If sound quality is that important why so little reference to music?

[Johnny Vinyl]

I suspect we are all members on WBF because we care about the quality of sound that reaches our ears. And regardless of our media format of preference said media plays a huge part in this, yet it seems to be an afterthought or non-mentioned part of the equation. The vast majority of talk surrounding good sound comes from discussions on specifics that use the latest or best reviewed technology, the corresponding measurement data and endless discussions about the variables thereof. We read lavish praise about how some new piece of gear just brought a real-world upgrade to the user experience and that this thereby should be afforded serious consideration.

While I don't discount those discussions, it is a disservice to not include specific media data (original pressing, country of origin data, 33/45rpm, mastering, where it was pressed and by what company, etc....). Unless one has that information it's all just talk IMO. Nice and flowery, but just talk. Just as there are many variables in gear, there are variables in media and this should be taken into consideration when giving praise to the next great piece of gear.

I just bought the latest flamesuit on spec...so have at it.

 

[DaveyF]

John, I think what you suggest makes very good sense. It is certainly helpful for me when I read about what music the reviewer has used to come to his conclusion as to the sound of the product under review. One of the reasons that I so enjoyed the writing of HP, was his description of the music as he was hearing it and how it reminded him of this hall or that seat or any number of other adjectives that he would utilize. The more info on the media that is being listened to, the better IMHO.

 

[amirm]

Hey, I am doing my part: http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?19539-Music-of-CES-2016&p=368759#post368759

 

[JackD201]

For my part I simply would rather listen to music or play it for someone than talk or type about it. Who want's to hear about how a song by say The Care bringing me back to the time I was courting this pretty young lass (unsuccessfully at that ) so on and so forth. There's also the sheer volume of stuff I like, the even greater volume of stuff I don't connect with and the seemingly infinite volume of that I've never heard. It gets a bit daunting really. Everytime something comes to top of mind I'm more likely to go find the album, disc or search the file than reach for my keyboard. Now if a more specific question is asked like what would you put on if (insert situation here) or what do you like to listen to when (insert another situation here) or when you are (insert state) what would you play? Then that rather narrows down things quite a bit and provides much needed context. Just my two cents.

 

[TBone]

I suspect we are all members on WBF because we care about the quality of sound that reaches our ears. And regardless of our media format of preference said media plays a huge part in this, yet it seems to be an afterthought or non-mentioned part of the equation. The vast majority of talk surrounding good sound comes from discussions on specifics that use the latest or best reviewed technology, the corresponding measurement data and endless discussions about the variables thereof. We read lavish praise about how some new piece of gear just brought a real-world upgrade to the user experience and that this thereby should be afforded serious consideration.

While I don't discount those discussions, it is a disservice to not include specific media data (original pressing, country of origin data, 33/45rpm, mastering, where it was pressed and by what company, etc....). Unless one has that information it's all just talk IMO. Nice and flowery, but just talk. Just as there are many variables in gear, there are variables in media and this should be taken into consideration when giving praise to the next great piece of gear.

I just bought the latest flamesuit on spec...so have at it.

Some really prefer nice & flowery prose, while others consider it just nice & flowery prose. A disservice? They love the music, which is of service ... but I often read this or that about said album, without any data. Often, if interested, I visit discogs in order to attain some understanding of its provenance issues, which has long been important to me; much more-so now considering the tooting of the re-recordings on hi-rez dig always sound best by default crowd ...

 

[still-one]

Myself, I only care if the performance makes me want to listen again. The resolution, where it was pressed, speed....... are meaningless if the artist's performance is only worthy of elevators.

 

[DonH50]

Quite often through the years I have found, and stated, that musicians listen to the music whilst audiophiles listen to the gear. A musician is more likely to notice the out-of-tune third in the chord than the noisy pressing or lack of hall ambiance. That said, there are times when I listen to the gear for changes or problems, or go even further and measure the system's reponse, but by and large when I listen I am paying attention to the music. However, it can be hard to isolate "sound" from "music", nor would I wish to -- the ambience, imaging, timbre etc. is part of what moves me, and things like tics and pops or poor mastering detract from the music.

As for information on the recording, I use it mainly to identify those I want to get and/or that have features I desire (the hall, the orchestra or singer, etc.) Given the myriad of variables in mics, mic technique, recording gear, post-processing, mixing and mastering, etc. I think it folly to claim one recording sounds more "real" than another unless I was at the performance that was recorded. Even then, an exact duplication is not a goal for me; a recording is often better (and sometimes worse) than a live event. For that matter, I hate listening to recordings of groups I am playing in; I tend to focus on my mistakes more than the overall recording.

Many years ago a review in a well-known, highly-respected magazine touted the way the recording captured the hall's ambience. I happened to speak with the recording engineer, who wryly noted it was all added in the studio... No, that is not always true, but a lot of folk who have never seen the recording process end-to-end would be shocked by the amount of processing performed from mic to playback.

IME/IMO! - Don

 

[Bill Hart]

I suspect we are all members on WBF because we care about the quality of sound that reaches our ears. And regardless of our media format of preference said media plays a huge part in this, yet it seems to be an afterthought or non-mentioned part of the equation. The vast majority of talk surrounding good sound comes from discussions on specifics that use the latest or best reviewed technology, the corresponding measurement data and endless discussions about the variables thereof. We read lavish praise about how some new piece of gear just brought a real-world upgrade to the user experience and that this thereby should be afforded serious consideration.

While I don't discount those discussions, it is a disservice to not include specific media data (original pressing, country of origin data, 33/45rpm, mastering, where it was pressed and by what company, etc....). Unless one has that information it's all just talk IMO. Nice and flowery, but just talk. Just as there are many variables in gear, there are variables in media and this should be taken into consideration when giving praise to the next great piece of gear.

I just bought the latest flamesuit on spec...so have at it.

I've learned, through experience, that there are huge differences in different pressings on vinyl, significant enough to make a big difference in sonic outcomes. What you suggest, John, makes sense to me from a gear-review standpoint. But, even more so, in evaluating records for their own sake. Fremer does a good job at this, when reviewing the latest remaster- he usually takes the time to compare it against noteworthy pressings. The value of this, at least to me, is in the reportage of the differences, not in the conclusions.
I think once a gear reviewer has established a baseline reference, they can use a shorthand reference to a particular recording/pressing.
It does work both ways, too. The evaluation of a specific release is colored to some degree by system and listening biases. And, as you point out, the evaluation of a piece of gear is influenced by the sound of a particular pressing.

 

[Bill Hart]

I think it is possible to describe the attributes of various recordings without reaching a conclusion as to which one is 'more natural' or 'more lifelike.' You can describe whether a recording of a piano has weight, whether it conveys the harmonic overtones, how it captures the decay of those overtones, all without reaching a conclusion- and let the reader know of the specific characteristics of that recording. Whether those characteristics are the result of a 'natural' phenomenon or the result of savvy engineering may not matter to the reader and listener as much as the sound of the end product.
I also think the notion of comparing to the tape or to the sound of the real event-- assuming there was one and it isn't just a concoction made through overdubbing--doesn't mean much to the average listener. How likely is it that the reviewer was present at the event and has access to the master tape? To what extent is the tape a true representation of the event itself? I think this places unnecessary primacy on the master tape, which is a separate thing from the actual performance. I think the most you can expect is accurate reportage of the attributes of the recording, without forcing a conclusion on the reader.

 

[NorthStar]

Musicians and audiophiles are two distinctive categories. ...In vast general.

And there are two main genre of musicians: The good ones and the bad ones.
And audiophiles: They are from various levels into their 'audiophilia' journey.

Music ? is the essence ... everything after that from the recording to the reproduction is more or less accurate to that essence.
And live is not the same as recorded.

 

[NorthStar]

Quite often through the years I have found, and stated, that musicians listen to the music whilst audiophiles listen to the gear. A musician is more likely to notice the out-of-tune third in the chord than the noisy pressing or lack of hall ambiance. That said, there are times when I listen to the gear for changes or problems, or go even further and measure the system's reponse, but by and large when I listen I am paying attention to the music. However, it can be hard to isolate "sound" from "music", nor would I wish to -- the ambience, imaging, timbre etc. is part of what moves me, and things like tics and pops or poor mastering detract from the music.

As for information on the recording, I use it mainly to identify those I want to get and/or that have features I desire (the hall, the orchestra or singer, etc.) Given the myriad of variables in mics, mic technique, recording gear, post-processing, mixing and mastering, etc. I think it folly to claim one recording sounds more "real" than another unless I was at the performance that was recorded. Even then, an exact duplication is not a goal for me; a recording is often better (and sometimes worse) than a live event. For that matter, I hate listening to recordings of groups I am playing in; I tend to focus on my mistakes more than the overall recording.

Many years ago a review in a well-known, highly-respected magazine touted the way the recording captured the hall's ambience. I happened to speak with the recording engineer, who wryly noted it was all added in the studio... No, that is not always true, but a lot of folk who have never seen the recording process end-to-end would be shocked by the amount of processing performed from mic to playback.

IME/IMO! - Don

Non-musicians also listen to the music. ...Many audiophiles too.

In my open and honest experienced opinion.

 

[Rodney Gold]

thats why I took a lifetime subscription to ROOn.. so I can drill down as deep as I can into the performance , the artists , the venue , the conductor , the players etc...and click the links.. a music lovers wet dream.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Many years ago a review in a well-known, highly-respected magazine touted the way the recording captured the hall's ambience. I happened to speak with the recording engineer, who wryly noted it was all added in the studio... No, that is not always true, but a lot of folk who have never seen the recording process end-to-end would be shocked by the amount of processing performed from mic to playback.

IME/IMO! - Don

No, not always true, just mostly true. And when audiophiles speak of the reproduction of the room ambience and the original event, they hardly ever know.

Tim

 

[NorthStar]

... And when audiophiles speak of the reproduction of the room ambience and the original event, they hardly ever know.

...And the "room" ambiance (inside a recording) is not the same when it's recorded in a studio(s) and live in a real venue like a classical concert hall, jazz/blues club, rock amphitheater, ...

Also, the recordings from the 50s and 60s, where bricks and wood planks were different than today's bricks and wood planks.
...The reverbs, carpets in studios, EQs, our rooms.

 

[DonH50]

Perhaps we each have our own standards. I believe if one has the familiarity of long term playing an acoustic instrument, particularly in an orchestral context where you have regular contact with other instruments, and/or regular listening to live acoustic music, then it's not too hard to gauge if the reproduced sound is more or less realistic. And where there is a difference, to be able to say one recording sounds more or less "real" than another. Perhaps lifelike is a more apt usage as it doesn't connote some notion of identity or duplication between recorded and live sound. So there we can agree. On the coincidence one is at a performance for which there is a recording you may be able to say 'yes, that's exactly it' but generally that's beyond my expectations.

Agree completely we all have our own standards. As for orchestral or big band references, I am on the back row when I play so have only limited ability to hear the strings, often a good thing. The saxes I can always hear, however... Funny, never had them say they can't hear me, however.

Personally how "real" it sounds is often not a major player in whether I like the sound. For instance, I like being able to hear things like plucked strings and piano hammer strikes that are often difficult to hear at a live performance. I like the sound of a close-mic'd trap (drum) set in a small group even though live (performing or listening) it is not as "present" in the sound.