sure reviewers - well, me - will enjoy knowing what others use.

    I use a variety of material which I can post about when I have more time. For now, I'll start with a wee bit of philosophy and one example.

    I'm partly a believer in the 'let the listerner try it at home' approach. That means I hope to include at least one example of music that is reasonably well known or likely common to many. So while you probably do not have the equipment under review, if you have the music you can compare my description to what you hear on your system. Of course if you listen to the equipment under review (what Myles calls the DUT - device under test) you can compare what you hear with my description. It would be rare if any of us have the exact same system to replicate the review system. My problem, to call it that, is that I listen mostly to classical music, which remains an undiscovered country for many.

    I have a quirky habit that I've been doing for so long that I don't remember why it started. Whenever I bring in a piece of analog (for me that's vinyl) equipment - a turntable, a cartridge, a phono cable etc. etc., the first thing I play is Side 2 of Paul Simon's Graceland (Warner Brothers 25547-1). That's the original Graceland, not the anniversary reissue.

    I listen for:

    The "Shoop Shoop" background vocals coming from the right channel on "You Can Call Me Al". The relative clarity and articulation of a "Shoop" tells me about transparency. The best I've ever heard this was with Atma-Sphere gear. I also listen for a certain bass guitar glissando for dynamics and crunch.

    The syncopation of the drums and accordion during the funky, quick-time Zydeco riff at the start of "That Was Your Mother". I also listen for the washboard. This tells me about clarity, timing and relative separation of instruments.

    The Ronstadt-Simon duet on "Under African Skies". This should resolve to a different ambience from each singer telling me each sang from his or her own booth. Ambience in a recording study can be tricky given all the various sorts of reverb injected.

    The speaker-to-speaker arc laid out by Ladysmith Black Mambazo and Simon singing "Homeless" a cappella -- a performance flecked with subtle throat and lip chirrups and trills. Here it is soundstage singer placement, the tonal differences among the singers, particularly those in the middle of the group, how discrete and distinct are they? On a finely tuned setup I think I can hear some of the singers step slightly forward when their part comes. Do the voices on the ends of the arc pop out?

    The background strumming of acoustic guitars, accordian, and vocals from Los Lobos' David Hidalgo and Cesar Rosas as they double Simon on "The Myth of Fingerprints." Rumor has it that the Los Lobos guys brought this song to the studio and Simon promptly stole it from them. I listen for the articulation and dynamics of the rhthym guitars, the separation of voices, and the placement of the backup voices relative to Simon's. David and Cesar seem to sing together at their own microphone.

    Okay - that's a quick start, and a bit off the top of my head. I'll try to come back with some other examples. In the meantime - please contribute your own examples. If you know the above music - what do you listen for? It's also okay to listen for nothing and simply enjoy.
    Spkr: Wilson Alexias series 2; Amps: Lamm M1.2Ref; Linestage and phono: ARC Ref 10 and ARC Ref 10 Phono; TT: GPA Monaco 2.0; Arms: Kuzma 4Point, Tri-planar Mk. VII U2-SE; Cartridges: Allnic Arrow/Puritas, Benz LP S, Fuuga, Lyra Etna, Transfiguration Phoenix, Denon DL-A100,DL103R; Cables: Shunyata Σ / Σ NR PC/SC/IC; Pwr Cond: Shunyata Triton III, Typhons(3); Isolation: SRA Scuttle3 rack, SRA Ohio Class amp stands, ; Acoustics: Stillpoints Apertures; Audio cat: Finzi

  • #2
    Interesting Tim, while I listen to jazz & a little rock too I only use classical music for assessment. Reason is that IMO neither rock nor jazz recordings provide enough of a challenge to a system. What I look for is natural tone, timbre, tonal depth and overall naturalness. I don’t stick with any specific set of recordings but start off with a familiar solo piano and/or cello recordings, then some voice generally opera followed by something bassy. I look for the overall presentation rather than bits and pieces of a recording as you mentioned.
    david

    Audio Industry Affiliate:Lamm, Ortofon, ZYX, Keith Monks, Audio Desk, Jensen Transformers.
    Specialty & Unique Offerings: Vintage horn speakers, Vintage and Modern Turntables, Analog Accessories.
    Systems, showroom links:
    http://www.audionirvana.org/forum/ti...stening-room-1
    http://www.audionirvana.org/forum/ti...earfield-setup

