LOL! There was a point in my career as a wanna-be-audiophile where that's what I was striving to hear: "faithful to the recording." But who knows what that even means? Often, different sections of the final mix are recorded at different places and different times, and then it's all mixed and mastered. . . .
“Faithful to the recording”
I despise when reviewers use those words in describing a piece of equipment unless they were, quite literally, at the recording. Once those words are used, I pretty much stop reading since IMO the reviewer is full of BS.
Your thoughts?
And what key word(s) or phrases cause you to stop reading?
38 responses Add your response
I dislike any terms which seem to be pointed at making the writer sound intelligent when a simpler and more traditional well established word works. This includes tight bass and many other flowery terms used in descriptions of audio sound I reject tight bass because I am a drummer and have heard a real bass guitar and it is NOT tight |
If they compared the input (recording) to the output from a speaker or amp, like with a graph, then it can make sense. Otherwise it is hyperbole when used subjectively..
If the step function, or impulse response, of the speaker is not textbook, then it is hard to claim it is faithful. |
Perhaps such terms of praise are best viewed as a measure of the reviewer's enthusiasm rather than an accurate description of what is occurring sonically, although given that each listener perceives and judges sound differently, I'm not sure there is an "objective vocabulary". Brings to mind the Les McCann lyric "Tryin' to make it real compared to what". . . as in, what would you all rather hear from reviewers?
|
@stuartk maybe that's why I seldom read a review anymore, except to sometimes get specs and prices of something I find interesting. |
"Faithful to a recording"means nothing...or almost nothing at best.... 😁😊 i agree... But there is a misconception in all audio... Some claim that an ideal speaker set for example COULD be faithful to the recording... This is also meaningless, not because there is no perfect speakers, but because these alleged perfect speakers must be located in a SPECIFIC IMPERFECT room with his acoustic content and acoustic geography... The goal in audio is the creation/translation of this music/sound from one acoustical context, which is the RELATIVE perspective of the recording process on a lived event, to be translated in the psycho-acoustic geography of your room which is also a relative acoustic and esthetic perspective from and on the recording event .... All this meaningless descriptions about absolute fidelity and "reproduction" instead of the more correct TRANSLATION word, come from the gear market publicity and sellers(reviewers).., And also from the forgetfulness that between the specific trade-off choices during recording process, there is TWO acoustic perspectives, the specific perspective of a listener seating at the original lived event, and the perspective of the listener with the play back gear in relation with his specific room and ears... Then this misconception about being " faithful to the recording" it did not come from acoustic experience for sure , but from gear sellers... And the desesperate pursuit toward some new piece of gear allegedly able to be more "faithful to the recording" erase the importance of room acoustic out of the equation at worst and at best put it in the secondary position completely, a minor necessity instead of the center of the experience itself, which it is... Selling is not always educating....it is also unvolontarily deception of ourself to begin with....
|
I never read that part of reviews. It is all flowery nonsense to me not to mention I've hardly ever heard the recordings they use and have no point f reference. Just because they are reviewer does does not mean they know what to listen for. The fact that they ascribe characteristics to equipment that it can not possibly have makes me think they have no idea what they are talking about. With most of the reviewers quality follows cost. When they all get excited about a less expensive piece of gear, like the JC 1 amplifiers and the Channel D Lino C you probably have real winners. |
From the first acoustic lived event where any seat give another perspective on the lived acoustic event, we have AFTER the independant recording process who "manipulate" by INEVITABLE choices trade-off process this acoustic event which is no more the original one now but a package of analog/digital information who gives another potential acoustic perspective of his own... And we have the second acoustic event in YOUR ROOM, where you listen THROUGH your room acoustic settings and geography this TRANSFORMED and and TRANSLATED potential perspectival event into an actual one... The mythology of the high fidelity "reproduction" instead of a "translated" acoustic analog/digital information INTO the acoustic language of your room comes from the Gear marketing for DECADES ....And come from the forgetfulness of the essental acoustic role in the listener perception and experience... Nobody has ever listen to his system/speakers DIRECTLY , we listen to the system/speakers/room... What is an acoustic translation ? The acoustic factor in the lived event, which vary with each seat in the theater, for example the timbre perception, will be TRANSLATED in another experience of timbre perception by virtue of the SPECIFIC acoustic properties of your room... It will be the same for the listener envelopment factor/sound source width ratio or LV/ASW experienced in a specific seat in the theater and after that translated in your room specific acoustic content and perceived very differently by you than if you were seating in a specific location in the theater... 😁😊 To repeat the evidence: no system/ speakers can beat the room alone by itself... Minimal Acoustic treatment and mechanical control must be used to improve the listening experience and put the gear to his peak level working potential... Generally a well treated and mechanically controlled room is a huge upgrade over a nude room, more than most upgrades which are available for the wallet of each of us... Then instead of repeating the market gear publicity it is better to read about acoustic.... 😁😊 There is no "original" unique lived event, only many acoustic perspectives on it from the chosen seat of a listener in the theater to the seat in your room...Then there is no "reproduction" only an acoustic translation...
|
"maybe that's why I seldom read a review anymore, except to sometimes get specs and prices of something I find interesting". When I'm contemplating an upgrade I read/watch as many reviews as I can find, in order to glean whatever info might be useful for the process of narrowing down which components appear to meet my parameters. Very rarely do I buy anything I cannot demo at home and return, if need be. In the end, I depend upon my own ears. |
"From the first acoustic lived event where any seat give another perspective on the lived acoustic event, we have AFTER the independant recording process who "manipulate" by INEVITABLE choices trade-off process this acoustic event which is no more the original one now but a package of analog/digital information who gives another potential acoustic perspective of his own... And we have the second acoustic event in YOUR ROOM, where you listen THROUGH your room acoustic settings and geography this TRANSFORMED and and TRANSLATED potential perspectival event into an actual one..." Thanks for affirming reality! The "mythology of the high fidelity "reproduction" as you rightly call it, is very deeply ingrained. . . |
@stuartk I guess what I typed was inaccurate. Within the last couple of years I did buy two new pieces, a SA10 and a SLP05, and I did read a couple of reviews for both of them. However, after my last prescription to Stereophile expired over 20 years ago, I never did re-up it. Reading reviews of audio equipment reminds me of listening to Chris Collinsworth call a Sunday Night Football Game. He makes every name that comes out of his mouth sound like a world beater. I have never read a review that said, "This piece of gear sounds like hammered dog $hit." It seems as if every piece of gear winds up being written about in glowing orgasmic terms. |
Here are a couple more meaningless pieces of hype: "jaw-dropping", "gobsmacked" IMO, reproduced music is at best, a close approximation to the "real thing." To me, the real thing is live music of any genre. Fortunately, I now have a few friends in the audio industry and know enough trustworthy dealers that I no longer read any reviews from any of the alleged "gurus." I also have learned to stay away from boutique components which often have terrible resale value.
