My uncomfortable audio and music self-awareness

[Neil McCauley]

First, I include myself in the following observation. Although the only forum I'm a member of is this one, I do take a look at quite a few others; UK-based, USA, Canadian and so on.

Many non-AoS threads, but by no means all tend to lose direction, end in acrimony and so on. it seems to me that a significant input to this are contributors stating an opinion as hard fact. It’s easy to do as I have found re my own attitude to some music.

A personal example of this was my oft stated observation (usually uninvited) that all rap music was/is “rubbish”. The point being that in ignorance, the fact that I didn’t like it, didn’t engage with it prompted me to that point of view. I still don't like it, but that doesn't mean it's rubbish.

Thus in this example, and others, the fact I don’t like a music genre or equipment brand or designer cannot legitimately be used by me as justification to state my opinion as a fact. I'm trying hard to adhere to this, but inconveniently my prejudices run deeper than I initially thought.

Are others aware of this in themselves? Thanks. HP

[struth]

There are many that do:eyebrows: I guess i'm not passionate enough to be bothered too much and it does take all sorts to make a world. if someone wants advice i will TRY to help...(dont succeed much):eek:

[Macca]

I do call some music rubbish sometimes but only as a friendly wind-up.

It is when you diss someone's equipment that it starts getting serious....

[Joe]

I am constantly aware of the danger Howard outlines. It's essentially an adolescent attitude: 'I hate Maths, therefore Maths is stupid/pointless/boring'; or the flip-side 'I think history is fascinating; therefore anyone who disagrees is an ignoramus.'

It's why I'm very reluctant to slag off equipment; it might not have worked for me, in my room, in my system, with my music, but maybe it would work for someone else in a different context. The only exception, and I've only really had one example of this, is poor workmanship, because if the manufacturer's quality control was poor in my case, it might well be generally poor.

(Of course, this means I come across as an indecisive fence-sitter, forever agreeing to differ).

[Ammonite Audio]

Since acoustics is my business, I have a possibly broader understanding of the human auditory system than most others, and I am very much aware that my own musical preferences and tastes in equipment etc are just my own and do not necessarily represent any norm. Other people perceive things differently, but it's quite difficult for anyone to understand that what they hear and see may not be what the next person hears and sees. So, I try to retain a balanced and understanding outlook on what others write here and elsewhere; however it is sometimes difficult! It is a challenge!

Anyone doubting what I have said should consider that not all people can see those 3D pictures that were popular some years ago; not all people perceive Schoenberg's works as music; some people see and taste in colour; and of course not everyone likes Rap. All of that is bound up in our very individual brains and how they work and (in the audio context) how they decode music. I like to think of our brains as all being variations on a common computer architecture, with the equivalent of different and very individual codecs for decoding and appreciating music. Does anyone here doubt that different audio codecs result in different sound and music quality? Probably not. What goes into the outer ear is the same for me and anyone else, but from the middle ear onwards it's all very individual.

[Neil McCauley]

Since acoustics is my business, I have a possibly broader understanding of the human auditory system than most others, and I am very much aware that my own musical preferences and tastes in equipment etc are just my own and do not necessarily represent any norm. Other people perceive things differently, but it's quite difficult for anyone to understand that what they hear and see may not be what the next person hears and sees. So, I try to retain a balanced and understanding outlook on what others write here and elsewhere; however it is sometimes difficult! It is a challenge!

Anyone doubting what I have said should consider that not all people can see those 3D pictures that were popular some years ago; not all people perceive Schoenberg's works as music; some people see and taste in colour; and of course not everyone likes Rap. All of that is bound up in our very individual brains and how they work and (in the audio context) how they decode music. I like to think of our brains as all being variations on a common computer architecture, with the equivalent of different and very individual codecs for decoding and appreciating music. Does anyone here doubt that different audio codecs result in different sound and music quality? Probably not. What goes into the outer ear is the same for me and anyone else, but from the middle ear onwards it's all very individual.

Thank you and +1

[Neil McCauley]

I am constantly aware of the danger Howard outlines. It's essentially an adolescent attitude: 'I hate Maths, therefore Maths is stupid/pointless/boring'; or the flip-side 'I think history is fascinating; therefore anyone who disagrees is an ignoramus.'

It's why I'm very reluctant to slag off equipment; it might not have worked for me, in my room, in my system, with my music, but maybe it would work for someone else in a different context. The only exception, and I've only really had one example of this, is poor workmanship, because if the manufacturer's quality control was poor in my case, it might well be generally poor.

(Of course, this means I come across as an indecisive fence-sitter, forever agreeing to differ).

Thank you and +1

[Stratmangler]

I'm not all that taken with Rap either.
There are exceptions though - this is excellent :D

FtK_vfp8po8

[The Black Adder]

With music, it's very much like art. I'm an artist and now and then I get people (with an overwhelming false sense of superiority) say my work is 'crap'.

This kind of throwaway statement has no constructive basis, no reasoning to deserve such a pathetic, knee jerk statement. You either like it or not, but just as good as giving a reason why someone would love it (which in general, people would have no problem giving a positive reason), that same effort is generally not given if they don't love it and deem it substandard. Why?.. well because they don't really know why.

It's based on a personal teaching, something being different can be misconstrued as being offensive or classed as an overwhelming objection to what they are comfortable with.

For me, music is art whichever way you look at it. Performance is art also and both are subjective to taste. To state a certain style of genre as 'rubbish' is a personal preference but with that decision it must have some kind of construct. If not, IMO it's simply not a statement of any worth.

[awkwardbydesign]

All my opinions ARE facts. And that's a fact! :whistle:
This forum is one of the better ones for lack of bile, but no-one's perfect.

[awkwardbydesign]

I'm not all that taken with Rap either.
There are exceptions though - this is excellent :D

FtK_vfp8po8

I don't even like tea, but I do like this. :lol:

[Beobloke]

That's the problem with hi-fi, certainly - ask 10 people to go into a room and listen to a system and you'll most likely get 10 different opinions on the sound! Different people hear things differently so it's no wonder there are disagreements.

[Ammonite Audio]

With music, it's very much like art. I'm an artist and now and then I get people (with an overwhelming false sense of superiority) say my work is 'crap'.

This kind of throwaway statement has no constructive basis, no reasoning to deserve such a pathetic, knee jerk statement. You either like it or not, but just as good as giving a reason why someone would love it (which in general, people would have no problem giving a positive reason), that same effort is generally not given if they don't love it and deem it substandard. Why?.. well because they don't really know why.

It's based on a personal teaching, something being different can be misconstrued as being offensive or classed as an overwhelming objection to what they are comfortable with.

For me, music is art whichever way you look at it. Performance is art also and both are subjective to taste. To state a certain style of genre as 'rubbish' is a personal preference but with that decision it must have some kind of construct. If not, IMO it's simply not a statement of any worth.

+1

Did you see that recent(ish) BBC series titled something like "Britain's Best Artist" or similar? The two 'experts' had that overwhelming sense of superiority that you mention, but both were very much traditional figurative artists, who sneered at the youngest contestant who produced (in my view) some outstanding and heartfelt stuff - she tried to take on board what they wanted and it all went to pieces. I would not give either experts' paintings any room on my walls, since I broadly dislike figurative art; however that does not mean that I don't appreciate Constable's skill in painting his works - I just don't feel moved by the end result. Someone who likes Constable would similarly probably not feel moved by my Barbara Hepworth and other 20th Century abstract pieces cluttering up my house.

So, as you say, it's largely a matter of taste, but "taste" is complicated by how our brains are wired up, and that's where individual perception comes in, whether we are talking about visual art or music.

[Macca]

That's the problem with hi-fi, certainly - ask 10 people to go into a room and listen to a system and you'll most likely get 10 different opinions on the sound! Different people hear things differently so it's no wonder there are disagreements.

No I don't buy it. People may disagree on the presentation but not on the quality (or otherwise). That's been my experience. The recent Cranage Hall show was a good example. We are not as different as we like to think.

[Hipper]

I think there are too many bigots who appear on threads.

These people have no consideration for others who are merely asking advice and just have to make their statement - 'all amps sound the same'; 'speaker cables make no difference' etc. etc. even though it is not original or welcome. It's tedious and rather pathetic.

They annoy me but I feel sorry for them with their closed minded attitude. Whether they are like that in real life I don't know or care. What I do know is they spoil far too many threads.

'All rap is rubbish' and similar statements on music (and art) are easily ignored!

[Neil McCauley]

I think there are too many bigots who appear on threads.

These people have no consideration for others who are merely asking advice and just have to make their statement - 'all amps sound the same'; 'speaker cables make no difference' etc. etc. even though it is not original or welcome. It's tedious and rather pathetic.

They annoy me but I feel sorry for them with their closed minded attitude. Whether they are like that in real life I don't know or care. What I do know is they spoil far too many threads.

'All rap is rubbish' and similar statements on music (and art) are easily ignored!

+1

[Joe]

No I don't buy it. People may disagree on the presentation but not on the quality (or otherwise). That's been my experience. The recent Cranage Hall show was a good example. We are not as different as we like to think.

Which is why we all have the same systems.

Seriously though, I asked about possible new speakers on A.N.Other forum. Not only did I get multiple different recommendations (which is to be expected) but some people's favourites were others' betes noires.

[Spectral Morn]

Which is why we all have the same systems.

Seriously though, I asked about possible new speakers on A.N.Other forum. Not only did I get multiple different recommendations (which is to be expected) but some people's favourites were others' betes noires.

I often wonder :scratch: why folks just jump in with recommendations but don't ask questions before hand, size of room, room construction, system, musical tastes - all of which makes massive differences to speaker performance and suitability.


Regards Neil

[shane]

This was brought home to me just a couple of days ago by Box13's post asking members' opinions of a pair of Wharfedale Glendale XP2s he'd spotted on Ebay (don't worry, I'm not joining in with the Box-bashing brigade, it's just that his recent threads illustrate my point rather well). My immediate reaction was "don't touch them with a bargepole. They were a heap of **** 40 years ago and they won't have got any better since then". It then occurred to me that forty years ago I'd have said the same about most Celestion Ditton series speakers, all Shure and Goldring cartridges, Pioneer turntables and quite a lot of other stuff, all of which now have enthusiastic followings here on AoS among people who show no other sign of being either deaf or deranged. I therefore have to assume that in hifi there are now no such thing as facts, only opinions, and that therefore seeking the advice of others is a pointless exercise.

Ultimately, there are only two answers. 1) I like it, or 2) I don't like it. Neither of them are of much use to anyone else.

[Joe]

I often wonder :scratch: why folks just jump in with recommendations but don't ask questions before hand, size of room, room construction, system, musical tastes - all of which makes massive differences to speaker performance and suitability.


Regards Neil

To be fair, those questions were asked and answered, which makes the multiplicity and variety of responses all the more puzzling.

[Spectral Morn]

To be fair, those questions were asked and answered.

Fair enough Joe, it was a general observation and not specific to your situation.



Regards Neil

[Macca]

Which is why we all have the same systems.

Seriously though, I asked about possible new speakers on A.N.Other forum. Not only did I get multiple different recommendations (which is to be expected) but some people's favourites were others' betes noires.

If we all had the same room and the same amount of money to spend we might well all end up with the same system, given enough time.

[Joe]

If we all had the same room and the same amount of money to spend we might well all end up with the same system, given enough time.

And we've have typed out the entire works of Shakespeare an all.

[The Black Adder]

+1

Did you see that recent(ish) BBC series titled something like "Britain's Best Artist" or similar? The two 'experts' had that overwhelming sense of superiority that you mention, but both were very much traditional figurative artists, who sneered at the youngest contestant who produced (in my view) some outstanding and heartfelt stuff - she tried to take on board what they wanted and it all went to pieces. I would not give either experts' paintings any room on my walls, since I broadly dislike figurative art; however that does not mean that I don't appreciate Constable's skill in painting his works - I just don't feel moved by the end result. Someone who likes Constable would similarly probably not feel moved by my Barbara Hepworth and other 20th Century abstract pieces cluttering up my house.

So, as you say, it's largely a matter of taste, but "taste" is complicated by how our brains are wired up, and that's where individual perception comes in, whether we are talking about visual art or music.

+1

I didn't see that, no.

But remember, TV is TV... it's made for an existing audience and positioned to what people would like to see. That's what I believe is part of the problem for today's society. TV is overtaking reality, mostly everything (especially talent shows) are simply a 'cooky cut', a facsimile of the last 'hit' show. They all drive on the same aspects to make the show interesting to the 'already conditioned' fans of that format. Sounds cynical to some, but it's true.

False hopes and false reality for social climbing non entities. Any artistic talent comes in at a poor second place to celebrity.

In my opinion a true (respected) artist will have the decency of giving an appreciated nod at another artist even though they have a massive void in personal and artistic differences.

I don't watch talent shows, or bake-off's... two of the most linear and unoriginal formats on TV. It's money for olde rope.

[aniki]

If we all had the same room and the same amount of money to spend we might well all end up with the same system, given enough time.

I think 'taste in music' is a rather fundamental factor to add to that and one that IMO influences greatly peoples opinions on what sounds good to them and what doesn't.

[Spectral Morn]

+1

I didn't see that, no.

But remember, TV is TV... it's made for an existing audience and positioned to what people would like to see. That's what I believe is part of the problem for today's society. TV is overtaking reality, mostly everything (especially talent shows) are simply a 'cooky cut', a facsimile of the last 'hit' show. They all drive on the same aspects to make the show interesting to the 'already conditioned' fans of that format. Sounds cynical to some, but it's true.

False hopes and false reality for social climbing non entities. Any artistic talent comes in at a poor second place to celebrity.

In my opinion a true (respected) artist will have the decency of giving an appreciated nod at another artist even though they have a massive void in personal and artistic differences.

I don't watch talent shows, or bake-off's... two of the most linear and unoriginal formats on TV. It's money for olde rope.

I mostly agree but Sky Arts Guitar Star and to an extent The Voice have managed to present genuine talent and in a non 'freak show' way.


Regards Neil

[dougmon]

I see this over and over again in some other forums. The thing that really bothers me is when it descends to the level of personal attacks. ("all amps sound the same and if you don't hear that, you're both stupid and deluded!" I mentioned recently to a local audio buff that my DAC was not a good match with my new amp, and he said something on the level of "Oh, you're just listening for the wrong things."

On the other hand, I recently asked for a recommendation on AoS, and one member made a general statement that has led me to do hours of research. So there are counter-examples to the "true audio believers" who think that their way is the only way.

[Gordon Steadman]

+1

I didn't see that, no.

But remember, TV is TV... it's made for an existing audience and positioned to what people would like to see. That's what I believe is part of the problem for today's society. TV is overtaking reality, mostly everything (especially talent shows) are simply a 'cooky cut', a facsimile of the last 'hit' show. They all drive on the same aspects to make the show interesting to the 'already conditioned' fans of that format. Sounds cynical to some, but it's true.

False hopes and false reality for social climbing non entities. Any artistic talent comes in at a poor second place to celebrity.

In my opinion a true (respected) artist will have the decency of giving an appreciated nod at another artist even though they have a massive void in personal and artistic differences.

I don't watch talent shows, or bake-off's... two of the most linear and unoriginal formats on TV. It's money for olde rope.

Ye gods, it makes me glad I don't have a TV. But then, that too is used by some to cock a snoop at my intellectual snobbery. I think it asks quite a lot of people to suspend what are no doubt honestly held beliefs in order to avoid upsetting other people. However, if we wish to live in a society rather than in splendid isolation, a bit of give and take seems in order.

My aversion to the C Rap was formed when it first hit the market. Two young men who played nothing but at volume 11 all day every day did tend to affect my feeling towards their muzac!! oops!

Most of our likes and dislikes are formed during that magic period when everything seems alive, vivid and meaningful - for most between 18 and 35 but probably getting younger now. What ever is mainstream at that time tends - not always of course - to be what we carry forward. For some it might just be who we mix with. That means there is always going to be differences of opinion. Twas ever thus. You should have heard what my mum said about Lonnie Donegan.

My comment about the Jam may well be how I would feel - if I had ever heard any of their music.

[The Black Adder]

I mostly agree but Sky Arts Guitar Star and to an extent The Voice have managed to present genuine talent and in a non 'freak show' way.


Regards Neil


Not seen the Sky one as I've not got Sky... :) So I can't comment on that.

I have to disagree on The Voice. The point to these shows is ratings and these formats use the dirtiest trick in the book, embarrassment and televising the crushing of self respect (+confidence) of it's contestants because the only reason why the contestants are their in the first place is because they want to live a celebrity life more than anything in the world.

The Voice is different in it's initial style I agree. And this is why it (I believe) wasn't a huge hit at first because the public were conditioned to a much more original glitzy and rather typical cover image, but the principle idea is still the same and no different in that respect from The X-Factor etc. Using people as pawns for ratings. A Simon Cowarse spesh. :)

Now here is the twist that cooks my beef... who is to blame for this? Is it the networks? The program makers? The production companies? Or the public? Or all of the above? No smoke without fire etc...

[struth]

Not seen the Sky one as I've not got Sky... :) So I can't comment on that.

I have to disagree on The Voice. The point to these shows is ratings and these formats use the dirtiest trick in the book, embarrassment and televising the crushing of self respect (+confidence) of it's contestants because the only reason why the contestants are their in the first place is because they want to live a celebrity life more than anything in the world.

The Voice is different in it's initial style I agree. And this is why it (I believe) wasn't a huge hit at first because the public were conditioned to a much more original glitzy and rather typical cover image, but the principle idea is still the same and no different in that respect from The X-Factor etc. Using people as pawns for ratings. A Simon Cowarse spesh. :)

Now here is the twist that cooks my beef... who is to blame for this? Is it the networks? The program makers? The production companies? Or the public? Or all of the above? No smoke without fire etc...

Human nature is something that shouldnt just be pandered to. Tv magazines internet etc should be trying to entertain but at same time educate and not be there to let folk gloat at others discomfort etc. this fools many to believe that it is more real than reality.
It is in our nature to ogle at these things. Once the most popular show was an execution...great day out...
People should try to not watch such shows...they will rapidly then depart.:sofa:

[Macca]

It is in our nature to ogle at these things. Once the most popular show was an execution...great day out...
People should try to not watch such shows...they will rapidly then depart.:sofa:

I suspect if they brough back public execution it would be just as popular today. Times change, people don't.

[Beobloke]

No I don't buy it. People may disagree on the presentation but not on the quality (or otherwise)..

I disagree. I've come close to running out of rooms at Munich on more than one occasion genuinely afraid that another moment's exposure to the hideous noises within will permanently ruin my hearing.

And then returned home to find people on forums saying it's the best thing they've ever heard! :scratch:

[Gordon Steadman]

I disagree. I've come close to running out of rooms at Munich on more than one occasion genuinely afraid that another moment's exposure to the hideous noises within will permanently ruin my hearing.

And then returned home to find people on forums saying it's the best thing they've ever heard! :scratch:

I disagree too.

No particular reason, I just feel the need:rolleyes:

[struth]

I suspect if they brough back public execution it would be just as popular today. Times change, people don't.

precisely Martin but it doesnt mean they should indulge their baser instincts lol. society has regressed due to shows like eastenders and big brother.

[Macca]

I disagree. I've come close to running out of rooms at Munich on more than one occasion genuinely afraid that another moment's exposure to the hideous noises within will permanently ruin my hearing.

And then returned home to find people on forums saying it's the best thing they've ever heard! :scratch:

Maybe that is just Munich? Perhaps the people who said they liked those rooms had an ulterior motive? I went round Scalford with a pal and we didn't disagree once about the sound in any of 40 odd rooms. Cranage Hall last month was the same. Indeed Mark Ynwan put up a review of each room and It was petty much exactly what I and the other people I know who attended thought. the NEBO bakeoffs I've attended - same. Bakeoffs at my place and at other's: same.