    Comment


    • #3
      It's funny, a similar question came up in a thread on the Hoffman board, and one pretty knowledgeable guy -both a musician and technically adept- said the "old school audiophiles" used acoustic instruments recorded in a concert hall or live venue to judge sonics, while others of a less audiophile bent used the music they were most accustomed to listening to for enjoyment, which could be '80's rock, with all the artifice that comes with that era (Yamaha synths, gated drums or drum machines, etc.).
      I usually focus on the midrange first- I want it transparent, grainless and 'you are there' (or 's/he is here'). Voices are all different, as are real instruments (each Steinway sounds somewhat different, how it is mic'd, etc.) but attack and decay, harmonic overtones, the space in between the notes are "tells."
      If the midrange is "off" after listening to several recordings I know, I'm pretty much out of there no matter how spectacular the system is in other respects.

      I've long used Janis Ian's Between the Lines because it has well recorded vocals, real strings, offers a range of settings from intimate spare arrangements to bigger, more dynamic and complex orchestrations and it has some bass. Standard issue Columbia pressing from back in the day. I have recordings that sound "better"- more WOW, but that's almost like cheating- I want to hear what the system can do using a standard (but good) quality record from back in the day.

      I like to listen to "I'm Coming Virginia" from the old Rounder recording of Guy Van Duser's Get Yourself a New Broom and Sweep the Blues Away. It is a very natural recording of guitar, clarinet and this crazy deep downtuned acoustic bass note that is held at the end.

      I used to use the "Ave Maria" from The Mission soundtrack for the massed voices as they keep growing in number and size, you can hear the height of more singers being added.
      "Sauerkraut 'N Solar Energy" from the Norman Blake, Jethro Burns, Sam Bush, Vassar Clements, David Holland, Butch Robins, Tut Taylor record on Flying Fish for VTA of a normal to thin record-- that thing has a tendency to sound bright if not just so, and you can easily hear the bass diminish if the setting is not right-- I use that to set a just below normal thickness gradient on the VTA gauge.
      I'll then listen to a range of other records, from badly recorded to WOW quality, just to see how the system handles them.
      In judging the records themselves, I tend to look at the overall presentation as David does, rather than any single attribute, since cohesiveness of the presentation is more important to me than any one aspect. Since my listening diet varies, and goes into stuff that is almost lo-fi garage rock, as well as more lush early "prog" and early "proto-metal" I seldom use that stuff for evaluation. But if the system can do the voices, the piano and has bass, all my records of the moment are invariably going to sound good too.
      Neil Young's Harvest, early pressing isn't a bad reference either- his voice can get a little strident and sibilant if all is not well but the early Lee Hulko pressings, if you find one that isn't noisy, are really transparent. (The later Bellman recut sounds brighter and some prefer that- I like the Hulko).
      Hardly a definitive list but one that I've followed for quite a while.

      Comment


      • #4
        To review a system I use the Keith Jarret Koln Concert original lp pressing from Trio/Kenwood Japan.

        Also the Patricia Barber Companion MFSL 45rpm lp.

        And for reviewing extra dinamycs the AP lp RCA Living Stokowski Rhapsody’s.

        for rock ( progressive) the Pink Floyd 4lp PULSE.
        SEAS EXCEL DIY Speakers; CJ Premier 12; CJ Premier 14; CJ Premier EV1; Accuphase DP 85; MAC Airbook + Audionirvana plus+ Qobuz + Tidal; Micro Seiki RX 1500; Ikeda IT 407 12" + Ortofon MC A95; Thomas Schick 12" + Ortofon SPU 90th Anniversary; Fidelity Research FR64 FX 10" + Ortofon SPU Royal GM MKII; SME M2 12-R + Ortofon MC XPRESSION; Kenwood KD 7010 + Ortofon Jubilee; Revox B710; Revox A77; Revox PR99; Pure Silver DIY Cables; Sennheiser HD800; Sennheiser HDVD 800; Akai AT S-08 Tuner.

        Comment


        • #5
          It seems to me that the recording process is so flawed unto itself that it makes using one, two, or three recordings a poor way of auditioning equipment. I find myself using many recordings both vinyl and digital from every genre of music to assess equipment performance. IMO I have recordings that are so excellent, like my 45 Classics reissue of Stravinsky’s Song of the Nightingale that it sounds glorious regardless of the equipment chain rendering it almost useless as a way of assessing the equipment except to say that I might prefer it’s sound using some components over others.
          TW Acustic TT with upgraded motor and controller; Tri-Planar Arm; Transfiguration Proteus Cart; Arcam R Phono Preamp; Bluesound Vault-2 Music Server & Streamer; VTL 6.5 preamp, Pass Labs 150.8 Amplfier; Revel Studio Ultima Loudspeakers; Symposium Osiris Rack; Symposium Platforms and Roller Blocks plus grade 2.5 Balls; Shunyata Hydra 8; Shunyata AC Cords; MIT Oracle IC and Magnum Speaker Cables; Schiitt Headphone Amp; Sennheiser HD700 Headphones; KLAudio Ultrasonic Record Cleaner

          Comment


          • #6
            In 1986 I recorded a work called Canto General and put it out on LP and CD. It employs a 60 voice chorus, complete percussion section, 2 pianos, plus guitars and flutes.

            It was recorded with two mics on a modified Ampex recorder (with a backup tape made on an Otari).

            The LP was mastered by Doug Sax and Mike Reese at the Mastering Lab and the pressings by RTI.

            I can instantly tell if the deep bass is right, soundstage depth and width, low level detail, dynamics all from this recording. It helps to have been there.

            Comment


            • tima
              tima commented
              Editing a comment
              Hey Bill, ask Ralph to tell you about Village Music of Bulgaria sometime. :-)

            • Bill Hart
              Bill Hart commented
              Editing a comment
              I'm almost afraid to ask-pray tell atmasphere?

            • atmasphere
              atmasphere commented
              Editing a comment
              That was recorded on a Nagra. Its pretty energetic. I've found some systems that could not handle the massed voices, but if you have one that does, the recording is spectacular. Its on Nonesuch. Sealed copy on ebay right now for $12.00... Not sure why Tima brought that up.

          • #7
            Originally posted by david k View Post
            Interesting Tim, while I listen to jazz & a little rock too I only use classical music for assessment. Reason is that IMO neither rock nor jazz recordings provide enough of a challenge to a system. What I look for is natural tone, timbre, tonal depth and overall naturalness. I don’t stick with any specific set of recordings but start off with a familiar solo piano and/or cello recordings, then some voice generally opera followed by something bassy. I look for the overall presentation rather than bits and pieces of a recording as you mentioned.
            david
            Despite having an ~85% classical vinyl collection - more if I count the silver discs I used to hear - Inevitably I've come to grips with the fact that a limited number of people listen mostly to classical music. With a reviewer hat on I'll say it seems like people want to read about their 'type' of music when reading a review. There's also a set of expectations from some readers that the review spend time with analysis, talking about certain sonic characteristics. We're in something of a self perpetuating vocabulary trap. The limbic experience is not vocabulary oriented and if you try to go there beyond acknowledging it, you get that pixies and metaphysics look behind your back. Those far I've managed to avoid the word "slam" in a review. But you're one of the few along with myself who is quite happy with words like "tonal depth."

            Spkr: Wilson Alexias series 2; Amps: Lamm M1.2Ref; Linestage and phono: ARC Ref 10 and ARC Ref 10 Phono; TT: GPA Monaco 2.0; Arms: Kuzma 4Point, Tri-planar Mk. VII U2-SE; Cartridges: Allnic Arrow/Puritas, Benz LP S, Fuuga, Lyra Etna, Transfiguration Phoenix, Denon DL-A100,DL103R; Cables: Shunyata Σ / Σ NR PC/SC/IC; Pwr Cond: Shunyata Triton III, Typhons(3); Isolation: SRA Scuttle3 rack, SRA Ohio Class amp stands, ; Acoustics: Stillpoints Apertures; Audio cat: Finzi

            Comment


            • Bill Hart
              Bill Hart commented
              Editing a comment
              I tire of the usual descriptors. Yes, I know that they have some settled meaning among those used to reading and writing reviews. But, I like good writing. And that means making the reader see the world a little differently. I wouldn't be against creative use of language to describe sound- not hyperbole, but it isn't easy to describe a sensory experience.

            • tima
              tima commented
              Editing a comment
              Even that 'settled meaning' can be up for grabs. Creative use of language to describe sound is okay by me as well. That's another way having an example can help. I'd be happy if there was broad agreement on the correlation between frequency range names and frequency ranges.

          • #8
            After reading your post I played my own copy of Graceland ( the original 25447-1 ) hoping I would hear the "shoop, shoop ", happily I did, but for the first time. I never listened to it that critically before. Years ago Harry Pearson wrote a similar essay about a component/ systems transparency and used " The Weavers Reunion at Carnegie Hall " as a system test. According to HP if you could hear a foot stomp on one of the tracks you had a revealing system. Even though he was a classical music afficionado, like you, he recognized the need to reach a broader readership by using a variety of genres in his reviews.
            Speakers, Wilson Audio Sasha 2's; line stage, ARC Ref 6; phono pre ARC Ref 3; Amplifier, ARC Ref 75 SE; turntable, Dr. Feickert Firebird with a Kuzma 14 inch 4 pt and Transfiguration Proteus; CD player Ayre C 5 xe; tuner, Magnum Dynalab MD109 SE; Dr. Feickert Analogue CBPS; Double Matrix Professional Sonic RCM; Transparent Audio Isolator 8; Transparent Super cables and IC's; and a Atocha Designs Record Cabinet

            Comment


            • #9
              Originally posted by tima View Post

              Despite having an ~85% classical vinyl collection - more if I count the silver discs I used to hear - Inevitably I've come to grips with the fact that a limited number of people listen mostly to classical music. With a reviewer hat on I'll say it seems like people want to read about their 'type' of music when reading a review. There's also a set of expectations from some readers that the review spend time with analysis, talking about certain sonic characteristics. We're in something of a self perpetuating vocabulary trap. The limbic experience is not vocabulary oriented and if you try to go there beyond acknowledging it, you get that pixies and metaphysics look behind your back. Those far I've managed to avoid the word "slam" in a review. But you're one of the few along with myself who is quite happy with words like "tonal depth."
              Communication of subjective abstracts is the reviewer's dilemma specially if one writes for a publication targeting all audiophiles en mass, I get it. The decision of who to target is yours but this style of writing isn't for a sophisticated reader, breaking sound into different parts will make it easy to attach adjectives to these parts but for me it has nothing in common with how music is communicated through that system. That Shoop Shoop can be made "transparent" and clear in many different ways but what does that tell anyone about pieces of gear that are supposed to play and preserve music's emotional and environmental content? HP liked to use the term subterranean bass, WTF does that mean in context of music specially since classical was his poison of choice? I have clients and visiting friends with analysis on their brains because they read it somewhere bringing over test tracks for all the audiophile parameters only never to play it! My criteria is how real, "natural" is it, or not. After a track or two they sit back and get involved with the music and not the system, that's my goal. Since I don't have to write reviews I can pick my music and if the equipment delivers the only other judgement as a business owner is the value, that's my responsibility to my clients and forum friends if I recommend something.

              To conclude everything matters if I'm going to read a review, starting with the rest of the equipment, audiophile wires are a turnoff most of them do too much to the sound, specially power cords and power filtering, conditioning, etc. devices they mostly have additive qualities that color everything. IMO computer audio is too sanitized and colored to give any credence to reviewers comments, musical choice is the last thing I look at before deciding to read the review.


              david
              Audio Industry Affiliate:Lamm, Ortofon, ZYX, Keith Monks, Audio Desk, Jensen Transformers.
              Specialty & Unique Offerings: Vintage horn speakers, Vintage and Modern Turntables, Analog Accessories.
              Systems, showroom links:
              http://www.audionirvana.org/forum/ti...stening-room-1
              http://www.audionirvana.org/forum/ti...earfield-setup

              Comment


              • Bill Hart
                Bill Hart commented
                Editing a comment
                One of your points, I think, is that commercial reviews (at least the stuff I remember from the old print magazine days) often focused on discrete things in a particular recording, e.g. "using the X amp, I was able to discern that those bells were actually Afghani hat bells, and not Balinese finger bells, as commonly believed." It doesn't describe the overall sound of the recording, let alone how the system presents that recording. So, it's pick and choose from among different recordings known for different parts of the frequency range. And that's even less informative of the overall presentation.