|
"It seems as if every piece of gear winds up being written about in glowing orgasmic terms." In news reporting, it's the depressing stuff that garners attention and thus, brings in ad dollars. In audio, it's the "glowing orgasmic" reviews that bring in the ad dollars. Reviews of any individual component, speaker, cable, etc. don't mean much unless they're reviewed in conjunction with what you or I have at home, as a system. And how likely is that ever to occur? That's why I don't buy based upon what I read, but what I hear! |
It appears many people desire a release that is unfettered and most similar to what the artists/engineers heard via the master tapes played over the studio monitors pre-release. This seems like a valid desire. How anyone other than the music’s creators can know what the master tapes sounded like is where it seems to be tricky. Generally I do my best to seek those copies that sound best to my ears, taking the analysis of others as just another source to accumulate something resembling a consensus. |
If bass is “flabby” (apparently the antithesis of the oft-used, “tight” descriptor) is such a phenomenon limited to a singular piece of gear? It seems the perception of “flabby” bass could be a myriad of factors…? Has anyone ever experienced “flabby” bass? Would that be the experience one has when riding in a car with someone who plays bass-heavy music at excessive volume? |
@stuartk , I've always appreciated the Les McCann lyric, since it fits the audio realm way too well... There's an upper limit to how many comparisons one can personally experience vs. that of the reviewer who is paid to make such. One's driven to wonder "Well, is the reference based on the last 'Item X' of a similar component drawn from memory, your personal 'reference system', or an indulgence of contrast to an 'A~B (C through Z)' that makes the rabbit hole turn black hole?" ...and, with the potential of actually seeing pics of the reviewers' 'listening environment' which can range from cluttered to packrat...! It doesn't surprise that we can be disappointed with our occasional *meh* opinions when the component hits our spaces. Which range even more broadly...with component selections that reflect the items available in ones' choices of personal computers, cells, dinner, clothing, etc. I gave up 'chasing' SOTA long ago, due to prices primarily. That, and the stasis of measured specs. The latter edges into the realization that ones' personal listening space made as much (if not more) difference(s) in what I heard. Not to mention my 'onboard equipment' to listen with, the obvious and the muck between them. 'Jaded, faded', I opted to just please myself with what struck my fancy....and made and makes me smile. Much like what I like to listen to, with it. Your results Will vary. ;) Have fun with it. Enjoy your simulations, J ;) |
Oh, and one should keep in mind that the artist(s) first hear their finished product in a studio environ potentially stuffed with such that 'compression' is just one effect that may be in play.... Ever since I saw "Phantom of The Paradise" with Paul Williams as the henchman of the devil in his studio with our tortured hero.....I doubted. It's just gotten worse in the passage of my time. ;) |
@tylermunns when I hear what I, personally, would describe as "flabby" bass, the sound I hear makes me think of woofers that have come loose and are just slopping around. We come back to the subjective versus objective descriptors. Not to way long ago I was reading a thread about books about listening to audio, and apparently R. Harley wrote a book on the subject, and in that book he defines what these terms mean. So maybe these terms are not as subjective as I am given to think of them as. |
Jules Coleman- anybody remember him? He was a professor of jurisprudence, not a lawyer but a philosopher, who also loved audio and wrote some reviews or thought pieces back in the 00’s or maybe earlier. One questioned the primacy assigned to the recording given that it was hard to know if the recording reflected reality; to my recollection (I don’t think the article is "live" any more on the Internet)* --Coleman asked the question how one could know whether the recording itself was faithful to whatever performance(s) occurred. What it sounds like in the "booth" is different from what it sounds like "on the floor" assuming a group of performers is playing together live, at the same time, and leaving aside gear, mic’ing and mixing and eventually mastering. And of course, with overdubs (entirely acceptable in the recording industry to add things later), the end product is a much a creation of the recordist/engineer as the performers. Lots of variables, so Coleman asked whether "faithful to the recording" had any meaning as a reference for the home listener. Assume you were at a live event that wound up on a recording you are listening to; you might, based on seating location, say, yeah that sounded pretty similar, but at a minimum, you would have had to have been there. How many records do you listen to where you weren’t there? If we are talking about judging a recording via vinyl on the sonic merits only, I have a number of "cues" I listen for-- not very difficult--that tell me it sounds more real, assuming the recording/pressing contains the information: much is tone, and a lot has to do with timing of attack and decay, including harmonic overtones and the acoustics of the space in which the recording was made if that is evident. Bandwidth -sure, but not the first consideration for me and certainly not at the expense of a grainless, "hear through" midrange with no artifacts. Every recording is obviously different. But to come back to Coleman’s question, if you use the recording as the reference, leaving aside pressing issues, how do you know that is a good reflection of the performance? Not all recordings are created equal (nor are performances), but how would you determine this? See above re one answer, which is very limiting. Some people look for more resolution, but I think I’m willing to trade that off a little (especially to the extent the resolution makes the record sound strident or thin), for more "real" (know it when I hear it). The leads down one of many paths of subjective audio. I do know that after hearing Crimson live several years ago, I put on the vinyl of the Toronto 2016 show (basically same playlist with same basic players) and it sounded quite similar to what I heard live in a 2,000 seat hall. Of course, I could not reproduce the scale of that or the amount and depth of the bass, but wouldn’t want to in a room which is a fraction of that size (but still a large room). You can test if you have an instrument, preferably unamplified, and a good recorder of some sort. Even though, say, a piano is also a hugely variable instrument even between otherwise identical models from the same manufacturer- and tuned and "voiced" with the kind of care that you may be familiar with in voicing a hi-fi, you still have a sense of what the instrument is capable of. PS: *To my surprise, the article is still up so if you search Jules' name and "audio" generally, you will find it. Inner Magazine was the publisher. I did the above from memory. I’m now going to re-read the article and see if I fairly summarized it. Well worth the time in my estimation, if you are asking these questions and not just talking about unnecessary or colorful verbiage.
|
@whart +10. I suspect that if you just posed that synopsis of the original from memory, I'd not be shocked in the brevity of it. 👍😎 |
I very much enjoyed the late Art Dudley's Sterophile Columns. However, I could never get along with his use of the terms "touch" and "force" - for example (re his Altec Valencia's) "More important, they play music with such a believable sense of touch and force that they've transformed the manner in which I approach almost every recording I've played through them." |
Ockham’s razor is a tool for the thinking linear mind expressing itself in a DISCOURSE about a chosen something... For the silent mind contemplating a plant, a room acoustic or the distribution of prime numbers, Ockham’s razor is useless... We use it to SAY something meaningful yes , to rationalize our expression in a linear way toward a conclusion about an aspect of reality, it is not a way to understand reality but to reduce it to a limited expression... All great discoverers in science never know often why they arrive at some conclusion, they rationalyse it AFTER the fact... The knot survived Alexender gesture, it is called topological field studies in mathematics...And no one there cut a knot before analysing it completely... 😁😊
«My heart is a gordian knot»-Groucho Marx 🤓 «My love is the Alexander sword brother»-Harpo Marx
|
@twoleftears ...but there seems to be a shortage of them, much less those who know how to wield one.... 😏 Personally, I apply it badly on the obvious irrational 'logic loops' with full knowledge that the unravel will generally snare and suck one in deeper into morass... ;) Ah, Friend @mahgister ..."Say Something Meaningful..." There's a lot of the inverse of that about...:( Like many or most, I look to music to escape our fretting reality, knowing there's none on a rational plane. Consequently, it leaks into my discourse, fouling it like hair in the drain sieve. But, one does what one might or may....*s* I've my own odd pursuit in our shared distraction, but harmless in nature and I learn things. Even if it distills down to a variant of the Completion Backwards Principal. "Topological field studies"....(acoustic effects department)....*L* Yup. I chanced upon a Infinity Loop (a.k.a., Mobius loop) in a Target store awhile back. Of course, I had to have it....parked like MCs' lava lamp atop my 'audiophile pile', providing a great parking place for headphones....*G* In an upcoming fit of pique, I'll grind it's flaws (pitting, and a slightly clumsy weld) and have it either black chromed or painted with Black 3.0...either will be apropos. Lacking broader powers, one opts to define and décor ones' personal reality concept...;) Since the daily horrors play out without respite, and 2025 is now the tip of the potential plow into dissolution.... One can see the shrug fest already...:( 'Debbie Downer Time'.... I'm going to bed, see what nightmares lurk within....ciao'
|
I enjoy too much your deepful well expressed humorful posts to dare answering them most of the times, if at least i could write as well as you about my thoughts and feelings... But i can say in plain simple English that i like you asvjerry... 😊
The paradox was i entered in this world more deeply than imagined with acoustic studies but the prime motive was to quit it soon on the wing of music, but in the meantime i fell in love with this world beauty too... |
