Results 1 to 11 of 11
  1. #1
    Audio casualty StevenSurprenant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Illinois
    Posts
    592

    Are You On The Road To...AUDIO HELL?

    I found this very interesting and thought you might enjoy it...

    http://www.enjoythemusic.com/magazin.../audiohell.htm

    THE QUIZ

    We audiophiles are always trying to sharpen our skills at evaluating audio components. However, the very methods we use can result in precisely the opposite of the effect desired, namely boredom or frustration with our audio system before we have even paid for it; in other words, AUDIO HELL. Take the following short quiz to help determine if you have traveled this road lately.

    1. Do you try to arrange instantaneous A/B comparisons of brief segments of music to maximize your memory retention?

    2. Do you bring the same group of "reference" test recordings to each audition in an effort to sort out specific performance capabilities and to prevent any disorientation of confusion which could result from using music with which you are unfamiliar?

    3. Do you avoid using music of which you are particularly fond so that you can properly attend to objective analysis rather than be distracted by the music's pleasures and passions?

    4. Do you believe that the true function of an audio system is to re-create music; and that therefore you can only accurately evaluate audio playback if you have an extensive knowledge of live music performance?

    5. Do you believe that if your evaluation addresses such matters as frequency range, signal/noise ratio, stage size and depth, instrumental separation and balance, timbre, and textual clarity that whatever other purely musical considerations there may be will take care of themselves?

    6. Has it been your experience that some speakers are especially suitable for rock, others for classical, and perhaps others for intimate jazz? How do you explain this phenomenon? Is this more or less inevitable?

    7. When you ask yourself; "What should be the correct reference, live music or the recording session?" Do you conclude that it is one or the other? Are you comfortable with you answer to this question?

    If you have answered "yes" to at least 3 of these questions, you can feel comfortable knowing that, like many other audiophiles, you are on the train to AUDIO HELL. If you answered "yes" to most, you may be beyond redemption; but we are here to help, and there is always hope. If you answered "yes" to question #3 you probably require the services of an audio exorcist; for if the purpose of your music playback system isn't to involve you emotionally, then why aren't you shopping at Sears? Before we take a more critical look at the implications of this quiz and your answer, it might be useful to go review the past few years to see how we got into this mess in the first place.

    CLICK LINK ABOVE FOR FULL STORY.
    Last edited by StevenSurprenant; 06-15-2007 at 03:53 AM.

  2. #2
    Shostakovich fan Feanor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    London, Ontario
    Posts
    8,127

    Ah, yes: Peter Qvortrup

    Quote Originally Posted by StevenSurprenant
    I found this very interesting and thought you might enjoy it...

    http://www.enjoythemusic.com/magazin.../audiohell.htm

    THE QUIZ

    ....
    Peter Qvortrup of Audio Note. Without bothering to refute his points, most of which are valid to some extent, I will say that this gentleman has his own agenda. He is worshiped like God by many audiophiles, (or whatever they ought to be called). An example is our sometime poster, RGA.

  3. #3
    Class of the clown GMichael's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Anywhere but here...
    Posts
    13,243
    Quote Originally Posted by Feanor
    Peter Qvortrup of Audio Note. Without bothering to refute his points, most of which are valid to some extent, I will say that this gentleman has his own agenda. He is worshiped like God by many audiophiles, (or whatever they ought to be called). An example is our sometime poster, RGA.
    Can't remember the last time I saw Rich post. I wonder how he's doing.

    By the list above, I must be on the road to he11. But I thought this was the "other" road. It all seems like so much fun to me. Oh, I see the error in my logic already.
    WARNING! - The Surgeon General has determined that, time spent listening to music is not deducted from one's lifespan.

  4. #4
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    St. Louis, MO, USA
    Posts
    10,176
    I've been there and probably still answer yes to many if I was looking for something different. I am more satisfied with my CJ gear than I ever have been before. This gives some validity to the article because what satisfied me was the CJ gear was able to really involve me in the musical playback. My Krell gear was able to give a "wow" factor and it was enjoyable but the CJ gear brings it to life in a different way. Rather than trying to explain that, the main point is I think we are all on a search of the ideal audio system or the one that "turns us on". Some find it and some don't. And, maybe the thrill is different for others. My goal at first was to find the most accurate music reproduction I could afford, once I thought I was there, I was still not satisfied. It wasn't until I started experimenting with tube gear and finally CJ that I found something that killed that restless feeling. Maybe it's that the CJ presentation is able to tap into my emotions more so than prior gear.

    It should be noted that anyone who isn't that familiar with tube gear, that the sound of various brands are generally as different as that of solid state. I don't want to side track from the main idea of the thread but I don't want some one to think I just switched solid state for tubes, it wasn't until I heard the CJ gear that I was willing to dethrone my Krell from my main music system.

    I think with the cost of the type of gear we enjoy it is probably good to do some reflecting on what it is we are looking for, but if you are like me, we really don't know until we find it.

    How's that for rambling?

  5. #5
    Music Junkie E-Stat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,462
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Peabody
    I am more satisfied with my CJ gear than I ever have been before. This gives some validity to the article because what satisfied me was the CJ gear was able to really involve me in the musical playback. My Krell gear was able to give a "wow" factor and it was enjoyable but the CJ gear brings it to life in a different way. Rather than trying to explain that, the main point is I think we are all on a search of the ideal audio system or the one that "turns us on". Some find it and some don't. And, maybe the thrill is different for others. My goal at first was to find the most accurate music reproduction I could afford, once I thought I was there, I was still not satisfied. It wasn't until I started experimenting with tube gear and finally CJ that I found something that killed that restless feeling.
    Similar story for me, except fill in VTL for CJ. Having said that, I still remember first hearing the mighty IRS speakers back in 1980 driven by a Premier One. Fast forward twenty years to the current version of that friend's system now with Nola Grand References. I heard VTL Wotans on the mains and was hooked. Sourced by a Burmester transport/DAC through an ART II preamp.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Peabody
    Maybe it's that the CJ presentation is able to tap into my emotions more so than prior gear.
    Exactly!

    rw

  6. #6
    Shostakovich fan Feanor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    London, Ontario
    Posts
    8,127

    Essence of Norwitz/Qvortrup

    Quote Originally Posted by StevenSurprenant
    I found this very interesting and thought you might enjoy it...

    http://www.enjoythemusic.com/magazin.../audiohell.htm

    THE QUIZ
    ...
    CLICK LINK ABOVE FOR FULL STORY.
    At is essence is their recommendation to use "Comparison by Contrast" versus "Comparision by Reference". Simply, they recommend evaluating components using a large number of (relatively) unfamiliar recordings, as opposed to a small number of familiar recordings.

    They rant at great length against using any sort of reference, including reference to live music or recording studio monitors (which mustly we'll never hear, of course). That is, their first argument is that any reference is inevidably biased or prejudiced, and that we cannot know for certain what the music ought to sound like. This argument is weakest where they deny refererence to live music. As far as I'm concerned, (despite the difficulties they describe), there is no standard for accuracy other than live sound. Without that, everything is pure personal preference.

    Secondly they argument is against minute evaluation of particular characteristics of the sound versus evaluation of the whole, the musical gestalt if you like. They are certainly right that it's the big picture that counts for long-term satisfcation, But does that mean that particular characteristics have no place at all in evaluation? If so, how are we to describe the characteristics of a component to another person? Terms like "musical" without reference to particular characteristics are BS.

    So "comparison by contrast" boils down to pure subjectivity. Fine. But there is at least one practical flaw: they recommend listening to each combination of components under comparison for 20+ hours in a given listening room. Yeah, like that's going to happen at your local dealer's much less your own house.

  7. #7
    nightflier
    Guest
    If there is one think I have learned, it is that the simpler the gear, the easier the audition. Too many times I would get bogged down with options (on a preamp, for example) and it would stick in my mind during the audition, perhaps subconsciously, and distract from the audition. I recently rediscovered Monolithic Audio - about as simple as it gets - and have to say that just the simplicity makes the auditioning (and listening over the long term) more enjoyable. I'm lazy so I need a remote, but otherwise this would be my gear of choice.

    Regarding testing and a/b listening, I've pretty much given up on it. It takes way too much time and unless I was a computer program, there is just no way I could do it right - too many subjective and psychological factors. Now when I get together with my friends we just sit and listen to longer sessions. At the $1000 price-point for most of the components we compare, the differences are more preferences than quality. We usually get frustrated with bad recordings rather than bad gear. Other times it's just something silly that affects the whole audition (like the way a knob turns or the speed of the remote's response), so I'm becoming a big proponent of simplicity.

    And regarding what the magazines yack about (Absolute Sound, Stereophile), I read the articles more to learn about the features of the gear than pay attention to the description of the sound. Absolute Sound's all-vinyl issue last month, is a case in point: if you can get past the praising of Robert Hartley on every other page, the audition articles where not very informative, IMO. They were comparing vastly different turntables, preamps, etc. and the price-points weren't even close. Frankly, I'm a little fed up with articles describing cartridge x sounding a little more airy than cartridge y, when it's installed on a completely different system - duh! At the very least try to compare similarly priced and constructed components. Give me an article on features & design and spare me the drivel about how it sounds - I'm sure that a $10K preamp will sound just fine, and details above and beyond that is more likely to be the interaction with the rest of the system so it won't be reproducible in my home. That part of the audition should be a concluding paragraph or a footnote.

    Overall, I am much more drawn to the articles that talk about the people in the industry, like the one about the founder of VTL and his wife. I've never been able to afford VTL gear, but their experiences and care/time they put into the work makes me want to try it out, that is, when I can one day afford it. I think stories about other figures in the industry, like Paul from PS Audio and the wacky folks at Ohm/Walsh, are worth telling. I also like the political rantings of Art Dudley, news about industry trends, and the positions taken by people on standards.

    And all those readers who do write in saying they don't want to read about the human side of audio (every issue publishes at least a couple of letters), would probably be better off reading textbooks and white papers. This hobby is about imagination, experiences, organic qualities and bringing the music alive. The proponents of critical analysis would rather squash that and it's a pity.

    Anyhow, that's my two cents. I was a lot more analytical, even just a year ago (just look at my posts), but that got way too stressful. Music should be enjoyed with a glass of wine (or beer) and good friends, even if that does dull the senses somewhat. The Enjoy-the-music article makes some decent points, but they still fall into the analytical camp too much and hence give us way too much to stress over.

  8. #8
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    St. Louis, MO, USA
    Posts
    10,176
    I agree with Feanor here, you have to have some point of reference, or why audition at all. It's crazy to use music you've never heard before, how would you know if the recording was any good and if an annoying characteristic was the recording or the equipment. I don't have a photographic memory but from using the same music basically when auditioning other peoples equipment, I do have mental notes of certain attributes I liked or dislike about the gear. For instance, I bring James Newton Howard & Friends quite a bit, on equipment like Krell and Arcam this recording has some startling drum kicks and snaps, where in contrast on an all Rotel system this recording sounded like the band was playing half asleep. Granted unless we were there, we can't say which is correct, it will still come down to preference, BUT without using the same disc, I wouldn't have that difference in mind.

    And, to say don't use live performance..... I personally don't want my sound system to sound like the ampa theater during a Rock concert but without ever hearing live music how would you know which system came closest to reproducing a saxophone, a snare drum or strings, the examples are infinite.

    For me, aside from enjoying my music collection, my biggest kick is to listen to other equipment and see what, if any, difference there might be. This is probably why I get so annoyed with those who try to convince others there isn't any difference. Without references, this couldn't happen.

  9. #9
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    884

    Not a good quiz, IMHO.

    Quote Originally Posted by StevenSurprenant
    I found this very interesting and thought you might enjoy it...

    http://www.enjoythemusic.com/magazin.../audiohell.htm

    THE QUIZ

    We audiophiles are always trying to sharpen our skills at evaluating audio components. However, the very methods we use can result in precisely the opposite of the effect desired, namely boredom or frustration with our audio system before we have even paid for it; in other words, AUDIO HELL. Take the following short quiz to help determine if you have traveled this road lately.

    1. Do you try to arrange instantaneous A/B comparisons of brief segments of music to maximize your memory retention?

    2. Do you bring the same group of "reference" test recordings to each audition in an effort to sort out specific performance capabilities and to prevent any disorientation of confusion which could result from using music with which you are unfamiliar?

    3. Do you avoid using music of which you are particularly fond so that you can properly attend to objective analysis rather than be distracted by the music's pleasures and passions?

    4. Do you believe that the true function of an audio system is to re-create music; and that therefore you can only accurately evaluate audio playback if you have an extensive knowledge of live music performance?

    5. Do you believe that if your evaluation addresses such matters as frequency range, signal/noise ratio, stage size and depth, instrumental separation and balance, timbre, and textual clarity that whatever other purely musical considerations there may be will take care of themselves?

    6. Has it been your experience that some speakers are especially suitable for rock, others for classical, and perhaps others for intimate jazz? How do you explain this phenomenon? Is this more or less inevitable?

    7. When you ask yourself; "What should be the correct reference, live music or the recording session?" Do you conclude that it is one or the other? Are you comfortable with you answer to this question?

    If you have answered "yes" to at least 3 of these questions, you can feel comfortable knowing that, like many other audiophiles, you are on the train to AUDIO HELL. If you answered "yes" to most, you may be beyond redemption; but we are here to help, and there is always hope. If you answered "yes" to question #3 you probably require the services of an audio exorcist; for if the purpose of your music playback system isn't to involve you emotionally, then why aren't you shopping at Sears? Before we take a more critical look at the implications of this quiz and your answer, it might be useful to go review the past few years to see how we got into this mess in the first place.

    CLICK LINK ABOVE FOR FULL STORY.
    Well, I am not really interested in electronics for a stereo system that sound "different" from the accurate ones, so I will mostly confine my remarks to speakers, which really do sound different.

    1. No, I try as far as practical to be able to do A-B comparisons between pieces of equipment with as fast switching times as possible, not between music selections. Alas, this often isn't very practical.

    I have no idea why Peter Qvortrup would come up with the idea of doing fast switches between different music selections of whatever length. Who suggests such a bizarre thing?

    Maybe he has confused this with listening to short passages of music which experience has shown tend to sound different on many speakers. I used to have a tape with short selections of full orchestra with massed strings, male and female vocals, mixed chorus, and piano. Tom Nousaine and Arny Krueger evidently do something similar with a CD. I long ago found a Denon Classical Sampler with several tracks that worked well for me.

    2. Yes indeed I do use familiar recordings especially to start with--there's that old Denon CD again. Works very well for me to tell me how different speakers handle the familiar passages. If I used totally unfamiliar recordings, how would I know they were any good at all? I think Peter Q. is talking through his hat on this one. Somehow, despite not following his advice, I have somehow managed to find speakers I really like for the long term. I don't change speakers every year or so. I used to ask myself whether I would still like the speakers 20 years from now. It gives one some perspective.

    3. Why on earth would I want to listen to a lot of music I don't like? And, following on my remarks to question 2, how would I know whether I liked them or not if I were not familiar with them?

    4. No. Thre are two main standards for speakers: 1) accuracy and 2) pleasantness. I tend to like speakers which measure well, but I really can't see why I would want speakers I couldn't stand to listen to.

    Now, if I really wanted to recreate a convincing illusion of a live performance, I would have to have a system designed to do that with suitable recordings. That won't much happen with stereo, though often enough it will give me a plausible illusion of how a performance might actually sound. I would have liked to have been able to get down to hear the system Jim Johnston designed while he was with AT & T:

    http://www.onhifi.com/features/20010615.htm

    Binaural recordings with heaphones, anyone?

    5. No. I prefer a gestalt approach, while noticing various elements in the sound image and sound field. This is not to say that "frequency range, signal/noise ratio, stage size and depth, instrumental separation and balance, timbre, and textual clarity " are not important, but these are much dependent on the recordings used.

    6. Yes, some speakers will sound impressive with rock and big bands, but fall down with a lot of other music.

    Yes, some speakers sound quite decent with small ensembles and jazz but not with rock or full orchestra (a decent subwoofer may remedy that).

    But speakers really good with classical material also tend to be good with most anything, including sounding better than rock speakers. I think mine do, though that's with a subwoofer, good as they are from 70 hz on up, though they do have useful bass down to 40 Hz or so. I am not interested in getting rock concert levels, though, as I value my hearing too much.

    I'll give Peter Q. half a mark here because I want an all-rounder

    7. I must say this question contains an incoherecy. I am not aware that a playing music in a studio is not live music, although the end recording may have also sorts of manipulations, such as the performers not being playing simultaneously and all sorts of electronic processing.

    Many recordings simply do not record a performance, and often there is no intend to sound like a live concert (and with many amplifier concerts, this is a good thing. And as Eric Salzman has pointed out there is no original performance for his Nude Paper Sermon other than playing the record. I could present an "real performance" of Nude Paper Sermon over my system or lots of other stereo systems.

    Being able to recreate the illusion of a live performance (whether in a studio or elsewhere) may be the goal with some recordings, but for the most part, we have no way of knowing what they sounded like (and Peter Q. is hardly the first to have pointed that out).

    Now, what about the proposed solution: comparison by contrast. I have maintained in the past and still do that this is too vague, and there is also no reason to suppose it a correct solution. What sorts of contrasts are we looking for? How do we tell whether the contrasts are too much or too little? What if we really get some bizarre sounding contrasts? I don't find this method either useful or practical. How do you implement it? I simply don't know.

    My solution is to try a variety of different recordings and find speakers that seem to sound good to me on most recordings.
    "Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony."
    ------Heraclitus of Ephesis (fl. 504-500 BC), trans. Wheelwright.

  10. #10
    Audio casualty StevenSurprenant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Illinois
    Posts
    592

    I suppose I should add my two cents...

    What do you compare to?

    I just went to a Roger Walter concert at the United Center in Chicago and was dismayed. The sound system was very poor and I couldn't understand one word. However, the excitement of "being there" was enjoyable.

    I went to a cello recital in Champaign, Illinois and was equally dismayed because I couldn't hear the finer details of the strings because I was too far from the stage.

    Many years ago, I heard a group on the street in Orlando Florida playing Canon in D minor and was brought to tears.

    I've been to a number of concerts, some were very enjoyable and some could have been better. Some were amplified and some were not. At home. I have been overwhelmed with emotions from what I was listening to.

    Which do I prefer? It doesn't matter. Each had its own strength and weakness.

    How does live compare to the sound that I get from home audio? Again, it's just different. Most of the time, I prefer audio at home rather than live. The reason is that I can control the volume and I can hear so much more of the delicate intricacies of voices and harmonics that are lost in a public showing. In addition, this sound stage that many of us enjoy is lost in many live venues, especially when amplified.

    Would I want my audio system to sound live? Sometimes yes and sometimes no. Each has its draw.

    As for comparing components, I am in the camp of long time listening. If I have to switch back and forth to hear any differences, than many times it's not worth the effort. Sometimes the "difference" is slight, but that slight difference can make all the difference in enjoyment. Sometimes the difference is just different, not better or worse.

    I have yet to hear two different systems sound the same. So if that is true, then how is it possible that any of them is closer to reality (if that's your goal). The fact is, as I see it, is that we want to hear what we want to hear. Changing our equipment can bring us closer to our own ideal.

    I've listened to many systems that the owners were very proud of, but of which I was less than impressed. In fact, I've met one person that preferred their Bose to my Quads. There is no right or wrong, its all a matter of taste.

    So, if we want the ultimate system, what so we use as a reference? Live music or different components? I say neither. The reference exists in your mind. If you press that power button and find yourself in awe and bliss, then you are there.

    We make such a fuss over being high end guru's but none of us are. Just as this thread has proved, each of us has different opinions. That, in itself, shows that there is no one right solution or reference.

    Many of us are on the "Road to Audio Hell" because we don't know where we are going. We only know that we want more than we have. Perhaps what we want doesn't exist.

    I've spent a great deal of money and time over the years and now own the best system of my life, and I am still changing it. I had to go the DIY route to get the sound that I like. Will I ever get off this merry-go-round? Sure, after my next upgrade, if you can believe that!

    I have to tell you this: I've had so much fun doing this. I wouldn't have what I have today if I hadn't gone through the growing pains. No regrets here.

    The most important lesson I've learned is that everyone has their own opinion, myself included and that there is no-one that has the right to consider themselves as the final word. Even so, there is always something to be learned from each other.

    Hold on, the merry-go-round is starting up again...

  11. #11
    Shostakovich fan Feanor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    London, Ontario
    Posts
    8,127

    "The reference exists in your mind"

    Quote Originally Posted by StevenSurprenant
    What do you compare to?
    ...
    I've been to a number of concerts, some were very enjoyable and some could have been better. Some were amplified and some were not. At home. I have been overwhelmed with emotions from what I was listening to.

    Which do I prefer? It doesn't matter. Each had its own strength and weakness.

    How does live compare to the sound that I get from home audio?
    ...

    So, if we want the ultimate system, what so we use as a reference? Live music or different components? I say neither. The reference exists in your mind. If you press that power button and find yourself in awe and bliss, then you are there.

    We make such a fuss over being high end guru's but none of us are. Just as this thread has proved, each of us has different opinions. That, in itself, shows that there is no one right solution or reference.

    ...
    "The reference exists in your mind": indisputably true. But I ask, How does the reference get into your mind? For me the answer is still live music.

    That's despite the fact that I agree with you, Steve -- the sound is often better in my own living room than the concert hall. My in-head, "live" reference is an amalgam of hundreds of live concerts (of accoustic music) so that I have an over-all reference for (1) the sound of a good concert hall, (2) the sound of a good seat in the concert hall, (3) the sound of a well-balance and positioned orchestra, and (4) the sound of individual instruments.

    Of course, this reference is a guide not only to equipment but also to recording practice. Away too often it sounds like the recording producer or engineer has never been to a live concert! Many (even a majority of classical) recordings sound far too close-up (or close-microphoned), therefore too bright with a distorted balance of highs and mid-highs especially. Some of us this ascribe this to the digital recording medium or to solid state equipment when the real culprit was the approach to recording & mixing.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •