Propeller Head Plaza

Technical and scientific discussion of amps, cables and other topics.

Return to Propeller Head Plaza

another "live music as a reference" question

63.195.16.225
Posted on October 26, 2009 at 01:00:17
BillyBuck
Audiophile

Posts: 646
Location: Northern California
Joined: September 22, 2002
 If our goal is to build systems that are uncolored and faithful to the original source, shouldn't we use master tapes as a reference rather than the sound of live music?

For argument's sake let's say the mics and placement used by Living Stereo create a pleasing frequency boost in the 100 Hz region. If we carefully select our components to exactly recreate what we heard in the hall, we end up with a system that has a frequency DIP at 100 Hz (to counteract the peak on the recording). So it would only be accurate for that particular group of recordings, using those particular mics and placement, in that particular hall.

What happens on that system when we put on a Living Presence recording which has an emphasis at say, 1 kHz? Now in addition to the dip at 100 Hz we have a peak at 1 kHz--hardly what you'd call an accurate system.

I do understand the intent behind "live music as a reference." It's about not getting sucked into audiophila and making sure we're comparing apples with apples. But in my opinion it ignores the fact that the recording process itself creates colorations that dwarf those of modern, reasonably designed playback gear.



"Hey guys, it's just record players and speakers and stuff, okay?" --Art Dudley
RE: another "live music as a reference" question, posted on October 26, 2009 at 19:24:36
Analog Scott
Audiophile

Posts: 4001
Joined: January 8, 2002
 > If our goal is to build systems that are uncolored and faithful to the original source, shouldn't we use master tapes as a reference rather than the sound of live music?>

Nope.


> For argument's sake let's say the mics and placement used by Living Stereo create a pleasing frequency boost in the 100 Hz region. If we carefully select our components to exactly recreate what we heard in the hall, we end up with a system that has a frequency DIP at 100 Hz (to counteract the peak on the recording). So it would only be accurate for that particular group of recordings, using those particular mics and placement, in that particular hall.>

It is a given that there are variations between recordings regardless of what one uses as a reference to judge their system. Using live music as a basic reference to judge one's playback does not mean one should choose a particular recording and build their system around that recording.



> What happens on that system when we put on a Living Presence recording which has an emphasis at say, 1 kHz? Now in addition to the dip at 100 Hz we have a peak at 1 kHz--hardly what you'd call an accurate system.>

Accurate to what? The question was should we use live music or master tapes. Does the system you juste described sound more like live music over a broad range of recordings? probably not. So the methodology you illustrated does not fall in line with actually using live music as a reference.



> I do understand the intent behind "live music as a reference." It's about not getting sucked into audiophila and making sure we're comparing apples with apples. But in my opinion it ignores the fact that the recording process itself creates colorations that dwarf those of modern, reasonably designed playback gear.>

It doesn't ignore it at all. It's very simple we use live music as a gauge to judge the success of any recording/playback system.
You just can't ignore the recordings...., posted on October 26, 2009 at 20:08:02
Don Till
Audiophile

Posts: 675
Location: Tempe
Joined: February 16, 2009
 if you want to build a system capable of sounding like live music over a broad range of recordings.

Using the master tapes, or the media tranfer, as a reference makes sense. Compare them to the live reference first noting the differences. What comes out of the system under test should deviate from the live reference exactly as the master tape (or transfer) deviates from it.

If you skip this step you're only guessing at what's right and what's wrong and you are fooling yourself if you think you need a reference at all.

If you want a system capable of sounding like live music over a broad range of recordings you can do such a thing quite easily but these recordings will sound nothing like what they did when they were original recorded. I think Bose 901s sound like live music over a broad range of recordings - problem is whatever music played through them sounds like it's being played in a small nightclub.

I'm pretty sure that isn't what you mean. What you mean, I think, is that a broad range of recordings will sound like the same live music as when recorded. Well you'll only get this broad range of recording to sound like the original live music if the recordings are as transparent as the system. The recordings and the master tape simply can't be ignored.

RE: You just can't ignore the recordings...., posted on October 27, 2009 at 08:40:03
Analog Scott
Audiophile

Posts: 4001
Joined: January 8, 2002
 "if you want to build a system capable of sounding like live music over a broad range of recordings."

Of course one shouldn't ignore the recordings. that seeems so profoundly basic to me since it is the recordings that we are trying to get to sound the best they can sound.


"Using the master tapes, or the media tranfer, as a reference makes sense. Compare them to the live reference first noting the differences."

But *you* just used live music as your reference when you do that! That is what I am saying. Live music is the reference. Why? Simple. It sets the bar for aesthetic excellence. Master tapes (if we had access to them) and the playback equipment we *need* to hear them are not the reference because they are not the goal.


" What comes out of the system under test should deviate from the live reference exactly as the master tape (or transfer) deviates from it."


Whoooooooaaaaaa. Hold on here a moment. can't let this one slide by. Why?



"If you skip this step you're only guessing at what's right and what's wrong and you are fooling yourself if you think you need a reference at all."

You are only guessing anyway. so what is the worry? The point of live music as a reference is not to achieve accuracy. This is important. Fuck accuracy. The point of using live music as a reference is it gives us a reference of aesthetic excellence. No playback can beat live music at it's best for pure aesthetic beauty. So the closer our playback gets to that aesthetic over a broad range of our favorite recordings the better it sounds. Accuracy for the sake of accuracy is audiophile masturbation. Accuracy is only of value in so far as it serves the higher purpose of achieving the aesthetic excellence found only in the best live acoustic music. you won't find that in the master tapes and the equipment needed to playback those tapes. Live music is the reference.

"If you want a system capable of sounding like live music over a broad range of recordings you can do such a thing quite easily"


I disagree. a convincing illusion is pretty rare in audio.


" but these recordings will sound nothing like what they did when they were original recorded."


I don't care.



" I think Bose 901s sound like live music over a broad range of recordings - problem is whatever music played through them sounds like it's being played in a small nightclub."


I think music played over 901s sound nothing like live acoustic music and the aesthetic value of such playback is pretty awful IMO.




"I'm pretty sure that isn't what you mean. What you mean, I think, is that a broad range of recordings will sound like the same live music as when recorded."


I certainly don't mean that. Let's take a perfect example with a catalog of great importance, the Blue Note catalog. Take a look at the studio layout of RVG and tell me what you think the "original" sounded like in the actual studio. Then consider what the original master tapes sounded like, particularly the monos that RVG focused on as RVG heard them in the control room. Then consider what those amazing stereo 45rpm LPs from Music Matters and Analog Productions sound like on a state of the art high end playback system. I know what I prefer. I prefer the best illusion of live acosutic music played in an appropriate space which happens to come from least "accurate" version, the Hoffman/Gray LPs.



"Well you'll only get this broad range of recording to sound like the original live music if the recordings are as transparent as the system. The recordings and the master tape simply can't be ignored."


I agree they can't be ignored. I strongly disagree that they should seen as any sort of reference. I will not let such a thing as arbitrary and inherently flawed as the sound of a master tape, an intermediate stage of the chain of events between microphones and speakers, played back on a system with it's own baggage determine my aesthetic values and goals.

RE: another "live music as a reference" question, posted on October 26, 2009 at 14:02:54
Todd Krieger
Audiophile

Posts: 22046
Location: SW United States
Joined: November 2, 2000
 "If our goal is to build systems that are uncolored and faithful to the original source, shouldn't we use master tapes as a reference rather than the sound of live music?"

Yes, but it's still through an audio system. You might be using the best available source imaginable, but all the deficiencies downstream, the preamp, amp and speakers, would remain.

This would only be useful for evaluating *sources*, since the remaining system could remain the same, hence one can get an idea how much his normal sources degrade sonics, provided he has the same albums for both his normal sources and master tape.


So true!, posted on October 26, 2009 at 10:16:16
Don Till
Audiophile

Posts: 675
Location: Tempe
Joined: February 16, 2009
 "But in my opinion it ignores the fact that the recording process itself creates colorations that dwarf those of modern, reasonably designed playback gear."

So true that's why using the "live reference" is much more than simply being a trained listener. One needs to be very familiar with the recordings used or the colorations of the recordings will actually lead to chosing components colored to compensate for those colorations.

And it's more complicated than that - if one is determining hifi performance based on the live reference a comprehensive set of such reference recordings will be required in order to exercise all aspects of performance.

I don't "mess around" with the "live reference" kind of stuff when it comes to my hifi system - I think it's more likely to introduce errors in reasoning than to benefit it. Though I do attend live concerts as well as other musical events. Truth of the matter is my home stereos, for the most part, sound better than most of the live music I run accross. But there's no chance for my home system to reproduce to energy, scale, volume and excitement that make live shows so worthwhile.
True indeed, posted on October 26, 2009 at 10:56:02
kerr
Audiophile

Posts: 3695
Location: Central Indiana
Joined: November 10, 2003
 I think those who are using the "live reference" to calibrate their systems (myself included) are really using their memories of the live reference... or more appropriately, what they (we) believe the live reference should sound like.

Yea but hows that different than having heard Led Zeppelin live 30 times...., posted on October 26, 2009 at 15:29:52
Don Till
Audiophile

Posts: 675
Location: Tempe
Joined: February 16, 2009
 and then biasing a system around those memories?

I've averaged attending a live musical event at least once a month for the last couple of years, lived with professional musicians, an oboeist and a pianist as well as two guitar players. Raised 3 children, violin, sax and trumpet and attended all the associated concerts through grade 12 for each. Though I hear live music quite often, and have for a number of years, I don't consider myself a trained listener and certainly I don't know what any recording is supposed to sound like much less what it actually sounds like.

"I think those who are using the "live reference" to calibrate their systems (myself included) are really using their memories of the live reference... or more appropriately, what they (we) believe the live reference should sound like."

Using live references should really be much more than that, whether some, most or a few of those making similar claims agree with you and to what degree is a matter for another discussion. Really Kerr claiming one uses "live references" as you claim doesn't amount to anything but verbiage and is in fact no different than finding the most "pleasant" sounding system. What distinquishes using "live references" from other purely or mostly subjective relativist approaches is implementing the methodology.

What I'm saying here is that I can and do enjoy listening to live music, in fact my favorite recordings are no doubt of live events. But it doesn't matter how much experience I get listening to live music there's nothing for me to correlate to the live event. If I knew what the recording was supposed to sound like, and even more importantly what it actually sounds like, it might serve some purpose but without that knowledge any conclusion drawn about how it compares to live has to be wrong.
RE: Yea but hows that different than having heard Led Zeppelin live 30 times...., posted on October 26, 2009 at 17:06:15
kerr
Audiophile

Posts: 3695
Location: Central Indiana
Joined: November 10, 2003
 >claiming one uses "live references" as you claim doesn't amount to anything but verbiage and is in fact no different than finding the most "pleasant" sounding system.<

Basically true. Although my memory of live sound is not always pleasant.

>If I knew what the recording was supposed to sound like, and even more importantly what it actually sounds like, it might serve some purpose but without that knowledge any conclusion drawn about how it compares to live has to be wrong.<

No, it's *quite possibly* wrong but it doesn't have to be. The problem is we don't know if it's right or wrong. And that's what makes the chase of the "live reference" so frustratingly meaningless, a point you've made quite well.

My best references are owning a few recordings of live shows that I attended (done by recording companies, not some schmoe in the audience with an old cassette deck). Two of them sound like my memory of the events, one sounds nothing like it. Whether the RE actually captured what I in fact heard, I honestly don't know. All I have is my faulty memory. As you said, it's nothing but verbiage. And yet, some components and recordings do a damn fine job of convincing me otherwise.

RE: Yea but hows that different than having heard Led Zeppelin live 30 times...., posted on October 27, 2009 at 05:02:13
Don Till
Audiophile

Posts: 675
Location: Tempe
Joined: February 16, 2009
 We've got a collection of lofi digital recordings of many of the live events we've attended. My wife would just as soon listen to these as turn on the audio system. They lose alot because they are so low quality but it's amazing how well they can restore my memory on what I heard.

I find lofi recordings fool me into thinking I'm hearing something "live" far more often than audiophile recordings or studio recordings. No doubt minimalist recordings of live events have the most potential they hardly represent the bulk of my listening. And because of this, and other reasons, I find it hard to claim a live reference, even though I regularly attend live musical performance. From my experiences the sound quality from one live event to the next varies as much as does one live recording to the next. What bothers me is that these days studio recordings tend to sound the same - something I don't notice when listening to older studio efforts.

It makes sense to me if someone choses to use the sound of live unamplified instruments to define hifi performance. But if one choses that reference there's alot more to evaluating hifi performance than just training one's hearing. If that's are far as it goes it's no different than my Led Zeppelin example. There's just alot more to it than that! I disagree that live references are frustratingly meaningless, IMO using them is frustratingly difficult.

I've got great respect for those who truly are in pursuit of the Absolute Sound. But to think referring to our live listening experiences as being the same thing as using live references just isn't right.

RE: Yea but hows that different than having heard Led Zeppelin live 30 times...., posted on October 28, 2009 at 14:27:41
morricab
Dealer

Posts: 4456
Location: switzerland
Joined: April 1, 2005
 "But to think referring to our live listening experiences as being the same thing as using live references just isn't right."

That is true but what made you think we were advocating the later?? I HAVE done direct comparisons to live as well (having made the recordings myself and then played them back within minutes of the recording) but I am always referring to my frequent live experiences of unamplified music.

Damned if I do or damned if I don't!, posted on October 28, 2009 at 17:15:16
Don Till
Audiophile

Posts: 675
Location: Tempe
Joined: February 16, 2009
 "That is true but what made you think we were advocating the later?? I HAVE done direct comparisons to live as well (having made the recordings myself and then played them back within minutes of the recording) but I am always referring to my frequent live experiences of unamplified music."

This is a problem I have with this discussion. Guys like you, who really seem to aspire to use the live reference as it was intended, prompt a different discussion from me than those who claim to use live reference but in fact don't.

You say "we" as if I was referring to you, which I wasn't I was referring to the person I was responding to. Whose claim to using "live references" relies far less on training and actual references than even I profess. And I, with my modest history of listen to live music and acoustic instrumengs, am not even close to claiming I use the live reference in helping me chose my audio equipment.

Though I would never deny this history has an influence on my decisions it certainly, by a mile, doesn't rate as a reference.
Who's damning you?, posted on October 28, 2009 at 18:04:49
kerr
Audiophile

Posts: 3695
Location: Central Indiana
Joined: November 10, 2003
 But I must be missing your point because this last post of yours makes no sense to me in light of my posts. Where did you get the idea that I haven't attended hundreds of live concerts of unamplified music? I used to practically LIVE in jazz clubs. Granted, that pretty much nullifies any opinion I might have on classical orchestras in large concert halls but I listen to the same type of music at home that I do live.

MY point was the live reference is based mostly on my memory which, while trained in music, is as faulty as the next guy's. But that's all I have to go on except the 3 occasions where I was lucky enough to hear the recording of the exact same show I attended (1 live show, 2 recording sessions).

So what is the "intended" use of the live reference you mentioned?

RE: Who's damning you?, posted on October 29, 2009 at 16:34:40
Don Till
Audiophile

Posts: 675
Location: Tempe
Joined: February 16, 2009
 "So what is the "intended" use of the live reference you mentioned?"

The indended use of using live references is to bypass the subjective aspects of relying on measurement. The live reference provides an "absolute sound", a reference, a purely objective standard that minimizes the possibility of subjective impression.

This is considerably different than relying on our memories or impressions of what a "live" performance sounds like. These memories are hardly a reference to anyone other than the person whos mind they reside within. This is a pure relativism, not the objectivism which is the whole purpose of using "live references".

Page processed in 0.053 seconds.

[ Top Top of Page ] [ Contact Us ] [ Support/Wish List ] [ Copyright © 2009, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ] [ Go Green ] [ Take5 ]
[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]