|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
108.28.86.161
In Reply to: RE: Using live music as a reference?? posted by jazz1 on March 29, 2012 at 00:24:38
Your closing words seem to say that the best live music is a reference that cannot be attained by the best audio system. So the best live music is the ultimate reference for audio.
There may be exceptions but the majority of musical instruments will sound far superior in tonality and dynamics than a reproduction of the same by any audio system.
Just think of all the musical instruments that could be played in your home and compare that to the reproduction of those instruments through your speakers. There is no serious comparison and with all the limitations and flaws of your audio system, your audio system is no match for real musical instruments.
In fact at some live performances, recorded music is played when the musicians and singers take a break. Even with the best sound system possible, there is no comparison between the real and facsimile, though both may be enjoyable. So enjoy both.
Perhaps some people enjoy watching football, baseball, or basketball games on their large screen television with surround sound system at home. Other people enjoy going to the games. And other people want to be actively involved and they enjoy playing in the games. These are three different experiences that provide different levels of enjoyment. So enjoy all three.
It is often said that musicians have lousy audio systems. And why not since there is no comparison. Make no mistake about it, when it comes to sonics, the finest audio system has serious limits that the real instruments do not have.
Follow Ups:
...that our systems are all terribly flawed and that magic is hidden deep with the grooves of the spinning discs and we just have to spend a lifetime of fretting, fussing, tweaking, upgrading etc. to get towards this goal of sonic nirvana. The belief that the magic is on the disc and 90% of the "damage" that converts live music into what we hear at home is due to our sources, interconnects, amplifiers, speakersm, speaker cables and room geometry and treatments. Not that these things can't help, and produce a much more pleasing experience, I think the idea that "doing it right" can "transport one back to the original event" is a panacea and ultimately an audiophile legend. Yes, I've sat in front of some very IMPRESSIVE sound stages in my day - systems from 10's to even 100's of thousands in rooms with as many room treatments as some stereos. But is it a recreation of the original event? I'd say moreso an 'impressive facsimilie' at best... Just the acoustics of the original venue is so much lost in translation from live to recorded. Polarity of microphones, phase distortion, group delay, equalization, reverb and time domain effects, compression... so many things that detract from the original acoustics and sounds "as we would have heard them".
I think 90% of the "loss" when going from live to canned music happens due to losses and artifacts in the recording chain from the microphones, mixers, digital audio workstation, mixing, effects/compression/eq/panning and then mastering, and normally a DAC-> ADC of the final mix before stamping record or CD. The late great Dr. Harvey Rosenburg himself believed that most damage happens in the transducer which changes air pressure changes (sound waves) into a minute electrical signal... the common microphone. This means the bulk of the damage to the 'live event sound' is already done long before the music is even purchased. Audiophiles meddle in the 10%, while believing they can get "transported to the original event" with the right amount of time, effort, dollars and "experience". I don't believe in this mantra at all, although I am all for assembling a system with the most dynamics and transparency and imaging "capability" possible. But I strongly believe that soundstaging is an aesthetic thing and not something that can be "done right". And this is a VERY important part of the debate on the "create live sound" issue:
I do NOT think that we lack the capacity in the areas of frequency response and dynamics. I think the "getting it to sound live" quest is ultimately flawed because of the damage done to time-domain information first in the recording process and only SECOND in the playback process. When have you seen a dummy wearing a binaural head set recording a symphony? You haven't. Mics are spread out above the performers, on individual instruments as "pick-ups" or most likely both methods. Sure, ARTIFACTS of the original venue are caught in these individual microphones, but the net result is a smear of dozens of vantage points of the event. You cannot "hear" an event from 12 different locations at once, nor would you want to! Not to mention "mic bleed" with mics picking up sounds from other sections or instruments. Yes, non-binaural two mic recordings would be a better compromise, but how many of them are there even out there? And what happens to "perceived" soundstage when these mics are 10, or 20 or 50 feet apart? Audiophiles are obsessed with soundstage SIZE... the bigger, wider, deeper taller huger the better. Why do they think this way? Their room is smaller than the concert hall, so naturally they need their system to make the music BIG again! Uncompress it, if you will. But there are serious flaws with this seemingly basic and widely accepted "logic".
1. The time-domain "information" is not even on the recording
2. Even if it was, the time-domain behavior and reflections in the listening room would need to be addressed.
3. Doing #2 is still debated endlessly. Some believe in room treatments only, some use digital time-domain correction and equalization methods. Some use both. Digital room correction is widely debated - some loving it and some saying it's drawbacks are not worth it's gains.
Very few audiophiles use adequate room treatments. They say that an anechoic environment (the most neutral environment possible) is TOO DEAD when theoretically it should interfere less with time domain info "trapped" in the recording. Why? Audiophiles WANT a certain amount of listening room effects - the reflections and time-domain alterations and add to the pleasant effect of the 3D soundscape. But is this "closer to the live event"? No. It's more pleasing, but even FURTHER from the truth if one were to analyse it from a technical perspective.
This is just my opinion of course. But when I hear things like "accurate placement of instruments in the soundstage" I start to chuckle and then become very vocal. "Believable Placememt" maybe, but there is no such thing as "correct location in the soundstage" except under very controlled conditions, with mics in specific locations, paying careful attention to relative polarity, and minimalization of effects in the studio, especially when it comes to "panning" mics across a virtual sound field. In theory, binaural recordings and a neutralized room (DRC/treatments) would give the closest time domain performance. But most audiophiles who have heard binaural recordings don't like the effect, and say the process detracts from the intented goal rather than making it a reality. Maybe audiophiles just like the "fantasy" soundstage better anyways. And there would be NOTHING wrong with that, so long as we don't fool ourselves and attempt to call it a "more accurate reproduction of the live event".
I'd say if it's still fun, the things we fuss over, then do it. But if it's becoming audiophile nervosa it may be time to just embrace the reality of it all. Recreating the "live event" is basically not do-able with the way the vast majority of present-day recordings are made. . Granted, if the sound makes you FEEL like you are there, it really does not matter if the physics is "correct".
I guess for me it comes down to semantics:
"Recreating the live event at home - transporting back to the event"
Utter Hogwash.
"Recreating the event in such a way it connects you with the live feeling".
That I will buy into. And I've seen it done and done it myself.
(Flame suit on. Ears are tin. System is not resolving enough. Don't buy music from the right labels. Don't use vinyl... ya ya ya. Etc. etc. ad infinitum ad nauseum...)
Last night I had a guitarist sitting two feet in front of the north wall of my listening room. Pavlo was sitting on a stool and playing for me. The soundstage was NOT this wide, tall, deep, cavernous area. It was small. A man, playing a guitar (wonderfully) on a stool. The screeches of his fingers as they slid over the strings between chords was bone-chilling and goose-bump provoking. Sometimes, we get close - oh so very close. But a full out orchestra? I think we can recreate the SPL and dynamics (depending on the reference seating location, I suppose) but in the time domain?
Fuhgedaboudit.
Cheers,
Presto
I disagree. You are essentially saying there is no standard, no goal to which audio should aspire. It is every man for himself, and what "pleases" them.
The fact that today's sound reproduction is imperfect, which it decidedly is, does not mean that the goal is imperfect. You are totally negative and deeply cynical, but what should the goal be? It seems you have sidestepped that critical question. You seem to totally ignore the actual progress toward the goal of reproducing live performance that has been made from Edison cylinders. Or, in your view, has that all been meaningless nonsense? And, that is true both on the recording side, which you dismiss as hopeless, and the playback side.
As an audiophile and frequent concert goer for over 50 years, I can tell you without doubt that much progress has been made in absolute terms. Much of that in the last 10, no make it last 5 years. A good friend said we are now in a golden age of audio. We attend numerous live concerts together, and we listen extensively to each others systems. But, I quite agree. If you can separate the hype from what is real, which is hard to do, design and configure your system to the latest and best technologies, you are likely to find very satisfactory, but still imperfect, achievement of the goal of approaching live.
What unfortunately seems to cloud too many audiophile brains is the hype emanating from manufacturers and their shills, the audiophile press, including the exploding on line component. We regularly read descriptions of listening experiences that way overblow and falsely raise expectations about what can be achieved. I believe this may be central to your own cynicism, as well as that of many other audiophiles. Especially, since most of that is based on the very imperfect and limiting paradigm of stereo. I have been there in a room with a quite prominent equipment reviewer I know very well, and I have heard for myself many times what he was writing about. All I can say is that the printed review in no way resembled what I or even what he admitted he actually heard. The printed version was pure BS written to attract more ad revenue from the manufacturer. Do not mistake me. The sound was very good. It is just that the review way overstated it in comparison to live performance by the reviewer's own admission to me.
It is multichannel coupled with, finally, some reasonable but effective means of getting the room under control - room EQ- that are the main contributors to our "golden age" of sound to me and a close circle of friends. This is stunningly better than stereo at recreating the live experience. It is the real deal, yet the high end dismisses it, except for the lone, intrepid Kal Rubinson at Stereophile. Fortunately or unfortunately, he is not a hypster like all the others. He might be the last bastion of intellectual honesty in the audio press, in the J. Gordon Holt tradition.
So, if you are not in touch with what Mch can do in a properly set up system that minimizes room artifacts, I can understand your disappointment. I was there too, until the I discovered the sound that has excited me for the last 5 years. Check it out. It is still imperfect, but the gap has been quite satisfyingly narrowed to me and my circle of friends.
By the way, if you are attitudinally still locked into stereo, many of your objections on the recording end are addressed by Blumlein or ORTF coincident pair miking, both theoretically and in practice. There are several problems though. You have to listen with the speakers at 90 degrees, giving one small sweet spot. There are often objections to the tonality of these recordings due to the types of mikes used. But, mostly, it is about finding these recordings, which never set the world afire, and are a drop in the bucket of all available recordings.
They are each different things, with (sometimes and somewhat), different goals.
Enjoy both.
Well said man, well said.
"In this land right now, some are insane and they're in charge. To hell with poverty, we'll get drunk on cheap wine."
"Just think of all the musical instruments that could be played in your home and compare that to the reproduction of those instruments through your speakers. There is no serious comparison and with all the limitations and flaws of your audio system, your audio system is no match for real musical instruments."
Not true, in my experience. (Steinway B in living room. Live recording then playback in same room.)
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
What audio component do you own that can accurately reproduce the sonics and acoustical power of all the musical instruments that could be played in your home?
You will find that some audio systems do a much better job of recreating the sounds and acoustical power of some musical instruments than others. But no audio system will be able to reproduce the sounds and acoustical power of all the musical instruments that could be played in your home.
To believe otherwise defies logic and physics. Of course you are free to believe your amps and speakers without weaknesses but most of us would disagree.
It was a 7 foot grand piano. No problem. Indeed, it was possible to play back at slightly louder than normal volume without distortion but it was unnaturally loud. In fairness the bottom half octave on the keyboard was not used in the comparison. Based on a few tests, these bottom three notes were slightly weak. The difference could just have been due to the piano being in a corner and the speakers mid-wall. The speakers were Snell AIII's and were driven from with 200 watts per channel. An earlier attempt to play this recording in the same room using a MAC-275 driving a pair of AR-3s didn't have sufficient headroom for a successful result.
There are a few instruments that would fit into the room that might not cut it, especially a large bass drum, although most bass drums seem to peak around 45 Hz. The Snells supposedly go down to 24 Hz. Obviously no 32 foot organ stops, either, but the pipes wouldn't fit in the room. These instruments would not be featured in any legitimate live performance one might have in one's living room.
The key to live vs. recorded demonstrations is primarily in the choice of recordings. The recordings have to be very dry (little or no ambiance) so that when played back the only ambiance comes from the listening room. Most recordings are made to create the illusion of transporting the listener to the original venue, and that's something that is not really possible with a two channel recording. During the 1960's, Acoustic Research did a series of demonstrations of "live vs. recorded" playback using the Fine Arts String Quartet. The recordings were made outside so there wouldn't be any ambiance.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
"transporting the listener to the original venue, and that's something that is not really possible with a two channel recording."
I totally disagree with that statement. My two channel system using Maggie 3.6's set up in the Rooze configuration brings me into the venue with many recordings.
Alan
Can you elaborate or give a reference please?
If you do a search on this site for rooze you will get a ton of info. Basically it is setting up Maggies so you see them edge on. It will not always work in all rooms but when it does it is truly mind blowing. A huge soundstage independent of the speakers. A sense of realism that I have never experienced if any other speaker. It is easy to try. From your listening position turn the speakers so the edge of the speaker is pointing straight at you. Have fun.
Alan
My system played in two channels will also transport the listener to the venue, as does yours and many others, too. But in 5 channels with the same recording that same system "transports the listener" to the venue far more convincingly. I have heard Maggies in a demonstation put on by Magnepan, that proved undisputably that 5 Maggies are far better than two. Indeed, that demonstation at CES was the "convincer" for me on the potential of multi-channel. With multi-channel there or less dots to connect to get you "there".As I mentioned in an earlier post a 1930s Philco radio broadcast with sufficient suspension of disbelief was able to do it with many listeners, or so it has been documented. Of course modern two channels, especially with dipoles like yours, ups the ante. But multi-channel simply has the potential to provide far better audio "transportation" to the venue. I suspect in a few years technology will help us to close the gap (between recording and live) audibly (and visually?) better than what is possible today. But right now the SOTA, in my experience, is hi-rez multi-channel.
Robert C. Lang
Edits: 04/02/12
Since I have 5 maggies I agree with you but I have the caveat that I am sure you agree that the source recording is critical.
It almost seems as if the industry (the very small multi-SACD industry)is like the FDA: be effective but do no harm. Most recordings (DG, Channel, Telarc) want to be sure to not do any more than a suggestion of ambience. Others are more willing to take risks to "transport".
In particular, I recommend the Hyperion recordings of Bach Keyboard Concertos with Angela Hewitt. Hyperion seems to be just dabbling with occasional multi-SACDs but these recordings are phenomenal! The individual piano in particular is as real as any I have heard live (and I have one in the house). I have heard Hewitt on the same Fazoli piano live and up close. The fullness and warmth of the orchestra and individual flutes, violins, etc. is BETTER than I have heard in concerts. Perhaps that is not fair because there is nothing in my room to interfere with the sound of these instruments, but MY GAWD!
If I could get recording quality like this in anything else I would "spare no expense"! If possible I may be wearing these discs out.
Now this is the Absolute Sound (according to the "live" definition. It IS possible.
Which Angela Hewitt Bach Keyboard to more highly recommend, Disc 1 or Disc 2?
Robert C. Lang
Tough question - personal favorites all. The 5th Brandenburg is one of my favorites (being a harpsichordist) but the Triple Concerto has a prominent flute and is really powerful. Both are on Disc 1, so there's Sophie's Choice. Notice that she has a harpsichord playing quiet figured bass which is usually part of the solo piano part (say with Perahia). Nice depth of sound since she uses dynamics to great effect throughout.
Thanks for the recommendation. I just purchased disc 1.
For a "you are there" multi-channel experience in the jazz genre try Hank Jones with Omar Hakim and John Pattitucci "July 6 Live".
See my comments at SA-CD.net
Robert C. Lang
The eighty-eight guy has enviable production skills, however I think Mr. Hakim's drumming on that July 6th recording (and elsewhere) is often better suited to rock than Jazz as he repeatedly upstages (in a negative way) his fellow musicians with that bombastic crashing that leaves me missing Jazz artists like Mr.Motian more than ever. Was Omar encouraged to do his John Bonham percussive displays or does he come from a pop drumming background where the impulse to extremes is de riguer? I suspect the latter. One more comment - the single vocal track sung by Mr.Hakim's on Stella by Starlight/The Great Jazz Trio (Song for my Father) blemished what otherwise was a very decent release. Just my opinion of course.
Whether or not you like it, of course, is of utmost importance. Also, some of the observations you have made I spell out in detail in my review. For sure Hakim is not your old hat "timekeeper". But you must not overlook that Hank Jones, himself, repeatedly turned to Hakim to be his drummer both in the studio and on tour. That speaks volumes. There is no doubt that he thought they made a terrific team. I agree. The Dean of Trio masterfully kept tabs on Hakim, letting him do his thing within the confines of the Trio and then reining him in just at the right time. So you might not like it but you must respect Jones' decision.
Most of my friendships with music lovers are bona fide jazz hounds from way back. They, without exception love the music made by this Trio and they love Hakim's contributions. No complaints, just high praise.
But Hakim aside, the paramount reason for me making "July 6" an emphatic recommendation was due to the multi-channel "you are there" experience (in keeping with the “live reference” thread). I have never heard a closer facsimile to a live experience in a jazz recording.
And just as I have readily accepted and, indeed, purchased, BobH’s Angela Hewitt recommendation for a life-like recording I will, too, consider any recommendation that you would offer. Also, do you listen in multi-channel?
Robert C. Lang
I appreciate your diplomatic response to my criticisms. I have owned both of the 88 discs of those live recordings and careful listening led me to think that some of the applause withered quicker as the night wore on after one too many Omar drum onslaughts. That's strictly speculation on my part as I wasn't in attendance. That lovely bass and Hank's typical tasteful piano stylings with that rocker percussion? It confused me. I did note a few of Hank's cues to Omar to break-off the fireworks. I have utmost respect for Hank Jones and miss him as I miss Ray Brown - a couple of classier gentleman there were not to be. I don't think a younger Hank or his musician cohorts would have appreciated the Omar overstays on their sessions in studio or live. I have been in listening sessions of multi-channel playback on a few multi-channel systems and liked what I heard, but I listen at home in stereo on my modest system that some would no doubt characterize as Mid-Fi. Listening for the umpteenth time to Janos Starker and Gyorgy Sebok playing the Bach Suites and want to get back to that. Take care and all the best to.
nt
Actually, you may have a point. With Maggies you would need a good sized room and free reign of the room real estate due to the often exacting space requirements of dipoles.
Robert C. Lang
I have about 3000 cd's. Maybe 100 are SACD's with multi-channel capabilities and the amount of surround sound being released is small. I have a seperate home theater system with Maggie 1.6's in front and Klipsc surrounds. Fun for movies and some rock but for classical which is what I listen too my 2 channel is a much more real experience. A while back I heard a system at CES which was about $400,000 consisting of all Wilson audio speakers with all Krell amplification and twin Runco projectors. It was great for the Saturn five lift off and some movies but very average for classical music. Home theater surround sound systems are no longer selling very well so I do not see a bright future for multi channel. I feel my 2 channel system sounds much better than several friends surround sound systems. In my humble opinion
Alan
Where did you hear that? That does not square with what dealers are telling me. It is high end stereo that is in a slump. Dealers seem to be ever adding showroom space for Mch HT and less for stereo.
It depends on what music you listen to. But, my circle of friends all hugely prefer hi Rez Mch for the classical music we love. We think it is way, way more like the real thing live than stereo. None of us would go back to just stereo. None of us have heard a stereo at any price that outdoes quality Mch for recreating the live concert experience. We are all active Philadelphia Orchestra subscribers
Best buy will close 50 stores and the prediction is by the end of the year they will be out of business. When you talk about all your friends you are again talking about our small niche group. I am talking about the general public and they could care less about surround sound
Alan
It's a faulty conclusion that because Best Buy is doing poorly that its due to the poor sales of home theater surround systems! Besides I doubt that they have seen a spike is "stereo" sales. But according to a Best But financial analysis I read televisions, computers, and home appliances were specifically cited for declining sales. But far more importantly, Best Buy's out of date business model, poor customer service, questionable management, down economy, etc., are the root cause. The article mentioned nothing about "home theater surround systems".
Robert C. Lang
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: