|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
99.113.36.165
In Reply to: RE: far too many ... posted by TBone on July 09, 2012 at 07:57:36
Severely compressed excessively loud music (in your case, rock), often distorted, where musicians, many using "fake" instruments, are recorded on 24+ track tape, in widely scattered venues, some not even having met each other, during widely scattered time periods, in a "fake" venue and "fake" space, to generate "fake" sounds and "fake" noises, fake ambiance, all to create a discombobulated whatever that has *nothing* to do with a live venue. It *all* "fake" and you know it!
Let me tell you what else is "fake", vinyl's RIAA equalization that is the most severe and "faking" in the all of audio recording. Come on, how could 50s, 60s, 70s, technology undergo the brutal RIAA compression/expansion sausage making process and come out the other end without an audibly distinct signature? It can’t! And that is before the tone arm and stylus jump into the fray. If you don’t know that or more aptly, *hear* the colorful distortions then it is explicitly clear that *vinyl*, not live acoustic music, is your reference, it which case no recording format will ever challenge your vinyl standard.
Look, there is no denying that vinyl can sound damn great; that is not the issue. And I would never challenge your contention that it sounds better or more realistic to you than SACD in your system. But you have very limited knowledge about hi-end SACD multi-channel. It is abundantly clear by every post you have made in this thread that your experience with high-end SACD multi-channel is deplorably deficient (given that you have chosen to pontificate on it and make authoritative claims). You clearly don't have the requisite in home or in system experience to make anything other than misguided and erroneous conclusions about the format. This is especially true when conversing with audiophiles who are proficiently experienced with both high end vinyl and high-end multi-channel in the same system in a decent room (the room matters). Your “faking” pronouncement with regard to muti-channel make this all too clear.
Your reference with multi-channel seems limited to Home Theater (which is not SACD), based on your posts, and is not meaningful. That's OK. But for the record, just because a quality multi-channel recording utilizes 5 (or minimal) microphones to create 5 discreet channels, (instead of your likely reference of 20-30 microphones squeezed into two channels) make it "faking" hall ambiance.
Robert C. Lang
Follow Ups:
> > Severely compressed excessively loud music (in your case, rock), < <
In my case, just Rock?
Do you really believe that I'm basing my entire opinion on musical reproduction on compressed R&R .. no live recordings, no jazz, no blue grass, no acoustic music, no classical or ...
> > If you don't know that or more aptly, *hear* the colorful distortions then it is explicitly clear that *vinyl*, not live acoustic music, is your reference, it which case no recording format will ever challenge your vinyl standard. < <
Really?
I guess it doesn't matter that I came from a musical family, that I still witness perhaps 10 major live events a year, perhaps 20-30 small events annually ... in venues huge, big and small ... in venues known for awesome live musical reproduction ... such as Massey Hall ... you know(?) ... where Neil Young recorded his live 1971 album which is all the rage with audiophiles because it SOUNDS LIVE!!!
Or are you SIMPLY dismissing my opinion, based on the convenient assumption that I don't KNOW WHAT LIVE MUSIC SOUNDS LIKE!!!!
> > This is especially true when conversing with audiophiles who are proficiently experienced with both high end vinyl and high-end multi-channel in the same system in a decent room (the room matters). Your "faking" pronouncement with regard to muti-channel make this all too clear. < <
OK, not only am I supposedly insufficient at understanding live music and how it pertains to musical reproduction, now I'm "faking" my knowledge of SACD & MC also?
Robert, do you want to debate my knowledge? Fine, I'm not as experienced in SACD or MC as you. I could point out that what I have heard isn't easily dismissed simply because you have more experience, or claim so. Chances are, I'm farrrrrrrrrrrrrr more experienced with high-end 2 channel systems (and the building of hi-end audio in general) than the vast majority here, including you. I already know my system is nothing that you've EVER heard before. And I'm probably just as, if not more experienced with live music as you.
Trust me, I can make the necessary connections which equate live vs reproduced, in 2 ch or MC formats.
You may "think" you can put all THAT in question simply because I disagree with your silly and over-hyped SACD-MC bullshit. You can try and trump me with insinuation, you can even spin the subject matter with "fake" bullshit. If you simply wish to dismiss me in such a convenient manner, perhaps the real question is ... who's really being fake?
tb1
I am sure that you and your system are worthy of the accolades and credentials you have bestowed on you and it ever since you parachuted into the thread. But there is nothing you have posted that would suggest that you have the experience and the knowledge to offer meaningful input on high-end SACD multi-channel or to offer a meaningful comparison to the two channel experience. Your comment on "faking hall ambiance" underscores that explicitly.
Robert C. Lang
I said ...
"So very wrong ... when you see a live band, the music is generated at the stage - in front of you - and is naturally reflected/redirected within the confines of THAT venue ... which also can ... "artificially color and distort the sound with its own sonic signature" ... depending on the venue itself.
Certainly, THAT is a much more natural occurrence than faking hall ambiance via additional channels."
I said "THAT" in accordance to my prior statement, in which the venue itself is responsible for the reflected acoustics, and adding THAT ambiance via two extra channels is not going to replace THAT reality, nor is it going to effectively omit your own room's reflections from the mix.
Either way, perhaps my choice of the word "fake" was silly, but certainly my point is that any good audio room introduces it's own ambiance, much like any good venue. And in both cases, they have 1 thing in common ... being that the sound originates from the FRONT stage and therefore anything you hear to the side or behind you (except the audience)... is based on reflections.
Therefore, any good audiophile room using a superb 2 ch system will provide near the exact same experience as most live concerts because they share the exact same attributes.
Adding two extra channels, in theory may seem to provide some of that reality, but in actual practice ... it's always sounded "fake" to me.
tb1
Look, I'm trying to turn down the temperature a bit and I will. But what you have said has been debunked so much so often. I have not heard that argument in about 6 years.
Look, any attempt that an audiophile makes to recreate a live performance in their listening room, regardless of the number of “channels”, is going to sound “fake” in comparison. Neither of our rigs can close that gap.
So as an audiophile who always wears his “audiophile cap” when I attend or record (I am a professional videographer) an event, I figured out long ago there is *always* room for improvement in this hobby. And I’m not talking about some lilliputian short term improvement that audiophiles have a tendency to fall all over themselves about (power cords, interconnects, dedicated AC lines, or even speakers or amps or larger sound stages, etc.). Great multi-channel transcends all that stuff. I’m talking major *fundamental* improvement like going from great mono to great stereo or black and white TV to color. That’s what properly implemented SACD (hardware and software) and other hi-rez multi-channel can (and does) bring to the audio experience. Even beyond current SOTA multi-channel there is immense room for advancement to further close the gap between what I experience at the concert hall and *any* audiophile experience that I have yet been apart of. Trying to "explain" it get's loss in translation.
So, unless you experience it for yourself you will never know. It is not enough to say that because you (not you personally) have not experienced it that it does not exist or that it doesn’t “work” or that it is a matter of “taste” (at the dawn of stereo many mono adherents argued that stereo was a matter of “taste”...and it was with poorly done sources). The bottom line is, that unlike some of us here, who have also excellent two channel rigs (yours truly) and rooms, and who have discovered a pathway to an unprecedented advance in sound quality, you have never experienced a pronounced improvement over your own current system or two channel technology. You have never experienced that revelation and you really do believe that two channel is as good as it can possibly get in recreating a live experience in the home. No! No! No! Well, I’m rootin’ (not proselytizing) for you to have that “celestial” like revelation that I and others have experienced.
Robert C. Lang
I've been debating SACD here for a very VERY long time ... against "those" who's understanding of audio reproduction in general is questionable at best. I knowingly knew I was going against the grain here, and took those initial anti-SACD "flaims" kinda like water of a raincoat ... because the beauty of time and experience ... is that it will eventually prove you ...
> > The bottom line is, that unlike some of us here, who have also excellent two channel rigs (yours truly) and rooms, and who have discovered a pathway to an unprecedented advance in sound quality, you have never experienced a pronounced improvement over your own current system or two channel technology. You have never experienced that revelation and you really do believe that two channel is as good as it can possibly get in recreating a live experience in the home. No! No! No! Well, I'm rootin' (not proselytizing) for you to have that "celestial" like revelation that I and others have experienced. < <
I'm game ...
Actually, I've had that "celestial like revelation" with my two channel setup on quite a few occasions. I'm not talking about mere improvement, I'm talking about having been re-education, a complete changing of ones mind-set.
But you've been "there" too ... right????
Most recently, my latest turntable setup (just a year ago) provides much more of a master-tape experience ... with CD, the Ikemi was (and remains) a true revelation ... my mono Classe DR3, unlike my prior amps, taught me all about proper frequency extension, how the dynamic envelope should encompass the entire bandwidth (something that must be heard to be appreciated) ... with speakers, cabinet bracing and complete rigidness plus a move towards xovers that contain far superior signal transmission characteristics ... and certain, vibration isolation measures totally opened my ears & eyes to the concept of the noise floor characteristics ... but perhaps the biggest revelation in that aspect, past actual equipment, was NOT ONLY when I discovered electronic isolation & but more importantly ... how to control & limit grounding (a lesson in overall transparency that I'd never thought possible).
Fact is Robert, even ardent long term audiophiles who've heard my unique 2ch system near always leave with a much MUCH different perspective on stereo recreation - as a pseudo live event.
But, certainly, I've been around ... I understand your point of view. The thing is, I'm insinuating that you've never heard any 2 ch system like mine, and you're insinuating that I've never heard any MC system like yours. Perhaps the truth is somewhere down the middle ... since obviously you've heard you're fair share and vise-versa.
Personally, recreating a pseudo live event is less about adding extra channels and more about capturing the information proeprly, much in the same way that many mono recordings can heighten the emotional aspect of music in ways many stereo offerings can't. (Fitzcaraldo215 lack of comprehension skills will probably cause him to make the totally incorrect assumption that I'm claiming that mono is ABSOLUTELY superior to stereo, much like he's done through-out this thread).
As we both agreed, the room is one obstacle, and can determine the environmental nature of sound for any venue, stereo room or studio. Yes, perhaps you may get a better understanding or feel of the hall or venue by adding it's "nature" to the mix via additional channels, but that aspect of "recreation" is not essential in recreating a pseudo live event, not by any means.
OK, I say that with caution, since it's slightly hypocritical of me as an audiophile. Case in point, when I play "natural" recordings I want to hear the actual venue, especially if I have experienced that same venue (trinity church or massey hall in toronto) before. When I listen to such recordings, I want to hear some form of recreation with that experience.
Yet, I achieve exactly that with my present 2ch system. The fact is (this is very important to understand) ... if I added more channels/equipment to my current 2ch system, within it's dedicated room, I will definitely fck-up what took me years to accomplish.
That is why I'll never change the makeup of my current system, although as stated, I'd have no issue building a MC system in a separate room HT based room. Look, I've heard some very good MC systems, (mostly PCM based, but lets not get into the silly PCM vs DSD debate) esp with well mastered live recordings, and they can sound amazing. Better than my 2ch system, well ... that's a matter of perspective ... but I can tell you something for certain, my 2ch system is more highly refined, and hence, has the capacity to be much more emotionally driven.
Robert, I appreciate all the "rootin" ... even it's condescending tonality.
tb1
I have been perusing the Audio Engineering Society (AES) site and it is probably a bit like the Bible in that you can find whatever it is you’re looking for depending on what side of the argument your own. But one thing that is clear the issue of what delivers superior sound quality, two-channel or multi-channel, seems long settled as far as I have been able to find. In some way it was settled in the 50’s when the first massed produced “stereo” recordings where done in three channels. Fairchild and others were unable to produce a satisfactory 3 channel cartridge and the rest is history.
More recently this issue was put to rest about 10 years ago. In numerous places in the AES site you find statements like: it is “well understood that the listener envelopment (I hate that word) is an essential component of good concert hall acoustics”. Or “The audio engineering community has long determined that multi-channel is superior in the recreation of the concert hall experience in the home”. The debates have not been two channel vs. multi-channel, but instead, what multi-channel configuration works best.
I’m not at all wedded to the paradigm that 5.0 or 5.1 are the best multi-channel configurations. Some of the more interesting that I have seen, including what I have seen at AES include the use no center channel with multiple speakers forming a semi circle arc around the front and sides. There are dozens of other schemes out there.
Also, of interest is that while most recording studios are equipped to handle just stereo recordings the vast (more than 80 percent, especially the major labels) number of commercial releases are actually recorded in multi-channel even if they are released as stereo because CD is restricted to two channels. The chances are fairly great that many of the recent recordings you have purchased were originally recorded in multi-channel and better reflect the artistic *intent* of the recording group and recording engineers.
In some respects this is what happened at the dawn of stereo. Back around 1953-54 stereo recordings (including a wealth of 3 channel) were made….but few actually made it out of the studio to the public. It was not until a decade or more later that stereo began to supplant monural (with many mono guys kickin’ and screamin’ to hold on to the “superior” mono format.
Likewise, today there are many recordings, originally recorded in multi-channel but released only in stereo, that are “born again” as newly released multi-channel SACDs sometimes 30 and 40 years later. As I mentioned in a previous post I have a fair number of classical and non-classical recordings that fit exactly this scenario. The multi-channel content (the stereo is also on the disc for direct comparison) is absolutely the bomb. It’s like the shackles have been ripped off and the *real* performances are allowed to shine through for the very first time. I gotta think that if Mark Knofler, or David Gilmour, or Maurice White (Earth, Wind, and Fire) were to tell you that some of their greatest recordings are for the first time able to be heard in multi-channel the way they were *intended* to be heard in the first place that this must get you attention. (No matter whether or not you like these particular artists or not; I think you get my point). Well, guest what? That is *exactly* what they have said. It seems to me that as a music lover, although not necessarily as an audiophile, this is an offer that must deeply move you. It sure the hell moves me and is a paramount reason why hi- rez, hi-end, multi-channel is not optional.
Again not proselytizing....just some other points of interest
P.S.
I have to say this from time to time....I in *no way* compromised my *excellent* two channel system to accommodate multi-channel. I do fully understand most would be unable to accomplish this.
Robert C. Lang
This is an example of a fundamental misunderstanding of the audio reproduction: "Therefore, any good audiophile room using a superb 2 ch system will provide near the exact same experience as most live concerts because they share the exact same attributes."
They do not share the same attributes because two-channel fails to provide the spatial characteristics (as well as the tonal characteristics) of the ambiance of the original performance site.
"... it's always sounded "fake" to me" equals "Bah, humbug," not evidence.
> > They do not share the same attributes because two-channel fails to provide the spatial characteristics (as well as the tonal characteristics) of the ambiance of the original performance site. < <
no, you misinterpreted my original post ... they (venue & room) share the same attributes in that both the venue and the room have reflections issues related to the music coming from the front of the stage. Does not mean that the spatial characteristics of the recorded venue are re-captured or duplicated via a 2 ch system (or even a MC system for that matter) with any such room (every room, like every venue would be different).
Please re-read my posts.
tb1
I am with Kal and Robert on this.
Thanks for proving further insight into the basis for your distorted views on the nature of sound, acoustics and recordings. You have made it clear that you lack an accurate understanding . You are not going to get that by arguing defensively for your sophomoric point of view. Listening to people with much more experience, like Kal and Robert, might help.
Also, listening to a wider range of live music, systems and recording might help too. But, so far, you have also have asserted that CD's sound better than SACD's, that CD's are indistinguishable from vinyl, and that you can get a good sense of recorded vs. live sound from rock concerts. You claim to have listened to classical recordings, but avoided the question of whether you have also attended live classical concerts to know what they are supposed to sound like. You also claim that your room can sucessfully recreate the sound of a live performance venue in stereo. You further claim that you have heard Mch - with what systems and recordings we don't know - and imply that you now know all about it, including that surround sound is faked, which may be true of many rock recordings, but not classical ones. As I said often before, it is not about the music, it is merely about the sound vs. a live standard, the recording venues and engineering practices. But, you assert that is classical snobbery and that those differences do not matter.
As always, you are entitled to your opinions. The rest of us will have to decide whether they have any credibility or usefulness. So far, I do not think you have a good track record.
> > But, so far, you have also have asserted that CD's sound better than SACD's, that CD's are indistinguishable from vinyl, and that you can get a good sense of recorded vs. live sound from rock concerts. < <
What?
I never said any of those items on an absolute level, in fact all you've done is read snippets, made general assumptions ... and came to the wrong conclusions.
> > But, you assert that is classical snobbery and that those differences do not matter. < <
No, no "assertion" ... simply ... I questioned snobbery.
Honestly, you really need to work on your comprehension skills.
> > Thanks for proving further insight into the basis for your distorted views on the nature of sound, acoustics and recordings. You have made it clear that you lack an accurate understanding . < <
How ironic!
tb1
"they (venue & room) share the same attributes in that both the venue and the room have reflections issues related to the music coming from the front of the stage. "
Right but that is only a portion of the entire picture. We do not listen only to signals impinging on us from the front. When you begin to consider the contribution of the listening room, the differences grow considerably.
> > Right but that is only a portion of the entire picture. We do not listen only to signals impinging on us from the front. When you begin to consider the contribution of the listening room, the differences grow considerably. < <
Well, at least YOU understood my meaning.
Well, ... obviously sound travels ... and obviously we do not listen only from the front ... and I've already mentioned that reflections make rooms and venue sounds quite different ... so therefore their "contributions" would influence each accordingly ... hence the same attributes.
tb1
".... and I've already mentioned that reflections make rooms and venue sounds quite different ... so therefore their "contributions" would influence each accordingly ... hence the same attributes."
I think I get what you mean but I believe it is only tenuously relevant. You seem to be saying that they would have the same parameters, e.g., a direct sound (relatively similar) and a site-dependent ambiance (decidedly not the same). That is like saying that a red apple and a green apple have the same attributes (OK) without acknowledging how they differ in the value of one of the significant attributes (color).
The ambiance of the original performance site, contained on the recording and improperly conflated into the direct sound, would, on playback, be added to the ambiance contributed by the listening room which is irrelevant to the performance. This imposes a difference which can be ameliorated with multichannel recording and suitable acoustical treatment in the listening room.
I think this is enough logic-jousting for me on this topic.
Kal
> > This imposes a difference which can be ameliorated with multichannel recording and suitable acoustical treatment in the listening room. < <
Matter of perspective, based on my experience, you're still quite a distance from recreating that actual "live" venue within the confines of your room, and that alone is not what I'm after ... but if THAT aspect of reproduction is ones main goal, well ...
> > I think this is enough logic-jousting for me on this topic. < <
Me too.
tb1
Yes, no sound system or format is perfect. None of us has proclaimed that to be true. But, some are better than others. I do not think you are denying that, which is self evident. And, from a lot of experience with both stereo and Mch reproduction, several of us here and elsewhere consider Mch reproduction to be quite a significant leap in the direction of more closely capturing the sound, and hence, the musical experience of the real thing live.
Remember, our Mch systems also play in stereo, too. So we can and have done our own careful comparisons of Mch vs. stereo. For Robert, Kal and I, that is measured, admitedly imperfectly and subjectively, against our considerable live concert going experience with classical music, sometimes with the same orchestras in the same halls as the recordings. Occasionally, we were there when a recording was made live before an audience. At least, I have had that experience on several occasions. And, all that factors into our collective assessment, which greatly favors Mch over stereo in terms of delivering an obviously better sonic replica of the live experience.
As I said, over and over, it it not about the music genre. I respect rock and its creative spirit. And, I have been to more rock concerts than you might expect in both large and smaller venue situations. But, the simple, verifiable fact is there are many, many more successful Mch recordings in the classical genre than there are in any other. I honestly do not think that Mch can be fully appreciated without using classical music and live concert experience with it as a basis for comparison. But, those who prefer other musical genres may well prefer stereo, as there is a very limited set of recordings and live listening opportunities under decent acoustic conditions in those genres to be able to appreciate Mch's sonic capabilities. The genres differ considerably in the technical possibilities and goals of sound engineers to capture a certain sonic experience.
So, if you have truly signed off, I wish you well and happy listening with the music and sound you prefer.
> > Remember, our Mch systems also play in stereo, too. < <
Well, that's like claiming that a Ford Exploder is a great rear powered vehicle in 2w drive ... AND ... it's even better as a 4x4.
I've done the comparison ... despite what you claim ... a finely tuned, highly refined, dedicated 2ch system offers distinct advantages over the vast majority of MC/HT systems in 2ch mode.
> > Occasionally, we were there when a recording was made live before an audience. At least, I have had that experience on several occasions. And, all that factors into our collective assessment, which greatly favors Mch over stereo in terms of delivering an obviously better sonic replica of the live experience. < <
Nice, a requirement that I fully understand and appreciate.
That said, my need for recreating all the details of a specific venue are ONLY equal to the limited amount of software which I possess that were recorded in such proper fashion. The majority of my software does not qualify. But as a true audiophile, certainly, I favor software that was recorded well/live ... and I wish to recreate that event within the confines of my room. As far as the rest of my software, my "tuned" room/environment will supply it's own qualities, much like the Rogers Centre in Toronto supplied Roger Waters his own ... ummm ... "ambiance". (please don't assume I'm claiming that my room = the Rogers Centre)
Hells, bells, why would I want to recreate that specific event within my room, when I can simply play my best-mastered The Wall ... and melt into a pseudo live performance - one that my system provides on a routine basis.
> > As I said, over and over, it it not about the music genre. I respect rock and its creative spirit. And, I have been to more rock concerts than you might expect in both large and smaller venue situations. But, the simple, verifiable fact is there are many, many more successful Mch recordings in the classical genre than there are in any other. < <
Fine, then simply state that next time. Instead, you attempted to minimize my musical taste (of which you were not truly aware) simply as a tool to trump my experiences.
> > But, those who prefer other musical genres may well prefer stereo, as there is a very limited set of recordings and live listening opportunities under decent acoustic conditions in those genres to be able to appreciate Mch's sonic capabilities. The genres differ considerably in the technical possibilities and goals of sound engineers to capture a certain sonic experience. < <
Exactly, as I stated above ... but please note: any highly refined system that offers specific superior attributes, based on any musical genre, such as R&R, will also exhibit those same advantages with other forms of music.
Look, the thing is ... I'd much rather own a great highly refined 2ch system than own a very good off-the-shelf MC system ... but that's just me(*).
((*) well, in the perfect tb1 world, I'd own both)
tb1
TBone says, "Exactly, as I stated above ... but please note: any highly refined system that offers specific superior attributes, based on any musical genre, such as R&R, will also exhibit those same advantages with other forms of music"
Never having been to a live R&R concert in a hay field/similar environment or listening to a band through a PA system, I will never know about reproducing those sonic characteristics in my living room. I suppose stereo is more than adequate since there is no back/side of a hall to reflect anything (sort of like an anechoic chamber (SMILE)).
Stereo will never accurately reproduce multiple room acoustics (real four walls/ceiling) IMHO. Regards. Peace.
> > Never having been to a live R&R concert in a hay field/similar environment... < <
Actually, I have been to outdoor concerts (without walls) but that's neither here nor there ... especially considering that the quote you used above was taken completely out of context (I wasn't referencing acoustics).
tb1
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: