|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
70.46.7.90
In Reply to: Re: What Constitutes Accurate Musical Replication? posted by beermanpete@socal.rr.com on April 19, 2007 at 21:01:03:
Hello Beerman,I agree 100% that it is virtually an impossibility to replicate a live unamplified musical event in our homes. The reasons for this are many, insufficient dynamic range capabilities of the audio system, inability to replicate the size of a large hall within the confines of the typical audio room, various cues that our era/brain uses to recognize live umaplified music are are stripped away in the recording process etc.
What we should strive for is to get as close as we can to replicating the sound of individual instruments such as a violin, piano, sax, guitar etc. This is, of course, a lot easier to do when the person is quite familiar with the sound of live unamplified music itself. Then one could use a small jazz ensemble with say a piano, bass, sax and drums. These would provide a nice variety of instruments, plus it would be recorded in smaller rooms than say a symphony would be. Thus we'd also have a room that closer to the dimensions of our audio rooms, so we should be able to get viable spacial clues. I believe "IF" we can get a small jazz ensemble to sound as close to how it would at a live unamplified event, we're off to a good start. Next I concentrate on getting the vocals correct, I like to use Khani Cole, Kevyn Lettau, Diana Krall and Pamela Driggs's (from Brasilia)for individual females with different vocal ranges and singing styles. Next I use Steve Moos and the harmonies from the band Jump In The Water for male vocals and group singers. I'm postive there's a myriad of other singers that could be used as well. Typically once the system will do these vocals and instruments correctly or as correctly as I'm capable of achieving, the other music, in different enviroments, symphonies, larger jazz groups, rock etc. are done the best an audio system can within today's limitations of the software and equipment.
I recognize that we'll never replicate a live unamplified musical event with 100% accuracy as it occured. However it's my contention that just because we cannot replicate a live unamplified musical event 100% accurately doesn't mean we shouldn't strive to get the highest percentage of that 100% that we can. Once we've achieved the highest percentage that we can within our financial means, our personal capabilities, and within the limitations of today's software and equipment. Then that will constitute the most accurate musical replication we can achieve as individuals period!
But this highest percentage will NEVER be achieved by comparing the signal output of a microphone vs my amplifiers signal output for accuracy. The only real chance of getting as close to the 100% mark that we are capable of is for individuals to familiarize themselves with as much live unamplified music as they can. Then as our ears become more and more accustomed with how these different instruments really sound like, we'll be more adept at reaching higher percentages of the 100% we all, hopefully, are striving for...
Follow Ups:
Certainly we should aspire to the best that we are capable of. Faithful capture and reproduction of musical events is the pursuit of the passion we call Hi-Fi. Comparison of playback to live music is required to gauge performance and maintain focus on the goal of a believable recreation of the original event captured in the recording.
Sure, one goal in audio is high fidelity. But it's not a moral imperative for people to have that goal. Aren't they entitled to their preferences in audio?
____________________________________________________
"Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony."
------Heraclitus of Ephesis (fl. 504-500 BC), trans. Wheelwright.
Pat D,As usual you'd rather argue and hijack a post than discuss the actual topic, i.e. What Constitutes Accurate Musical Replication? The topic isn't about whether or not people can choose to assemble audio systems following different methods Pat! You are always talking about proper posting yet you constantly change the topic and hijack posts like you're doing once again here.
beermanpete, myself and I'm quite sure many others here, believe What Constitutes Accurate Musical Replication? is done via the "Faithful capture and reproduction of musical events is the pursuit of the passion we call Hi-Fi." The ONLY way one can know if they are getting close to that goal is via exposure to as much live unamplified music as is possible for one to obtain.
You, as well as anyone else here, are free to follow any other method you so choose. In fact the proof that you don't follow the method beermanpete and I are refering to is evidenced in your audio system. These choices of audio components reflects you're exercising your entitlement to other preferences in audio, other than the goal of high fidelity. Now I finally understand why we never agree on anything in audio. I want a system that sounds as close to live unamplified music as I can achieve and you have other audio goals and preferences than that. Thanks for finally making that so abundantly clear.
You can aspire to less the your best if you like. That is your choice.As for live music being the goal goes; A believable recreation of live music is the goal of MY pursuit. All the rest is the means to that end. I must confess that I spend more time with the technology and thinking about circuit behavior and how to improve its behavior than I do listening to music. However the primary purpose remains to be to improve the capability of my playback system.
.
____________________________________________________
"Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony."
------Heraclitus of Ephesis (fl. 504-500 BC), trans. Wheelwright.
Sadly they/we are in the minority
In your second para. you talk of "Next I concentrate on getting the vocals correct ...." (and that just asan example.)What exactly are you adjusting or altering to to do this?
I would take issue with your room sizes analogy:I can't think of ANY small ensemble that would not blow my head of if live in my 15' x 21' room.
Clifff,Besides room improvements, I believe all anyone can do to taylor the sound of their system is to change interconnects, speakerwire, amps, preamps (in my case I use an integrated) and speakers. Besides the fact that I believe tubed equipment sounds the best, it also offers another method of tayloring the sound by the chaging of tubes.
I can even tell you how many different 12AU7-type tubes I tried. Here's a list of EVERY 12AU7-type I located and believe it or not there's more I couldn't locate. I tried the 12AU7A, 12AU7WA, 5814, 5814A, 5963, 6067, 6189 < < < (Mazda "chrome-plates of these are my personal favorite) 6680, 7730, B749, CK5814, CV4003, CV491, E82CC < < < (RFT "yellow lettering of these are my second favorite 12AU7-type) ECC802, ECC802S, ECC82 & M8136.
But not only did I try different 12AU7 types Clifff, I tried the same types from different manufacturers such as: Amperex, Bugle Boy, Brimar, Cifte, Electro Harmonix, GE, Haltron, Marconi, Mazda, Mullard, Philips, Raytheon, RCA, RFT, RT, Siemens, Sylvania, Telefunken, Tesla, Tungsram & Tungsol. I don't even want to think of how much $$$$$ I spent to find my 2 favorite 12AU7-type tubes.
Most of the time these tubes offered subtle differences that gently but truly allows one to taylor how there system sounds. Sometimes the differences were a lot more pronounced which was precisely the case when after trying virtually every 5687 type I could find, I replaced my favorite Tung-Sol 5687s with Bendix 6900s.
So Clifff that's how I personally alter, adjust or taylor the sound of my audio system. Sorry again for the delay in my response.
Thetubeguy1954
| ||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: