Every recording I own has its own sound, and I don’t mind one bit. As somebody once said, "If it’s good, it’s good." That might have been said more than once...not sure...as Bob Dylan says at the end of his shows, "get me outta here." I always wonder what the "live sound" reference really means...Orchestras that sound absolutely different depending on seating? Acoustic Jazz musicians listened to from a seat on the stage with the band? The hundreds of live concerts mixed by me? (those are all simply wonderful sounding events) Me again, noodling on an acoustic guitar? I think some recordings simply appeal to the audio geek as great sounding, but if the music isn't interesting it sort of doesn't matter...a system is tweaked to personal taste all over the map it seems, with no bottom line although many dive deep looking for it...somebody said once, "if it's fun, it's fun," and that likely wasn't Bob...or maybe it was.
Do we ask too much of our audio systems?
In high school, I taught myself to play guitar and later started playing in rock bands for about 10 years. I used a low powered mono tube record player in my bedroom to study Clapton, BB King, Page, Hendrix, Beck and all guitar heros of the time and learn how to play. In those years, I never bothered to upgrade my system, mostly because nothing seemed to be able to replay what I experienced playing live in a band, with a Les Paul in hand and a screaming tube guitar amp. As the years went by I built half dozen speakers and had a decent Pioneer front end, using a Philips TT. My system sounded better, but never equalled the emotion and involvement of playing live. So, I guess I grew into Audiophilia thinking nothing is as good as live music. Now I have heard some very good systems and speakers, but still wonder..."am I chasing something un-attainable?" Do we ask too much from our audio systems?
29 responses Add your response
One of the many traps of the audiophile hobby is thinking if the system is better, the music will sound better. In my experience, yes and no. The more revealing a system is, the more it will emphasize both the strengths and weaknesses of recordings. I personally have found myself ignoring great swaths of my collection not because I didn't like the music, but because the recording isn't up to the standards of my best recordings. That wasn't an issue before I started buying High-end equipment so many years ago. Over time I've learned to just kick back and relax on the couch on lesser recordings instead of sitting in the listening chair, with no concern about flat or incoherent soundstage, etc etc.. This approach has worked for me. The vast amount of recorded music was not done with "critical listening"in mind. It was and is a product made to sell, and mixed to sound reasonably ok on radio and on the systems of the era, and the tastes of their intended audience. |
bob540, +1 *G* Nothing beats 'live', although my main issue is the audience. The 'white noises' of cheering, screams, whistles, and the sheer volume play hell with my ears.... Which is why I go to most 'contemporary' concerts with ear plugs...;) When engrossed in the performance, most venues fair reasonably well. Worse was a Dave Matthews in a basketball arena; the reflections made it hard to enjoy. Some things should not be done.... Like real estate, location, location, etc. I can 'play loud', but at that point I've opted for 'roadie' ear plugs. Also over the head ear protection when running tests for room eq.... Do we ask too much? Oh, sure...the more $ spent, the more expected. It becomes a socially acceptable addiction of sorts. *L* 'Nirvana' remains just out of reach but one still yearns to hit the porch.... Not having the disposable treasure for the quest, I've resorted to amuse my muse within my means. Not 'perfect', but 'acceptable'; a way to enjoy what I like to listen to without frying the budget. Spouse support has grown over the years by this approach as well. There's a pleasant aspect to that, so I'll continue 'doing what I do'. ;) BTW...geoffkait, " Music soothes the savage breast." Breast?! Sounds exciting...please expand on that....intriguing....;) |
I keep reading that nothing beats live music for sound. I think that depends upon the type of music. I enjoy “hard guitar rock” (as opposed to heavy metal), but it comes off much better IMO on a recording than it does live. Yes, it is fun to see the band up there before you jamming, and the enthusiasm of the crowd, but in my experience the live sound is more like noise than music. I’m a big fan of Three Doors Down, and I was at their concert a couple of years ago, about 20 rows back, and the screams of their guitars made it impossible to tell who was playing what or what the singer was singing. It was the same with Kenny Wayne Shepherd — much better on recordings than live. Now, if I were into orchestra music, I can imagine it would be different. That seems more suited to hearing individual instruments more than with rock music (plus the acoustics of symphonic halls versus those of your typical sports arena). The closest I came was attending an open-area concert by Tony Bennett and his 4-piece backing band — very nice (though I’m sure he would be the first to admit that he didn’t have the pipes then that he had as a younger man.) But for someone like me that grew up with 60’s-70’s-80’s rock music, there was a reason that we complimented an artist that “sounds the same live as they do on their records”. There have been few live albums that I have enjoyed as much or thought sounded as good as their studio albums. Yet, I still like to go hear live music when I can. |
Anyone involved with photography knows that a camera cannot totally capture what the human eye sees; so, the same goes for our ears when comparing an audio system to a live concert or being a fly on the wall in a recording studio. So, I guess it comes down to: A) How realistic are your expectations? B) How big is your budget? |
Live concerts are certainly a wonderful experience. But when, really, do we ever get the perfect seating location? At home, my "sweet spot" is, indeed, nearly perfect. Imaging is nearly holographic. And when I play one of those exceptionally well recorded/mastered/plated/pressed LPs it is such a beautiful experience. Enjoy the music! |
The biggest trap people fall into imho is expecting their system to make everything sound exactly the way they want things to sound as opposed to allowing you to hear what is in the recording. That puts you into endless upgrade mode and is like chasing a holy grail that does not even exist. Every recording is different and runs the gamut from horrible sound to spot on sound. Hearing what is in each recording is one of the big attractions of this hobby for me. |
Agreed @edcyn! Recordings can be magnificent on their own terms. In addition to the Monument recordings of Orbison, the Barnaby and Warner Brothers’ recordings of The Everly Brothers are sublime (the Rhino LP’s are very good, the UK Ace LP’s even better). The Classic Records LP pressing of the 1950’s RCA recordings of Elvis are startling in their "in-the-room" immediacy and presence, of his voice and the instrumental accompaniment. When those recordings were made (late-50’s/early-60’s), electronic manipulation was relatively minimal. Those recordings played back on a quality hi-fi create sound far superior to that heard at most live Rock ’n’ Roll shows. |
A skilled, hands-off audio recreation of an actual event is indeed nirvana. But you can also find nirvana in recordings rendered by skilled knob-twisters working with inspired musicians & composers guided by visionary, golden-eared producers. For example, my Rhino Records vinyl reissue of classic Roy Orbison recordings is sometimes startling in its beauty. |
As Geoff states, at best a system can only reproduce that which is on the recording. Though I am as guilty as most of ya’ll, the amount of effort and $ invested in our hi-fi’s is comical in view of the quality of most recordings. The vast majority of recordings---especially in the "modern" era (1950’s forward)---are not of music performed live, but in a recording studio, with a LOT of electronic manipulation applied to the already often mediocre sound captured by the forest of mics---some of them real crap (the Shure SM57---a $99 PA mic---is used on the snare drum in a lot of recordings!)---used in studios. Have you ever heard the knobs on a parametric equalizer---found and used in all studios---turned? Pop (non-Classical) recording engineers are trying to create a "good" sounding recording, not one that sounds like live music. The idea of getting studio recordings to sound like live music is ridiculous; the sound contained in most recordings makes that impossible. HP’s slogan of the absolute sound is idealistic, not realistic. I myself am thankful for just living in a time when music can be recorded and then reproduced (in whatever quality) in our homes AT ALL. Live music, and recorded music reproduced in the home, will always be very different things, at least in our lifetimes. Now, a Water Lily Records recording is a different matter. How many WL recordings do you own? ;-) |
dtapo, no, we are not asking too much but under the best circumstances it takes spending at least $100K to get there from a sonic perspective but there is a visual aspect here also. When people listen to my system sound only they are generally amazed but only when I'm playing a concert video ( I have a 113" screen between the speakers) do they say stuff like, " This is better than being there. This is like having a front row seat," etc. I never get this with sound only. Listening by myself and as long as my wife is out of the house and I can advance the volume to the appropriate level and with a decent recording it can be better than being there. Large indoor concert venues are more often than not crippled by horrendous acoustics. You are just there for the light show. |
"don't leave out Earl (the 4th King of the Blues Guitar). " onhwy61- YES! I have a great CD compilation of Earl. Now that's some unobtanium wax I'd love to find in the bins! We all could use more... https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=57&v=LmXWbJexqgI&feature=emb_logo Large scale orchestra is probably the litmus test for any setup/room. I have some VERY good pressings of things. Even the $100K+ rigs in a good room fail at producing that "presence" you experience when attending a performance. Some do a reasonable |
A good system will get pretty close to experiencing live "woman" tone or a crunchy LP thru a stack of Marshalls, but it's still just "pretty close" The pressing you're using and the system does make a difference, but in the end still just sounds like good hifi. Personally don't "feel" it with any of those digital files or CD's. All the extra time lately has allowed for a little extra play time with my LP&Strat/Deluxe reverb. I've been jamming with Page, Hendrix, Beck, Trower, Howe, the 3 Kings... Nothing replaces standing in front of a stack of Marshalls. |
“What’s important in the home environment, is the emotional connection to the music. If one is getting that, then that’s where it is at.” Frank nailed it. That’s been my goal all along...I am pretty happy where I am with my audio system. There is always room for improvement but one should never loose sight of what you have accomplished. |
oregonpapa4,224 posts05-13-2020 12:45pm"The Holy Grail in Audiophilism is to recreate the live event in our listening rooms.... we are chasing something that is unattainable." Went through audio "burnout" on several occasions until I realized (and accepted) that the Holy Grail in audio is unattainable. |
The Holy Grail in Audiophilism is to recreate the live event in our listening rooms. As soon as we think we are getting close, that’s the time to attend a performance by a live symphony orchestra. That’s when one realizes how far away one’s system is to that live sound. So, I would say that for the most part, we are chasing something that is unattainable. What’s important in the home environment, is the emotional connection to the music. If one is getting that, then that’s where it is at. Be happy. Frank |