Recently a friend of mine heard a Chopin concert in a Baptist church. I had told him that I had gone out to RMAF this year and heard some of the latest gear. His comment was that he thinks the best audio systems are only about 5% close to the real thing, especially the sound of a piano, though he admitted he hasn't heard the best of the latest equipment.
That got me thinking as I have been going to the BSO a lot this fall and comparing the sound of my system to live orchestral music. It's hard to put a hard percentage on this kind of thing, but I think the best systems capture a lot more than just 5% of the sound of live music.
What do you think? Are we making progress and how close are we?
Hi Hifihvn, Drummers wear headphones because they are mic'd and are using the headphones as monitors. Drums get very loud, up to 110db. I have not heard any strings that can cause hearing damage. Granted most of my live listening is to cello and violin & piano and it is in a venue capable of seating 600 people, but as I stated earlier, I run a sound board fairly regularly. I have never been subjected to threatning levels from these instruments.. and I do tend to duplicate spl's at home vs live(non amplified) venues. The peaks are short term and is required to really get the dynamics that have been discussed here. I completely agree that the wink link is the recording. Good Listening, Tim
I agree cone area in addition to overall driver quality and build, optimal power delivery, and ability to pressurize air as a result is key to getting dynamics out of a playback system that can compete with the original instrument(s) in a similar room configuration.
This is one of the reasons I am a big fan of Walsh drivers. Drivers applied using the Walsh principles where sound is emitted from the rear of teh cone omnidirectionally benefit from effective application of available driver surface area, and the omnidirectional aspect results is a sound dispersion pattern more like that of a real, un-amplified, acoustic instrument. To get similar results with conventional driver technology generally require much larger designs and drivers that bump up the cost to deliver substantially.
Comparing sound pressure from a live instrument in your room,at home,is not accurate for this comparison.Sure these instruments have a lot of volume,but when you listen to them live,figure the room volume of the building,and compare it to your listening room volume.The volume difference is huge.Who would want the actual drums in your home?The smart drummers use headphones,when performing.A lot of the other musicians wear ear plugs too.My neighbors Baby Grand gets to loud,in an(approx),40x25x12ft high room.A violin gets extremely loud.These live instruments do cause hearing damage.At home,we can control this.Another plus, for listening at home.Correct what you can,that's wrong with your system. Anything that draws attention to itself, especially anything offensive.The weak link I mostly find now is,the quality of the recording,not the system.After you've done corrections,get some good recordings,sit back and enjoy.
I think quite a bit has been accomplished here... By sharing experiences, each of us has put that together and at least have a much better idea of what it takes to come closest to reproduce live as closely as possible. I have come to believe that only recordings done in a venue of a small scale can be reproduced fairly faithfully in most homes, unless you have a very large room I have come to believe that it takes a reasonable amount of cone area to come close to faithfully reproducing some instruments, as mentioned above, large piano and drums. I believe that the recording is critical in reproduction. I disagree with a few statements, I've been around alot of live productions and I've have heard recorded piano that came very close to live... We were using alot of cone area (Legacy Focus), Big tube amps, etc, etc. But in general, I feel like if we all put together our experiences that this has been a beneficial thread and I have enjoyed and appreciated hearing from everyone. Good Listening, Tim
"Also, have you used a sound meter at a given distance to see if you're playing the recording at a similar volume? If you haven't you'd be shocked at how loud a live piano is." IrvRobinson
"Agreed - very few home audio speakers can do a grand piano realistically. This is a very loud and dynamic instrument. Ditto a drum set, trumpet or trombone. Most non-musicians have no idea how loud these things go." Shadorne
From 90+ percent of the systems I've heard, higher volumes, (read real-world sound pressure levels) prove more challenging than reproducing the dynamics and timbre of most instruments, and certainly symphonic scale performance. Piano, cello, dulcimer and mandolin are stand-out exceptions, in part, I believe, due to the complexity of their harmonics.
What's an audiophile to do?
Go to more live performances, play an instrument and accept the challenge, and the present-moment fact, that reproduced music is just that. Nothing more, but also nothing less. Being satisfied with the options we have is the road to [audio] nirvana.
Somehow my original question: Are we making progress and how close are we? has prompted people to write things like "my stereo will never sound like my piano." Though I don't know how we could ever presume to know something with such certainty about the future, I do tend to agree with the sentiment. Even under the best of circumstances, I've never been really fooled, but I'm still wondering if the industry is making progress.
I had a gentleman over the other evening to hear my system. He explained that he has gone full circle in this hobby and after 50 or so years of owning many of the latest designs, he has ended up with a system that is very similar to what he had thirty years ago - very high efficiency cone/horn speakers (Altec), a vintage tube integrated amp (modified Heathkit) and a Japanese DD table (Technics). Sensing his excitement while describing his system, I think he likes his current system as much as anything he has owned. He emphasized the sense of dynamics as being very lifelike. So I ask, have we really advanced the state of the art in say the last 30 years?
Regarding how close we are to the real thing, let's forget percentages. That was a futile suggestion. How about something like this:
1. The best system I've heard sounds absolutely nothing like a real piano. 2. The best system I've heard allows me to recognize that it is in fact a recording of a piano. 3. The best system I've heard sometimes sounds a bit like a real piano. 4. The best system I've heard sounds pretty much like a real piano.
Judging from the responses to this thread, I think there is little consensus. Perhaps we should leave it at that and go and enjoy our systems.
We have a Steinway. You guys are exaggerating. I'm guessing none of you have ever recorded your own piano and replayed the recording on your system? If you're using a recording made in a huge venue it won't sound as dramatic. Also, have you used a sound meter at a given distance to see if you're playing the recording at a similar volume? If you haven't, you'd be shocked at how loud a live piano is. If you're using speakers like Thiels, or something else with limited cone area, forget it.
Hotmailjbc, your photo versus reality is right on. I was just on the Serengeti plains with thousands of animals all around. I took many high quality photos but none could capture what I saw.
Today I tried a new H-Cat dac and got clarity and imaging that thrilled me, but sorry not real like being there and Frank is dead.
i love photgraphy and looking at pictures. i have been to the grand canyon. i think i'll vote for standing next to the rim for the real thing. since i,m not there right now the pictures will have to do. i would not want to be without my experiences or the pictures. i,ve never had tom petty drop by the house and play a set.
"Isn't it amazing though; just how much a great system can fool you into thinking it can reproduce the sound of a piano, until you actually have one in the room? Then, you're right, not even close." Precisely -- on all counts. What %, who knows, the thing is you know it's not a baby grand in your room (or horn, or drums, or voice....), if you could compare them in the same space. Close? Not close? I don't know, but almost always a discernable difference that you could pick "real" almost 100% of time, unlike figuring out if it is a tube or SS amp you are listening to.
'Isn't it amazing though; just how much a great system can fool you into thinking it can reproduce the sound of a piano, until you actually have one in the room? Then, you're right, not even close."
I wonder if a properly miked recording played over a good pair of omni speakers would push the edge for this?
I think it might in that the sound dispersion pattern of the omnis in the room would be more like that of the piano.
BTW, does anybody with a nice piano in their house do wall treatments the way some audiphiles do to keep the room from mucking with the sound?
"A mini grand being played in your house cannot be matched by an hi-fi system, IMO not even close."
Weseixas, Isn't it amazing though; just how much a great system can fool you into thinking it can reproduce the sound of a piano, until you actually have one in the room? Then, you're right, not even close.
Yes, my daughter plays, my friends play and teach music. A mini grand being played in your house cannot be matched by an hi-fi system, IMO not even close.
There are many errors in playback (HI-FI) reproduction, the ones with the least amount of errors tend to get the highest marks, but it is nothing like live music.
Irvrobinson, I had a jazz band in my kitchen but the only musician playing music has been a guitarist. He liked the room and said he liked classical guitar played on my system. I asked him if it sounded real. He hesitated but said no. I fully agreed with him.
To build on what Timlub says about musicians preferring different strings, etc.
I know a luthier who flies around the world to choose all his own sustainable wood stock. He looks closely at different internal bracing for different sounds and player preferences. He might choose Honduran Mahogany or Cedar for a neck. Brazilian Rosewood is his preference for bridges. Saddles, soundboards, fingerboards all the more complex. Some of his finest guitars sell for 30k. So many details and such artistry.
Have to say I'm leaning more toward 40% when I really think about it. We are all blessed with the ability to even experiment with audio and I'm happy to have the ability to squabble about it.
Irvrobinson, I was thinking the same thing. I noted above that I do sound quite often for live music. You think audiophiles are subjective, you should hear musicians talking about EVERYTHING changes the sound of their instruments. Stings, different brands of horns sound different, piano, piano strings, drums and different skins...... It does not have to be exact to sound live. I've had a celloist in and pianist seperately in my home, they both commented that they could have been fooled. I truly believe that if we are listening to excellent recordings where the scale of the venue is close to our living room that it is possible to come very close to the live experience, if any variables change we lose that live charm very quickly. My system doesn't fool anybody on larger scale music, but I still enjoy it. Somewhere in the above thread, it was mentioned of a live/recording comparison of a small group called Misty River. After I read that, I ordered this recording. On a couple of their songs (not all) you can hear the order of the girls placement when they sing, you can hear very specific intstrument placement and the tonal balance and mic work on this recording is quite good... Honestly, I would not be fooled on this recording, but It comes closer than I thought it would and as I made reference to before as single cello or piano can fool alot of people. good listening, Tim
Bjesien, I fully agree that playback satisfaction varies greatly. I suspect that for performing musicians listening to recorded music is not relaxing and staying at their best entails much practice. My friend used to read a great deal within a silent study.
I do find it valuable not withstanding that we share our experiences, but to assume any consensus is beyond us. I have some friends whose options I greatly respect, that is the best I can do in guiding my buying decisions.
Once I allowed myself to think that I was hearing 90% of what was real. Shortly after that I got something new and thought it was a very great improvement suggesting that before it I was only at about 50%. I decided that this was a waste of time. Sometimes when I leave my music room with something playing, I close the door and while descending the stairs, ask myself whether it sounds like real music being played. My answer always, thus far, is no.
I don't think playback can be the same for any two individuals. Sure we can agree on a set of principles, or try to talk about what is real, but we can never trade our very slight preferences if it is real to us....
Weseixas:
Bravo , bravo ... An Audio truism, if there ever was one..
I have friends that perform in the Boston symphony, a best friend that builds guitars for some of the top classical and flamenco performers around the world, friends that dance the clubs in London and Manhattan.
None of them are at all interested in sitting on a chair and listening to a pair of speakers. They have the real "rhythm that is music" and don't care if it's an ipod or a five hundred thousand dollar system. They have the talent to feel the music under any circumstance.
I guess this may be more of being drawn into music. If you have music in your soul you can listen through a tin can and feel the spirit. If you need a certain cable to get interested you might think about finding another passion because music is too much for you to handle. At this point it's the gear you want.
Generally IMO the test of a system is if you love to sit and listen to it. I have a friend with a pair of M5's in a great room. They sound slightly bloated to me but we listen to them at concert levels for hours each week. I have another friend with the Wilson Maxx 3's. Very different from the M5, perhaps more transparent, but I never want to listen to them for more than an hour. Great stage, etc. but man, maybe if was a little older I would need all that intense information placed for me.
I don't think playback can be the same for any two individuals. Sure we can agree on a set of principles, or try to talk about what is real, but we can never trade our very slight preferences if it is real to us.
That's true but they are listening for the notes, not the sound. Its an entirely different portion of the brain that is used. Try sitting in front of a keyboard and see if you can work out the notes of a favorite melody and you will see what I mean.
If you want a recording of a piano in the home to sound as real as an actual piano in the home, you have a real challenge. The problem is that the sound of the piano exists in the room- if you try to record and play back in the same room, you will have double the room signature. It won't sound right. That's why I stress that understanding the model of stereo is the first step to appreciating how real it can really sound, because if it really is sounding real, it will sound like the musical event, spliced on to the end of your room.
I think that too many assume that if we hear live music that is the goal of this hobby but there are big variations in live music. With only limited experience, I think most would agree that some venues sound better than others.
I still remember when CES was still in Chicago, we were eating at Bergdoff's where there was a small jazz group going from table to table. When they came to our table, I noticed that the bass was boomy when the bass player was only about five feet from me, but had not been when he was further away. Some real is good and some is not.
I am convinced that my "realism" has greatly improved in the last several years, but I would never make an estimate of how close it is to a live performance in my room. When I am startled by a new instrument coming in or involved in the emotions of the music, I am happy.
One final comment. Long ago I had a friend who was a concert pianist. He had heard my system often and had often requested some classical piano performances and seemed to enjoy them. Finally, while at his home, I asked what he listened to. He took me into his study and showed me an old Webcor portable record player!! I must have looked shocked as he said he listened only to the performer's choices in the piece and other than that paid little attention to what he was hearing. He said he heard it all in his head.
Last time I listened to a live concert on my system I stood on my couch with a cigarette lighter for the encore. The next day my wife asked why there were burns on the ceiling. Oops.
One truly missing ingredient in the process is the recording/transfer equipment. Mic's are so variable, as to be frustrating, with some real improvements recently...then there's the question of 'how to position and place' performers. In an ideal world, they'd simply set up as if performing...but how often do we see this? In another post a couple of years ago, I sent kuddos to Michael Buble for having the guts as a pop singer, to announce that he recorded the group he sang in front of, in a natural setting--without the extraordinary, measures normally taken--with him in LA, them in New York, etc. Of late, we're seeing a trend toward this--in the Movie, Love Actually, the little girl singing, 'All I Want For Christmas', in the movie's climax, was singing 'live'. The director even commented that they went to great pains to let her breathing (which was a bit loud), be captured, so people would KNOW that it was her singing. Then,in Across the Universe, the director, in order to gain the sense of reality, had the performers work with a 'live mic', and pretty much did the same thing.
IMHO, the true missing ingredients are, flat Frequency Response, (the greatest predictor of TONAL ACCURACY something the brain REALLY catches quickly), and possibly the key, DYNAMIC CONTRAST. The brain knows, what the dynamics SHOULD BE...and if we don't hear that, we simply know immediately that its a recording and not real. When we can do this consistantly, we'll be much closer.
Recorded music in most people's homes and live music in a large well designed concert hall are two different beasts that will never be the same. I think realizing this helps manage expectations when experiencing either. Each can have its unique charms that endear themselves. Sometimes it is possible for the two different things to strongly resemble each other.
I think if an experienced listener is satisfied with both on their own terms and in relation to each other, then that is about as good as it can get.
I think I've arrived at that point in the last year or so finally, so I am a very content listener at present.
I agree with you that there is nothing like the sound in good seats at a well designed hall. I don't think I'll ever get my Mini IIs to deliver large scale classical music convincingly or certainly not a rock concert. My room and those monitors are just too small. However, with a great recording and the right music (small scale and acoustic) the sound is pretty darn good and I dare say almost believable. Well, close enough to be emotionally moving.
Sure it's not the real thing, but it's one minute down the hall, available anytime and able to play any of my LPs with a simple lift of the tone arm. Muddy, Miles, Starker, or Arrau. Playback has come a long way.
Someday, I'll invite my buddy Edseas2 back over and ask about that 5% again.
Coincidentally, the Meyerhoff in Baltimore is one of the venues I have used extensively as a sound quality reference over the years.
You, know the sound quality there as with most venues varies considerably depending on how teh performers set up and where you sit?
Most classical performances tehre from most seats have some of the best sound quality I have heard IMHO.
however, once I heard Steve Winwood there from way up in the top level, slightly right of center and I could not have been more disappointed.
I used to feel very good about my system when I came home from the Meyerhoff and compared to my rig running magnepan mg1cs at the time, in every sense save absolute dynamics and impact perhaps. If I closed my eyes, it cam way better than 5% I would say, enough so that I did not care.
Nowadays, with my newer OHM floorstanders, I think I have upped the ante considerably.
I also run good monitors and they are nice but I have yet to hear a pair of standalone monitors deliver large scale classical convincingly. Chamber music and the like, perhaps...
Many variables. Type of music being a very important one. I have never heard any system capabable of reproducing the almost physical low bass energy you experience live in a Jazz club. Thenagain, solo instruments and small acoustic ensembe music can come pretty close in a high end system. Recording quality is also a huge factors. Ironically, the closest to "the real thing" I experience in my system is actually a multi channel surround sound SACD solo piano recording on the Norwegian 2L label (Mirror Canon) - no Chopin though. This is as close as having a Steinway in my room as it gets.
I also remember walking in a show floor and believing there was a live ensemble playing around the corner, only to find out they were playing a studio master tape over JBL monitors - so 5% seems a rather conservative number.
Edseas2, not only did I read the OP's question, I own a copy of Katz's "Mastering Audio" book.
OK, you got me - I didn't know about his Chesky work, so I learned something there, but if you read his book it is definitely pop music oriented, as is the majority of his work I'm familiar with.
"BK: Yes. I've heard great recordings that stun me. But every time I go to hear the group live in front of me with no amplification, I think that we are so far away from the live experience that we will never have that experience."
The truth of that use to make me frown, till I accepted that recorded music must be appreciated it on its own terms and its inherent limitations - yet totally satisfying and magical for what it is. I think Katz is 100% right about recorded music versus live, unamplified (critical)music. The gap is obvious and permanent, but no reason not to love and enjoy our home systems.
Bob Katz? You're quoting a mastering engineer for pop music, who's mostly concerned with mixing, compression, synthesizers, electric guitars, and drum machines, and his comment (taken out of context) about us not being able to reproduce "live" is relevant? How?
I agree with Katz, actually, my home system is waaay far away from reproducing a stack of JBL PA systems.
For anyone saying that our hearing memory is short term, don't bother turning around when you hear a familiar voice.After all,it must be our imagination.
I definitively agree with the ones saying the recording limits our system.If you listen to jazz,pick up a copy of "Jazz At The Pawn Shop".It gives a nice illusion.
I do hear instruments on recordings,that we just can't hear unless,we get just the right seat.How often does that happen?
Jazz At The Pawn Shop,is a good example of what can be heard in a recording.There are also good vintage recordings that can be heard on "Rca Living Stereo" albums.If it was done back then,it can be done now.Again,you do need to start with a good recording.
You won't like this citation much from Bob Katz - for anyone who doesn't know who he is he's one of the best recording engineers alive today - here's a link to his bio:
As Peter should know by now, I am fond of saying something that, on the surface, seems implausible yet, under closer scrutiny, may have a lot of merit. Old style conversation, if you will.
Here's the citation (from monoandstereo.com):
MI: Do you think that it is possible to archive the same experience as live acts on recorded media like playback systems? Have you ever heard any recordings that stunned you?
BK: Yes. I've heard great recordings that stun me. But every time I go to hear the group live in front of me with no amplification, I think that we are so far away from the live experience that we will never have that experience.
Sorry Peterayer.
While I certainly believe that someone who has never heard a SOTA system such as yours may say that he didn't know what such a system was capable of reproducing, do I believe that it approaches live, unamplified music sound wise?
Thank you for the many and varied responses. The thread answered some questions which I was not aware I had asked. Having listened to many recordings of piano and other music on LP on my system since I started this thread and I have concluded that much depends on the quality of the recording, as some have mentioned.
In a few instances, to my ears, my system does indeed approach the sound of real, live, unamplified music. And so do the best of other systems that I have heard. In other cases, it is not really close. I do think we have made progress, as the systems I listened to as a child and then in college only hinted at the sound of my current system. And my system is not even close to the best that is out there.
I also think we have a long way to go and may never reach the point where one could be fooled while blindfolded 100% of the time. But that really is not the point. I asked the original question because it seems in some instances, in some rooms on great systems, we are closer than the 5% that Edseas2 suggested.
To Edseas2, moniker for my friend whose comment prompted this thread originally: thank you for joining the discussion. I'm sorry, but I don't smell a wiff of miasma in my question or implied by it. And I simply don't understand your question about my question's reciprocal.
When my piano tuner and musician friend (bass and piano) finished tuning my kids' piano after a lesson one afternoon, I invited him to stick around and to listen to some Ellington and Ray Brown. I put on a 45 RPM of "This One's for Blanton." He listen to all of side one without saying a word. He then shook his head, didn't move and quietly said, "Wow, I didn't think a stereo could do that". I know what he meant.
Weseixas and Phaelon - Thanks for those kind words.
Learsfool - As I see it, aural imagination allows the listener to compare how something sounds with how it MIGHT sound. In my view, that is both an asset and a liability for an audiophile (and probably for a musician).
Aural imagination is an asset, insofar as it helps the listener identify what is wrong with a system's presentation. But it can also be a liability, since it can distract the listener from what a system is doing right, when he is just trying to enjoy himself.
So, IMO, aural imagination is beneficial, provided you can turn it off. The same thing can probably be said about other kinds of imagination.
Interesting thread. I agree with Mapman, Atmasphere, Shadorne, and Bryon. Certainly anyone who thinks that they could possibly reproduce the sound of a full symphony orchestra in their room and have it sound remotely close to how it does live is fooling themselves. Though I know he doesn't particularly care for concluding it, Bryon is correct in saying that there is no single answer to any of these questions.
One interesting thing, Bryon - you mention that "The greater your imagination, the easier it is to fill in whats missing during recorded playback". This does not necessarily even require imagination - if one was present at the live event that one is listening to a recording of, for instance. I frequently listen to the archival recordings made by my orchestra (I am on the broadcast committee), and I am constantly surprised by what is NOT picked up by the mikes, much more so than I am at what is picked up.
I do know what you mean, though. In fact, this imagination can be a liability for musicians that are trying to judge recordings they have made of themselves for audition purposes, for example. Also, sometimes it is difficult to tell when listening to such a recording whether the sound you don't like is your fault or the fault of the recording (for example, you think your sound is too bright). This just happened to a colleague of mine, who had to come to me to ask my opinion - this issue can cloud one's judgement very easily, messing with your head for no reason sometimes.
I only disagree with the 5% part. I think that should be more like 90% and mostly constrained by the room size. A properly set up system in an auditorium could get much closer to the real thing.
As a trumpeter, I've seldom felt that I heard a recorded trumpet sound as live. There were a few direct-to-disk exceptions in the analog days and some reel-to-reel recordings got close, but most lacked some key overtones and dynamic range. Now, with DSD and other hi-rez recording techniques, I'm hearing the real thing more and more.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
