Once upon a time on usenet Brian Gaff wrote:
Maybe it just sounded OK to that person.
One thing that has always amazed me is that some shops have crap
sound from crap systems, while others seem to use stuff I'd never
heard of and remarkably get decent sound. I don't know ho Beng
speakers are, but considering they were only 790 quid a pair they
sounded pretty good, especially compared to the average crap bundled
with these stereo systems sold in the multiples these days. I have
never seen them since though so maybe they were bankrupt stock from a
decent company I'd never heard of...
I have some Goodmans speakers here from one of their stereo systems
which sounds good on good speakers, but rubbish on the ones they
bundle indeed the speakers sound rubbish on anything!
I wonder how a company can actually make such bad honking flat dodgy
speakers.
Brian

I had a 'Goodmans' mini-system that had horrible bookshelf speakers with it.
I got rid of them smartish. However I'll not get rid of my Goodmans Mezzo
SLs unless I absolutely have to.
--
Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy
little classification in the DSM*."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
(*Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders)

On 11-10-17 14:10, UnsteadyKen wrote:

My filter found no bull****, just a concise description of how the
turntable sounded to the writer.

What does "upper mids being airy" mean? Was the "meaty" bass
pork or cow? How large is an epic soundstage? 10 m?

On 12/10/2017 08:58, Huge wrote:
On 2017-10-12, RJH wrote:
On 11/10/2017 18:10, Huge wrote:
On 2017-10-11, UnsteadyKen wrote:
In article ,
says...
What does "upper mids being airy" mean?

According to one source: Airy - Spacious. Open. Instruments sound like
they are surrounded by a large reflective space full of air. Good
reproduction of high frequency reflections.


Was the "meaty" bass
pork or cow? How large is an epic soundstage? 10 m?


Reviewers have been using those and similar terms since the year dot and


... they've been meaningless wank that whole time.


If it can't be measured it can't be of significance?

Not entirely.

Phew :-)

Carefully controlled double-blind trials are acceptable. So
called "golden ears" are just a joke.


Quite whether the same adjectives or metaphors are used between trials
wouldn't be especially revealing. How something sounds depends on much
more than the method of reproduction.

--
Cheers, Rob

In article ,
RJH wrote:
I've had the joy of listening to the live sound in the control room
where it's being balanced/recorded. Only a good digital recording
comes close to that. Analogue tape never did, and any form of disc
recording a very poor second.


Wouldn't a recording be 'going through' the tape, like on a 3 head
cassette deck? No idea, perhaps not.

If what you say is the general case, it does make me wonder how much
better all the analogue recordings could have been. As things stand, I'm
very happy with a lot of my pre-70s music's sound quality. More so than
a lot of recent stuff.

Very true. But getting pleasure from any recording is not just down to how
good the 'specs' of that recording are. Plus if you first heard it warts
and all and loved it, hearing it with the warts removed can spoil it for
you.

I still play LPs on occasion. And enjoy them.

--
*I don't have a license to kill, but I do have a learner's permit.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Huge wrote:
Not entirely. Carefully controlled double-blind trials are acceptable. So
called "golden ears" are just a joke.

Yes. The ear actually has a pretty poor 'memory'. Nothing to do with
having perfect pitch either.

--
*Arkansas State Motto: Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Laugh.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
RJH wrote:
Quite whether the same adjectives or metaphors are used between trials
wouldn't be especially revealing. How something sounds depends on much
more than the method of reproduction.

My guess is these reviews are written for those who like this sort of
description. Much the same as some describe a wine, or whatever.

And flowery language is much cheaper than doing any proper testing.

With a turntable I'd want to know how accurate the speed is. Wow and
flutter. Rumble. Tracking performance of the arm and cartridge, as well
as frequency response, etc. How resistant the unit is to vibration and
feedback. All of which can be measured accurately.

Much cheaper to say the midrange reminds you of roses on a summer evening.

--
*Wrinkled was not one of the things I wanted to be when I grew up

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article , Huge
writes:

On 2017-10-12, RJH wrote:

If it can't be measured it can't be of significance?

Not entirely. Carefully controlled double-blind trials are acceptable. So
called "golden ears" are just a joke.

Surely not. After all, they can discern the difference between digital
interconnects, which mere mortals can't even measure.

--
Mike Fleming

On 13/10/2017 02:23, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
RJH wrote:
Quite whether the same adjectives or metaphors are used between trials
wouldn't be especially revealing. How something sounds depends on much
more than the method of reproduction.

My guess is these reviews are written for those who like this sort of
description. Much the same as some describe a wine, or whatever.

And flowery language is much cheaper than doing any proper testing.

With a turntable I'd want to know how accurate the speed is. Wow and
flutter. Rumble. Tracking performance of the arm and cartridge, as well
as frequency response, etc. How resistant the unit is to vibration and
feedback. All of which can be measured accurately.


Yes, all good ballpark indicators about how a component is likely to
perform.

Much cheaper to say the midrange reminds you of roses on a summer evening.


Well, I couldn't possibly comment ;-)

But the measurement of a *system* in particular would benefit, I
believe, from qualitative measurement too.


--
Cheers, Rob

On 12/10/2017 09:12, Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , RJH
wrote:

If it can't be measured it can't be of significance?

Avoid the trap of assuming "we don't know everything" is a synonym for "we
know nothing". :-)

Jim


Noted :-)

--
Cheers, Rob

On 13/10/2017 11:40, RJH wrote:
On 12/10/2017 09:12, Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , RJH
wrote:

If it can't be measured it can't be of significance?

Avoid the trap of assuming "we don't know everything" is a synonym for
"we
know nothing". :-)

Jim


Noted :-)


Actually, just to add, I used the term 'ballpark' above in relation to
quantitative methods. I do believe they're often a very useful approach
to getting things moving and understanding what's going on in a general
sense - unemployment, health, education, whatever - and music reproduction.

The 'truth to be observed' in any social realm (and a fair few natural)
needs qualitative data and analysis for a fuller understanding.

A problem on this topic is that many feel that music as reproduced is a
simple (not always single, though) objective truth, and inherently
measurable (dB, KHz, whatever) as an unassailable 'truth'. I'd agree
that measurements can get them towards what matters, but further
qualitative methods are needed.

Mind, i could be wrong ;-)

Now, off to see Blade Runner :-)

--
Cheers, Rob

In article , RJH
wrote:

A problem on this topic is that many feel that music as reproduced is a
simple (not always single, though) objective truth, and inherently
measurable (dB, KHz, whatever) as an unassailable 'truth'. I'd agree
that measurements can get them towards what matters, but further
qualitative methods are needed.

The problem is to distinguish the container from the contained.

e.g. A 'reviewer' may actually be commenting on the sound of the music
whilst using a wording that assigns what they claim to some specific part
of the apparatus used to play it.

Yet in practice when we listen to music on a HiFi we get result of a series
of factors along the way. From the acoustic of the venue to the changes in
the ears of the listener caused by what they did shortly before they
listened to that bit of music. All then convolved with their (possibly
unawares) personal tasts, expectations, etc.

Too many unknowns, many of whicn will vary from case to case. Chances are
your or my circumstances, etc, will never all match that of the reviewer
who wrote a specific review we just read. 'Controlled' tests can mitigate
this, but aren't easy to do well except for fairly basic effects.

As a result, I tend to feel that 'subjective' comments in reviews are about
as reliable as tossing a coin. And tossing a coin is cheaper and quicker.
:-)

I don't doubt there are exceptions, though. But unless some *checkable*
statements are made that shed light, the above tends to render comments
unreliable. No matter how confident the reviewer, the above seems likely to
be so for all be trivial or clear cut cases.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html