Archive through August 03, 2005
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4589 Registered: May-04 | ************** http://www.reasontorock.com/closing/epilogue.html "It has been hard to maintain rock groups as functioning artistic entities. As happened with The Beatles, partners tend to tire of each other, and sometimes outgrow the constraints and compromises necessary to maintain the integrity of a group as an artistic unit. In many cases, artists tended to outgrow the notion of functioning as part of any kind of permanent group. For example, John Lennon commented about the decisions he made when he first started to perform without the rest of The Beatles: I told Eric Clapton and Klaus [Voorman] that I was leaving and that I'd like to probably use them as a group. I hadn't decided how to do it -- to have a permanent new group or what? (Later on I thought, '*uck, I'm not going to get stuck with another set of people, whoever they are.') (Beatles 2000) Note that John felt this way, even though he also acknowledged, "The thing that I sometimes miss is being able just to blink or make a certain noise and to know they'll all know where we are going on an ad lib thing." (Beatles 2000) ******************** Now I'm just rambling, sorry. |
|
Silver Member Username: DakulisSpokane, Washington United States Post Number: 271 Registered: May-05 | Hey all, I haven't given up. I've been working since 10:00 a.m. and you're my quick "study break," I'm still not done with work for the evening. I've been contemplating Jan's question and I haven't given up. I started to write something yesterday but it was too maudlin, even for me, so I erased and thought it better to think some more. The old saw about it's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt. LOL. I'm still thinking, maybe by tomorrow, especially since it's slowed down and I don't have to read for 2 hours to catch up. |
|
Unregistered guest | Ditto |
|
Silver Member Username: DiabloFylde Coast, England Post Number: 173 Registered: Dec-04 | The journey began with Jan drivng along alone in his 6 litre Chevy Cabriolet. He had a trailer attached which soon picked up a few passengers. They foolishly thought that he was heading for some pleasure palace, maybe Las Vegas? At first, it seemed like a good deal. A free ride over slightly undulating country, with interesting views of real life audio at every turn. Then, suddenly, the road changed, the driver had taken a road which the passengers were not expecting. It was heading into the Rockies, via the badlands. The views became more dramatic, but were not the ones expected. Snipers fired from the high ground as the Chevy attempted to pull the heavy trailer through each mountain pass. The conditions became unbearable for a few travelers. Some on the trailer threw themselves off. Some were injured by other passengers and some were shot down by the driver for disagreeing with him. Eventually, there was just Jan and Margie, trailer abandoned, driving off down Death Valley.  Regards, diablo p.s. I think many are confused by this thread. I think I know what it is about but I'm no good at describing real music - it's like asking me to plait sawdust. Maybe a thread asking people to describe their experiences/impressions of 'non-amplified' music could be useful?? I have a few to contribute. |
|
Gold Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 1303 Registered: Feb-05 | I was never confused, I just don't like to be told what to say and how to think. |
|
Silver Member Username: Joe_cOakwood, Ga Post Number: 727 Registered: Mar-05 | I think margie had it pegged for me: " defining feeling..." Is the difference between math and language. Math is fact. Language is the context in which we apply the fact. Feeling and emotion: loneliness, happiness, sadness, joy... we all have experenced them, we know what they are. However, by their vary nature they are individual and unique experences, complex too, not the same one to another. The process of defining them helps us understand the impact they have, or not, and our options in dealing with them. problem is because they are so different for everyone, the same feeling someone may get to listening to something may be exactly the same as someone else, but words ruin it and the connection between the two people and that feeling is lost. Sometimes we cannot explain feelings. |
|
Silver Member Username: DiabloFylde Coast, England Post Number: 174 Registered: Dec-04 | Yes, I kind of agree with the sentiment about " defining feeling..." But, in the same way as we are trying to avoid talking about music as relayed through equipment, the same must apply to feeling. It is there all the time, it is inherent in the music, it can be conveyed via a transistor radio. It doesn't describe a physical aspect of the real live performance though, so is not relevant. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4612 Registered: May-04 | "I just don't like to be told what to say and how to think." First, point out where I told you what to say and how to think and I'll do my best not to make the same mistake again. But you'll have to show me where I committed this egregious act since this thread is about how to think and what to say. Secondly, post whatever you feel is relevant to the thread, Art. I don't remember ever implying you were not welcome to do so. |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 3477 Registered: Dec-03 | Just to say I've been busy, and see there are questions directed to me, to which I promise to return. I know it is boring to list replies, but what else can one do? Actually, I have been taking Joel's advice, without knowing it, amongst other things. A few quick ones: Jan asked " why would people liking various sorts of music be an obstacle?" Answer: It is not people liking various sorts of music that is the obstacle; it is their getting annoyed that other people prefer something else. Margie mentioned testosterone a while ago. I think the real problem if the pheromones, marking out territory. It is the obsessive p•ssing on lamp-posts that makes me so weary. MR states 'I cannot see why Jan's question - 'What qualities do we hear in live music that we would like to have our audio systems possess? ...." - is so difficult for such an erudite to comprehend.' There we have it. I believe I comprehend it. I believe it makes no sense. Audio systems do not, and should not, possess qualities we hear in live music. They should allow the reproduction of that music, intact, with whatever qualities it has, or we imagine it has. Since you are not reading, MR, I am wasting my time. Yet again. "Erudite". Thanks. From the first responses to Jan, on this thread, and on Maybe, I think I also discern incomprehension that there is a musical performance at all, without an audio system. This proposition becomes obviously absurd as soon as you say it or write it, but how else can we explain all this anger and confusion...?! |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 3478 Registered: Dec-03 | Art - "I was never confused, I just don't like to be told what to say and how to think." Who, and where? Seriously! I did not notice it. I now see where "Maybe" came from. Nice one, diablo and Jan! I too was thinking "Let us start with just qualities in music" so I offered a few. That's when My Rantz started on about "anything goes shite". Here was my thought. Pick any genre - any genre. Imagine you are auditioning performers; you have time and money for one slot in the show, whatever it is. Let's say you audition six. So you have to say "sorry" to five. You make some notes. How likely is it that you will write of any musical performance, of any kind, words such as: "seamless", "vibrant three-dimensionality", "warm", "soundstage", "integrated", "effortless midrange" etc. etc......? |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 3486 Registered: Dec-03 | Just in case anyone else is trying to hang on to the point, "Maybe" (linked in last post but one, here) seems to have been edited into Non amplified music experiences. I promised to come back on some specific questions. Attention has been successfully diverted. But I try to keep my promises. Mr Rantz, Friday, July 22, 2005 - 08:27 am I replied in part. Here a serious answer to "What can we say about the experience of hearing live music that we want to bring into our home systems to make them more "lifelike"...?" Nothing. Our home systems are systems, not music. I can see that no-one seems to understand my point, and I am stuck for how else to make it. Let me just say, as a last attempt, that I think this confusion is a classic "Category mistake". With respect I suggest that there is no answer to the question. These words make up a response, not an answer. Good luck, My Rantz. I have enjoyed our discussions, mostly, and you erudition, and I write that with no irony intended. Jan Vigne, Friday, July 22, 2005 - 09:40 am "What do you say to the salestaff when you go to an audio shop to consider new equipment?" I tell them about suspected shortcomings of the stuff I already use. "What do you talk about?" Whether the problem is with me, with the source (e.g. recording), or with the equipment. If "the equipment"; which component, and why, and what to do about it. Do you listen to music in the shop? Yes. "If the first piece of equipment is not to your liking, how do you explain where you'd like the sound to be improved?" I try to identify things that seem wrong, to me. And, yes, this is based on real music as the ultimate reference. Though in practical terms a reference recording is useful, because then the reference is easily repeatable. But you always have to consider how good the recording is. It is true, I think, that better components can make bad recordings sound worse. It is usually the case, though, that you can easily guess why. Let me also say I do this sort of thing about once a decade. I have bought two new things (speakers and an amp) in the last six months, which is a lifetime record, for me. I am still undecided about SACD. I cannot find anywhere to make a straight and honest comparison with CD. There, all sources are suspect - how can you know you have the same recording and mix in the two formats, which differ only in resolution and the coding/sampling process? Jan Vigne, Friday, July 22, 2005 - 10:41 am: "If the system favors no one type of music, couldn't we say the system favors all music because the emphasis has been put on the music. We can forget the system; it is only there as a device to bring music into our home. Music is we want in our home. If we possess a music system the emphasis has been placed on having music affect us in our home, not in listening to the hifi. Therefore the system gets out of the way, exactly what you desire! " Yes, yes! I agree with this. Also the rest of the post, mostly. However, the last part, I do not understand, though I have tried. "Possibly if you've never heard a system or component which you thought didn't allow the rhythmic bass of the music to be heard and felt, you might not grasp where we want to head with this idea." Well, I've heard small speakers with a low-frequency cut-off. There, the problem is not with the bass not being "rhythmic"; it is that it is not there. I have never been aware of bass being out of synch with the other frequencies. I suppose this could happen, because of a delay caused by some inertia in a bass driver, or similar. My old active sub may have done this, but I would have to go back and listen. I am not well disposed to separate subs, For a long time they were mostly dismissed by people who liked music. We have discussed this before. I think their "timing" may be less of a problem, generally, than the colouration they introduce. "But, when you say the music is the music and the music is not the system, you are placing far too much emphasis on that word "is"." Sorry, I do not undestand that. "Is" is difficult to over-emphasise, it seems to me! "Think around the corner of the parallelogram, John" Which parellelogram, and which corner. Jan?! That's probably covered it. Sorry if I missed anything out. Joel Sexton made a good point, I thought: "get a life". I take that, with thanks, Joel. Let me just say this though, the whole audio industry is full of obstacles to enjoying music. Many of them are touted as "features" meaning you have to pay extra for them. So we are often wasting our time AND our money. I've just returned a hire car. It has quite a good sound system (I like to check these out). But it had this near-universal "feature" - a collection of pre-sets for different genres: "Rock", "Jazz", "Classical","Easy listening" and a few others whose names I forget. I do not understand this. I do not understand how anyone can think this is a useful feature. I cannot understand how the system could know better than the recording engineers, and can compensate for their mistakes. One option was "Off". I always choose "Off". Sometimes there isn't an "Off". Will go and "get a life". Just to keep on track, the original question was (Jan Vigne, Sunday, June 26, 2005 - 08:24 pm):- "How many of you listen to live music on a regular basis? If you do, do you use the sound of live music as a reference to make an audio purchase? If so, how?" Or have we moved on...? |
|
Silver Member Username: DakulisSpokane, Washington United States Post Number: 294 Registered: May-05 | OK, the experiment thing, there about 50+ posts back or so, to reiterate Jan's challenge: "David - . . . Let's say you've just walked into a country where they don't speak "hifi". They speak "music". They know what hifi nouns such as speakers and amplifiers are; but they have no idea what "sound stage", "image", "warm", "open", "detailed" or any other hifi adjectives mean. They only understand what you mean when you use words to describe the music you hear. They know what "effortless", "relaxed", "engaging" and so forth mean. Using the words we've developed on this thread and whatever you feel you need to get your point across about the music and that doesn't talk about the hifi, can you describe the difference in the components you compared? Let's start with the old before we throw them out. As opposed to "effortless," the music took great effort to listen to because it didn't sound right. By "not right", I mean that the music didn't sound real, it almost sounded hollow as if large portions of it were lost along the way. Sure HT sounded OK, the bass was loud and filled the air but it sounded like a drum trying to be a cannon or vice versa. You knew it was loud but it wasn't real. Now, for the Ling vs. Ascend challenge. The music was "the thing." When playing either speaker, especially after the addition of the Denon 2200, the music had a full, engaging sound. I found the body that went with the voice during vocals, there was a human being on stage with breath and air being pushed out creating these wonderful melodies. The guitar and piano, both stringed instruments, had the initial sound but also had that reverberation that gives the notes life and length. This new sound engages me because I knew it immediately as being more real and emotional. The music came attached to human beings that played with the purpose of moving me and succeeded. Also, drums don't just make sound in real life, they create impressions and feelings. You can feel a drum in close quarters and the music gave me that same impression of hearing and feeling the bass in the music. So, all in all, a very rewarding journey from lifeless to life. (Hey, it's still maudlin but I said it better this time.) So, is this string dead. I think Margie's left us, John A is still around, J.C., my man, I know you're still out there. Art, come back, we need ya, big guy. Jan, as they say in your neck of the woods, "turn out the lights, the party's over." |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4650 Registered: May-04 | David - I don't know if this thread is dead or just resting. I assume you would agree it takes a bit of work to shift from hifi speak to music speak. The question is; which do you prefer? Do you think one gives a better impression of your experience listening and comparing two products? Or is this just an exercise in words? Is one version just as good as the other? Personally, having read your comments in the previous thread, I find this description much more intersting and much more informative. For those that didn't read David's first response comparing the two speakers and a Denon player, here's a bit of what that read like: "The men's voices were louder than the women's. Again, the second effect with the Denon was more noticeable on the Lings, which I could attribute somewhat to the Lings midrange getting more punch or something, what I had described earlier as somewhat "muddy" in an earlier post, had become absolutely warm, wide and wonderful. (I love it when I can sneak in a trilogy in writing.) :-) BUT, the real effect that interested me was the inversion in the subjective loudness of the male and female vocals with and without the Denon." Comparing that to what you wrote above, I think you did a terrific job in the second version letting us know what was important to you and making the comparison more interesting to read. But that's just me. What do you think? What does anyone else think about David's description? |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4653 Registered: May-04 | "But, when you say the music is the music and the music is not the system, you are placing far too much emphasis on that word 'is'." "Sorry, I do not undestand that. 'Is' is difficult to over-emphasise, it seems to me!" John - I'm certain you gave everyone on the thread here in America a chuckle with that statement. There's not enough time to explain fully. If you want to know more, put "Clinton impeachment" into a search engine. |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 3489 Registered: Dec-03 | Jan, This is madness! If this is "your" thread, please, please try to be a little more inclusive. We often make in-jokes, and I don't at all mind being "out of the loop" - but it is a complete waste of time trying to answer someone's questions, when, if the answer is not in accordance with his/her preconceptions, the response is a wisecrack and a change of subject. Look - this is all becoming completely recherche. How many people reading this public forum know that "Dakulis" and "David" are the same? (Am I correct in assuming you use these terms in this way....?!) Jan, you wrote; "David....Personally, having read your comments in the previous thread...." Please - it would only take you a second - what is this "previous thread"..?! In an attempt to find it, myself, I searched my e-mail notification box with the distinctive text string, from your quote, "Lings midrange". Zilch. So it is a thread I have not contributed to. OK. I then run the ecoustics "Search" looking for any posts contain both "Lings" and "midrange". There are some, but in none do these words appears consecutively. What does this mean? Has the thread been pulled by admin...? As Joel recommends, I have a life, and cannot spend all my waking hours on this forum. Having taken a little time (Tuesday, July 26, 2005 - 07:57 am: ) to reply to your direct questions, the first thing I read, from you, is " I don't know if this thread is dead or just resting". Jan, the only reason this thread appears to alive is that it is nailed to its perch. A Norwegian Blue thread, pining for the fjords. Ever the pedant, I shall explain this if anyone asks, and not say "Run 'Google' with 'Dead parrot'". Re Clinton; life is too short. Honestly. Can we not keep to the matter in hand? As the intern might have said to the president, in the Oval Office. I guess it runs in that general direction. (One assumes the Oval Office is close to an anechoic chamber, other wise it might have come out earlier. As it were...) Under cross-examination, Me: Mr Vigne, did you ever have a musical experience with the audio system you see in the witness box? Vigne: No, Sir, I did not. Me: Then how do you explain all the Elvis Presley and Shostakovich CDs and LPs found in your listening room? Vigne: They were gifts. On one or two occasions I put them in the player. But I did not switch on the amp. No, Sir. Me: But your amp is always on - you said so yourself, under oath. Vigne: OK, but the speakers weren't wired up that day..... Me: Which day? Vigne: The day when I did not have a musical experience with that system. Me: Thank you. The case rests. I am away now to get a life. I confess to being terminally literal-minded. Please, have a heart; while I'm away, take a moment to save me having to Google "corner of parallogram".... |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 3490 Registered: Dec-03 | "Parallelogram". Apologies. |
|
Unregistered guest | I'm still here. I keep reading from thread to thread trying to keep up. Tension was building and the "marking of territory" ( very funny John ) took over. That is no place for a woman. Without something profound to contribute it was best to just be quite. Rest too. Lots of music. Beethovens 9th, Gershwin, America, Paul Simon, Joni Mitchell... Just listening. Also thinking about our words and phrases and how they would apply. Dakulis The discription posted at 5:41 July 26 was the better of the two. Very clear, tangible. I thought the first one was pretty good too. But then you do have a way with words..( recent posts other threads ). BTW does anyone know of a good recording of Ravels Bolero? |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4656 Registered: May-04 | Sorry, John. I assumed too much. The quote from David/Dakulis is from this thread: https://www.ecoustics.com/electronics/forum/home-audio/146884.html and taken from the post made by David on Wednesday, July 20, 2005 - 07:18 pm. Being an American and knowing that the world revolves around what happens in my country, I inadvertently assumed the meaning of "is" had become famous. It is a concept far less humorous than the dead parrot, so, unless you really do need an explanation, we'll just leave it that there is probably a chuckle to be found somewhere. John, at this point I just don't know where to begin explaining that corner of that parallelogram. Why don't we wait to see if anyone else comes along to help. |
|
Gold Member Username: KeggerWarren, MICHIGAN Post Number: 2536 Registered: Dec-03 | I don't know about anyone else but I laughed harder on John's last post then anything else he has written yet! Absolutly priceless! Thank you John! |
|
Unregistered guest | Which corner of that parallelogram? |
|
Unregistered guest | If they are parallel are they in phase or out of? |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4660 Registered: May-04 | Thanks for the help, guys! |
|
Silver Member Username: DakulisSpokane, Washington United States Post Number: 296 Registered: May-05 | I'm with Kegger on this one. John A, that was masterful, brilliant, erudite and satirically, priceless. Please take a bow. NOW, don't get cocky, kid, to quote Han Solo. Margie, only on occasion do I have a way with words. Usually, they have their way with me. But, somehow this thread moves on. So great leader, Jan, where do we go from here? |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4662 Registered: May-04 | We put the car in reverse and we go back to Tuesday, July 26, 2005 - 11:08 PM. At least. |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 3493 Registered: Dec-03 | Thanks, Kegger! Thanks, "DAK"! Thinking about the cross-examination, I realised I forgot that Jan would never have his tube amp on with the speakers unhooked, so there has to be a bit in the middle where he pretends he forgot... oh, well, never mind..... Also it is "witness stand", not "box" in US. Argh, what a pedant..... we go back to Tuesday, July 26, 2005 - 11:08 PM. At least. Jeepers, Vigne, I spent ages on that response (Tuesday, July 26, 2005 - 07:57 am to your goddam list of questions! What is this, the Spanish Inquisition...? (No, no, not again). OK, you're the driver! [That's funny, a colon and a close-bracket is rendered as a smily face. How old I feel.] |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 3494 Registered: Dec-03 | Margie, I looked this up; it is a second-hand recommendation; I do not have it. It is the first "CD review" "search" hit for "Bolero". Composer/Artist: DUKAS, P. Title: THE SORCERER'S APPRENTICE Artist(s): Boston Symphony Orchestra Conductor: MUNCH, Charles Record No: RCA 74321 84604-2 (2-CD) Price Band: BUDGET Coupled With: RAVEL Daphnis et Chloe; Pavane pour une infante defunte; Bolero; Rhapsodie espagnole; La Valse; Ma Mere L'oye (suite) |
|
Unregistered guest | John This helps a bunch! THANKS Margie |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 3501 Registered: Dec-03 | You're welcome. Thanks, Margie. |
|
Silver Member Username: DakulisSpokane, Washington United States Post Number: 320 Registered: May-05 | OK, parallelograms aside and things in phase or out of phase, including the moon, aside. I pondered longer on the second description, Jan, so I had to choose my words more carefully to convey, not just the music, but the feeling that came from it. That said, I just reread it and wondered if I came into your shop and provided the second description and then said, "Well, now I'd like to make a quantum jump in sound to enrich and improve what I'm hearing now," would you know what I was asking for. OR, would you walk me over to the Macs and Maggies and say, "this here $30,000 system will do all that you ask, will that be cash or charge, sir?" |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4698 Registered: May-04 | Dak - No, I wouldn't be able to tell what you wanted; I could only tell what you are presently hearing. If you came into my shop and said your present system was your previous system, which was dull and lifeless, and you said this is what I hear in live music that I'm missing right now and asked me to show you a system with those qualities, I think I'd be on safer ground than if you came in and asked for a system with "good imaging". If I didn't ask you a few more questions before playing some music, we could still be in for a long session of listening. However, I'd be on firmer footing with your description than any single hifi word could place my next few steps. To answer your question though, there is more I would still need to find out about you, your tastes, what direction you want to take your system in the future and your present system. Then we could listen to some music you brought along. You did bring music with you; didn't you? |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4699 Registered: May-04 | Also, it's always best to assume the sale is closed before asking, so instead of "cash or charge" it would be "will the boxes fit in your car or should we follow you home with a truck?" |
|
Silver Member Username: DakulisSpokane, Washington United States Post Number: 324 Registered: May-05 | Jan, LOL, Hey, I'd be in Texas, of course I'd have a truck, right! Actually, I was giving you a hard time. I agree that my last description is much better in describing the music and the experience. I've been watching the "soundstaging" thread and it simply amazes me that there is so much knowledge on this site. I continue to listen and learn. That's part of the "do you listen" thread that we haven't discussed, although I'm sure you can pose a question that would take us there. Now, back to July 26, 11:06 p.m. - I think I answered it above. Certainly, I believe it is easier to use English to describe music than audio speak. The latter has nothing to do with the music and everything to do with the components and what the components do to the music. But, audio speak is helpful when I'm trying to figure out what qualities my components are creating with the music. Is it flat, is there breadth and width to the soundstage, and if so, how much. Is Norah Jone's voice really like "sandpaper scratching" as T-Man suggests or is it just the breathy, smokey sound that Art describes. Because, components are doing a pretty good job of giving me one of these sounds but not the other. So, which is right. Well, don't we have to go back to the original music to determine that. Well, I've never heard Norah Jones in concert, so, what's a guy with audio to do? Sorry, Friday afternoon, long week, not enough sleep and stream of consciousness rambling on the loose. I think I need to go home and call it a week. |
|
Silver Member Username: Joe_cOakwood, Ga Post Number: 762 Registered: Mar-05 | Ohhhhhh, Lark ascending/Vaughn Williams, Do You Listen? |
|
Silver Member Username: Joe_cOakwood, Ga Post Number: 763 Registered: Mar-05 | Vaughan** |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 3505 Registered: Dec-03 | I think the really up-market dealer would probably close it with "Shall we charge this to your usual account, Sir?". joseph, The Lark Ascending has been a filler on so many VW discs, like the Tallis Fantasia. That makes it familiar, if you happen to be into VW. That makes it good auditioning material. He had a genius for 10-minute pieces that did not ask too much of the listener, but were quality music, none the less. For vocals, try "Serenade to Music". If you recognise the voices of each of the ten soloists, you have a good audio system, it seems to me. On Wednesday this week I listened to the re-broadcast of the concert performance at which I was actually present, last Saturday. I have never been able, before, to make such a direct comparison between live and recorded. I can write a few things about that, if the chairman allows it. It seems to be close the original topic. However, the program material was Mendelssohn's "Hebrides" Overture, Bruch's Violin concerto, and Vaughan Williiams "Sea Symphony". So it would take us deep into "classical" in the general sense. This annoys some people, I know. I am still a bit wary of this thread. It is a regret to have lost My Rantz, an old forum friend and fellow argumentative cuss. Probably I should have known to steer clear of Shakespeare, as well as politics and religion. Problem is, he had something to say on the issue, it seemed, and still seems, to me. |
|
Silver Member Username: DakulisSpokane, Washington United States Post Number: 326 Registered: May-05 | John, I like to hear your experience since Jan hasn't objected. As I reported earlier, I got to do something similar with the Mo-Tab choir and it was interesting to hear live versus memorex. SO, share already. |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 3508 Registered: Dec-03 | Thanks, Dave/Dak. Later this weekend - but I will not forget. I always worry about changing genres. Anyway, since there is no-one at the wheel..... Hope Friday improved. I am familiar with that feeling. Are you sure it was not the after-effects of a long lunch...? |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 3534 Registered: Dec-03 | Mendelssohn Overture - The Hebrides ('Fingal's Cave') (10 mins) Bruch Violin Concerto No.1 in G minor (25 mins) interval Vaughan Williams A Sea Symphony* (65 mins) Leila Josefowicz (violin) Janice Watson (soprano)* Dwayne Croft (baritone)* Royal Liverpool Philharmonic Choir* Chester Festival Chorus* Royal Liverpool Philharmonic Orchestra Gerard Schwarz conductor There: Royal Albert Hall, Circle seat, front row, more or less opposite the platform. 23 July. Full house. Listening angle about 15 º. Broadcast repeat: BBC Radio 3 FM stereo. 27 July. Played on equipment descibed in "Profile". Listening angle about 60º. The "sound stage" was much wider in the recording, reflecting listening angle, probably more what someone would have heard from the front of the arena. The Mendelssohn seemed to have a good balance in the broadcast. It was possible to play it a little louder than the experience in the hall. Also the wider sound stage gave more detail, though it did not seem to translate to all the inner parts, just some. This could be a result of microphone location, I thought. The Bruch was immediately arresting in the live performance, for me, because of the unexpected volume and beautifully rich tone of the low notes on the solo violin, playing solo. It seemed amazing she was so far away, and in such a large space. Higher notes, which the composer uses to allow the soloist to be heard while the orchestra is playing, got rather lost, I thought. It could be because the reflections were absorbed by the players; we were looking down at angle of somthing like 30º. The broadcast tidied things up. Obviously a spot microphone was on the soloist, but it increased clarity. The balance was not completely absurd, as it often is. She was only a bit larger than life-size, not grotesquely enlarged. From the first two pieces, you could argue that you hear more in the broadcast. A music student, with a score (so many promenders have scores!) might find it easier to follow, say, second violas in the broadcast. But only when compared with listening from the circle, I expect. Of course, you miss the total experience on the radio. I'd always choose the real thing, but the broadcast had some good things about it. The Vaughan Williams was a totally different case. First of all, it is scored for a much larger orchestra, organ, and 200 or so members of the choir, in ranks behind the orchestra. The there are two soloists, a soprano and baritone. I found the actual performance just thrilling; moving. I found myself "air conducting" and rocking with the musical rhythms, in places. Unobtrusively, I hope. The balance was superb. The soloists were real people, life-sized, but audible. The soprano filled the hall. There are some moments where the orchestra fades away, leaving her singing a suspended high note, raising the hairs on the back of the neck. The choir was just fabulous. 200 sources of sound, not one a dud. Their enjoyment and engagement was a joy to hear and behold. There is a breathtaking section in the last movement "The Explorers" where the choir gets smaller and smaller in a reflective stanza, leaving, eventually, just a small sample of female voices, on a descending figure. Magical. The broadcast was hopeless. I formed the impression the engineers had set it all up for the Mendelssohn or the Bruch, and been totally unprepared for the sheer volumes of sound from the Vaughan Williams. Right from the first choral entry you could hear them turning down the choir, whenever it got too loud (which, for there taste, was most of the time). I could picture some guy not knowing the piece, not having a score, and repeatedly thinking "Too close to distortion" and rapidly - rapidly - turning everything down. There was nothing subtle about that. The solosists, especially the baritone, sounded like the performance was a scene cut from The Incredible Hulk. I assume the balance engineers like soloists, and have no interest at all in choirs. There was something they kept in the broadcast, to their credit. A full ten seconds or so of complete silence, before th applause, and after the final, very quiet notes, on very low strings. BTW the end was quoted by Holst in "Neptune" from "The Planets". So, The Sea Symphony broadcast was compressed and unrealistic. And that's compared with what you hear from the circle. Most (all?) commercially available recordings would be preferable to the broadcast from a purely sonic and balance point of view. But there was one thing the broadcast had. It was still the actual music. It was still a memento of an event I shall never forget, nor will 5,000 other people, probably. It was still moving. The performers - every one - were magnificent. You could hear that despite all the nonsense and twiddling going on in the sound room. As good as being there? Never. Not in a million years. That's it folks. Yes, partly about me. Pass on if you don't like it. Thanks, if you do. PS Afterwards, last weekend, I bought the RLPO CD recording of the Vaughan Williams, from the late 80s I think, on Classics for Pleasure. My sixth recording of that piece. I am saving it for a rainy day. |
|
Silver Member Username: DakulisSpokane, Washington United States Post Number: 332 Registered: May-05 | John, Great review and report, I felt like I was there. One of your last comments got to me. I had a vinyl recording of Holst's "Planets" that I just about played to destruction in my earlier years, a remnant of "Stranger in a Strange Land" I'm afraid. About 15 years ago, I bought the same CD, orchestrated by the London Philharmonic, sorry I don't remember the conductor, but it was fabulous. It was stolen out of my car 5 years ago and I had not thought about or missed it until you mentioned that last comment about "Nepture". Isn't it strange how music does that to us, it reminds us of earlier days, different times and allows us to becone nostalgic. OK, I'm going shopping right after work and I will find that CD again. Now, where'd you find the Von Williams and who put it out? That would be another fun addition to listen to and absorb. |
|
Silver Member Username: DakulisSpokane, Washington United States Post Number: 333 Registered: May-05 | P.S., I think we not only lost the conductor, HELLO JAN, but we've lost all the passengers, too. Margie, D.A., Art, Joseph, yoo hoo, anywhere there? |
|
Unregistered guest | Good job, John I am not familier with the music selections (I have a hard time remembering names so it is possible) but your discription was through so I understood. This ( and some other post) does cause me to question what I take for granted in a recordings. Mic placement at the vocalist mouth provides a very intimate sound but not what you would hear sitting 30 feet away. The balance, or lack there of, between the different instruments and voices in the recording is totally at the mercy of the recording technician. I knew this but you have really brought it home. Jan I'm sorry but my back injury keeps me from attending live performances for the time being. |
|
Silver Member Username: DakulisSpokane, Washington United States Post Number: 336 Registered: May-05 | Margie, You need to come up and let my lovely wife work on your back. She's a massage therapist in her spare time. (OK PAUL, really no comments on that one, you hear.) Yeah, I know, it sounds good and "yes" she does bring her hands home but they never seem to make it anywhere my aching back. LOL P.S. - Yeah I know that the above has nothing to do with our thread but Jan doesn't seem to want to come back and give us direction or let us know where this runaway train is going. |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 3541 Registered: Dec-03 | Dakulis and Margie, Thanks! I could write some things about different recordings of Vaughan Williams "The Sea Symphony" and also Holst's "The Planets". Dak, if you had The London Philharmonic Orchestra performing The Planets on LP and later the same on CD, there is a good chance it was the 1979 recording, conducted by Sir Adrian Boult, on EMI (I think called "Angel" in US at that time). I bought the LP, once, but it was dished and the shop could not supply a replacement. I also read somewhere that EMI had an experimental digital recorder running during that session, but decided the quality was not good enough. So the CD, which is surely still available, will be marked "ADD" or similar. Nothing wrong with that, and in fact it may mean it is lower than premium price. BTW Boult was "The Master" for both Holst and Vaughan Williams; he was friends with both, and conducted many first performances at their request. He lived to a ripe old age and into the era of digital recordings. If it is time and trouble to locate that recording, you could do worse than the Bournemouth Symphony Orchestra on Naxos. I have both of those pieces by them, on that label, in DVD-A format. You can also get the same recording in SACD and plain old CD. I have forgotten, or never knew where you stand on the great format debate.....! |
|
Silver Member Username: Stu_pittNYC, NY Post Number: 346 Registered: May-05 | Sounds like the episode of Seinfeld where Jerry was dating a massage therapist and everyone else got a massage from her except from him... |
|
Silver Member Username: DakulisSpokane, Washington United States Post Number: 337 Registered: May-05 | John, You're absolutely correct, it was Sir Adrian Boult and, just for nostalgia, I will probably look for the same recording. And, 1979 sounds about right for the recording date, although I could swear that I had it wandering around before, but then, I'm old so the memory is so so. If I can't find it, I'll look for the Bournemouth Symphony version, but who knows if we'll find it here. Thanks for the suggestions, though. And Stu, yeah a great episode and way too true. She'll come home and my son complains about being sore, "get on the table" and I'll loosen you up. Me, "maybe tomorrow" and as you all know, tomorrow never comes. Gotta love it. |
|
Silver Member Username: DakulisSpokane, Washington United States Post Number: 338 Registered: May-05 | John, Shoot, I forgot the great debate question. I never got into the debate. As you know, I got a Denon "universal" player so it does both. I haven't had enough experience with the two formats to determine if one is superior to the other or if it's just a marketing ploy. I tend to believe that a well recorded tape, vinyl or CD is the primary concern and then go from there. I have listened to the DVD-video of Diana Krall, "Live in Paris" and the vocals are OK and some of the instrumentals are great but i don't know that the sound is any better than her stereo CDs. Just MHO, though. OK, I have to fess up, though, I still haven't bought the analog connectors for my 5.1 channel DVD-A or SACDs yet. So, add that to my opinion with a $1 USD and you might be able to afford a cup of coffee. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4752 Registered: May-04 | I'm just keeping my eyes on the road and the signs here, guys. I turned the radio up a bit 'cause I was having an emotional response to something on that old useless mono thang. My attention has been finding a road that will take us back to my last question on Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 01:21 pm. If anyone has any suggestions on how to go from there, I'm all ears and there's still a half a tank of gas. I've made diablo's suggestion from Sunday, July 24, 2005 - 09:13 pm. a thread as was requested. We are now waiting for that somewhat butchered thread to pull itself from the mud. All things considered, I think this thread and its offspring have spawned more acrimony than any I can remember in quite some time. Beyond that I made a suggestion back on Saturday, July 23, 2005 - 09:35 am. If anyone would care to have a go at doing as David did with his Ling audition, that might get us back to the topic we inadvertently left at the last truck stop. Otherwise, there have been a few unanswered questions on the thread that anyone can go back to and pick up a conversation. I suspect we'll all follow along. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4753 Registered: May-04 | Here's a thought that is vaguely related to this discussion. Way back when, Margie wrote, "It was inevitable from the beginning that the process would become more difficult as we progress. We agree on the easest first leaving the more and more difficult." When I first entered my M.F.A. program, the artistic director of the program had us all work out what we do to forestall working on "the hard stuff". How many times did we straighten the pencils, play with the dog and how many cups of coffee did we get before we could no longer put off the work. Finally the pencil had to be used to create something out of the ordinary. This was an exercise in understanding how we organized ourself into the process of creating something that was going to be difficult or challenging. After we had made note of how the process worked for each of us individually, we could begin to recognize the patterns and cut through the trivial stuff to get to the actual work with more efficiency. Some of us came away with a better understanding of the process than others; none the less, it was an interesting exercise when the pressure mounted as it always did during those days in the M.F.A. program. This is not meant as a criticism of anything that has been posted here. Just a reminder that we have straightend a lot of pencils lately. |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 3544 Registered: Dec-03 | Jan, My "Live compared to broadcast recording" post was not straightening pencils! Admitedly I was not using the live "reference" to make an audio purchase (as in your original question of June 26). Comparing live music with what sound engineers foist on us is useful to know when trying to work out what the system is doing. The best system can only deliver what the sound engineers allowed into the recording. "I think this thread and its offspring have spawned more acrimony than any I can remember in quite some time." Yes. Why is that? When replying, please keep your hands in the wheel. Dak, Yes, the Denon 2200; I remember now. Please get the RCA connectors, pronounce on two-channel vs 5.1, and join in the fun. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4760 Registered: May-04 | Uh-hum!!! "This is not meant as a criticism of anything that has been posted here." Stop picking at that, John, it will never heal. "I think this thread and its offspring have spawned more acrimony than any I can remember in quite some time." "Yes. Why is that?" I'll have to give that some thought before I can give an answer that won't provoke more acrimony. |
|
Silver Member Username: DakulisSpokane, Washington United States Post Number: 340 Registered: May-05 | I think Jan is just trying to see if we're paying attention. So, I'll make it easier for everyone, Jan would like us to go back to: "My attention has been finding a road that will take us back to my last question on Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 01:21 pm." If we go there, it takes us to: "We put the car in reverse and we go back to Tuesday, July 26, 2005 - 11:08 PM. At least." And, if we go there, we get: "David - I don't know if this thread is dead or just resting. I assume you would agree it takes a bit of work to shift from hifi speak to music speak. The question is; which do you prefer? Do you think one gives a better impression of your experience listening and comparing two products? Or is this just an exercise in words? Is one version just as good as the other? Personally, having read your comments in the previous thread, I find this description much more intersting and much more informative. For those that didn't read David's first response comparing the two speakers and a Denon player, here's a bit of what that read like: "The men's voices were louder than the women's. Again, the second effect with the Denon was more noticeable on the Lings, which I could attribute somewhat to the Lings midrange getting more punch or something, what I had described earlier as somewhat "muddy" in an earlier post, had become absolutely warm, wide and wonderful. (I love it when I can sneak in a trilogy in writing.) :-) BUT, the real effect that interested me was the inversion in the subjective loudness of the male and female vocals with and without the Denon." Comparing that to what you wrote above, I think you did a terrific job in the second version letting us know what was important to you and making the comparison more interesting to read. But that's just me. What do you think? What does anyone else think about David's description? " So, everyone got that? So, I'll try answering again. I prefer music speak. It appears that Margie and Jan, at least, concur that my "musical explanation" made more sense and provided a better description of my experience than did my "hifi speak" review earlier. I would agree, WHAT SAY THE REST OF YOU? Is it harder to express the music in music speak rather than hifi speak? Not for me, but then, I have been exposed to much less hifi speak than the rest of you and I use words in my vocation to express ideas that are relevant to many different subjects or vocations every day. For many of you, you may be used to speaking engineer speak, architect speak, medical speak or some other speak. Yes, I use legalise in my profession but I find that, more often than not, I am talking to someone about their particular vocation or business and not mine. So, I study other people's "speak" and try and make sense of it, much like I did here with music speak or hifi speak. Got that? |
|
Silver Member Username: DiabloFylde Coast, England Post Number: 185 Registered: Dec-04 | Hmmm. I wonder if my pencil is straight. Shall I check if it has any lead in it? However, I was interested in John's comments on the latest Prom which he visited and also heard later on the radio. I heard the same concert transmitted on BBC4 television, so I couldn't post about it on the, seemingly defunct, 'other' thread. My impressions of the live broadcast were slightly different. The Radio 3 broadcast which John heard was during the day. Radio 3 on FM routinely compress everything before 7 p.m. Because they assume that the audience will be motorists, where the sound of the engine would blot out quiet passages if broadcast uncompressed, or housewives listening on transistor radios. They quite often compress after 7 p.m. as well in my experience. It seems to me that the level of compression on the television broadcasts varies quite a lot. Some seem to have a very wide dynamic range, whereas others seem limited. The balance between the elements of the music also varies, from piece to piece. This may be due to the sound engineer deciding that a popular work will be listened to by people using their television speakers (what a horrible thought !) and balance it appropriately. It does seem to me that the weirder works get more dynamic range. This does not explain the difference between the Bruch and the Mendelssohn violin concertos at this years proms. Both popular works. The recording techniques were so different that I assume that there were different engineers. For example, in the Mendelssohn, the spot microphone was In the Bruch, however, a similar directional mike is To me, on my system, the sound of the orchestra in the Mendelssohn was very crisp and clear. The Bruch was nowhere near as good. Yet John thought it clear enough to distinguish the violas on the radio version? Is there a fault with my system? Possibly. Maybe I should tell my hi-fi dealer that I need the same kit that he uses? It could just be the different balance/compression which makes the difference. My pencils are a bit tidier now, maybe, but they may need straightening again soon. Regards, diablo |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4765 Registered: May-04 | Keeping your pencils straight was a perrenial problem in the M.F.A. program. |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 3546 Registered: Dec-03 | Jan, If I may say so, you do tend to fire off a lot of interesting questions, then sometimes ignore what are intended as replies to them. For example, you asked on this or one of the offspring threads a number of questions about what we say to a dealer, what do we say if the demonstrated sound is not what we are looking for, etc. My "this is not pencil straightening" was not picking at a sore, but trying to point out that I thought the "Live vs. recorded" was a relevant post, just in case you or anyone thought it was a deliberate change of subject. I could be wrong, of course. It depends where we are headed. I am sometimes reminded of Mr Willy Wonka who says "Speak up, I can't hear you!" but still pays no attention, when the answer is not interesting. No offence! I should like to reply to diablo. Probably only he and I have heard the broadcast, but it is interesting to compare notes. diablo, There is no soloist in the Mendelssohn, so no individual sound on which the engineers might have been tempted to focus. That might explain the different balances, and the crisper orchestra on the Mendelssohn than in the Bruch. We went to an earlier Prom in which we sat in the choir seats, form where I noticed twenty or more suspended microphones, there for all contingencies, and obviously not all turned on all the time. They also have microphones on stands in front of the stage. I noticed on the TV broadcast of the first night that each solist (there were four in the Tippett) seemed to have one of these to himself or herself. The problem with the whole of part 2 (the Sea Symphony) in the broadcast of the more recent Prom was not just general compression, but rapid changes in gain; the engineers were very definitely unable to anticipate crescendos, so you repeatedy heard, especially the choir, reaching a climax in volume, and the engineers responding by hastily turning the whole signal down. It was ludicrous. Probably we have all recorded something at some stage. The way to get a faithful recording of dynamics is as follows. You select the loudest part of the proramme material, and set the gain on that, so that the recorded signal is as high as possible without going into distortion. You then leave that gain value constant for the whole performance, quiet parts included. That is where signal-to-noise ratio in a system becomes so important. If the quiet parts are obscured by system noise of any kind then it is the system that is the problem. If people really want to listen to a background of engine noise or vacuum cleaners then it is a free world, and they have every right. But I do think the sound engineers should not try to accommodate people who are not really listening. That is the "purist" in me, I suppose. But, in practical terms, the listener can compress a wide dynamic range, if he or she wants to, with the playback equipment. However, the engineers should do no compression - none at all - at source, because once you have lost the dynamic range, you can't get it back. BTW Those are really nice photographs - stills from the BBC4 broadcast. Take a look, everybody! I really must try to get BBC4. I quite fancy an "Eye TV" box - (really off topic; which recording platform and program do you use.....? - please send message if this will bore everyone else). BTW Surely the first photo is from the Bruch; as I recall, that is Miss Josefowicz. I am not sure who the violonist is in the second. Are you sure you have the right ID on those....? There, pencils straightened, sharpened, and sorted, all ready for use. On a real audio forum I would look for the following: -------- Warning. The word: •Compression• is not allowed on this forum. Please edit your post to remove the offending word. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4769 Registered: May-04 | John - I didn't ignore your response to my questions about shopping at a dealer; I just had no way to respond that I thought would make any difference in your answer. I could only assume that after explaining several times what direction this thread was going to head, I wouldn't have any better luck if I asked the question again. I wrote off your answer to my inability to get my point across. You and I have not communicated well on this issue, John; and I don't know why. **************** Here's part of the exchange in your post: "What do you say to the salestaff when you go to an audio shop to consider new equipment?" I tell them about suspected shortcomings of the stuff I already use. "What do you talk about?" Whether the problem is with me, with the source (e.g. recording), or with the equipment. If "the equipment"; which component, and why, and what to do about it. Do you listen to music in the shop? Yes. "If the first piece of equipment is not to your liking, how do you explain where you'd like the sound to be improved?" I try to identify things that seem wrong, to me. ... " ********************* This thread has become all about language (sorry, when we make progress, it has been all about language). In that regard, I thought it was fairly obvious I was asking for more than the most general information about your conversations with dealers and their staff. (Do you ask them how their children are doing in school?) I asked you to tell me how you described the problems you were hearing in the first meeting with the salesperson. Your response was, "I tell them about suspected shortcomings of the stuff I already use." I asked you to give me the language you would use to tell the salesperson the equipment they had played for you didn't suit your tastes or purposes and you replied, "I try to identify things that seem wrong, to me." John, when you take your car in for service do you explain the problem you're having by discussing the roads you drive on? Do you tell the mechanic you are hearing a rattle from the right front wheel area when you make a hard turn; or do you settle for just telling them it doesn't drive well? I don't think any of us doubted that if you didn't care for the sound you heard in the demonstration you wouldn't "try to identify things that seem wrong". Of course you would, John; we all would unless we walked out of the shop. I wanted to know how you would tell the salesperson what was wrong and how you thought it could be solved. I wanted the language you would use, John. If I asked you how many planets are in our solar system, and you replied, "More than we previuosly thought and less than we'll think years from now"; would that be an acceptable answer? It's accurate, but not helpful. If you'd care to have another go at the question, I'll give a better response to a more complete answer. |
|
Silver Member Username: DiabloFylde Coast, England Post Number: 187 Registered: Dec-04 | There is no soloist in the Mendelssohn, so no individual sound on which the engineers might have been tempted to focus. Poor old Janine Jansen, gets all dressed up and plays her heart out and John had never noticed that there was a soloist in the Mendelssohn Violin Concerto! It's a bad idea to type replies before waking up properly in the morning. ... was not just general compression, but rapid changes in gain; the engineers were very definitely unable to anticipate crescendos, so you repeatedy heard, especially the choir, reaching a climax in volume, and the engineers responding by hastily turning the whole signal down. I think they must use separate mixing facilities for radio and tv broadcasts if that is the case. The sound of the choir was never remotely loud enough to bounce the pointer on a dB meter against its end stop. That is most odd. Regards, diablo |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 3549 Registered: Dec-03 | Thanks, Jan. I see. In answering questions on this forum, we also have diverging subjects to consider. Getting back to a point raised many posts ago seems boring and pedantic to many people, especially if it is of no interest to them. The "questions to the salesperson" is a case in point. I would love to proceed with that, now, and I thank you for tracking back to whichever thread that was on. But we have a number of hares running off in different directions. Nice ones. What do we do? Start some more threads? The sorts of things I think I can say about music are already in this thread. They made MR, for one, very angry. Also some of the things I think I can say on the relation between "live" and "recorded" music these are in, for example, the comments on the concert. There, you have to take qualities of the performance into consideration, too. I intended that to be constructive: a concrete case. "I wanted to know how you would tell the salesperson what was wrong and how you thought it could be solved. " Well, I would just say what seemed wrong. "Not enough detail"; "can't properly hear the words"; "not a satisfying stereo image"; " too much/ too little ... unconvincing.... bass/midrange/treble/whatever" - that sort of thing (just as examples, and leaving aside crude and obvious things). The things I would say would be things about which I would look to the salesperson for recognition, understanding, comments and suggestions. All the time we have to check we are "talking the same language". As I said before, I can't see much point and expressing some intense but unintelligible desire to hear something like the harmony of the spheres, or experience the true spirit of rock'n'roll, or whatever. Help me along, Jan, please. You seem to consider all my answers "out of court". What sort of things would you ask? What sort of things DO people ask? |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 3550 Registered: Dec-03 | "Poor old Janine Jansen, gets all dressed up and plays her heart out and John had never noticed that there was a soloist in the Mendelssohn Violin Concerto! It's a bad idea to type replies before waking up properly in the morning." Hey, diablo, don't you start, too! I was writing about the concert specified, where "The Mendelssohn" was "The Hebrides Overture" aka "Fingals Cave". Janine Johnson was not there. I thought it was odd that I saw no-one resembling the violinist in you second photograph. OK The first photo is of Leila Josefowicz playing the Bruch violin concerto with the RLPO on July 23. The second is of Janine Johnson playing the Mendelssohn violin concerto with the BBC SO on July 15, Prom 1. Actually, I saw that on TV "live" broadcast - so recognised her. You had me worried there for a moment! "I think they must use separate mixing facilities for radio and tv broadcasts if that is the case. Could be. That makes it even more difficult. We would have to compare the two broadcasts, and each with the real thing. It wouldn't make much sense to have two different stereo recordings, to me, but I clearly have no idea what the engineers were trying to do even on the radio broadcast. |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 3551 Registered: Dec-03 | diablo, Those are nice photos and I thank you. The first is as I said - Leila playing the Bruch. I doubt the second is Prom 1, though (where Janine Johnson indeed played the Mendelssohn) - that is definitely not the Prom 1 conducter, Roger Norrington. What is photo 2 from? |
|
Gold Member Username: MyrantzThe Land Dow... Post Number: 2184 Registered: Aug-04 | "They made MR, for one, very angry." I am tiring from reading the misinformation you keep spreading John. What made me a little irate was the fact that you kept ignoring the questions and running off on your wierd tangents as well as ridiculing an answer I gave to one of Jan's questions - just the same as you quite rudely did to one of Rick's responses. If you are to persist in bringing up that reference to why I felt I needed a break from this forum, please tell it like it is and not as you like to imagine. I agree with your post in that some answers do get ignored which also makes one ask - why bother participating? |
|
Gold Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 1403 Registered: Feb-05 | MR, I hope today finds you well. This forum has become a struggle for me. Constant fighting and bickering. Intrusions from outside with posts that shouldn't even make it into the forum. 2 or 3 people who believe they know everything and their disciples. It's not fun right now. I have been enjoying reading the music discussions on audio asylum. Terrible format but interesting and civil discussions. Also audioreview and avforums are interesting. For Kegger audiokarma is a site dedicated to discussing vintage and diy gear. Sorry I posted my 2 cents here but such is life. |
|
Silver Member Username: DiabloFylde Coast, England Post Number: 188 Registered: Dec-04 | .... that is definitely not the Prom 1 conducter, Roger Norrington. What is photo 2 from? The partial side view of the conductor from that photo would be difficult for me to recognise, if I didn't know who it was. It is Roger Norrington though. See |
|
Gold Member Username: KeggerWarren, MICHIGAN Post Number: 2551 Registered: Dec-03 | Rantz I understand where your coming from and hope you feel better soon there buddy! Art Oh YAH I've been a member of audiokarma for quite some time now, very nice for the guy who wants to keep his old gear working or find out about some old gear. They put on a nice get together a while back at a hotel near me where people setup there gear, very cool indead. Sorry for another bump in the road guys! |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4773 Registered: May-04 | " Well, I would just say what seemed wrong. "Not enough detail"; "can't properly hear the words"; "not a satisfying stereo image"; " too much/ too little ... unconvincing.... bass/midrange/treble/whatever" - that sort of thing (just as examples, and leaving aside crude and obvious things). The things I would say would be things about which I would look to the salesperson for recognition, understanding, comments and suggestions. All the time we have to check we are "talking the same language". As I said before, I can't see much point and expressing some intense but unintelligible desire to hear something like the harmony of the spheres, or experience the true spirit of rock'n'roll, or whatever." **************** Ya'see, John ... Well, let me refer you to a post that begins to make sense: "Let me suggest that there is some room for discussion if we read "Speakers alone don't image!!!" It is true. Speakers are just part of the whole system. And it is the system that carries imaging. Imaging is a property arising from the whole system, including the recording, the listening room, and all things in between - and from the interactions between them." Fair enough! We can agree the system's responsibility is to convey the message that was captured in the original source. Because that is what should be the most important part of the paragraph above. The system can, and certainly should, only reproduce what it is given by the recording of the original performance. However, ... that leaves us still talking about the system as if it had some magical properties to create something that didn't exist beforehand. It does not! Unless we are intentionally seeking a system with obvious distortions from the source, the system should be as inert as possible. I know you and I agree on that issue, John. So, why discuss the system at all? If we came into the shop trying to find the bits and pieces that would be the most inert, the least intrusive, the most faithful, the highest fidelity, etc.; why talk about something that does nothing? What is there to say about something that does nothing that makes any sense? Do we have to ascribe properties to something which does nothing on its own so we feel better about spending money on a product that we can't say what it does?! We can say what a coffee maker does, and so we don't say it does anything else. We may like the looks or the color; we might find the little clock that's included in the "high end" models useful, but we don't say the coffee maker is more "transparent" than another coffee maker. We might think the product the coffee maker produces is "sweeter and brighter" than our previous low end coffee maker, but we don't say the coffee maker itself is sweeter and brighter! Why then do we persist in saying these things about our hifi? ******************** "I found the actual performance just thrilling; moving. I found myself "air conducting" and rocking with the musical rhythms, in places. Unobtrusively, I hope. The balance was superb. The soloists were real people, life-sized, but audible. The soprano filled the hall. There are some moments where the orchestra fades away, leaving her singing a suspended high note, raising the hairs on the back of the neck. The choir was just fabulous. 200 sources of sound, not one a dud. Their enjoyment and engagement was a joy to hear and behold. There is a breathtaking section in the last movement "The Explorers" where the choir gets smaller and smaller in a reflective stanza, leaving, eventually, just a small sample of female voices, on a descending figure. Magical." That is what we are after when we enter the audio shop; isn't it? We want the music to move us to air conduct, to rock in our seat, to make us get up and dance!!! So why don't we ask for that instead of a system that has better ... imaging? ... Soundstaging? ... Focus? None of those words are what we wanted when we entered the concert arena to hear a performance that "rais(ed) the hairs on the back of the neck". ************** You should see from this thread and the discussion in "Soundstaging and Imaging" that many of us who want a good audio system don't speak the same language; we don't have recognition and understanding because we can't or don't agree on what words about something that does nothing actually mean. We are not after The Spheres of Harmonic Alignment or the Sprite of Soul Music, John. We came into the audio shop to buy a system which lets us enjoy music in our homes as much as we do when we hear it live. My position is, we can't get that if all we do is talk about the system - which does nothing! If, however, we begin to say we don't feel the music is as "effortless" as at the concert last Saturday, are we not better able to tell the salesperson what it is we want from the music we are hearing? If we want music which is more "engaging", where we experience "a breathtaking section in the last movement "The Explorers" where the choir gets smaller and smaller in a reflective stanza, leaving, eventually, just a small sample of female voices, on a descending figure. Magical.", aren't we asking for what we want at home? What does "too much/ too little ... unconvincing.... bass/midrange/treble/whatever" have to do with "Magical"? We are not trying, on this thread, to give or take away anything that belongs to the system. It just that the ideal system has very little that belongs to it alone. We are not trying to make the "qualities" of the system become the most important part of our listening experience at home. What if we want to listen to music that has no hifi "image" or "soundstage" or "focus"? What if, instead, we want to listen to music which "engages" us? What if we want to air conduct to a band that played their music sixty years ago? Are we then after "soundstage", or are we after "a breathtaking section ... where the choir gets smaller and smaller in a reflective stanza"? John, it is not that your answers have been out of court; but rather they have been "net balls". Put your aim just a bit higher and try for the ace. |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 3552 Registered: Dec-03 | "I am tiring from reading the misinformation you keep spreading John." If I am spreading misinformation, it is certainly not deliberate, Mr Rantz. You seemed to react in a very hostile hostile way to something I wrote, I regret that, but I still have no idea what the problem was. I have looked through it several times, to try to understand. Nothing I said was critical of you, or anyone else here. Your response makes me reluctant to try to write anything about music, which is what Jan requests. I assume you are referring to my remark "The sorts of things I think I can say about music are already in this thread. They made MR, for one, very angry." I apologise if that is incorrect. Something seemed to. That last remark was made to the best of my knowledge. And still is - I would appreciate it if you can put the record straight. I truly have no idea what caused such offence. I did not intend to ridicule any answer from you. Neither did I intend to do that with anything from Rick. I really still have no clue what that was about. All the best. diablo, Thanks, I understand, now. Your pictures 1 and 3 (in order of posting) are from Prom 1; Mendelssohn vln. concerto. Janine Johnson, Roger Norrington. Picture 2. was of Leila J. with the conducter Gerard Schwarz - that was the one I was at, and on which I was commenting. "The Mendelssohn" in that was Fingal's Cave, not the Vln concerto. So I was not ignoring Janine - she was not there. There is the US (N. California) Phiharmonia Baroque Orchestra there tonight. They are really good. |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 3553 Registered: Dec-03 | Sorry, posts crossed. I really must apologise also for rousing up this debate, and keeping it going. I must seem very tedious to innocent bystanders. I so nearly agree with Jan - the system should do nothing. All I would add is "except reproduce the original performance; doing this as well as the recording will allow." That is the system's whole point and purpose, it seems to me. It should reproduce the original sound, with nothing added, and nothing taken away. That is why we can and should look for ithe system's weak spots, and try to eliminate them. Then "magical" or any other quality we think we find in the music has a chance of getting through. That is my opinion, that is all I can say. Other people clearly want other things. I do apologise, also, if I have some huge blind spot and cannot understand what it is that so many here seem to be searching for. I really have tried. There is the music, and there is the system. There are the performers and the listeners; between them may be some air, a radio broadcast, or a recording; the ideal is when the listeners find that the medium becomes irrelevant, because they cannot distinguish the different media by means of the sound they hear: the medium is transparent. Then, all that matters is the performance. I have run out of analogies. If you like , the music and the system are like "chalk" and "cheese": words we use for one hardly make sense when applied to the other, not literally. Figuratively, perhaps ("Silver sound" etc). Isn't that a reasonable thing to say....? I hoped it was. Really. I also thought I could say it in simple words. Obviously I failed at that! It seems to be a common-sense view, to me, too. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4778 Registered: May-04 | John - I would rather look for the music's strengths than the system's weaknesses. As we agree, the system should do nothing. How can something fail at doing nothing? So why talk about what it can't do; let's discuss what we want it to do - reproduce music as we heard it in performance last night or sixty years ago. I think this is a matter of attitude, John. Look forward to what can be, not backwards at what never was. (Platitudes; chapter 1, verse 17. I think it also appeared in "Johnathan Livingston Seagull", but I won't go find out.) |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 3554 Registered: Dec-03 | Jan, How can something fail at doing nothing? By doing something. Recall hum, hiss, wow and flutter - crude things. Compression, colouration - more subtle things. Maybe there are things the system does that we cannot easily describe (imaging; soundstage?) and where we get stuck with the words we use. Amps, speakers etc are electronic devices. They introduce something of themselves into the sound. Or take something out. It is not easy to make components that do their job, and nothing else. All I suggest is that it is not part of their job to have musical qualities. That way lies confusion. I would rather look for the music's strengths than the system's weaknesses. Of course, yes! Me, too! But the system's weaknesses obscure or even conceal the music's strengths. We should find the system's weaknesses - the effects it has on the sound - and take 'em out, as far as practicable. We may have different opinions about which system effects should go first, and about which can be traded off against each other. But the "ideal" system has nothing at all that gets in the way of the music. I do think that is a much better way of looking at it than asking questions about which musical qualities the system should possess. That is the point I keep trying to make. I think we agree, mostly, and it is words that are the problem. Best regards to all. |
|
Silver Member Username: Joe_cOakwood, Ga Post Number: 788 Registered: Mar-05 | "broadsword calling danny boy, over" |
|
Unregistered guest | Myrantz....Art You have been two of the folks on this thread that have provied valuable input for me. It took me awhile to separate the posts into people. Probably the biggest reason I am here is the stimulation to a stagnated brain. I find pleasure in music, live, recorded, the equipment, etc. My brain had gained weight, wouldn't move, become lethargic in the area of music. You and the others gave me a kick start. First one post then another, I would ponder the different views, experiences and ways of expressing each. What fun! My brain is on its way to becoming nimble again and I thank you. If in that process I failed to respond to you, allowing you to feel ignored, I am sorry. That could not be farther from the truth. If we all had been at a gathering I would have been making eye contact as you spoke and would have been nodding agreement or understanding. I would not necessarily have spoken. If you had said "it" well, as you often do, then what is there for me to say? I do not always have something to say. In fact, some of the most thought provoking input requires a little time and pordering to fully absorb. You would have seen a responce. I still do not understand etiquette on this forum. Rude is never my intention. Art You seem to have divided us into two categories. I could not possably be considered " one of those that know everything". That leave the category of " disciple". OOOhhh...nasty!! It is not my style to jump into the fray just because there is one. All of you know each other, you have a history. The one time I made a comment on the struggling I addressed it to the wrong person, won't be doing that again. Would you mind telling me who it is that I am a "disciple" of? |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4784 Registered: May-04 | John - I still don't know where you found the idea we want the system to have "musical qualities". We want the system to be inert and nuetral. I do not want a speaker that plays like a violin. I want a speaker that lets me hear the violin on the source. I'm not asking what makes the system a musical instrument. I'm suggesting we stop talking about the system as if it had any "special" qualities and instead discuss the music we hear. I thought we agreed long ago that terms such as "too much high frequency emphasis" or "not enough bass extension" were descriptions we could all agree upon and those words could stay since they didn't equate any sort of mystical properties to the system in the way "imaging" does. "Not enough bass extension" simply states a situation that exists, we can all tell whether a system can reproduce 30Hz by putting a 30Hz signal into the system. But that has nothing to do with "soundstage" or "warmth" or "tube sound". If we did agree things that have clear explanations we can all agree upon, such as wow and flutter, can remain, then we needn't concern ourself about problems such as this in our language. If we say the system has a 60Hz hum, we can all agree on what that means and why it's objectionable. If we say the system is "syrupy" or "treacly", what have we said? Those words that don't have a specific meaning are what we are trying to replace here, John. Therefore, we don't want to talk about the system itself possessing any special qualities, musical or otherwise. If there are obvious problems with the reproduction of the music such as adding hiss, then we all know what we're talking about when we say "hiss". We can forget about imaging, soundstaging, focus, sryupy, sweet and so on as they are things we want to think the system "does". Once we eliminate those words, we can talk about the music we hear as if we were discussing what we would like in a better performance. We don't want the system to possess any qualities. We want the system to do nothing. We want the music to be the thing we pay attention to. That is the point I keep trying to make. Can we get past this idea of the system having musical qualities and talk about the quality of the music? |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 3561 Registered: Dec-03 | Jan, I still don't know where you found the idea we want the system to have "musical qualities". You asked what they were. Many people had a shot at that. We want the system to be inert and nuetral. That's what I said, or, at least intended to say! We don't want the system to possess any qualities. No, not musical qualities. Sorry, I really thought you were asking for words to describe qualities that we can find both in the music and in audio systems. This thread and the previous, archived parts are shot through with "qualities" and "quality" used in exactly that way - run "search"! Here are some examples Sunday, July 17, 2005 - 09:22 pm: That is where we are at the moment. Those five qualities (effortless, comes from a background of silence, allows us to envision the performers, and engages and communicates with us, moves forward) are what we've defined as qualities of live music we want to have in our audio system. Sunday, July 17, 2005 - 02:18 pm: We are discussing qualities we hear in live music which are required in an audio system to allow us to suspend belief. Going right back to Monday, June 27, 2005 - 12:34 am: I'm asking; 1) do you listen to live music, 2) do you compare the sound you hear from your system to that sound. If you do; 3) what quality is it that convinces you "this sounds like live performers - this sounds musical"? .... So, I have had these interesting questions in mind all the time. And I have expressed precisely the view you now state. Yet it was roundly criticized as being off-topic. If do apologise if I have misunderstood you! |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 3562 Registered: Dec-03 | Hey, look - many people had a go at answering those questions, in good faith. I also remember Rick's idea of "Seamless" and My Rantz's suggestions "vibrant three-dimensionality". Those are interesting and good suggestions. All I said was, essentially, that these terms make sense applied to systems, but not to music. No-one says such things about a musical performance, or about music. Then I suggested some qualities we might find in music - just in music - as requested, directly and explicitly, by Jan. So, why all the "acrimony"? If we disagree about what the topic is, we are still all trying to be constructive. No? I was. We all were, as far as I can see. |
|
Gold Member Username: MyrantzThe Land Dow... Post Number: 2185 Registered: Aug-04 | There you go again John, telling porkies! "Hey, look - many people had a go at answering those questions, in good faith. I also remember Rick's idea of "Seamless" and My Rantz's suggestions "vibrant three-dimensionality". "Those are interesting and good suggestions." YES, THE VERY ONES YOU RUBBISHED JOHN! "No-one says such things about a musical performance, or about music." HERE'S THE QUESTION AGAIN! 'What qualities do we hear in live music that we would like to have our audio systems possess? What can we say about the experience of hearing live music that we want to bring into our home systems to make them more "lifelike" MY ANSWER (vibrant three-dimensionality) WAS DIRECTLY RELATED TO A LIVE MUSICAL PERFORMANCE - SEE, I SAID SOMETHING ABOUT A MUSICAL PERFORMANCE AND WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO TAKE FROM ONE AND HAVE MY SYSTEM EMULATE - IF THAT WAS A POSSIBILTY! DO YOU GET IT! And you wonder about acrimony! Margie Thankyou - and in no way was my remark directed at you. You have been a worthy, polite and welcome contributor here - as are many others. Kegger - thanks mate. My mouth is much better, but I'll be even better in a few weeks when I have a mouthful of teeth again. Art - will have some more reviews soon on "rate your hi res discs" - another 5 hi-res discs just arrived from Kansas. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4787 Registered: May-04 | OK, as I said, I'm having a hard time being understood. Possibly because I wasn't that clear in what I was asking. My apologies. Are we clear where we need to head now? |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 3563 Registered: Dec-03 | Q. "What qualities do we hear in live music...." A. "Vibrant three-dimensionality" All I am saying is that this is a vivid phrase, but it seems to me to be something someone might say about the sound of a system. One could say it about the original live performance, but it hardly conveys anything - the performance was what it was. It seems to me to be "system" quality, not a "music" quality. One can use words in any way one likes of course. The question is whether one is understood. That was the point of the "Silver Sound" quote from Shakespeare, who understood this extremely well, it seems to me,and illustrated it with reference to music. Spot-on, I thought. I think I have said all I can, Jan, MR, and others. My position is as follows. There are words we can use, and be understood, to describe music, and another set of words we can use, and be understood, to describe audio systems and the sound they make. My central point is that these are non-overlapping sets of words. When we attribute musical properties to systems, or system properties to music, we are likely to be misunderstood, and it will not help us evaluate either. I am aware that a lot of equipment reviews and recorded music reviews make this mistake all the time. We are not alone. I still think it is a mistake. "YES, THE VERY ONES YOU RUBBISHED JOHN! " No, I did not. All I was saying is that these terms do not seem, to me, to apply to music, which was Jan's question. Same with "Seamless" - as I said, one can describe a musical performance as "Seamless" but I think that was not the sort of "Seamless" Rick had in mind. I would be wrong, and hope Rick will tell me, if so. It seems, in that context, to be a "System" word, not a "Music" word. Finally, "acrimony". "There you go again John, telling porkies! " Let me translate, for those unfamiliar with Cockney rhyming slang. "Porkie" equals "Pork Pie" which means "Lie". I was not telling lies, I assure you. I may have been mistaken. That is a different allegation, and one I am grateful to learn about, and to think about, if it is explained. Are we making progress? I think so, and do hope so! Best wishes |
|
Silver Member Username: Joe_cOakwood, Ga Post Number: 821 Registered: Mar-05 | This is why I am not contributing anymore, it seems like john and MR have taken over and what anyone else says gets pushed aside. |
|
Silver Member Username: Frank_abelaBerkshire UK Post Number: 717 Registered: Sep-04 | Hi - I know I've stayed out of this thread. It was doing my head in (and the acrimony above might put me off coming back), but I noticed one thing that I felt needed a response. Jan I disagree with you at a most basic level I'm afraid. You said to John: I still don't know where you found the idea we want the system to have "musical qualities". We want the system to be inert and nuetral. I do not want a speaker that plays like a violin. I want a speaker that lets me hear the violin on the source. Of course I want my system to have musical qualities! Fine, I'd like to hear the violin on the source, but I will not want to listen to the violin on the source if the system has no musical qualities. If all it does is transcribe the sound without conveying the emotional connection of the artist, then I'll be just as happy watching paint dry. Therefore, I would more happily accept a system that is characterful and has musical qualities than a system which is inert and neutral and conveys no emotion. Regards, Frank. |
|
Gold Member Username: Rick_bNew York USA Post Number: 1243 Registered: Dec-03 | OK, I have heard more than enough. From what I have been reading lately, I have no more interest here. So with all due repect to those I have shared posts with, please consider this my last. For those that don't get it: The system should be neutral. It should get out of the way and let the music happen. You should get the emotion from the performance, not the system. Let's get to the music itself, for a moment. What should music do? STIR THE EMOTIONS!!!! How should it be performed? WITH PASSION FOR THE MATERIAL!!! Music performed without passion, is just noise.............. I asked a question on another thread a while ago: Do you love music, or just the way it sounds? No one got that one either..............pity. Stay well all......If anyone wants to discuss tubes, single driver speaker systems, or room treatments, please send an email. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4789 Registered: May-04 | " If all it does is transcribe the sound without conveying the emotional connection of the artist, then I'll be just as happy watching paint dry." "The system should be neutral. It should get out of the way and let the music happen. You should get the emotion from the performance, not the system." "What if, instead, we want to listen to music which "engages" us? What if we want to air conduct to a band that played their music sixty years ago? Are we then after "soundstage", or are we after "a breathtaking section ... where the choir gets smaller and smaller in a reflective stanza"?" "There are some moments where the orchestra fades away, leaving her singing a suspended high note, raising the hairs on the back of the neck." " ... that makes "true to life" the goal, not what gets us there. As best as I can figure we've got words such as "effortless", "engaging and involving", "having a black background of silence", "allows us to envision what is (not) there", "relaxed", "allows us to relive emotions or find new suprising moments" and, of course, "sounds like the real instruments". My question at this point is: do these words that come from the music help you understand what you're hearing in a system? Which is a better decsription of what you want to ask for in a system; "it allows me to envision or 'see' what is (not) there" or "it needs a better soundstage"? Which is better; "the system constantly has the ability to suprise me" or "I can't hear the guitars"? At the risk of obfuscation, let me step into the ring again to say I understand what Frank is saying. However, as with "wow and flutter" or "has to much high frequency content", we have covered this territory long ago. I can't imagine that asking for the music to be reproduced in an engaging and involving manner is not asking for more than wet paint. Our only problem we face is whether the original performance was engaging and involving and were those qualities captured on the recording. Otherwise, if we ask for "a system that is characterful and has musical qualities" we find ourself putting Rum in the batter twice when we play an engaging and involving piece of music through that system. It is the equivalent of viewing a red cloth through a red filtered light source. You are making an intentional alteration to the original. If that is the goal, we come down to discussing personal preferences. With that there can be little argument. If anyone wishes to deviate from the original, that is their choice. The probem with that approach is the red filtered light will always be there and will affect each source. The red filtered light gets its effect by removing the blue wavelengths. What happens when that red filter is used on a blue cloth? Depending on the purity and intensity of the red filter, the blue cloth appears grey. None the less, that is a personal choice in what anyone wants their system "to do". It in no way affects whether the music is "effortless", "relaxed" or "allows us to envision what is (not) there)", etc. As I said "true to life" (or whatever we term we wish to put at the center of the bullseye) is the goal. Each of the qualities we identify are the pie segment radians that come from the center bullseye and radiate outward. Each of us sets our own priorities and determines how close to the goal we want to get. Some might put effortless as the most important radian to aim for (20 points), giving up engaging (7 points) to some extent. At some point the amount of each quality is broad and then narrows down (gets more specific) as we get closer to the bullseye. As we get each quality closer to the goal of "true to life" the score we give each quality gets higher. Each quality gets a higher score as we move toward the bullseye until eventually we reach the center where all qualities have been given equal merit. If someone consistently wants to place their dart in the "engaging" radian, that is their choice. Someone else might choose differently. At this point our goal is to identify what quality of music each radian represents. ***************** John - Just as a reference, and not wishing to start another squabble, here's the defintion of "silvery" included in the Stereophile glossary of audio terms. I doubt this is what you or William had in mind when you both used the word. "silvery: Sound that is slightly hard or steely, but clean." |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4791 Registered: May-04 | This taken from another thread: "I have realised that I do have some more hard listening to do. I here words like 'warmer' and 'character' and 'bright' and I thought I knew what those things meant, now I'm not sure." https://www.ecoustics.com/electronics/forum/home-audio/152417.html I find it increasingly difficult to get agreement on what these sort of words mean when describing an audio system's performance or lack of performance. Does anyone agree or disagree? |
|
Silver Member Username: Devils_advocatePost Number: 140 Registered: Jul-05 | I have a vague idea of what bright and warm are supposed to mean; don't know about character, silvery, etc. I can't say I've experienced a system that has been overly bright, warm, dark, et al that I am aware of, but my tastes are far less demanding than some. I have a pair of headphones with more detail than my stereo system, but that was harsh to listen to for long periods of time. I suppose that could be considered bright. Fortunately that problem of harshness has disappeared, whether through my own adjustment or the headphones breaking in. |
|
Silver Member Username: DakulisSpokane, Washington United States Post Number: 352 Registered: May-05 | Geez, Hardly know where to start now. I thought I had synthesized where Jan wanted to go. John took us in a different direction. No problem, I generally enjoy side trips. Art, dropped the "know it all" or "disciples" bomb. Well, I know very little and the only discipling I intend to do has nothing to do with audio and suggests that I just turn the other cheek and let that one slide. Joseph, Frank and Rick returned for brief cameos. My R-man and John seem to be fighing a battle long since forgotten by most of us, if ever really remembered or understood, and I must concede, I don't think John is even certain how the battle began. My R-Man threw out the "porkies" comment and John enlightened us on "porkies" meaning and here I thought My R-Man was referring to an incredibly poor American movie. Margie, I agree that oftimes it's better to sit on the sidelines, listen and learn, rather than speak and put foot in mouth or someplace even darker. I believe that's the Readers Digest "condensed" version for you playing at home. So, I've already described what I want from the music, I believe. I know I don't really want my system to colour it for me, although it does because it's manmade and imperfect, just like it's maker. So, what's the point now? Is there something left to discuss or am I to just throw darts at a dart board where there's no rhyme and no reason? I jumped into this thread because it seemed intellectually stimulating at times and I've jumped out when it got unnecessarily antagonistic. I'm sorta leaning towards the standing on the sidelines until the dust settles to see if there's a point or if testerone and egos are going to win out. Chess anyone? |
|
Gold Member Username: KeggerWarren, MICHIGAN Post Number: 2556 Registered: Dec-03 | Jan what I think the problem with this thread is that it's to difficult to convey in words and people perceptions to get everyone to agree on what costitutes a good performance be it the system or the event. You said it yourself many people look for different things and want a certain thing from there performance and there system that you will never get all people to agree that this quality or that quality or the system to get out of the way or to interject a certain something for it to be musically enjoying for them. I think of this thread as a dog chasing his tale which he can't get to. I'm sorry that is my observation of this thread. I see that it was entertaining for some and even thought provoking at times which made people really listen and ponder what it is they really are hearing but in the end everyone is different! |
|
Silver Member Username: Joe_cOakwood, Ga Post Number: 824 Registered: Mar-05 | "I find it increasingly difficult to get agreement on what these sort of words mean when describing an audio system's performance or lack of performance. Does anyone agree or disagree?" Totally agree. What I used to think was bright does not match what I consider bright now i have had alot more systems run through my ears and alot more knowledge through my brain(mostly from here). Before I knew any better, "warmth" was a positive attribute, now I consider it one more dirty lens between me and the image, so to speak. Also, to me , "bright" being used to describe speakers or amplifiers has nothing to do with too much treble or high frequency. It has more to do with being harsh with the high end. Once again, to prove your question, some might disgree with my choice of the word "harsh" to describe what I was talking about. So yes it is hard to relay to people through words from the stereo "glossary". On a side note, all of you need to try out Ottmar liebert for some beautiful Latin guitar and Eric Bibb for some great "New Orleans" style guitar. |
|
Unregistered guest | Jan I have completely lost continuity. Sorry. Today is a new day so I will respond....to today. Warm...a bias toward lower frequencies (roughly) Bright....a bias toward higher frequencies (roughly) Your comment about putting rum in the batter twice ( not a bad thing ) and the use of the red filter viewing red cloth as opposed to viewing blue cloth is where the confusion come in. Manufactures products have a personality. It may be stronger or weaker, more apparent on one product or another, but in my experience it's there. This is the reason that lovely pieces paired with other lovely pieces can sound just awful. A personality conflict in a sound system can be just as devastating as among friends. If all the components have the same bias, warm for example, the sound can end up very warm. This may be pleasing on some music and to some ears but become boomy, muddy, lacking high end, whatever on other music and other ears. If the bias' are opposed, some warm some bright it may just wash out leaving you to wonder why any of the mfg. are still in business. It's balance or compatibility that will reproduce the sound as the mfg. intended. Now we are in a position to choose a personility....we've only just begun. All the other words: effortless, black background of silence, etc. start now. And we still have a personility that may be warm or bright. IMHO Lots of help.... |
|
Unregistered guest | Dave..Kegger..Joe Your post weren't up when I started mine. Dave you are a wise man maybe there is hope for the legal profession. Keg agreement is a difficult goal. In the pursuit of the goal we have provoked some thought, " made people really listen and ponder what it is they are really hearing" . That is worthwhile. Yes in the end we are all different. But we will have benefited from the journey wheather we reached the goal or not. Joe I think we are in the same place. I have rethought this and that, over all leaving me with better understanding. Doesn't that prove my point? If we are at a better place at the end of the journey wasn't it worth the trip even if we didn't end up where we expected to? |
|
Gold Member Username: KeggerWarren, MICHIGAN Post Number: 2557 Registered: Dec-03 | Good points margie I was kinda trying to say that. This thread has provoked some good thought and some have I'm sure gained from it. But I was also saying that the stress that has accured with this thread I believe comes from the points I made above, "very diffiult to agree." I know you didn't mean this, but I also don't want my post to come out like this either. (That this thread was not needed and didn't do any good) That is certainly not what I mean! And again I'm not accusing anyone of saying that that is what I'm saying. I'm just saying I can see where the tention comes from. |
|
Silver Member Username: Joe_cOakwood, Ga Post Number: 830 Registered: Mar-05 | Jan's mama wears army boots! |
|
Gold Member Username: MyrantzThe Land Dow... Post Number: 2186 Registered: Aug-04 | "This is why I am not contributing anymore, it seems like john and MR have taken over and what anyone else says gets pushed aside." I've hardly taken over Joseph, go back up this page and count my posts. The only reason I came back was to tick John A off for misrepresenting the truth about the said 'acrimony' - distortion seems to be his forte' of late. Yes, I'll admit to posting a harsh commnent to John way back there somewhere, but I did write an apology of sorts but he chose to continue to put down thread comments made by me and some others and then go on to say they were good comments. Give me a break! Anyway, I said I was leaving and for the sake of letting you all continue in harmony I will. I may appear on other threads to rate music or offer some lowly advice. Otherwise, that's it from me. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4792 Registered: May-04 | I think one thing that has come from this thread is, as Margie said, the journey. I don't know if that is over yet or not. Really good journeys seem never to end completely as you can always draw from the previous experience when new experiences come around. But I have to disagree with Kegger as to where this trip was headed and the route we've taken. The intent was not to get people to agree that "effortless" (or any other term) is the most important quality of the music we hear. None of the terms and phrases we have identified are meant to be the most important quality for everyone. Instead the journey was to point out interesting sights along the way that some of us enjoy more than others. (I'm still amazed Margie found that Popsicle stick monument so fascinating, but we can all agree we've never thought of the Lincoln Memorial in just that way until we came across it.) That's how trips with a group of people generally go, some wander off to inspect "relaxed" while others stay in the car when we pull up to "envision yada-yada". I feel saying this thread is meant to get anyone to think this or that quality is the primo classico of music, and its reproduction, is no more valid than saying the Stereophile Glossary of terms is trying to convince anyone "warm", "soundstage" or "tube sound" are qualities they must prize most highly. Maybe some people do value those Stereophile qualities, but just as many don't and quite a few don't understand what those words mean. As you can see, John's intention for using "silvery" is probably not Sterophile's intended usage. So why use words that have vague meanings and little understanding? That was what Stereophile was trying to get away from when Holt began publishing the magazine back in the 1970's. He wanted to find a new way to speak and think about audio products that everyone could understand. How successful was he at that goal? "I here words like 'warmer' and 'character' and 'bright' and I thought I knew what those things meant, now I'm not sure." The terms and phrases we've come up with are more concrete ways to think about what we want to hear in music - especially music reproduced in our homes. We all get to decide which one gets 20 points and which gets 5 points. The benefit of this is we've all thought about the situation in a new light and what is important to each of us. If we go no further, that was worth the trip. If we continue to occasionally think of the music we hear, whether live or recorded, in new ways, that can't be a bad thing. Margie - Let me see if I can un-confuse you about the Rum, the light and the cloth. I have an old, Italian recipe for rice pudding which uses Rum. When done properly, you barely notice the Rum among the other spices and rich, sweet flavors of the pudding. When someone adds the second amount of Rum to the recipe because they prefer Rum, the Rum becomes the predominant flavor. Every bite has the taste of Rum in front instead of each bite finding Rum underneath the other flavors. Some people liked that pudding with the extra Rum and some couldn't eat it. The point is when the Rum is there as the result of the original recipe, the flavors are balanced. Once the rum is in both the original recipe and the cook's good intentions, the flavor is altered from what is intended. While that might please some, it can easily not please others. It is a matter of having too much of a good thing. Back in the yin yang discussion we had the idea each is a part of the other and one cannot stand without the other as the point of comparison. That is what we are looking at here. Instead of saying "envision what is (not) there", we can split that into two statements one being "envision what is there" (yin) and the other being "envision what is not there" (yang). Depending on how much importance you place on the qualities, you could say the system lets me "find suprises in the music" or "lets me relive emotions through the music". One has to have the other and how many points you give each and where you place your dart in relation to the bullseye will be your choice. But if we're saying this is a quality we value, then it should be valued for its existence in the original recipe - the music, not the system. Otherwise we start to add extra Rum to the pudding. Products are imperfect and all we can say is we hope for the most "true to life" sound and settle for what we can afford. Hopefully this is easier to do with the idea of effortless as a quality of the music than it would be to seek out a broader soundstage from the system. When I made this recipe one time, I didn't know someone had used all the Rum in the house. With half the recipe on the stove, I headed to the nearest store to find the ingredient that brightens the flavors. Where I always used a light Rum all I could find was a dark Rum. In it went in what I hoped would be the amount required to compensate for the difference between the two flavors. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4793 Registered: May-04 | That last bit at the bottom should have been deleted, sorry. |
|
Silver Member Username: Joe_cOakwood, Ga Post Number: 835 Registered: Mar-05 | ....army boots!!! |
|
Silver Member Username: DakulisSpokane, Washington United States Post Number: 359 Registered: May-05 | Margie, i don't know if there's any hope for the legal profession. It seems lately that i've been studying hi-fi more than torts, contracts and the like. It's much more enjoyable, too. JOSEPH!!! It was funny the first time but you're starting to remind me of Paul or Tommy Smothers or Richard Pryor, or was that Little Richard? Jan, I'll take 1 from column A, 2 from column B and I suspect in an hour or so, I'll be hungry again. Great journey so far. ARE WE THERE, YET? |
|
Silver Member Username: NuckParkhill, Ontario Canada Post Number: 113 Registered: Dec-04 | Ladies and Gentlemen, is it not clear that the medium is the message. Coveting clarity, striving for personal enjoyment nirvana and pride of ownership are achieved throught the vehicle of our shared,collective pleasure. In striving for the finest words, I quote my nephew, aged 12. That sounds really cool! |
|
Gold Member Username: KeggerWarren, MICHIGAN Post Number: 2558 Registered: Dec-03 | "But I have to disagree with Kegger as to where this trip was headed and the route we've taken. The intent was not to get people to agree that "effortless" (or any other term) is the most important quality of the music we hear" My point was though Jan by not being able to agree on these things and saying, "no I don't think so" is what has ruffled some feathers weather you realize it or want to admit it. Many have stated things then others come along and say again! "no I don't think so" Well when someone tries to come up with something and they have given it quite a bit of thought to only have someone come by and say! "no I don't think so" that is what upsets people. So that is what I mean by agreeing, all the bickering and edgyness that has been on this thread has stemmed from someones thought being dissed or shot down! |
|
Silver Member Username: DakulisSpokane, Washington United States Post Number: 361 Registered: May-05 | Kegger, "No, i don't think so." Hey, just kidding. Geez, maybe it's just me, there's been some edgyness, some bickering, some whining, some cooing, some blather, some erudite comments and siloqueys (John still wins the latter category for a number of different posts) and some soul searching but I don't think harm was intended by anyone. I have found that some on this site have strong opinions and opine them strongly. That can hurt feelings certainly but it's usually just best to examine the opinion, remove the rhetoric and weigh it for content. Give it credence or reject, that's the joy of not being in someone's face when making a strong point with ferocious language. (It's easier to duck from here.) I think somehow Art got offended and, obviously, My Rantz, both of whom I respect highly, as well. I doubt that offense was intended but maybe it was. Rick got ticked, too, and I've tried to go back and figure out why but it's way too many posts and time ago. So, I reiterate, ARE WE THERE, YET? Is this the logical end or is there more to be said, about the music and how it gets from point A (real) to point B (perceived through a system)? I can describe to my heart's content and I believe that no one will, of necessity, agree with my opinions or the words I use to express them. But, if we start with basic agreement on what my words mean, then everyone can, at least, criticize and object so that I can understand why exception is taken. Sheesh, now I've lost myself, where was I? |
|
Gold Member Username: KeggerWarren, MICHIGAN Post Number: 2559 Registered: Dec-03 | Good one Dakulis! LOL! |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4794 Registered: May-04 | It's true some people have not cared for the tenor of this thread. Could it be possible that what one person percieves as, "No, I don't think so", could be meant to say, "Why don't you think about that some more"? |
|
Silver Member Username: DakulisSpokane, Washington United States Post Number: 363 Registered: May-05 | Jan, In the hopes of getting Joseph off your mother's army boots, and while I'm hot, "No, I don't think so." LOL |
Main Forums
Today's Posts- Home Audio Forum
- A/V Receivers Forum
- Amps Forum
- Cassette Forum
- CD Players Forum
- CD Recorders Forum
- DAC & Transports Forum
- DVD-Audio & SACD Forum
- Equalizers Forum
- Integrated Amps Forum
- iPod Docks Forum
- MiniDisc Forum
- Mini Systems Forum
- Digital Music Systems Forum
- Phono Forum
- Preamps Forum
- Speakers Forum
- Subwoofers Forum
- Tuners Forum
- Home Video Forum
- Home Theater Forum
- Car Audio Forum
- Accessories Forum
- All Forum Topics