[Lodgesound]

Fascinating thread Howard...

Many years ago when I was in my early 20's it struck me how different home systems sounded. The differences frustrated me so being an impetuous youngster I went looking for more.

I found professional systems.

Granted they were hideously expensive (although not beyond my reach as I realised if I was to wait) BUT their consistency is what attracted me.

I started working in the business when I was 20 after being told by a very senior manager that I would never have any hope of even trying to enter it because of - and I quote - "my rather lacking educational and class background"

The television and sound industry taught me a lot - I had to leave it in my late 30's as I could no longer cope with 22 hour shifts 6 days a week coupled with threats and abuse from managers and intrusions into my home life.

Anyway back on track - my experience in the business exposed me to some incredible systems which I have now incorporated into my home studio.

I no longer listen on "home" equipment. This is not through snobbery and is entirely due to the results I was able to consistently obtain from said machinery.

My interests now primarily lie in production and analogue mastering as well as exhibiting and compiling / mastering the tapes for the shows we do.

In conclusion from a personal standpoint moving over to professional machinery removed so much of the ambiguity that I experienced when using/auditioning home equipment that for me sound as a hobby opened up and was enjoyable once more.

[Neil McCauley]

Fascinating thread Howard...

In conclusion from a personal standpoint moving over to professional machinery removed so much of the ambiguity that I experienced when using/auditioning home equipment that for me sound as a hobby opened up and was enjoyable once more.

You've hit one of the proverbial nails on the head here I believe; it's the avoidance of, as you say, 'ambiguity'. Thank you.

[Spectral Morn]

You've hit one of the proverbial nails on the head here I believe; it's the avoidance of, as you say, 'ambiguity'. Thank you.

How so Howard and Stewart ?

Surely Pro companies are in many ways just as specialist, designer lead and small as many of the traditional audio companies - also expensive ?

I have never heard a full Pro system but I have heard the odd thing that has Pro roots or was Pro focussed. To my mind they were just as 'ambiguous' as traditional audio, in that they needed matched to other items to sound good. I am thinking Yamaha NS1000 and Harbeth.

Reading between the lines here are you guys suggesting that Pro gear doesn't need matched, that it just all works together and in any room ?


Regards Neil

[Lodgesound]

Hi Neil...

From a personal standpoint it comes from having a fixed point of reference.

In the profession this is absolutely vital particularly if one is moving on towards mastering for vinyl with all the necessary downstream compression and mastering required before one goes on to pressing and replication.

Yes matching is of course important but does become far less egregious when dealing with professional machinery.

Any room used for professional purposes in sound must of course be optimised for that use which invariably negates it's use for normal domestic living.

[Snoopdog]

Kanye West vs Freddy Mercury?

Hmmmm! Let me think about that!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzNXfsJRijg

[User211]

Maybe that is just Munich? Perhaps the people who said they liked those rooms had an ulterior motive? I went round Scalford with a pal and we didn't disagree once about the sound in any of 40 odd rooms. Cranage Hall last month was the same. Indeed Mark Ynwan put up a review of each room and It was petty much exactly what I and the other people I know who attended thought. the NEBO bakeoffs I've attended - same. Bakeoffs at my place and at other's: same.
Great post.

The important thing to remember is the hobby is to some quite significant extent futile. All systems are flawed even at the highest level. And noticeably so.

Yet we keep on trying...

BTW I've done Munich twice and some rooms are awesome. No question. No ulterior motives.

That is - they are awesome with the material you happen to walk in on and could be dreadful playing other stuff.

[User211]

With regards to the OP I finding issuing disclaimers the best policy when reviewing audio gear or making recommendations.

I do it quite a bit but not all the time.

[Neil McCauley]

How so Howard and Stewart ?

Surely Pro companies are in many ways just as specialist, designer lead and small as many of the traditional audio companies - also expensive ?

I have never heard a full Pro system but I have heard the odd thing that has Pro roots or was Pro focussed. To my mind they were just as 'ambiguous' as traditional audio, in that they needed matched to other items to sound good. I am thinking Yamaha NS1000 and Harbeth.

Reading between the lines here are you guys suggesting that Pro gear doesn't need matched, that it just all works together and in any room ?

Regards Neil

Hi and thank you for raising an interesting question. There’s a long and probably quite boring (for some) answer to this but for now I hope this briefer answer will suffice.

I interviewed on two separate occasions a female folk singer (quite well known in that genre) and a female rock singer, again well known. When questioned about the playback very shortly after the recording session both opined that the playback was both concurrently clearly themselves and yet somehow strangely not.

Despite state-of-the-art recording equipment and professional engineers, anyone who knew them would recognise the voices and yet much was lost. It was as if the sound was ambiguous.

Of more relevance perhaps was the view that even on the best domestic audio systems, their own recordings if anything sounded even more ‘unreal’ which I took to be even more ambiguous.

One conclusion might be that while professional equipment is imperfect, that domestic equipment is even more so when it comes to reproducing voices and by implication, all performances.

[Audio Advent]

I often wonder :scratch: why folks just jump in with recommendations but don't ask questions before hand, size of room, room construction, system, musical tastes - all of which makes massive differences to speaker performance and suitability.


Regards Neil

For me, that's because I don't consider that when choosing my own, let alone helping someone else. I'd happily have stupidly sized speakers in a small room just to hear their other qualities and let my brain work around the overloading effects etc. Musical taste shouldn't come into it either - a transparent system should just be able to replay sounds perfectly and music is a subset of general sounds. Sonic preferences though, priorities in sonic abilities will of course come into it but that is a different thing. Again with the system, other than basic efficiency, I am happy to make unusual synergistic discoveries by partnering gear which shouldn't logically (probably flawed logic then) work well.

Try any old stuff I say!

[Audio Advent]

I find that I'm blessed with an ability to enjoy pretty much all music (if we're talking about music rather than hifi). I don't know what it is but there is always something there to enjoy. I can't think of any particular style I can't listen to.

The only thing I don't like and am probably snobbily proud of not liking is anything with a one-note melody and which repeats again and again. Traditional folk songs fall into that catagory, especially when all the keys and intervals they use are the same too, yet still I'm ok listening to it. Just not for too long.. I just get completely bored so I guess isn't hatred, just boredom. The snob bit comes in when I think that people who love it must have simple musical brains! :lol: (in reality they probably love the story telling and tradition and the joining in bits (i.e. the most repetative parts) which are not about music in it's purest sense, more a social thing). Err.... Bob Dylan can also fall into that catagory in some songs, early stuff. Again, people I know who love early Bob Dylan like the story telling/lyrics which isn't strictly the musical notes part.

[Spectral Morn]

Hi and thank you for raising an interesting question. There’s a long and probably quite boring (for some) answer to this but for now I hope this briefer answer will suffice.

I interviewed on two separate occasions a female folk singer (quite well known in that genre) and a female rock singer, again well known. When questioned about the playback very shortly after the recording session both opined that the playback was both concurrently clearly themselves and yet somehow strangely not.

Despite state-of-the-art recording equipment and professional engineers, anyone who knew them would recognise the voices and yet much was lost. It was as if the sound was ambiguous.

Of more relevance perhaps was the view that even on the best domestic audio systems, their own recordings if anything sounded even more ‘unreal’ which I took to be even more ambiguous.

One conclusion might be that while professional equipment is imperfect, that domestic equipment is even more so when it comes to reproducing voices and by implication, all performances.

Indeed, its all imperfect. Interesting response - food for thought.


Regards Neil

[mikmas]

Despite state-of-the-art recording equipment and professional engineers, anyone who knew them would recognise the voices and yet much was lost. It was as if the sound was ambiguous.

Of more relevance perhaps was the view that even on the best domestic audio systems, their own recordings if anything sounded even more ‘unreal’ which I took to be even more ambiguous.

One conclusion might be that while professional equipment is imperfect, that domestic equipment is even more so when it comes to reproducing voices and by implication, all performances.

Surely none of us can judge how 'unambiguous' a recording of our own voice/performance is; we have no reference point in reality - unless we can simultaneously step outside of ourselves as we speak....

It's a bit like saying 'that photo doesn't look like me'

[mikmas]

... and in a similar vein

Where is the best place to sit (or stand) when attending a live concert?

[Neil McCauley]

... and in a similar vein

Where is the best place to sit (or stand) when attending a live concert?

I have often wondered this and come to no worthwhile conclusion. That said, at least two of my customers who appreciate classical music tell me than in The Royal Festival Hall (Southbank, London) seat H21 in the stalls is very satisfactory. Even a cursory look on their seating plan indicates why; on the centre line at right angles to the stage front edge and sufficiently far back for human ears to encompass the full left to right scope. It's not the whole story though because it turns out (according to some) that the height of row H (stalls) in relation to the 'centre of gravity' of the entire orchestra plays a significant part in this.

I've been unable to test this myself because, so I'm told, H21 is booked 'forever'. For me, since I started selling Magneplanar speakers in the early 1980s (I no longer stock the brand) I became aware of just how important to me is the full height image is in terms of me achieving satisfaction. For me, more important than stereo width, depth and related issues.

[Neil McCauley]

Surely none of us can judge how 'unambiguous' a recording of our own voice/performance is; we have no reference point in reality - unless we can simultaneously step outside of ourselves as we speak....

It's a bit like saying 'that photo doesn't look like me'

Yes, in part I agree with this. A simple solution I used to the benefit of many, many customers (and for myself of course) was at Subjective Audio in the 1980s to invite a customer to bring with them a partner who's voice they knew well – or at least thought they did. The partner was invited to say out loud anything they liked, the content being unimportant. This was recorded by a pair of stereo mics into a Nakamichi CR7E.

The recording was played back through the various combinations of equipment under consideration. I took care, using a sound pressure meter to ensure that each repetition through these combinations was at the identical volume. The inherent distortions in the recording process was not an issue as it was, throughout the process, consistent.

