Hi, Jim. As always, some thoughtful questions. First, the memories of live performances persist, as they accumulate over time. Software becomes more of a problem than hardware, believe it or not. Still, you listen through to the memories. You become familier with what is possible within the subjective limitations of those who produce the software -- obviously, each has his own agenda, his own ideal. And some don't pay attention to what live music sounds like. Remember, they listen through headphones. There is an unmistakeable gestalt that live music creates. You can't pin it down. And it changes with each venue. Still, it persists. It's the gloss on massed violins. It's the power of brass and percussion as they cut through the rest of the mix on crescendos.

How can reviewers get at the particulars of a specific component? They have to bracket. They have to go from the obvious to the subtle, then back and forth, again, again, and again. This is the Structuralist mantra. We learn by contrasts. We start with the obvious ones, and press towards identity. And then we go
back and do it again. After all this, reviewers have to write clearly about the general and specific sonic picture. Many don't know "live," and inevitably fall into the trap of comparing electronics to other electronics. This is a subtle shift. This is why the few best reviewers end up writing, "I don't want to get into the comparison game." Still, even the best can't resist...after all, don't they routinely get to live with the best and most expensive gear on the market?

The best components and component combinations have "life." Period. That's what live music has. Life. It is unmistakeable when you hear it in your living room. That is why a component can measure to the nines and bore hell out of you, and another one can sound obviously distorted, but have the "life" magic, and glue you to your seat. Some systems are bright and dead, others are dull and lively. Go figure. We all recognize the magic when we hear it. Very few can write about it well without straying off into the electronics vs. electronics matrix. If any of this makes sense, you need a refill. Cheers, Clifton.

Comparing "live" vs. comparing machines - I figure it's a reviewer's job to do both.

Comparing a piece of gear to live sound seems more difficult - the vocabulary for what's missing imposes the need for the reviewer to have lots of good descriptive words for what live sound sounds like!

That seems to be the toughest thing I can imagine about a reviewer's job. We've all heard live, and it's one tough mo fo to sit there and think of vocabulary for that experience. Then, to face a piece of gear and say precisley what it isn't doing that live sound does do - Aye yai yai.

There is a certain je ne sais quoi to live music that, for me, is either there or it isn't. Clifton's probably lost enough neurons and ear cells that maybe he's heard that sound in his room, but I don't believe it exists.

Maybe terms like "speed" and "dynamics" and "information(?)" live in this realm?

So, I only partially agree about the importance of a reviewer having to describe where a piece of gear falls short in its attempt to replicate live sound.

I don't see why it would be controversial at all, but the other part of a reviewer's job is more important to me: to be adept at comparing a certain piece of gear to other gear. I, as a reader, like reading about how a reviewer perceives how the sound of one piece of gear differs from another. We can often more efficiently relate those descriptions to our own experience or to what we hear going on in our listening room.

I also think that comparing gear to gear is a much easier job, language-wise. Comparing apples to apples ain't as conceptually hard as it is to describe the experience of how an apple actually differs from an orange - in terms of there being an accurate exchange of information. Relatively speaking, it's easier for apple aficionados to verbally compare Rome to Fuji apples that it is for them to verbally compare apples to citrus.

Apple vs. apple words are easier to come by without using "appleness," if that makes sense.

So, while I want both, what's hardest for me to do is get my hands on that much gear and reference the different pieces to each other...

Enter the role of the reviewer.

A reviewer is a tool (usually... ...) who's job it is to place pieces of gear in context to each other. A good reviewer can make it so that when I run into a piece of equipment that he has mentioned, I can more efficiently relate its sound to how I've heard my gear or other gear sound.

I actual like gear vs. gear comparisons the most. Gear vs. gear has more precision to its language and most often uses sources that I can get my hands on to check out what I think when having the same "source experience" as a reviewer. Gear vs. "live" comparisons are less linguistically precise, always fall short of their comparative goal, and lend themselves to invalid self-referential "reviewer infallability."

I can dig a reviewer saying the a certain piece of gear has better "whatever" than another piece, but I become leary when he says that a certain piece of gear sounds "more row L" than it does "row M" when he's in his seat at Carnegie. A reviewer may easily be FOS and this is his way of making it impossible for you to "check his ears."

Those "live" distinctions can be too personal and ambiguous.

Not always, and there are great reviewers who have done it, but there's alot more BS wiggle room there than I would like.

Now for a bit of heresy:

The lesser of the two, in terms of which comparison is more important to me, is how a piece of gear does relative to live music.

I can easily do that myself.

Feel free to talk gear, I can take it.

One thing I find exceedingly interesting in the DBT testing debate is that the hardest thing to describe is the easiest to test for, and the esiest thing to describe is the hardest to test for...i.e. that live vs. Hi Fi delivers essentially a 100% able-to-detect-a-difference-rate in testing; while machine vs. machine DBT seems to make differences disappear.

Go figure!

I also find gear to gear comparisons easier to swallow. While it is handy to be familiar with the sound of live, unamplified acoustic music, comparing gear to this reference places too much weight on the assumption that the recording was captured accurately. Until listeners can be assured that the recording process is perfect, all we can hope to do with playback is reproduce what is encoded in the software with as little distortion as possible; this may not mean what we hear sounds exactly like live music... it may just be what has been captured presented in the best way possible.

When I tweak my system, I determine if that tweak is beneficial if I hear more information that I couldn't make out before. If I hear better decay of notes, rear wall reflections, harmonic overtones on strings -- things that might've been previously masked, it's a good thing. The same goes for gear. If there's more there there, it can't be all that bad.

Jeff, Buddha, I wouldn't argue with what either of you say. After all, it is the gear we end up with, when we make choices. For me, it has become a process of triangulation. Gear "A" to "memory of live" to Gear "B." And it's not so much the memory of live as it is the memory of the live experience. It is just too easy to compare Gear "A" to Gear "B" and then go off full bore into the electronics-to-electronics matrix, forgetting about the experience you want to use as an anchor. If I were a reviewer (I couldn't stand to be one, actually...) I would probably be most like Art Dudley. We both know that "live" is unattainable, yet both value the live experience and use it as an anchor. We both are skeptical as to measured abstractions (which is definitely an electronics-to-electronics matrix that exludes "live," when you think about it...), and we both value the "life" that certain components communicate, even when they (paradoxically, on occasion) have a sound that is definitely electronic. I might well hear a set-up that communicates this "life" and prefer it over another set-up that seems clinically more accurate, but is polite and moribund. "Life" and "live" are different, although one would like for them to converge somewhere.

I forgot to add something (always do, it seems). The best thinking I can recall as a student of Critical Theory posits that language can trap you outside of the "reality" matrix it tries to somehow match up with, as well as invite you in. Language is constituitive of thought, not imitative of it. As Cassirer noted many times, the Helen Keller story documents that postulate. Saussure, Shklovsky (and the other Russian Formalists), Barthes, Lacan, Derrida, and Foucault all have done pioneering work in this area over the past 100 years, and they are the most credible when it comes to the epistemological study of language. In terms of audio reviews, the standard "vocabulary" of describing the audio experience can become a trap, a stale jumble from the word-basket that drifts off into the realm of cliche and abstraction. The great reviewers know this and try to freshen things up occasionally. I don't think you can "find" a vocabulary that communicates well in this field -- you have to invent one. As Blake said, "...I must build my own system or be enslav'd by another man's."

We'd better work Stephen's "yoav" into the lexicon, pronto.

As I looked back at the title of the thread, I realized it had JVS in the title.

I'm looking forward to reading some more reviews of his, precisely because I have a hunch he may have something good up his sleeve when he starts describing the sound of equipment.

Anyway, I was over-thinking this vocabulary stuff, and I repeatedly land in the realm of "gear to gear" for ease of vocabulary; precisely for the reason Clifton mentions: I don't get stuck with the same words over and over again.

Gear to gear comparisons don't even revolve that much around the gear. What they do allow someone to do is describe what a repeatable/comparable piece of softwear allows the gear to reveal.

Jeff astutley mentioned better detail, and there are other parameters that benefit from this approach, too.

With gear to gear listening, the softwear is actually a crucial part of the comparison. I don't have to use tired old vocabulary over and over because I can describe a certain piece of music and discuss sonic differences. A broad palate of softwear helps keep things fresh when a reviewer wants fresh, and gives us "reproducibility" when he wishes to re-address certain performance parameters that are pertinent to his listening experience.

After all, in this hobby, we can't share a "live reference experience." The best we can hope to do is have reference recordings in common.

Heck, for many recordings, we don't even have a "live" alternative to consider!

Also, when reviewers list the softwear they used in a review, we are being given a means by which to judge the reviewer, which is also very useful to me, Mr. Consumer!

The old adage about judging Hi Fi gear using the reference of unamplified instruments in acoustical space is great, in theory, but it limits the discussion if we only allow ourselves to use that criterion.

