In article , Bob Latham
wrote:
In article , Jim Lesurf
wrote:

Alas, even 'hi fi' mags and forums these days largely tend to
concentrate on commercially recorded 'pop and rock' music not
classical/acoustic music. making it difficult to decide in many cases
what on earth an 'original sound' in natural terms might have been.

If someone asked me to decide between two hi-fi items using classical
music (which I have a great deal of) I wouldn't even bother to turn up
as I know I couldn't do it.

Thats fine if you aren't working as a 'reviewer' in a magzine trying to
tell people about the capability of equipment. Your choices are your
business if you aren't giving your conclusions to anyone else whose tastes,
hearing, etc, may differ from yours.

Also fine if you are just deciding to stay within your own 'comfort
zone' of familiarity as being the best place for making your own
personal decisions. However professional reviews aren't just for
the sake of the reviewer - or at least should not be so limited.

Yes, I know, nothing original to compare with etc. but I don't need to
hear the original to decide which of two versions I prefer. I'm not
trying to decide which is closest to the original I'm deciding which I
will enjoy - not necessarily the technical best.

Again, fine for you as an individual if it suits you.

Honestly for me /most/ classical is so 'mid range' and undemanding I
wouldn't bother. What is more, even though it wouldn't be probably
wouldn't be admitted, the vast majority of people would be same I
suspect.

Surprised that you think items by composers as diverse as Prokofiev, PMD,
Bach, Messiaen, Neilsen, Part, and all kinds of others, or all kinds of
totally different sounding things on a wide range of instruments are all
'mid range', from Britten's "Prince of the Pagodas" to early music on
Crumhorns.[1] But again, your personal preferences and limitations are your
business I accept.

Similarly, I find a lot of pop and rock pretty 'mid range' as well, so
regard *only* using pop and rock as pretty poor as a way of judging what
equipment can do. Why only use a hammer when there are other tools in the
toolkit? But if you like to use a hammer for every job, that's you choice.
fair enough. :-)

Personally, I find classical acoustic music useful for assessing things
like depth in imaging and how faithfully it reproduces 'solidity' of
acoustics and the hall sound. And massed strings useful for detecting
things like crossover suckout in speakers or the presence of other
notches or peaks in the spatial patterns of speakers. If you don't,
or don't care, fine for you. But so far as I know none of the commercial
magazines are aimed *only* at one of the two of us!

Slainte,

[1] BTW I also regard a lot of Indian/Japanese/etc music 'classical'
and think it should also be used some of the time. A wider toolkit
and catering for a wider range of experience seems preferrable to
me. May also help people to discover things they didn't know they
would enjoy. But that is another issue, I guess... :-)

Jim

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