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?
Somewhere in the miasma of the OP's question is another beguiling paradox, namely:
What percent of the time has live, unamplified music ever been mistaken by anyone as being other than "real"?
If the answer to this question is close to "zero" (as in "zero" percent of the time I have mistaken live music for being recorded ) then, how is it or, rather IS it possible for the OP's question to be other than the reciprocal?
Definitely more than 5% (Caveat: In a well set up non-hifi, musical sounding ref system, regardless of price) less than 95%, and at times, depending upon type of music and recording quality, it may approach 95% at times. 100% is 'never' going to be possible!
Personally , i have been around SOTA type systems for the better part of 35 yrs and have yet to hear one that would be mistaken for real.
I will fully agree the recorded medium is a big part. Those who use direct recorded RR tapes for playback , get the closest IMO. I was first exposed to such in 1979 by Mark Levinson and his HQD system. Those Demonstrations were done using Peter McGrath's personal demo tapes.
It was astonishing then as it is now for those doing the RR thing again today....
Best of Hi-FI IMO, yes very much so.. But still a Memorex moment...
This has been a fascinating thread. It seems to me that it has raised three related questions:
(1) How real does a state-of-the-art system sound? (The OPĀs question)
(2) What are the factors that limit how real a system sounds?
(3) Why do estimates about how real a state-of-the-art system sounds vary so much?
I will take a shot at the OPĀs question last. About the other twoĀ
(2) What are the factors that limit how real a system sounds?
Atmasphere, Shadorne, and others have already said much of what needs to be said. I would only add that, to my ears, the three principal characteristics that limit how real most systems sounds are: Dynamic range, spatial cues, and harmonic content.
My suspicion is that dynamic range, spatial cues, and harmonic content are themselves chiefly limited by recordings, rooms, and equipment, respectively. Dynamic range is limited both by the inherent informational limits of recording media and by the elective use of compression during mixing. Spatial cues are limited by acoustically under-treated rooms, which obscure spatial cues, or by acoustically over-treated rooms, which limit the directionality of spatial cues. And harmonic content is limited by various kinds of equipment-induced distortion, whether harmonic distortion, IMD, TIM, etc.. This is of course an oversimplification, but the general point is that, IMO, the chief factors that limit how real most systems sound are dynamic range, spatial cues, and harmonic content (probably in that order).
(3) Why do estimates about how real a state-of-the-art system sounds vary so much?
It seems to me that estimates vary so much for both objective and subjective reasonsĀ
Some OBJECTIVE REASONS:
-People have been exposed to different systems, including different Āstate of the artĀ systems. The better the systems, the higher your estimate.
-People listen to different types of music. The smaller the scale of the music you tend to listen to, the higher your estimate.
-People have different libraries of recordings. The higher the ĀaverageĀ recording quality from your personal library, the higher your estimate.
Some SUBJECTIVE REASONS:
-People have different capacities for aural perception. ItĀs no secret that musicians perceive things in music that most other listeners do not. Audiophiles have their own form of enhanced perception, though they are probably sensitive to different things. The point is that the greater your aural perception, the greater the potential for perceived differences between real musical events and recorded ones, and so the lower your estimate.
-People have different capacities for aural memory. The better your aural memory, the more rigorously you will be able to compare recorded musical events with recalled musical events. And the more rigorous the comparison, the more you will perceive what is wrong with recorded playback, and so the lower your estimate.
-People have different capacities for aural imagination. The greater your imagination, the easier it is to fill in whatĀs missing during recorded playback, and so the higher your estimate.
-People have different capacities for selective attention. The greater your selective attention and the better you can control it, the easier it is to ignore whatĀs wrong with a recording or a system, and the higher your estimate.
-People have different mental ĀstandardsĀ for judging whatĀs real. For some people, itĀs dynamics. For others, itĀs instrument timbres. For others, itĀs PRaT. The point is that people donĀt use the same information for judging the verisimilitude of a recorded musical event. The more you use standards in which recorded playback usually suffers (e.g., dynamic range), the lower your estimate.
All of these subjective considerations point to the fact that, in order to answer the OPĀs question, a person must take into consideration many of his own psychological characteristics (perception, memory, imagination, etc.), and since these characteristics vary widely, answers to the OPĀs question vary widely. Which brings me toĀ
(1) How real does a state-of-the-art system sound? (The OPĀs question)
This question could be interpreted in terms of the total amount of musical information at the listening position during the real musical event vs. the total amount of musical information at the listening position during the recorded playback of that same event. If that is how the OPĀs question is interpreted, then my answer is: I have no idea, but someone could probably figure this out, within some limited range of accuracy.
Alternatively, the OPĀs question could be interpreted in terms of how real a system sounds to people. If that is how the OPĀs question in interpreted, then my answer is: There is no single valid answer. There are many possible answers, each valid to an individual or to a group of similar individuals. Generally, I don't like to conclude something so subjectivist, but that is how I see it.
"Notice how Irvrobinson says all you need is a musician. A single musician? Talk about stacking the deck! Your system may sound "real" with a single musician softly playing a celesta, but can it handle a jazz big band or a full orchestra and choir?"
Of course not! We've already discussed this earlier in the thread. If the group of instruments won't fit your room, how could your audio system possibly make it sound real? Yes, a lot of systems can image beyond the walls of the room, but a facsimile of reality requires loudness, accurate loudness, and it can't be done in a small space. Or to put it in "you win" terms that Onhwy61 is looking for, I agree that an orchestra can't be reproduced in a small room in a way that can fool anyone it is real musicians.
Notice how Irvrobinson says all you need is a musician. A single musician? Talk about stacking the deck! Your system may sound "real" with a single musician softly playing a celesta, but can it handle a jazz big band or a full orchestra and choir?
"All we need is five guys, earplugs, blindfold and a big box, like a Wilson crate, and a hand-truck. Also a Budget rental truck or even a pickup would work fine."
No, all you need is a musician, an audio system, and a blindfold.
"are you saying the blind comparison test would be an invalid measurement strategy?"
I can't rationalize this, but I've never been sure that blind testing is the be-all end-all. I should also admit that, with the exception of impedance matching and similar good sense, I probably don't put as much thought into measurements as most.
You might have misinterpreted my earlier post suggesting that I might need to get out more as sarcasm. It wasn't. I haven't heard what you guys are listening to, so I have to keep an open mind. If you guys have systems that sound real to you, that's great. I don't and I'm jealous!
All we need is five guys, earplugs, blindfold and a big box, like a Wilson crate, and a hand-truck. Also a Budget rental truck or even a pickup would work fine.
We lug the guy around to few different venues over the coarse of a couple nights. We uncrate and crate him up again after the venue. Maybe he gets a few cheese sticks and some water too. The guy takes notes and reveals them at the end of the experiment. Piece of cake. I'm good with a hand-truck.
"You're not being fair. Are we talking about measurements or listening? You can't talk measurements on the "does it sound like a tube debate" and then switch to listening on the "does it sound real" debate."
Actually, that's exactly my point. We *know* why tube amps can sound different, but the *opinion* that the playback of a recording sounds real is only measureable by measuring the individual human - in other words, can they tell the difference in a blind test? Perhaps it was you that confused me in your comparing this thread with the tube versus solid state threads.
Nonetheless, are you saying the blind comparison test would be an invalid measurement strategy?
You're not being fair. Are we talking about measurements or listening? You can't talk measurements on the "does it sound like a tube debate" and then switch to listening on the "does it sound real" debate.
You're not suggesting that there are perfect components that add or take away nothing, are you? If not, then a difference can be measured. And if a difference can be measured, then you have to give it the same weight as you did to tubes. Ha! :-)
Onhwy61, that may be so. When I got the U67s nearly 30 years ago, I knew they were great mics, but had no idea how really great they actually are.
As our equipment for recording and playback has improved, I've really come to realize that microphone technology may well be one of the areas that was well advanced beyond the rest of audio world by several decades. That simple fact is, if you have mics of this quality, you don't need 'signature' or 'reference' as descriptors :) They just work.
One time I did an on-location recording with a pair of RCA ribbon mics. I had a couple of audiophile friends with me that wanted to see it being done. At one point, I had to move the mics a couple of feet. One of my friends was wearing headphones, listening to the live mic feed. Since ribbons can be fairly sensitive, when I got to the mic stand, I said 'I'm going to move the mics now' so he would be prepared for some noise.
When I was done and got backstage again, he was in a state of shock. He had seen me go through the stage door, and then a few seconds later, he heard me *behind* him (at the point where I was ready to move the mic stand). On wheeling around, wondering how I got back behind him without him knowing it, he saw I was not there!!
Now this was a jaundiced audiophile, and training to be a conductor (currently conducting in Moscow) and *knew* that audio equipment could never sound that real. I'm telling you, he nearly had a heart attack.
5% is a bit harsh , i would give the very best 45% of the real deal and figure on that system using at least 2-3 kw of power to get to that 45% figure...
You're treading on dangerous turf, Phaelon, he says rolling his eyes. :-) Tube amps sound different from solid state amps for measureable, predictable, understandable reasons that can usually be explained by effective differences in the amp-speaker combination frequency response. The only way to tell if someone thinks a sound is "live" is by using a blind test and seeing if he or she can repeatedly correctly differentiate. I've never seen a metric for determining "live" has been achieved.
You may be right, but to me it seems like more than just a matter of opinion in that sense that I find it hard to believe that anyone one accustomed to unamplified, acosutic music would ever be fooled by a stereo system into thinking it is real instruments in a real acoustic venue. As much as I would love to believe that my system, and other far more expensive systems I have heard, sound real, it just doesn't, though I do place a slight value on that difference. Has a recorded saxaphone, trumpet, or drum set ever sounded real to you, where you could not tell the difference (assuming you have heard the real thing)? Really? I want your system. I do agree that one person's 5% is another's 95%, but either way, somehow it is obviously never 100%, nor can it ever be IMHO. This just seems like a clearer divide to me than the tube/ss debates.
The more I read this thread, the more it becomes clear to me just how much this topic has in common with the myriad threads on "tubes vs solid state" (Now I know why you've given this thread a pass Tvad). A common theme of those threads is whether or not solid state can sound like tubes. The answers always seems to narrow down to: yes to some and no to others, depending on ones personal values. I'm no expert but it seems to me that we hear with our brains, and the brain is pretty good at filtering out what it deems unimportant. Sure a home system can approach the real thing if the difference isn't that important to you. I guess what I'm trying to say is that, as with tubes, some will always hear a difference because there is one, and it's meaningful to them, while others will not because of the slight value the place on that difference.
"I have a studio quality tape recorder playing back a tape I made in my own house. So am I to believe that 99% of the time it doesn't sound that real, but all the other times it does?"
No. It means that some of us believe you can recreate a pretty good facsimile of "live" when the sound sources being reproduced are well recorded, played back using some of the finest equipment available, and the sources are in reasonable proportion to the size of the room the audio system is in, and the system has the power to recreate the output of the source instrument.
Shadorne has hit the nail on the head- commercial recordings are the primary barrier to making it sound real.
If you were to take a set of good studio microphones and put them in a different room, away from your system, you might be quite surprised to find out how lifelike the system can be if the mics are set up right. Nothing (so far) compares to a direct mic feed...
Good point Onhwy61, or distinction. I often prefer listening to my home system to live while recongnizing there are aspects of live performance that are simply not present in a recording and I think the issue of compression mentioned by Shadorne is a very significant part of the difference between recorded and live music.
In my experience the difference between system and real thing does not speak to what might be more enjoyable in the listening - being different doesn't speak to what might be prefered, at least not necessarily. For example, live music rarely has the soundstaging and imaging of my system, and illusion and distortion I quite enjoy even if mostly an artifact of the recording process and better, more resolving equipment.
I notice that the people who are claiming current technology is close to capturing and reproducing the sound of a real musical event are severely limiting the conditions where they have experienced this phenomena. It only happens on a few records, only when I'm listening on headphones, only for small groups or solo instruments or only when I have a studio quality tape recorder playing back a tape I made in my own house. So am I to believe that 99% of the time it doesn't sound that real, but all the other times it does?
I think some of you are confusing the fact that you like the sound of your system better than live sound. That's a very different issue than whether your system can so accurately recreate a recorded event such that you cannot distinguish it from the original.
This has been a very interesting discussion to follow!
I have come to think about these issues less in terms of some "absolute sound" and more as "is the system giving me as much of what the recording engineer intended as possible." As in, "Oh, so THAT'S what Paul Simon, Tchad Blake and Brian Eno wanted me to experience on that cut from "Surprise." My own rig has come progressively closer to this goal as I've tweaked and upgraded it, I think, although it's hardly take no prisoners/state of the art.
As for acoustic music, if a tweak to the system makes it more moving or involving, I'm pleased.
You always know it's Memorex? No wonder nothing sounds real to you! If you're old enough to remember those commercials you can't hear anything over 12KHz anyway! [Big Grin]
For those comparing a theater movie to audio might get a different view if they see a good 3D movie done nowadays. It's been to long for me,but this is what I was told.They said you could see the audience jump or duck from an action seen in 3D.Our stereo does a good 3D illusion if you close your eyes.Pilots have come out of Flight Simulators sweating.
11-23-10: Lrsky Assigning an actual percentage would be an exercise in intellectual futility and meaningless as nobody would agree...it's enough to say that I've not heard reproduced sound, sound anything like the real thing, EVER.
The 5% difference is I would say reproduced sound does sound something like the real thing, yet it is recognizable as recorded, and always distinguishable from the real thing. The difference in % terms? No idea how one would assess that meaningfully, but I always know it is Memorex.
I've seen a few say that they play in bands... I don't play in bands, but I have done sound for a half dozen and still do sound regularly in churchs. My experience is that amplified live venues or music that goes through a mixing board really shouldn't count toward this discussion or at least be discounted. Not just the quality of the mics are in play, but the mix is changed to sound correctly in the venue being played, the snakes are typically over very long runs and mixing boards vary just as much as preamps to the recording. I clearly understand that this is nearly impossible to filter out, but the very best recordings for imaging are two channels mixed with the best of microphones. Anything with a mixer will throw more instruments into a false center stage.... Good Listening,Tim
I have flown through the Gand Canyon in a helicopter, and I have seen Imax. I have also tried memory experiments and read books about how recall works. The texture of simulation is far removed from real sensory experience and memory is but a type of simulation. What all simulations share is distortion and lack of information. One day we might achieve near perfect reproduction of a recording, but no chance ever of reproducing the "experience". I imagine a time when a person's reaction to an event can be recorded and "played back" through direct brain stimulation, but the rules would still apply. Finally there is the novelty phenomenon. An ad for an early Edison record player shows an Opera singer listening to a recording of another singer with his eyes closed. He witnesses that he cannot tell any difference from hearing her live. We chuckle, but I expect he really was thrilled and enchanted with the novelty, so he was easily fooled.
"If you watch it on your 20 inch Sony you are getting 10% of the experience, but if you watch it at Imax, closer to say 80%."
I like your Grand Canyon analogy Bjesien. But do you really mean to say "experience" or would "information" be more precise? . At what resolution does one start to feel the "take your breath away" experience of actually being there in a really effective way? It would seem that there should be real and unreal - simple. But maybe this thread proves that there are many subjective perceptions of reality.
Live performances have a different dimensionality based on seating, hall ambiance, and all the little nuances that make it "real" to some. You can't catch it all in a recording. A guy that trips up the stairs, or a couple giggling a few rows back. These things make it "live" for us.
I think of it as analogous to watching a well done movie of a plane flying through Grand Canyon. If you watch it on your 20 inch Sony you are getting 10% of the experience, but if you watch it at Imax, closer to say 80%.
I've heard huge Rockport's or Verity's nicely set up that bring you very close to to live. I'm going with 80%
I would like to hear the MBLs, but have never had the opportunity. Perhaps that fortunate, because I probably can't afford them, my room probably won't support them, and they are so ugly even my understanding spouse would have to call foul.
The step response you speak of, which is really a time-domain impulse test, is interesting, but I don't think anyone has ever shown a correlation between good sound and a perfect impulse test. As I recently posted in another thread, and just my personal opinion, I consider the use of first-order crossovers, necessary to achieve the perfect time domain performance the CS5's demonstrate, are just a marketing gimmick, and lead to more problems than benefits.
The Soundlabs achieve linear phase response because they are a single driver, have no crossover, so naturally they are good in the time domain, but does that really contribute to their great sound? I don't know, but I doubt it.
I was very tempted by the Soundlabs, but their trade-offs didn't quite suit me. And they're huge. But when the A1s are good, like on stringed instruments, they are most engaging speaker I've ever heard.
I wish that I could understand by what measure you guys are able to quantify realness. Is it information? IMO, realness is more than that. A high resolution photograph can yield all the empirical information of a direct viewing, but it's not the same, is it? We can go back and forth between the photo and the object and never be able articulate anything lacking in the photo. But still, it's less to me. I'm not saying that I've never been momentarily fooled by a sound coming from a speaker, especially when it comes from outside the plane, but to me, that's not nearly enough to make a case for realness. I suspect a system will alway's be limited, if only by the differences in the way that instruments and a speakers excite a room response.
When I was in a band (quite awhile back), I had the use of a studio reel to reel (can't remember which make) that I loaned to record my own piano in my house. The replay through my speakers (Impulse H1 horns) was close to the real thing on playback ( through the said speakers). So 5% is way of (IMHO) to my own personal experience. I would say IMO that we are up to 90%+, and if ones hi-fi can differentiate between different makes of Instruments, ie a Strat from a Gibson, a Steinway (the baby)from a Bosendorfer (the daddy) then that % maybe even higher. Again, 5%? one may need to upgrade ones gear.
Irv, You can add MBL's to the 'live' category. Set up properly, a tough one, most shows don't allow for proper set ups for anyone, and a system as complex as the MBL's take time and space. BUT, when set up properly they're magic.
On the Sound Labs, I LOVE them--and you're 100 percent correct about their tonal/spatial characteristics...just right for my taste--an amazing product. Irving M Fried, of IMF and Fried fame, used to show omnipolar frequency response of speakers--and did so more than 30 years ago. It was a.) ahead of its time b.) ambitious c.) evo/revolutionary thinking. No body else (correct me here if I'm wrong {usually am}) does this any more. Why? Because the results are terrible. Just as Jim Thiel showed Step Response Information, which displays the 'capture' of the drivers releasing the energy into the room as a unit body, either 'in phase' or not, with time function, lead lag information--strangely, almost NO ONE does this. Why, because their responses look really, really bad. The now 21 year old design, the CS5's had a virtually perfect step response. It would be interesting to see the Sound Lab Step Response, because of it's design, it would almost have to be perfection too. Scientific (not evidence, because the ear is the final arbiter there) validation that what we're hearing is as it should be.
Well, Phaelon, sounding "real" does happen for me, but not all that often, and, at least for me, only on solo recordings, and it takes just the right recording.
BTW, IMO people that buy audio equipment aren't heroes, people that engineer them are.
I think polar frequency response may have something to do with sounding "live". I've heard the Soundlab A1 sound live on a violin, the Soundlabs are of course dipoles, and occasionally my Revel Salon 2 sounds live (though not on violin, so far). The odd thing I've noticed, accidentally, about the Salon 2, is that even when you're sitting near one speaker you still perceive the stereo image *between the speakers*. This means that the Revel has some very interesting polar response characteristics, which might explain why they occasionally sound live, and my old Legacy Focus never sounded live to me. The Legacys had one of the most discernible "sweet spots" I've ever experienced. Great polar response might also explain why cymbals sound so realistic with the Revels, while their frequency response is certainly no better than other speakers I've heard.
The Legacys could fool some people on piano recordings though. Not me, but over the 13 years I owned them several people thought solo piano sounded live from another room.
It just seems more than a coincidence that the speakers I've heard "OMG live" sound from (Soundlab, Martin Logan Monolith, Linkwitz Orion, Revel Salon 2) all have different polar response characteristics than typical audiophile speakers.
"Yes, but it's not exclusive. I frequently play solo piano CDs, and several times people have come to the door and thought it was a real piano playing."
I'm not obtuse, I hear what you guys are saying, and I can only conclude that I need to get out more. Neither my system nor any system that I've ever heard has been that convincing to me. I've gotten emotional, achieved satisfactory suspension of disbelief, and been in awe of the technology that made it possible. But I've never heard a system that I found indistinguishable from the truth. Those of you who have are my heroes.
"Have you ever been walking down a residential street on a summer day and heard a musician practicing his guitar, horn, drum set or whatever in his apartment? You know immediately, don't you?"
Yes, but it's not exclusive. I frequently play solo piano CDs, and several times people have come to the door and thought it was a real piano playing. Guys are usually fascinated. Women usually want to know if the speakers could be moved closer to the wall, and if the cables could be hidden. Sorry, Elizabeth. You and my wife are rare birds, apparently.
Have you ever been walking down a residential street on a summer day and heard a musician practicing his guitar, horn, drum set or whatever in his apartment? You know immediately, don't you?
Yes, removing the room signature with digital equalization is a most promising technology. I have used the Tact system for years. Goes without saying that it is a work in progress, but a little recognized benefit is the lowering of the noise floor. Tubes are great, but they are noisy compared to digital amplification, and that noise obscures quite a bit of detail. I hasten to say that digital amplification is far from perfect, just saying that it does some eye opening things right.
We do have another issue- one which might explain why the headphones work so well:
The original performance is always in a space with its own acoustic signature. The mics are always in that space too.
Your room is not.
So the idea that the musicians are going to be 'in the room' is tricky. IMO/IME, the model to use is that your stereo and the room its in is a sort of 'space/time machine' that has the ability to graft itself *onto* the original space of the music- but with the acoustic signature of your room included.
With headphones you have no acoustic signature of your room- only that of the mics. I don't like headphones, as I feel like the sounds I hear are coming from behind me sort of. So I prefer the presentation of speakers, even though they often take things down a notch. Of course, headphone can't make you viscerally feel the music the way live and speakers can...
Atmasphere, as usual, has something to say. Those of us who play an instrument which can be amplified (classical guitar), know that even cheap mikes and speakers can sound more "real" than any recording. The storage systems are the most destructive to the sound. That said, I think much of the disagreement comes from the type of music considered, and its venue. I have performed on stage (I sing tenor) with huge orchestras, pipe organs, and in the case of some memorable Russian music, with an extra large percussion section. Even though the din got so loud at times that I could not hear my own voice- and a fraction of a second later all was full stop but for a single voice, yet there was never any sense of strain or was there difficulty in hearing the soloist. It has been observed by some cynics that a group of musicians can sound exactly like a loudspeaker, but not vice versa.
That we can hear what the tune is, understand the lyrics, recognize the instruments, the individuals playing the instruments, where they are located in all dimensions, whether they are in key or out of tune, hear what brand of instrument and what brand of amplification they might be using and in many cases what kind of hall they're playing in, suggests to me that we're closer rather than farther to the real thing. If we weren't, why would we spend so much money and time in this hobby?
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.
