hugo@griggs.dartmouth.edu (Peter Su) (07/06/90)
The audio press seems to make a big deal about imaging and ambience information in recordings, and how well playback systems capture this information. In fact, in reading some reviews, it almost seems like detail in imaging is almost the one most important factor used to rate audio equipment. One staggering example of this mentality is HP's recent pre-amp survey, in which the writer goes on an on about how well the back and sides of the "soundfield" were captured by component X, how the "air" between the players was now audible, how clearly component Y captured the reflection of sound off the back wall of the concert hall, and so on and so forth. HP even writes somewhere that East coast "air" sounds "wet" on recordings, where as other air (presumably inland) sounds "dry." The obvious question here is why is this one aspect of sound reproduction so important to so many people? Is equipment good enough to correctly reproduce all the other aspects of music, and this is all that is left? I don't think so. The other question to raise is whether or not people hear any of this stuff at concerts. What does "air" sound like, anyway? I personally tend not to notice, but I mostly sit towards the back of the hall I go to. I also don't go into the concert thinking 'Ok, listen to the back and side walls...', geesh. So, what do people think? Pete
jdhill@BBN.COM (Jack D. Hill) (07/06/90)
In article <4865@uwm.edu> hugo@griggs.dartmouth.edu (Peter Su) writes: >The audio press seems to make a big deal about imaging and ambience >information in recordings, and how well playback systems capture this >information. In fact, in reading some reviews, it almost seems like >detail in imaging is almost the one most important factor used to rate >audio equipment. >... >The obvious question here is why is this one aspect of sound >reproduction so important to so many people? Is equipment good enough >to correctly reproduce all the other aspects of music, and this is all >that is left? I don't think so. I believe the reason HP and people like him are making such a big deal about it is because this is an aspect of sound reproduction that contemporary equipment is just starting to reveal. It is a component that has added to stereo equipment's ability to achieve concert hall realism in the living room. I don't think they believe everything else is "good enough", this is just a new criterion by which to judge components. >The other question to raise is whether or not people hear any of this >stuff at concerts. What does "air" sound like, anyway? I personally >tend not to notice, but I mostly sit towards the back of the hall I go >to. I also don't go into the concert thinking 'Ok, listen to the back >and side walls...', geesh. I don't go to concerts and specifically listen to the back and side walls. If the hall is dry or reverberant then I make a note of it. In sound reproduction though, if this aspect is missing, then the illusion of realism is not achieved. We the audience do not have to consciously be aware of such things but when a reviewer uses such detailed analysis in the critique of an audio component, then we should know what he's referring to. Jack Hill
rshapiro@arris.com (Richard Shapiro) (07/08/90)
In article <4865@uwm.edu> hugo@griggs.dartmouth.edu (Peter Su) writes: >The audio press seems to make a big deal about imaging and ambience >information in recordings... >The obvious question here is why is this one aspect of sound >reproduction so important to so many people? Is equipment good enough >to correctly reproduce all the other aspects of music, and this is all >that is left? I don't think so. I think it's because (a) it's only fairly recently that equipment has been able to do this and (b) good imaging etc *dramatically* improves the illusion that real instruments are playing in your living room, probably more than any other single factor (imho, of course). >The other question to raise is whether or not people hear any of this >stuff at concerts. I've commented on this before. Basically, the typical modern concert hall isn't very good for most music. It should not be used as the yardstick for measuring audio equipment. In fact, recording gives the listener access to many more aspects of the music than any concert experience could. One of the principal aspects which typically disappears in a concert setting (especially in a large hall) is the distinctness of each instrument in the ensemble. This is what "air" makes apparent; and this is why good audio equipment is superior to most concert performances in this regard (among others). You don't hear "air" in most concert halls, but this means, not that the recording is phony, but that the hall is inadequate for the music being presented.