 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
72.139.227.79
In Reply to: Anyone who can't always hear the difference between a recording and a live performance has already spent too much posted by Soundmind on February 17, 2006 at 17:18:49:
You say, "If it sounds like a live performance to you, you either haven't attended enough live performances, you have a very poor memory for sound, or you'd better get your hearing checked."For a start, there is no such thing as a typical "live" sound because of huge variations in performance auditoriums, so whose to say whether or not one's system/listening room sound "like" a live performance or not. And I have often enjoyed good recordings at home on my fairly modest system then live performances in inferior venues.
Also, fine multi-channel recordings played on good m/c systems go further than stereo ever has in creating a naturalistic concert hall ambience.
Bill Bailey
_______________
Beauty? Or Truth?
Follow Ups:
First of all, the current state of the art cannot reproduce the acoustics of ANY concert hall no matter how good or bad. At least not the types of recordings and equipment audiophiles have access to commercially. If there are any that can, they are experimental one of a kind types.Secondly, what you like or don't like has nothing to do with accuracy. I like photographs taken with Fuji Velvia film which ultrasaturate colors but they are not accurate. They look more like cartoons or paintings than photographs. They are not an accurate record of the image in the viewfinder and the manufacturer clearly tells you that, they have other films more suitable for that purpose. Audio manufacturers OTOH all seem to claim "accuracy" but have little evidence except a few contrived measurements or specifications to back it up. They do not even so much as conduct live recorded demos showing they can accurately reproduce the timbre of musical instruments.
As far as reproducing the overwhelming majority of sound heard at a live performance which is due to the acoustics, after decades of quadraphonic systems, multi-channel surround systems, processers, decoders, and the like, the best results have been poor and unconvincing possibly explaining why most serious audiophiles don't embrace them for serious music reproduction. It's well beyond the state of the art. Therefore if you think you have "concert hall realism" you have as much or more performance capability as you need. You do not need a color television set if you are color blind, a good black and white set is adequate because it gives you all you are capable of seeing already.
NT
That is is impossible to exactly reproduce the sound of any given performance venue in any other space. This is the case today and might be the case forever.Personally what I aspire to is the system that delivers the best recordings in a manner that is a convincing simulation of a live concert hall experience. Current multi-channel systems do that quite well and they are getting better. I simply don't agree good multi-channel does not exceed stereo's realism capability. If this is your conclusion, fine, but first have a listen to some fine recording played on a well-set up multi-channel system.
Bill Bailey
_______________
Beauty? Or Truth?
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
