From: kmr4@po.CWRU.Edu (Keith M. Ryan)
Newsgroups: rec.audio.high-end
Subject: "Q" Sound Recordings, A review
Date: 1 Oct 1992 19:02:19 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.89.7.4
Originator: tjk@csd4.csd.uwm.edu


	I thought you'll might be interested in this post. It is a review
of the new Roger Water's album, _Amused to Death_ which uses the new "Q"
recording method ( what ever that is ) that I posted on our local site.
I have found that I do NOT like this new method. It sounds artificial and 
fakes. While one album is not sufficient to judge the new method, it does
not have a promising sign. I can not really judge the new Madonna album
recorded using "Q" sound as I never liked her previous recordings. In any
event, IHMO, "Q" sound does not "produce a wider, more natural sound
field"! Basically, this was a response to an earlier post, stating how
"wonderful" the new recording process is.

	I apologize for the poor emulation of a good subjective review.
I'm still a young writer, and haven't come close to mastering the art.


>Not to say you're wrong, for opinions are never wrong, but how many times
>have you listened to the CD.  Sure, for me (and probably many others) the
>first time thru was maybe uncomfortable, but so was [opinion] The Wall,
>The Final Cut, and Pro's and Cons. But over time (and not nececisarily
>by forcing myself to listen to it repeatedly) I came to really appreciate
>and enjoy these albums - Pros and Cons the most.  So I am giving Amused
>the same respect and not judging too quickly.

	Okay, I was mostly limiting my criticism to the sound quality
of the album. For every recording, there are two main components, the 
musical quality or the sound/recoding quality. [ the other one is lis-
tenability, but that is describing one's personal reaction, not the
work itself ] I find the sound quality
not up to snuff as Roger's other works. Its a mess of contradictions, 
offering differing spatial clues, such as differing reverbs, poorly timed
transients, etc. I've been listening to it for about two weeks or so, and
listened to it maybe 30 times. ( I've been very sick and holed up into
my room ) So, here are some of my criticisms on the sound quality.

	1) The opening notes waver. In an attempt to expand the sound
stage, they have synthetically drawn the guitar "wider". By that, I mean
the direction of the guitar sound has been altered to make it sound
as if its coming from an arc, as opposed to a point source. That in itself,
I do not like. A guitar offers a near point source, it ought to sound as
if one person was sitting back, and playing the guitar in my room. If you
have multiple guitars, they should sound as if they're in different places.
So, the guitar has been stretched. However, this wavers, ie, the field is
changing with time. Specifically, it facilitates between being a near point
source, to arcing near both speakers in an unregular pattern. I think they-
're trying to expand the sound staging, but to the careful listener, it only	
muddles the stage! ( note, the electric guitar could easily be a synthesizer,
by the sound of it. that should not be ) This was a very bad opening. A 
guitar should not and does not naturally provide shimmer. ( if you do not
understand what shimmer is, listen to the very beginning of _Shine on You
Crazy Diamond_, you can't miss it )

	In contrast, compare AD to DS (1). Listen to the opening to DS,
listen carefully to the placement of the individual clocks, and cash regis-
tor. Each sound is coming from a different location, and is very sharp
and precise. Likewise for the cymbals and the guitars. Each occupy a differ-
ent local in space and time. And, they do not waver, or wander in
size. Listen to the drum roll of five drums at 2:10 on the first track.
Each drum of a different note occupies a different space! And, they are
ordered, as a real drum. ( A good drum set has a method of placement,
you can't have them randomly spread out ) And, for each successive drum
roll like this one, they occupy the same place. ( like wise for thier
other albums ) Contrast this to the drum rolls in _What God wants, part
I_. The drums are smeared across the stage, neither sharp nor well defined.
And, all the differing notes overlap. Do they just have one drum, which
plays all the notes? Well, that's what my ears are telling me.

	This problem runs rampant throughout the album. I find very little
consistent staging. If he meant to do this, fine. However, I doubt it.
In only sonically ruins the album. 

	Many people may not care about this, or may not even notice it.
There are a few major examples of this, but many subtler ones. I'll much
rather have a accurate, real staging, recorded with purest methods; than
some faked artificial staging. 

	2) As someone told me by e-mail, there ARE some low end notes,
yet they are not of a high quality. In the first track, there is some
pseudo-thunder. However, the depth and size of the staging at this point
contradicts the sense the dog gives you. ( That is, the spatial clues
the dog give you, reveals a very large, almost infinite space. The pseudo-
thunder sounds as if it is echoing around a smallish cavern/room. They
two were obviously recorded separately, and then mixed; which is fine.
However, they do not mess right, they only muddle the staging.) 

	In addition, the transients do not match. Bass have transients,
and one part of it are the higher frequencies. ( This is why you CAN hear
where low frequencies are coming from, inspite of what the pseudo-subwoofer
manufactures tell you ) However, they do not match up very well. In some,
the transients come too early, and some too late. That is, their time/phase
coherence is shot. To hear this, you need a very tight bass capabilities,
but not necessarily loud. Likewise with the regular drums, these transients
are all over the place, even though it should only be one bass drum! They
have tried to add "reverbs" to make it sound more spacious. However, they 
have only succeeded in muddling the staging. In addition, there are multi-
occurances of having the transients without the lower components! This
is suspiciously similar to  _Running Shoes_. The transients are telling
me, here comes the deep bass kickdrum, yet it never arrives! Its like
seeming someone throw a punch at you, the fist is flying towards your
face, so you close you eyes, and, and .. and nothing. Its as if they
separately recorded the two, then remixed them; only they got the balance
between the two wrong. One is too loud in reference to the other. If I
turn up the bass ( And I mean by over 20 dbs referenced to the midrange! )
you can hear its there, only way to softly recorded.  ( such as the one
at 3:05 ) However, shortly after, it is the transients which are recorded 
too softly. They waver all over.

	Also, on my system, its very hard to tell if the absolute phase 
is correct; however, I feel that on this album, its easily detected. 
( detecting a.p. is so room dependent though ) 

	Compare these with the other major Floyd albums. For an example
of how to do deep bass correctly, listen to DS, Meddle, or The Wall. 
DS has been hailed by the community at large, including J. G Holt (!) 
as being one of the best albums every produced, including deep bass, 
staging ( _On the Run_ on a set of Maggies is phenomenal, albeit the
can not handle the bass ) and clarity. It is one of the very few non-
classical works to be hailed as an audiophile album. 

	3) The group singings are muddled, pure and simply put. They
neither have the depth and width of a real crowd ( here is a place that
smearing them across the soundstage would of been appropriate ). They
have neither the quality, nor size as the group singing in _The Wall_

	4) The opening bird singing in Late Home Tonight sounds as if
it is the exact same track as in _Goodbye Blue Skies_! Now, I admit
that I do not have two CD players in my room, however, listen to my
tape of The Wall, and flipping back and forth, they sound as if he 
used the same original track. I know there has got to be some symbolism
or an allusion there ( after all, this is Waters we are talking about 
here! ). But, I just can not decifer it. Like wise for the ending, its
the same as the opening to _Get your Filthy Hands off my Desert_ Only,
its been cropped short. I've studied the lyrics and can only guess. 
The ideas I have come up with, are too weak. Maybe there isn't any.
( I assume he had rights to those pieces )

	The beginning to Part II has the same bird track, only much 
softer. The sound is defiantly like the Final Cut. Maybe he's trying
to subtly assert the fact that HE is Pink Floyd. Their sound was HIS
sound. Only he knows.

	As far as the actually lyrics, "God wants peace, God wants war,
God wants famine, God wants chain stores" chain stores??? 
I'm sorry, when I first heard that my reaction was: Okay, pack it all up, 
ship is back, that it! It doesn't work... I'm sorry, that one little line 
ruins most of Part I for me. He's jamming and drilling, yet this comes up. 

	I agree that a album should not be judged on one bad line, but
come on, "chain stores"? I'm sorry, that just makes me go, geez...

	I love the guitar jamming on the opening of What God Wants, Part I.
Unfortunately, he doesn't carry through with it for the rest of the album.
Pity.

	_Perfect Senses_ sound quality is better. However, Katie's recorded
too loud in comparison to the rest of the song. It gives the impression
that she's right up front, right in front of you by two feet. ( Now, if she
really was... :-) 

	The opening drum work to _The Bravery of Being Out of Range_ is
much, much better! If only he had keep such quality to the entire album.
The balance and transients are in a good mixture. The staging is sharp.
And it is consistent. This is similar to the kind of bass that I expect
from Waters/Floyd albums. It'll flap your trousers around your ankles.
In addition, the singing is much better. Whereas earlier, it sounded
as if Waters were over lapping the background vocals, this time, Natalie
and Lynn occupy their own space, and are fairly sharp. ( Waters is still
a little smeared )

	Also, listen to the sleigh sounds on the opening to _Too Much
Rope_. The lateral motion is well executed ( like wise for the car),
but the actual source is a little muddled.

>Analogy(?):  Roger Waters albums are like Scotch or Black Coffee
>               You have to aquire the taste for them over time.

	What? The very first time my father gave me some Highlander
Malt Scotch, I loved it right away. I knew it was smooth.

>Or maybe I'm just too bull headed not to like him  :)

	It pains me very much. I know that I am nitpicking. After all,
I rarely hold other groups to such high standards. However, I have come
to love the quality of PF, and of Waters, and expect the quality to 
hold up. So, to me, I was expecting allot more. As is, it's pretty flat
and lifeless, too me. I only hope that I can find a European pressing 
on vinyl which is better pressed ( doubt it thou ).
 	It has its moments, but sonically its not up to the name. 


----
1: I'm going to use AD for Amused to Death and DS for Dark Side of the Moon.


I'm going to enclose a brief description of my tastes and dorm system.
Hit "n" if you're not interested, or if you're a thief! :-)


	What do I look for in a recording? Well, there are several factors which
I consider. However, not all need to be superb ( make that, very very few albums
satisfy all my desires ) I crave deep, taunt subterrainian bass. I do not mean 
the popular pseudo-bass, such in modern rap, and in most rock and roll. They 
tend to be bloated and distorted. And example of the quality and yes, quantity
of bass I prefer, is _Enya_. She has very deep, yet very smooth and clean organ
and drums. _Deireadh An Tuath_ and _Dany Dwr_ are especially good, albeit they 
causes resonances and standing waves. I seem to be blessed/cursed with especial-
ly keen hearing in the first octave, which I consider to be from 10 to 20 Hz.
However, there are very very few works which contain any bass this deep; which
to my ears,is a pity. Many works do have very low end grudge way down there.
I also am very acute to the bass transients. Some say that I am overly criti-
cal. I say that I've more aware of subtle differences down there! Very few
albums have correctly matching bass and its transients. Many times, they're
of differing levels, ie one is too loud in reference to the other. Or, a com-
mon mistake, the transients are sharply defined, but the bass isn't. Its as
if part of the drum comes from the left, but the other part comes from the 
right! This is especially true in multi-miked recordings. Quality ones are
very hard to find, for an example of it being superb, I point you towards
_Dark Side of the Moon_. And, even less are the systems capable of correctly
reproducing such with proper authority. The best system that I have heard for
this was actually my car system! 

	While I hark on the deep bass, which is my passion, I consider other
factors. I strive for clarity. Many, many works are muddled or smeared. This
is true from the deep bass, on up to the treble. I prefer a smooth and mellow
midrange. I do not like the near field effects, ie I do not like to feel that
I am sitting in row one. I like a little distance, and depth to the staging.
And, I prefer a subtle and clean treble. I find many speakers overly bright.
I do not like extrenious noises, such as clicks, pop, even coughs. I understand
that in real life, its part of the hall. However, in my room, I prefer to be
alone, so to speak. While I own a substantial collection of older lp's, I own
very few from the 70's on up. The quality of the pressings are so bad, that
I can not bear to listen to them. Its not that I feel vinyl inferior, its that
the necessary care wasn't taken. So, for music before the 70's, I mainly pre-
fer vinyl, but for more modern, digital. I do not consider the size of the 
stage as important as its focus. I can handle having a smaller stage, if the
music is sharply in focus. I do not like smeared images, but have recinded
to accept such defects, as it is very common in modern rock 'n roll.

	My musical tastes are vast and varied. The main constituent of my 
musical selection comprises of Pink Floyd, and the various solo albums, ie
Roger Waters, David Gilmour and Syd Barrett. In particular are the dynamics,
soundstaging and deep taunt bass of Dark Side of the Moon, The Wall, and 
Meddle, just to name a few. Many, I own both the vinyl and digital releases.
I also have a collection of their foreign releases, but find they usually
do not compare to the quality of the larger market ones; probably that many
are ill recorded bootlegs from Italy and the like. They have a certain magic,
which is too me the quintescene of music. I can neither quantify or qualify
what it is, nor do I offer justification to others who think otherwise. To 
me, they are the magic of music. 

	 I do venture to the heavier side on occasion. However, they
usually are not up to snuff with the quality of the recording, which is a pity.
However, some times I desire something coarse and raw to jam too. The list con-
tains, but is not limited to: Depeche Mode, Def Leppard, AC/DC, Van Halen,
David Lee Roth, etc . One the lighter side; Simon & Garfunkle, U 2, Rush etc.

	I also listen to classical; focusing on Beethoven, Strauss, and Wagner.
I also listen to modern orchestra: such as John Williams, Dorsey, Conti and
Horner. As I own a extensive collection of 60 era symphony LP's, I listen to
many of these on vinyl at home. However, at school, my listening is mostly too
CD's. It's not that I feel vinyl is superior to digital, I feel they just made
the recordings with greater care. And, the convenience and practicality of a
CD player in my small dorm room wins.

	My dorm system is not much of a standard, by mine or anyone's 
standards. However, I serves me well, as best as can be expected within my 
space restrictions. 

	The main signal source is a Denon DcD-670 CD player. However, I
have left my outboard DAC at home, instead using the internal one. In
addition I have a Sony 160 and a Akai 706d tape deck, although they are not
very high in quality and are both quite old, the Akai being nearly 14 years
old. They do serve their purpose thou. 

	I am using my older Denon DRA-25 reciever. While limited in power,
it still retains fairly good dynamics and compared to most mass market
brands, it offers superior sonics. It can reproduce a fair staging, and
is very clean. It doesn't seem to mask the music with a veil like most
inexpensive recievers. However, it is a little less punchy ( it may just
be it is more neutral and has less power ) I generally run the CD straight,
bypassing the tonal controls. The reciever powers a pair of Boston Acoustic
A-70 speakers with a modest 30 watts. While not able to drive concerts,this
more than enough for any kind of serious listening. One just has to be care-
ful of playing a CD to loud. Its uses integrated circuits, so it doesn't
clip gracefully ( though that rarely happens ) The BA's are run full range,
while a M&K subwoofer supliments the deep bass. It is crossed over at about
60 Hz, and contains its own internal amplifier. While unable to drive huge 
volumes, it is quite flat in my smaller room. The opening fanfare to _Also 
Sprach Zarathustra_ is very strong and well defined. Interconnects are a pair
of Audio Quest for the CD player and to the subwoofer ( 1m and 5m respectively),
with homemade interconnects with *gasp* radio shack gold plated connectors for
the two tape decks. Speaker wire consists of an older pair of 5m length Monster
Cable ( 8 ga. I believe ) I am not currently using any kind of power filtra-
tion, albeit I probably ought too. It is all protected with a computer
grade barrier strip and an additional hospital grade surge/voltage drop pro-
tector as I do not trust the dorms powerlines for protection. I have a 
Realistic APM-500 Digital Meter hooked up, in parallel to the BA's. How-
ever, the effects of such are very marginal. Yes, I can detect a very slight
difference. But, just moving my head 3 inches makes for more of a difference.
	
	I really would love to have my complete home system in my dorm, but
it'll be very expensive to ship up from Florida, and it just would not fit
in my room. As is, I have about as good of a system as one can possibly fit
in a dinky dormroom.

-- 
	So there I was, snuggled in the leather seat of my brand new Ferreri.
I had the oiled wood gear shift in one hands, and the leather wrapped Momo in
the other. And, I had the stereo cranking _Born to be Wild_...
	Only one problem, I was upside down, under six feet of water...
-- 
	So there I was, snuggled in the leather seat of my brand new Ferreri.
I had the oiled wood gear shift in one hands, and the leather wrapped Momo in
the other. And, I had the stereo cranking _Born to be Wild_...
	Only one problem, I was unside down, under six feet of water...