Rerurn to Romy the Cat's Site


In the Forum: Playback Listening
In the Thread: High End Audio and musical content.
Post Subject: Live performance cannot be a reference -- but natural sounds? Which rules out most rock, etcPosted by Gregm on: 6/2/2006
But I wouldn't rule out playing rock on a system that offer fidelity to the music in classical repertory. 
However, back to the reproduction "system".
The expression Romy used of "musical content" is interesting. I use the expression musical intention (i.e. musicians' intention) for what I believe is an identical (very similar) understanding; this expression (and ROman's as well I believe) can only directly relate to classical --- and on very rare & unpredictable occasion to amplified non-electronic music. By this expression I mean basically two interelated things:

1) Am I "hearing" the actual piece of music (the symphony, whatever) I chose or are the interpretors completely off: to my mind, recorded musicians do NOT make gross mistakes incosistently (ex: oscillating constantly b/ween in tune & out of tune) -- they would not get their degree in the first place let alone be accepted in the orchestra. So, if I'm hearing gross incosistencies, it's the system. TO give a gross example fm the past, remember the speed/audible incosistencies when playing some off-centre cut records? (fidelity to the composed piece)

2) Can I discern the maestro's/soloist's/musicians' signature on this piece of music? Now this is not exclusively a matter of the recording; nor is it a matter of how well certain details are reproduced -- but rather a matter of how the "musical content" is reproduced as a whole and in its homogeneity, i.e. how well the reproduction correlates to the original performance (rather than look for individual "sounds"). I have heard the Berlioz/Beecham (EMI) and it sounded flat, nice and melodious and soft. ??? Either it wasn't Beecham conducting or s/thing else. It was Beecham,  (fidelity to the performance)

So far so good. However, Romy notes:

"Playback system that demonstrate fidelity of the composed/performed intention and built according to the rule of maximum musical  (not necessary sonic) transparency would demonstrate the inferiority of light-content music very obviously"

If the actual piece is inferior, what's the objection? It may be enjoyed by some on its own merit (whichever that is). Why would one sacrifice the reproduction system's performance on complex music to cover shortcomings in other musical pieces?

"and I have seen how horribly good rock music sounds with a good installation, an installation that was targeted to play complex classical repertoire."

The fascination of experiencing the musican'(s)'  intent/signature (see my point 2, above) is still there when listening to unamplified or electric amplified instruments (basically guitar -- the other instruments & voice go through mikes)... despite the limitation of many masterings, some of the intention creeps through: think of highs & lows of lead guitar, the percussionists, passion sometimes... etc.
In fact, heavy metal through a system under discussion sounds... like heavy metal. With a "girl+cello" system the same sounds like noise with s/one shouting to be heard over & above the noise.

Of course, let's leave out chip music where the matter doesn't bear discussion (as in, "now that my new speakers are broken in, Yanni is in the room with me. The bass is clear and the sense of space is jaw-dropping. My wife/dog/canary in the other room/state/peninsula froze, mesmerised... that;s how good this is").

" but it is very easy to make audio that do rock music good"

I agree. That's what 99% of the systems do, many of them badly at that. I would add music of the "girl with cello" persuasion is also very easy.


A final thing I see a lot: people judge systems/components using a disc/record/etc they are "very familiar with". Very familiar usually means, listened 167 times on their own system. The result is in this case is, any reproduction system that plays like their own with an added attribute or two -- most usually sonic attributes -- is better/ jaw-dropping, etc. This is absurd, as is the relentless fixation on individual sounds (i.e. "these speakers lifted a couple of veils" -- which means 6270-8078 Hz or whatever, are more pronounced).


"What the purpose to use audio that does not filter out bad performances or to read a reviewer who does not know how to use this ability of playback systems? "

I don't quite understand the first part of your note.

Cheers, Greg.

Rerurn to Romy the Cat's Site