              • david k
                david k commented
                Editing a comment
                Pretty much so Bill, HP had a knack for making the insignificant and irrelevant into the very significant and relevant. I still believe he sent more people chasing their tails than anyone else in this industry.

            • #10
              Originally posted by david k View Post

              .... That Shoop Shoop can be made "transparent" and clear in many different ways but what does that tell anyone about pieces of gear that are supposed to play and preserve music's emotional and environmental content? ...

              david
              Thank you David. I do appreciate your comments. One reply now, more later.

              Narrowly, it doesn't say much. Broadly, what it may tell anyone is the equipment in question is capable of yielding those subtle sonic cues that can play a part in music's emotional and environmental context. Does the amp know if its a 'shoop' or a side-wall reflection?
              Spkr: Wilson Alexias series 2; Amps: Lamm M1.2Ref; Linestage and phono: ARC Ref 10 and ARC Ref 10 Phono; TT: GPA Monaco 2.0; Arms: Kuzma 4Point, Tri-planar Mk. VII U2-SE; Cartridges: Allnic Arrow/Puritas, Benz LP S, Fuuga, Lyra Etna, Transfiguration Phoenix, Denon DL-A100,DL103R; Cables: Shunyata Σ / Σ NR PC/SC/IC; Pwr Cond: Shunyata Triton III, Typhons(3); Isolation: SRA Scuttle3 rack, SRA Ohio Class amp stands, ; Acoustics: Stillpoints Apertures; Audio cat: Finzi

              Comment


              • #11
                i like to hear on some of my older vinyl records the previous recording made in the master tape that can be listen in the beginning and end of some musics.

                I can hear that the last recording made in the master tape did not erase all the previous recordings.

                its subtle but its there...

                for example i can hear that with headphones, but also less with speakers, just for a second, in the beginning of the AP RCA Living Stokowski Rhapsodies LP 33 rpm the previous recording.
                SEAS EXCEL DIY Speakers; CJ Premier 12; CJ Premier 14; CJ Premier EV1; Accuphase DP 85; MAC Airbook + Audionirvana plus+ Qobuz + Tidal; Micro Seiki RX 1500; Ikeda IT 407 12" + Ortofon MC A95; Thomas Schick 12" + Ortofon SPU 90th Anniversary; Fidelity Research FR64 FX 10" + Ortofon SPU Royal GM MKII; SME M2 12-R + Ortofon MC XPRESSION; Kenwood KD 7010 + Ortofon Jubilee; Revox B710; Revox A77; Revox PR99; Pure Silver DIY Cables; Sennheiser HD800; Sennheiser HDVD 800; Akai AT S-08 Tuner.

                Comment


                • #12
                  Originally posted by Jmwick View Post
                  After reading your post I played my own copy of Graceland ( the original 25447-1 ) hoping I would hear the "shoop, shoop ", happily I did, but for the first time. I never listened to it that critically before. Years ago Harry Pearson wrote a similar essay about a component/ systems transparency and used " The Weavers Reunion at Carnegie Hall " as a system test. According to HP if you could hear a foot stomp on one of the tracks you had a revealing system. Even though he was a classical music afficionado, like you, he recognized the need to reach a broader readership by using a variety of genres in his reviews.
                  Yeah, I bought the Weavers LP and have regretted it ever since. Hillbilly hootenanny.
                  SP-10 MKII table with custom power supply designed and built by Peter Noerbaek with an SME 3012R with Dyna XV-1S cartridge, VPI Avenger table with rim drive and JMW -12-3D arrm with Lyra Etna SL cartridge, Zesto Andros 1.2 phono stage, Otari MX-55 tape deck, Ampex 350 repros, ARC Ref 6 pre, ARC Ref 75 amp, NOLA KO speakers with a pair of Def Tech Ref subs, and a pair of JBL 4345 speakers.

                  Comment


                  • Jmwick
                    Jmwick commented
                    Editing a comment
                    I did as well only to see if I could hear the foot stomp.

                  • MylesBAstor
                    MylesBAstor commented
                    Editing a comment
                    I have a tape of The Weavers (done by Mark Aubort BTW) and there’s a whole lotta foot stomping going on. First time I heard the tape thought for a moment something was wrong with my woofers and they were going to blow up. Reckon they cut much of that out on the LP because would have driven even modern cartridges insane.

                    C’mon Mark you come from Kentucky!

                • #13
                  In replying to David,


                  Bill Hart commented
                  03-25-2018, 09:07 AM


                  One of your points, I think, is that commercial reviews (at least the stuff I remember from the old print magazine days) often focused on discrete things in a particular recording, e.g. "using the X amp, I was able to discern that those bells were actually Afghani hat bells, and not Balinese finger bells, as commonly believed." It doesn't describe the overall sound of the recording, let alone how the system presents that recording. So, it's pick and choose from among different recordings known for different parts of the frequency range. And that's even less informative of the overall presentation.
                  That's a great point, Bil - whether that approach is proper or flawed, its what we find. I've read reviews (early TAS, Gordon Holt, etc.) for a long time but only started writing in 2004. I was sent an amp and no real guidelines other than: a) product description, b) usage, c) sound, d) conclusion. Faced with a blank sheet of paper - something I still tremble before today - I figured what I'd read in the past was the model, which you describe. That model and particularly its vocabulary are still with us. There is no reviewer school. (Granted, talent doesn't need reviewer school.) Feedback from editors comes into play as well. At this point I believe that most readers want analysis in terms of sonic attributes described by the reviewing vocabulary. And they also want some sort of compare/contrast. All with some degree of erudition, clarity and straightforwardness.

                  My opening example of Graceland in actual print took no more than three sentences. Here's a pretty typical example of my analysis from several years back: "It was here I heard Component X make its case to be considered a special piece of audio gear. It melded subtle changes in loudness with the smallest shifts in tempo to resolve musical motifs into phrases and phrases into melodies with vitality, nuance and authenticity. Arpeggios crossed frequency boundaries with clarity and coherence as they moved from one section to the next. Bass was not always über firm in the lowest lows, but never wooly and always tuneful. Mid-range and high frequency transients had startlingly clean delineation with inertia-less jump, all without the faintest whiff of hardness. Notes could stop on a dime or ember-fade. I gained a new understanding for Kamu’s unique interpretation as he gathered shifting fluid patterns of tension and release. From the softest degrees of fading woodwind pianissimos to sforzando attacks of trombones and timpani, music evinced a liveliness and immediacy that took me tantalizingly closer to the concert-hall experience."

                  It's important, imo, to offer the reader more of what I hear than what I feel, so I might actually talk about hearing hat bells rather finger bells! And to cover enough recording examples to span most of the sonic vocabulary attributes. Granted, when we listen we, some of us, don't break sound into parts; I don't find myself doing that at the concert hall. So why in audio reviews? Perhaps this is based on my own preconceived notions of a reader's expectations, and the goal not to break those expectations. One of my editors told me repeatedly: don't forget for whom you're writing. Review writing is/ should be expository. Granted, ask 1000 audiophiles what to you want to read and you get 5000 answers. I thought if folks talked about the music they used for assessment, it might offer some clarity from this audience on what they wanted to read.



                  Spkr: Wilson Alexias series 2; Amps: Lamm M1.2Ref; Linestage and phono: ARC Ref 10 and ARC Ref 10 Phono; TT: GPA Monaco 2.0; Arms: Kuzma 4Point, Tri-planar Mk. VII U2-SE; Cartridges: Allnic Arrow/Puritas, Benz LP S, Fuuga, Lyra Etna, Transfiguration Phoenix, Denon DL-A100,DL103R; Cables: Shunyata Σ / Σ NR PC/SC/IC; Pwr Cond: Shunyata Triton III, Typhons(3); Isolation: SRA Scuttle3 rack, SRA Ohio Class amp stands, ; Acoustics: Stillpoints Apertures; Audio cat: Finzi

                  Comment


                  • Bill Hart
                    Bill Hart commented
                    Editing a comment
                    I think it comes with the territory. When we go to a show, we go to enjoy the experience, to immerse ourselves in it, to hear a band we know or don't know -- if we know them and their music, there's apt to be a transcendent moment when you hear a song you've come to love played live by the folks that recorded it. (Sometimes, it's transcendent even if the material is unfamiliar).
                    When we analyze reproduced sound, it is necessary to break it down into analytic parts- for several reasons. First, and most obviously, the equipment may have certain strengths in some areas and weaknesses in others that you have to expose.Second, I think we are all, to some degree, nerds. In evaluating equipment, you aren't necessarily focusing on the emotional aspects of the music, although that is where a good system leads, doesn't it? To take the listener beyond the reproduction process to the emotional aspects of the music. But, a review which talked about how you "felt" after listening to a recording on a given set of gear would probably leave most readers on empty. They want the details. How taut is the bass? Does it have tone and impact? And of course, you are probably going to use known recordings, so that folks at home have a reference-
                    I think most of us are beyond the 'hi-fi' WOW- you can hear a chair squeak kind of revelation, though that could be important too- it might tell us how revealing the recording and the equipment are.
                    I'm not sure I have a better way. The paradigm for me, as I've probably mentioned too many times, was that line stage shoot-out HiFi+ did a number of years ago, where they did a full review of each of 5 or 6 units, but then compared and contrasted them. Since I owned one of the units they were evaluating, and thought Roy (I think it was Roy, with second opinions by Alan Sircom) conveyed a very accurate description of the virtues and shortcomings of the piece I owned (a Lamm line stage), so when I read about the others in comparison, I had a sense of what they were about (and thought his impressions were credible given my own experience with one of the units under review).
                    Look- it's a thankless task. You are damned if you do and damned if you don't. So you do your best, you write for the pleasure of word crafting to make for a compelling read and one that reflects your impressions.
                    I like reading things that don't follow conventions- the standard template if you will. But, you have to hit certain buttons. When I wrote as a lawyer, I often felt straightjacketed by the conventions, but even in that field, there is room to avoid the trite, the purple prose and catch the readers' attention. Simpler is often better.
                    I love to write. Totally apart from the subject matter. But, when it's something you care about, it's even more edifying.

                • #14
                  Awesome thread! You guys are giving out some great homework assignments!
                  Horning Eufrodite Ellipse III Speakers - 300B Monoblocks - TW Acustic RLS-100 Line Stage - TW Acustic RPS-100 Phono Stage - TW Acustic Raven AC with (2) 10.5 Arms and Black Knight Anniversary Upgrades - Ortofon A-95 and Miyajima Zero - Playback Designs MP-5 to a Bricasti M1 DAC for SACD (DSD) and Redbook - Tascam 42B (Refurb by Soren Witrup) + Doshi V.3 Tape Stage - (2) Silver Circle Audio TCHAIK 6's - Furutech Power Cords & Interconnects + Inakustik LS-4004 Air Speaker Cables - VPI 16.5 RCM

                  Comment


                  • #15
                    Disclaimer , I don't review . A system setup for classical does not do rock or jazz as well . Even the amps need to be setup for them. Now most hear will,say it's not true . While we all can play various genra and play it well. The fact remains to be excellent it's different .
                    As for reviewers it's a tough job to be one and I reserve my view on the task of being one.
                    This leads me to this since the system is setup different just what music should a reviewer use. Tima got it right music we know very very well. So changes we hear are easy to scale .
                    The music should be taxing to the system in many ways , not so much loud but to revieil it's flaws and show case it's triumphs .
                    Depending on what's in fir review matters , if it's an amp do your speakers play well with them. Most speakers do ok with 8 ohms , worse on 4 ohms . And any speaker that's below 4 is a tough job period. The type of speaker used matters too.
                    Great recorded music is a must little is to be gained in bad sounds .
                    for the anolog groups enough of the holy grail of audio , has it occurred to you Guys just how much gets done to your anolog before it hits your ears. There is no Magic bulit just massive Prejudice .
                    As for music choices vocals yield a start to show cross over flaws , and levels of transparency . Piano , horns need note decay to sound well. And drums and hard strikes on piano puts,any sytems into clipping but mist don't know it is . Knowing how good it can be is a must to evail new .
                    Lasly I think anyone who reviews needs a very good reference system setup well if not how would one know the fine details . If it's an amp to be tested what speaker wires used can greatly effect the sound . It's complex to really review stuff well I wonder how many can .
                    A virtue of digital us the silence behind the music , not many anolog vinyl have especially on all bums. Digital has little of this and good stuff has almost none. An anolog over person may feel this is sterile , lack of background noise does nit make things bad . Bad is lack of note decay or uneven decay. Bad is a thinness to the sound that makes it lack the palpable sound.
                    Il, bet most who read this will take offense or feel I am off in my take. The one thing we should all agree on is the agree to disagree in peace .

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X