The outcomes of these demonstrations were, in the main, fascinating – for those who valued the closest approach to voice-band fidelity highly. Needless to say under these circumstances, very few Linn Kans, Saras and Isobarics were purchased by my customers.

There were two further consequences from this process:

1. The partners of the customers were invariably astonished and dismayed and all emotions in between when hearing a reasonable facsimile of the voice possibly for the very first time.

2. Sometimes, as a consequence of uber-powerful brand marketing in the 1980s and the assertions of some mags and some reviewers who clearly didn't feel that voice-band fidelity was that important, the customer having heard that some speakers were more coherent in this vital frequency range still purchased 'delinquent' speakers because they lacked confidence in their own decision-making capabilities, preferring to abrogate responsibility to “the experts”. Sad, but true.

[jandl100]

That's the problem with hi-fi, certainly - ask 10 people to go into a room and listen to a system and you'll most likely get 10 different opinions on the sound! Different people hear things differently so it's no wonder there are disagreements.

Yep, that certainly can be the case.
I recall a Show where a certain system was enthralling many, including a couple of friends I was going round the Show with - I had to leave the room it sounded so awful to me.

Ah, I see Adam has come across the same sort of thing --


I disagree. I've come close to running out of rooms at Munich on more than one occasion genuinely afraid that another moment's exposure to the hideous noises within will permanently ruin my hearing.

And then returned home to find people on forums saying it's the best thing they've ever heard! :scratch:



I think 'taste in music' is a rather fundamental factor to add to that and one that IMO influences greatly peoples opinions on what sounds good to them and what doesn't.

Yes, very true, imo & ime - although that is not all the story by a long way.

[Audio Advent]

Surely none of us can judge how 'unambiguous' a recording of our own voice/performance is; we have no reference point in reality - unless we can simultaneously step outside of ourselves as we speak....

It's a bit like saying 'that photo doesn't look like me'

That's ok to a point because we have mirrors to judge by. Not so with the voice unless we can somehow get rid of the sound coming direct through our heads and bodies.

[Audio Advent]

... and in a similar vein

Where is the best place to sit (or stand) when attending a live concert?

If you're standing at a gig the best place is where you can both see the band and hear the band/PA directly and not have people's heads and bodies in the way. Doesn't help that I'm not 6'6". Normally that means at the front of any raised platform like a bar area.. but that means missing out on the moshing or getting close to your heros. I choose the listening and watching bit myself.

[Joe]

That's ok to a point because we have mirrors to judge by.

Although if you look at yourself in two mirrors, so your face is 'right way round', your face looks weird because you're used to seeing it the wrong way round in one mirror. At least, mine does. It looks lop-sided.

[mikmas]

I've been unable to test this myself because, so I'm told, H21 is booked 'forever'.

Thought something like that would be the case - although looking at the seating plan I would settle for H22 on the other side of the aisle (or even J21) :)

I had a fascinating experience a good while ago. A couple of friends of mine conspired to buy tickets for a Robert Palmer gig to surprise me (I was a big fan of his). I was living in Amsterdam at the time and the gig was at the Concertgebouw, which is the main venue there for full-scale orchestral concerts. Unfortunately the show was almost sold out so they settled for whatever seats they could get without checking the plan and ours turned out to be half way up the steeply raked orchestra seats BEHIND where Palmer's group was set up. Needless to say, a totally surreal experience and like nothing I've ever heard before - 'Every Kind of People' chucked in a tumble dryer :lol:

[mikmas]

Although if you look at yourself in two mirrors, so your face is 'right way round', your face looks weird because you're used to seeing it the wrong way round in one mirror.

Why a lot of people feel uncomfortable the first time they see themselves on film/video (I know I did - and still do)... not only is it disorienting but also we are accustomed to 'seeing what we want to see' when we look in a mirror

[walpurgis]

There's no denying that some music and some audio gear is complete rubbish no matter which way you look at it. I do try to avoid making comments that could offend about other people's tastes and choices, but sometimes when I see what others listen to and what they play it on, I'm soooo tempted to say something rude :D.

[Barry]

Why a lot of people feel uncomfortable the first time they see themselves on film/video (I know I did - and still do)... not only is it disorienting but also we are accustomed to 'seeing what we want to see' when we look in a mirror

I don't like 'catching' my reflection in a mirror, yet am happy to stare at my mug whilst shaving or combing my hair. I don't like having my photo taken either, but will look at the resultant photographs.

[struth]

Why a lot of people feel uncomfortable the first time they see themselves on film/video (I know I did - and still do)... not only is it disorienting but also we are accustomed to 'seeing what we want to see' when we look in a mirror

...in my case, a steamy mirror :eyebrows:

[walpurgis]

I have no illusions about my appearance.

When you're this good looking you don't need them! :lol:

[Barry]

Yes, in part I agree with this. A simple solution I used to the benefit of many, many customers (and for myself of course) was at Subjective Audio in the 1980s to invite a customer to bring with them a partner who's voice they knew well – or at least thought they did. The partner was invited to say out loud anything they liked, the content being unimportant. This was recorded by a pair of stereo mics into a Nakamichi CR7E.

The recording was played back through the various combinations of equipment under consideration. I took care, using a sound pressure meter to ensure that each repetition through these combinations was at the identical volume. The inherent distortions in the recording process was not an issue as it was, throughout the process, consistent.

The outcomes of these demonstrations were, in the main, fascinating – for those who valued the closest approach to voice-band fidelity highly. Needless to say under these circumstances, very few Linn Kans, Saras and Isobarics were purchased by my customers.

There were two further consequences from this process:

1. The partners of the customers were invariably astonished and dismayed and all emotions in between when hearing a reasonable facsimile of the voice possibly for the very first time.

2. Sometimes, as a consequence of uber-powerful brand marketing in the 1980s and the assertions of some mags and some reviewers who clearly didn't feel that voice-band fidelity was that important, the customer having heard that some speakers were more coherent in this vital frequency range still purchased 'delinquent' speakers because they lacked confidence in their own decision-making capabilities, preferring to abrogate responsibility to “the experts”. Sad, but true.

No surprise there then! Did you try the test using Quad '57s Howard?

[Neil McCauley]

No surprise there then! Did you try the test using Quad '57s Howard?

Indeed I did and, no surprises here, if voice was THE primary objective for the customer, I NEVER successfully sold against the 57.

[Audio Advent]

Why a lot of people feel uncomfortable the first time they see themselves on film/video (I know I did - and still do)... not only is it disorienting but also we are accustomed to 'seeing what we want to see' when we look in a mirror

I'm not sure I understand that. If we can choose to only see "what we want to see" then why can't we choose when watching any other visual stimulous like a video of ourselves?

I understand the mirror image thing could be mildly unusual the first time but most discomfort doesn't come from what our faces look like, how they differ from looking in the mirror, but how we move, parts of our face we can't see in relation to the rest, how we talk etc (things we absolutely cannot see or hear) being different to what we thought and that disparity causing self-conciousness whilst some of us are self-concious already about the mistaken idea of ourselves, let alone the closer-to-reality version on screen.

[mikmas]

I'm not sure I understand that. If we can choose to only see "what we want to see" then why can't we choose when watching any other visual stimulous like a video of ourselves?

Looking in the mirror is a mundane and (for most) daily event routinised from a very early age - so routine that we rarely think about it but just concentrate on the job at hand (washing, shaving, combing hair etc...). We don't need to take in all details, just those related to the actions (squeezing the pesky blackhead). The mirror also gives us a very limited and distorted view because of the optical physics involved.

Watching a recorded image is a totally different ballgame.... unless we are taking part in reality TV, the event is exceptional, from a very different set of viewpoints (as you mention) and often encapsulating aspects of our physical self we have never seen before but are suddenly confronted with. Blanking off 'less wholesome' details is much harder than when we look in a mirror, particularly if the viewing is public - thus accentuating the acute self-consciousness that can be experienced at such moments. I've known people who were genuinely phobic about being recorded on video; I'm sure they coped with their daily personal grooming perfectly well, or at least with far less distress.

I don't know is it's still the case but there have been many legendary Hollywood stars who had written in their contract that they could not be filmed from certain angles, particularly in close-up. They did that for a reason ;)

[jandl100]

There's no denying that some music and some audio gear is complete rubbish no matter which way you look at it. I do try to avoid making comments that could offend about other people's tastes and choices, but sometimes when I see what others listen to and what they play it on, I'm soooo tempted to say something rude :D.

Well, you can console yourself by thinking that they may well have the same reaction to your choice of music and system, Geoff! :eyebrows:

[jandl100]

Indeed I did and, no surprises here, if voice was THE primary objective for the customer, I NEVER successfully sold against the 57.

A friend of mine, back in the late 70s early 80s, had a pair of Quad 57 that I much admired for their fidelity and lack of colouration. - I had cheap but fairly decent Technics SB301 speakers at the time, I think.

1981 rolled round, marriage occurred, and I couldn't resist getting an extra £1k on my 1st house mortgage and buying a pair of the newly released Quad 63 from good old KJ Leisuresound.

After a few weeks of loving my new speakers I went round to my friend's place --- I was genuinely shocked at how coloured the 57s now sounded!
-- maybe the 57s just needed a service / fettle? :scratch:

FWIW, my take these days is that overall the 57 is the superior speaker.

[Gordon Steadman]

A friend of mine, back in the late 70s early 80s, had a pair of Quad 57 that I much admired for their fidelity and lack of colouration. - I had cheap but fairly decent Technics SB301 speakers at the time, I think.

1981 rolled round, marriage occurred, and I couldn't resist getting an extra £1k on my 1st house mortgage and buying a pair of the newly released Quad 63 from good old KJ Leisuresound.

After a few weeks of loving my new speakers I went round to my friend's place --- I was genuinely shocked at how coloured the 57s now sounded!
-- maybe the 57s just needed a service / fettle? :scratch:

FWIW, my take these days is that overall the 57 is the superior speaker.

Can't argue with a box swapper:cool:

I was surprised at the difference after my 57s came back from a full One Thing service.