This is fine, all right. I been yoaved so often it makes my lobanska ache just thinking about it. And, Buddha, I said "life" is different from "live." "Life" takes the software into account. Still, I don't think I could stand this hobby, this obsession, if I couldn't hear live music for a year. And, on the same subject, going from Dorothy Chandler to Disney Hall was like actually seeing Lazarus rise. So, perhaps that is where "life" and "live" converge. So many times, reading about this stuff, I have read "A" is more realistic than "B" -- but, wait, "C" beats "B" and is twice better than "A" -- "D" is the best so far, so we have a new champeen. So I listen, and it seems the reviewer is onto something. But, finally, I go back to "A" and it has more of the "life" magic than the rest of the alphabet put together. So I just get out of the alphabet and buy the magic. Sorry. Just yoav me.

Gentlemen, Gentlemen, let's get down to cases here. The value reviewers have to us is strictly in the realm of gear to gear. We all have our favorite reviewers, because we feel we understand the language they use, and because we've had some opportunities to compare their assessments to our own. JVS also has a favorite reviewer - himself, and he devotes two thirds of his column explaining why he feels that way and why we should. The relavent consideration he points to is that we are all, "... faced with a gestalt of room, setup, and equipment limitations that colors and distorts the sounds that reach our ears." We do, as he states, make do with that situation. That is what this hobby is all about for Pete's sake. Precious few of us, too few even to consider, listen to our music in purpose built listening rooms. We love music so we invite it into areas of our homes where we like to spend our time. We don't build a cage for it and keep it there. Rarely, I think, except for brief periods as beginners, do we lose sight of the music and make the system "...the end-all..". Those of us who have been around for a while have pursued simpler and simpler systems of high quality AND WE DEFINE HIGH QUALITY BY HOW OUR FAVORITE MUSIC SOUNDS TO US. We get to decide as individuals whether the index we use is gear to live or gear to gear or something else. There are, I suppose a few who define the sound they want using microphones and software. Clearly, they simply want more boxes and wires to play with and they are hopeless. Certainly only music can serve as the ultimate guide. What else? The love of music is what brought us here in the first place. Once again JVS caps off his exercise in self promotion by speaking the obvious in carefully contrived language. I'm wondering if, when the summer vacation season is over, we'll once again see the "As We See It" column with another byline. I, for one, hope so.

Quote:
I'm wondering if, when the summer vacation season is over, we'll once again see the "As We See It" column with another byline. I, for one, hope so.

I wrote the October issue's "As We See It," John Marks the November issue's. I fear the creative energy I used to devote to "AWSIs" now goes into my eNewsletter essays. :-(

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

I think the variable in a lot of this stuff is what comes closer to convincing the listener that something is real. There are certainly several aspects that the majority of people would consider more or less real, but whatever it takes to give the illusion that the music sounds real will differ to some degree between all people.

Dup, for example, has no less love of music than the rest of us. But, the manner of reproducing the illusion for Dup might not be what it takes to fool me into thinking something sounds real. I might find something more convicing at 80 decibels where DUP would instantly lose the illusion without realistic spls.

You could carry that sort of thing across every aspect of reproduction. It has to approach "real" in whatever aspect the listener makes a connection with.

Yes, Monty and Clay. It is probably impossible to generalize, to abstract verbal categories out of the actual listening experience, and hold these generalizations up as be-all, end-all criteria for excellence in playback systems. You get a different system every time you switch from Columbia to RCA, from Deutsche-Gramophone to Philips. Still, there is something about your favorite system that gets "reality" out of all these variables and allows you to simply listen and enjoy. That is what I meant by "life" or "magic." The best example I can think of is a day I spent at a dealer's about 5 or 6 years ago. The reference system was the (then) new $18,000 Revel Ultima Salon, the $15,000 Mark Levinson #32 Reference preamp, the $20,000 Levinson 33H monoblocks, the Meridian 508-24 CD player, and a $10,000 Basis turntable (with a $3500 Graham arm and a $3000 Lyra pickup). It sounded terrific, but "squeezed" the music dry. No life. Everything sounded "held back," constipated -- like there was more music waiting to get out. I played LP's, CD's of all types. Admirable, but no magic, no life. The Arial 10T's were in the other end of the room. One-third the cost of the Revels. The amp was a $5,000 Jeff Rowland integrated. CD and LP were the same as in the other system. Life. You could hear it immediately. More relaxed, immediate, dynamic, and effortless. With the same software (I had brought a variety from home). I spent nearly 8 hours. There was no comparison. I didn't have the heart to tell the dealer. It was the sense of ease, the unforced quality that got me out of the equipment and into the music. You can't generalize or make rules, folks, but you know it when you hear it. Cheers, all.

Quote:
Yes, Monty and Clay. It is probably impossible to generalize, to abstract verbal categories out of the actual listening experience, and hold these generalizations up as be-all, end-all criteria for excellence in playback systems. You get a different system every time you switch from Columbia to RCA, from Deutsche-Gramophone to Philips. Still, there is something about your favorite system that gets "reality" out of all these variables and allows you to simply listen and enjoy. That is what I meant by "life" or "magic." The best example I can think of is a day I spent at a dealer's about 5 or 6 years ago. The reference system was the (then) new $18,000 Revel Ultima Salon, the $15,000 Mark Levinson #32 Reference preamp, the $20,000 Levinson 33H monoblocks, the Meridian 508-24 CD player, and a $10,000 Basis turntable (with a $3500 Graham arm and a $3000 Lyra pickup). It sounded terrific, but "squeezed" the music dry. No life. Everything sounded "held back," constipated -- like there was more music waiting to get out. I played LP's, CD's of all types. Admirable, but no magic, no life. The Arial 10T's were in the other end of the room. One-third the cost of the Revels. The amp was a $5,000 Jeff Rowland integrated. CD and LP were the same as in the other system. Life. You could hear it immediately. More relaxed, immediate, dynamic, and effortless. With the same software (I had brought a variety from home). I spent nearly 8 hours. There was no comparison. I didn't have the heart to tell the dealer. It was the sense of ease, the unforced quality that got me out of the equipment and into the music. You can't generalize or make rules, folks, but you know it when you hear it. Cheers, all.

I bet it was the cables.

lol

Quote:
As I looked back at the title of the thread, I realized it had JVS in the title.

I'm looking forward to reading some more reviews of his, precisely because I have a hunch he may have something good up his sleeve when he starts describing the sound of equipment.

HERE is a link to a recent JVS equiment review. IMHO, pretty much the same bullbutter he's been greeting us with lately.

RG

Maybe we need to cut the guy some slack. I'm starting to think we've added his name to the new lexicon:

serinus

ser-i-nus (s&r'-&-n&s)

n. pl. ser

Quote:
Those of us who have been around for a while have pursued simpler and simpler systems of high quality

If this is true then why do I consistently read reviewers praying for more listeners to discover the magic of multichannel?

Quote:

Quote:
Those of us who have been around for a while have pursued simpler and simpler systems of high quality

If this is true then why do I consistently read reviewers praying for more listeners to discover the magic of multichannel?

Because there is more than one pathway to bliss, of course!

Thanks for the response, John, and for some variety in future AWSI contributers. It isn't often that one of my wishes gets granted, and I'm always grateful when that happens.

Very, very, funny, Jeff. If that is your idea of cutting some slack, I'll go along with it.

Cables? CABLES??? You mean I gotta go back in time and listen for ANOTHER 8 hours and pay attention to frickin' WIRE??? C'mon. They were Harmonic Technology, Fremer-approved. Don't ask me the goddam model numbers. The joint sold (and sells) Harmonic Technology and Synergistic. Non-frozen, non-burned, round not flat. DUP-approved. Listen. The Revels were frigid. Trust me. John Holmes couldn't have aroused 'em. Some folks like that. I have no problem with it.

The Monarchy reads like a pain in the ass. I wonder if Shostakovich or Boulez fussed over the voltage capability of the tubes. Pretty fussy stuff. I hate "fussy." I think " jadis " (if I remember my French) means something like our "lately." Oops -- I just looked it up. Dernierment is "lately." Jadis is "formerly." Whatever...it costs a ton. Shouldn't "Khorus" be spelled "Chorus."? Why kant peepul refrain from being klever and just let the ekwipment speak for itself? 4-ever, F U kan dig it, Clifton.

Quote:
John Holmes couldn't have aroused 'em.

Are you implying that cables are female, or homoerotic?

I bet you're thinking female, otherwise "Straightwire" wouldn't make any sense at all.

The speakers, Buddha. Couldn't have aroused the speakers. What goes in is the cable. And it has to be straight, or it won't go in. Sheesh. Do I have to tell you EVERYTHING? The juice goes through the wire, which (when properly plugged in) makes the speaker big with sound. I think. Wait. That would be non-recreational sound, right? Procreational only. Recreational sound would be promiscuous. You tryin' to ruin my reputation? I might be easy, but I ain't no ho.

Quote:
We'd better work Stephen's "yoav" into the lexicon, pronto.

Ha ha. I'm so glad you remembered my little "yoav" entry, Jeff. Thank you.

Clifton: I almost wish I'd had the pleasure of sitting in one of your classrooms. I say "almost" because I kind of hated school. This forum is much better.

I agree with you: new vocabulary must be invented to properly communicate this stuff. It's something I try to keep in mind every time I write. Thanks for reminding me.

I suggest you be careful, Stephen, before buying into Clifton's suggestion to employ a new vocabulary in your writing. If anyone in this forum knows the power of the "namegiver", it is Clifton, and I'm not sure he isn't capable of abusing power.

I second that emotion.

When I met Clifton at HE2006, he couched all his audio descriptions in terms of anatomy...

Clifton-isms from L.A.:

"Those MBL's have great tits."

"Man, check out the ass on those VTL's."

"Nice rack on that Music Direct room." (I think that may have been innocent, but with Clifton, you never know.)

"Boy, I'd put it in that tight port on the B&W's in a second."

"Hey, do the legs on that stand go ALL the way up?"

"You want rare hardwood, eh? Well, I got your rare, hard, wood...right here."

So, you get my drift.

If we put Clifton in charge of vocabulary, Border's will have to start selling Stereophile from behind the counter.

Quote:
I suggest you be careful, Stephen, before buying into Clifton's suggestion to employ a new vocabulary in your writing. If anyone in this forum knows the power of the "namegiver", it is Clifton, and I'm not sure he isn't capable of abusing power.

Funny: While proofing an upcoming "Listening" column, I found Art Dudley completely going against the idea of "creating a new vocabulary."

And now:

I don't know
what
to think.

Just kidding. I've always liked the idea of creating a new vocabulary insofar as the topic deserves it. Which, of course, is kinda my choice. But I do try to be responsible about it, hoping that the reader can understand what I'm saying. Otherwise, you start asking yourself crazy questions like: Why even speak? Why even get out of bed in the morning? It's all uphill from there.

I mean: special feelings, special experiences, seem to deserve special words - old words in a new order or new words in an old order.

Like a good loudspeaker, I try to be "accurate" and "musical" (heh).

I must acknowlege that "yoav" was good. Further, unlike many of your contemporaries, you have repeatedly demonstrated familiarity and facility with standard English. If you proceed without much help from Clinton, I'll give your exercises in creative language the benefit of the doubt. Should one "it's like" or "you know" creep in, or should you slip too deeply into the scatalogical vein, however, all bets are off. We old guys feel an obligation to keep an eye on you as best we can. JA can only do so much to keep you on the straight and narrow.

I just got back from 2 days of trout fishing, above Bishop, in the 10,000-foot air and 35-degree water of the Sierras. The trout won, overall, but I counted some coup among the slithery little peckers. Mostly, though, I got roundly yoaved by the cowardly stinkers, as they nibbled teasingly around my painfully contrived offerings, only to break off when it came time to come to net. Your word, it appears more and more often over time, is destined for universal application. I think it belongs in the OED. Do you remember cranky old Charles Sanders Peirce, who coined the term, "Pragmaticism"? When asked why, in reference to the Pragmatism that was going around at the time, he said, "Because it's an ugly enough word that nobody will want to steal it." "Yoav" is stolen. Sorry, but you get the glory for inventing it.

All writing walks several thin lines, as you know. A cow will always be a cow, and treble will always be a range above 5 or so kHz, and you have to use accepted terms in order to communicate. Audio reviewing is an interesting case (as is music criticism), because words can can only dance around the subject, not really penetrate it. I always thought Art did a great job of infusing new life into the dead letters the craft passes down, from reviewer to reviewer. You and he are at the van, as far as I can see, because you both see and write from a unique perspective. But if you keep comin' up with yoavs, we're gonna have to make you a philosopher. Cheers, Clifton

My God, Clifton, only you would come up with Charles Peirce (pronounced Purse). Talk about obscure - and for good reason. I had a belly full of that guy way back in the dark ages when, as luck would have it, I got a grad student for a freshman Philosophy course who was doing his dissertation on Peirce. Have no idea what the course was supposed to have covered, but I wound up with a lifetime supply of Pierce. Haven't heard a single mention of him since - until now that is. You've got a lot of wierd stuff stored up there.

I know -- and, as is the case with other parts of my anatomy, it seems to dribble out at random intervals. I can't imagine anyone doing a dissertation on Peirce. Now, this guy is no doubt confined inside some rubber classroom by now. I'm lucky -- nobody has caught me yet. You will notice, however, my restraint on the turn that Chester's thread on Linda Ronstadt has taken. This is years of discipline, folks. Notice how Jeff couldn't keep himself in, shamelessly putting his stylus in her groove like that.

Quote:
You will notice, however, my restraint on the turn that Chester's thread on Linda Ronstadt has taken. This is years of discipline, folks.

Notice how Jeff couldn't keep himself in, shamelessly putting his stylus in her groove like that.

LMAO Another Clifton classic!

RG