We (or most of us) believe that it’s very difficult if not impossible to hear an exact representation of the the sound of a live performance on a recording.
The question is how much do you have to delude yourself into thinking it’s the real thing your listening to, to satisfy yourself.
To some it has to to be as close as possible. But others can make allowances for defects in the sound in order to enjoy the presentation.
I just enjoy the music and appreciate the strengths and feats of the system, whether they are realistic or doing something to make it more extravagant than real life...
I just let the music happen, and I'm not trying to figure out whether it sounds exactly the way it sounded alive... especially as even alive, it already sounds different when you change your seat. So, forcing "realism" or "holography" or "fidelity to mike feed" out of a recording is something that is superfluous to me. Human voice or instrument sound is not razor-sharp in real life: it's blooming and expansive. When the imaging is razor-sharp and confined, the equipment is doing serious processing, regardless the holographic end result....
It seems some who don't care about, or have abandoned any semblance to the real thing can't grok why anyone else would care.
Here's my approach:
The reason I got in to high end audio was having some life-changing encounters with audio systems, where the music sounded more "real" than I ever imagined it could (e.g. when a pal bought Quad ESL 63s and I came over for a listen, I was just shocked at the sensation of an acoustic guitar, a violin etc just sounding like it was performing RIGHT THERE, not even seeming to come from speakers, and with a measure of realistic timbre and detail that astounded me. My first real audiophile purchase became the Quad ESL 63s (and later added subwoofers).
So one of the things that attracted me to high end audio in the first place was a semblance of accuracy and realism, in particularly timbre. I can enjoy music on anything - my car stereo, our smart speaker in the kitchen, I even love it coming from my iphone speaker! But what I get from my 2 channel system is not only just the musical content, but I get more: I get the sensuousness of the sound itself. I get *some* of the dynamics and timbral character that I find so involving in live instruments. If someone is playing an acoustic guitar (or if I'm playing mine) I can just sit there and drink it in, not only for the music, but for the sensuousness and richness of the harmonics, dynamics, the sound "quality." Any system that gives me at least some of that is one that I simply enjoy more.
As for believability, like most I'm quite aware my system will never sound just like the real thing. And I also listen to lots of music that isn't even made from acoustic instruments. But I do find that if my system captures certain aspects that I like in real sound sources, it's more satisfying AND it helps me sink in to the "illusion of live" more easily, when I want that. So for instance, my system will never reproduce the acoustic presence, dynamics and power of real drums. But so long as it recreates certain elements that I love about real drums - e.g. when drum snares have that recognizable papery organic "snap" rather than sounding like some thick burst of white noise -that is both "more right sounding" and more satisfying. It also lets me sink in to the illusion of hearing through the speakers to a performance, when I'm in that mindset. Plus, I find when a system sounds timbrally and dynamics more towards the "real thing" with acoustic sounds, it is also more satisfying with ALL the music I listen to, including electronic music.
But back to the realism thing, in those instances where I indulge more in the illusion, to me it's an attitude similar to watching a movie in a movie theater (or on my projection screen). The movie is never going to recreate reality - the image is flat, it doesn't have full color and contrast and detail like the real thing, there's all sorts of artifice in film making, just as there is in music made in studios. But the reason many movies (at least those striving for believability) take some pains to get SOME things more like real life - e.g. the script, the acting, the set design - is because when you get certain elements more like the real thing, it helps the viewer sink in to the illusion of reality created by the film. The viewer is willing to do his part in suspension of belief, and it's helped by some verisimilitude on the part of the film makers (and on the quality of the viewer's own home theater system should that be the case).
Same with my approach to a system that gets some aspects routinely "more like the real thing."
I was listening to a symphonic recording of the Star Wars The Empire Strikes Back.
It was simply startling in how vivid and powerful it sounded. Now, the last thing one might expect an average system to reproduce realistically would be an orchestra.
But my systems reproduced the timbre of strings, woodwinds and horns very much as I think they sound in real life. And even if my memory is wrong, or imperfect, it's only MY perception and memory that I have to fool. So with eyes closed, I just had to make a little mental adjustment for scale. The spread of the symphony created by my Thiel speakers was quite large, but certainly smaller than if I were sitting right in front of a real symphony. But if I just made a little mental adjustment, and envisioned I was sitting at the back of the hall or from the balcony, suddenly the scale of the symphony clicked in to "believable" and frankly it was amazing how easy it was to get the illusion of sitting in a hall listening to a real symphony. And that only added to the thrill of the music itself.
So...I certainly get the attitude "I don't bother looking for realism, it's an impossible goal and I just want to hear whatever the recording sounds like and I'm happy."
But those of us who still use real life sound as a sort of north star or barometer haven't plunged ourselves in to perpetual dissatisfaction or are doing so in some unrealistic goal. Approached sensibly with realistic expectations, our systems can be deeply satisfying, having been somewhat guided by what we like in real life sounds.
For some, the goal is to get as close to realism as possible… for others, it’s not that important. To each his own… it’s about enjoying the sound, unless you enjoy obsessing about continuous tweaking.
"So...I certainly get the attitude "I don’t bother looking for realism, it’s an impossible goal and I just want to hear whatever the recording sounds like and I’m happy."
But those of us who still use real life sound as a sort of north star or barometer haven’t plunged ourselves in to perpetual dissatisfaction or are doing so in some unrealistic goal. Approached sensibly with realistic expectations, our systems can be deeply satisfying, having been somewhat guided by what we like in real life sounds."
Suspension of belief, how bout truly believing literal presence in room with you. Being fooled into actual belief means one is working less hard at suspending belief.
Having live performers in room has always been my goal. The more one's system conforms to optimal parameters of sound quality, the more one's system will reproduce flesh and blood performers in room.
When I was eleven, I saw the movie Patton at the Midland theatre in Kansas City. For 2 hours and 50 minutes, I was there, every battle, every personal victory or defeat, I was there. When George C Scott, walked away with his dog at the end of the Movie, I looked around where I was sitting, to discover that my Grandmother and Sister were there also. (I'm glad they were because I'd a had a tough time getting home)
I had a similar experience with the first good stereo system I ever listened to; Dahlquist DQ-10 and a Dynaco ST-70. James Taylor was in the room.
Is this the Audiophile version of being in the zone? Are there things we can do to help transport us to this place? Meditation, Exercise, a glass of wine, a "brownie"? Is there a form of self hypnosis that takes place?
The timbre perception is my audio room could be "natural" , more natural than before acoustic treatment and control, but it will never be like the timbre perception experience in the real lived original event...
Why?
Because the timbre experience is the center focus in his sound manifestation FROM all the properties from the resonant body of the musical instrument but also from the acoustical settings of "the recorded room", then the timbre experience of the same musical event in my "playback room" will also be the sum of these TWO factors PLUS ONE : the resonant body and the original room, at which we must add now the acoustical properties of my own room...
A small room cannot disapear to let emerge "virginally and pure, without his positive and negative own interference, the "original event" itself ....
No personal room happily is an anechoic chamber, and no small treated and controlled room sound the same, by virtue of his geometry, size, topology and acoustic material and devices content...
No need to "suspend our belief" or to believe, only the need to put in place the right accoustic controlled conditions to translate one experience to another one.... The two are related but completely different: the recorded event and the playback event...
This must be evident for anyone who ever assist to a concert and listen to it recorded after that.... We musk ask them...
My point was how much one has to work to suspend disbelief, its a matter of degree. Suspension of disbelief intuits some level of mental effort, belief requires no effort. As my system has improved over the years, I find increasingly less mental strain and greater immersion and/or belief performers appearing in front of me, even to the point of wanting to reach out and touch.
I feel the same....And my system cost is 500 bucks but acoustician or their pupils dont give a dam bout price tag of gear...
My point was how much one has to work to suspend disbelief, its a matter of degree. Suspension of disbelief intuits some level of mental effort, belief requires no effort. As my system has improved over the years, I find increasingly less mental strain and greater immersion and/or belief performers appearing in front of me, even to the point of wanting to reach out and touch.
"Spooky real" is as good a descriptor as any. My observations on the subject:
the source material plays a huge role in the sonic outcome. Thus, the audiophile curse of listening to "good" records, limiting oneself if there is music beyond the proven warhorses. Discovering one off the beaten path is fun.
The variables of people and system are too big to ignore. My brain doesn't have to consciously "work" to hear magic; in fact, that kind of analytical listening kills the possibility of full enjoyment.
the "magic," such that it is, is not in my experience consistent, see source material above. A good sounding record will usually sound good on a variety of systems; a bad sounding record may sound a bit "more there" on a better system, but the system isn't going to "improve" what is baked in to the mix and master.
Is there a measure of "realness" that is common to most audiophiles? I doubt it. Rock, which I have listened to a lot of for a long time, can be compressed, multi-tracked, and fiddled with to death to make it sound "good." There may never have been an actual performance occurring at the same time in the same room with all the instruments that are included in the final product.
I find that simpler can often be better- small jazz combo, for example. That may be because the program material is less demanding (though it could be extremely dynamic and wide ranging in frequency). I find that some classical and large scale pieces wind up sounding too "cluttered" and don't scale properly in my room, which is large. But, it is not a concert hall. I cannot reproduce the sound of the 2,000 seat hall in the loft of my house. I can live with that. So, I guess part of it is expectations, too: hi-fi is convenient, and sometimes sparkles in ways that noisy PA systems, grungy clubs and lousy acoustics fail to deliver during a "real" live performance.
Trying to get as close as possible to the sound of real instruments, at a volume and size that is convincing, is, to me, a worthy goal.
I always reference piano sound. I have piano at home Steinway upright and can compare with recordings. Also solo piano is one of the best tests for system performance just by ear.
I don't obsess or even think about a recording sounding like an actual live performance. I only think about how great a recording might sound or possibly not so good if it is produced poorly or is just a lousy pressing job.
I will say that some stripped down acoustic recordings could sound more like a live performance than more complex recordings.
I usually thoroughly enjoy what I am listening to because I am very happy with the sound of my system(s) and the music that I choose to listen to.
When people who are in a band tell me that they have never heard a stereo that sounded as accurate as mine, where they are able to discern rim shots, listen to the original to better reproduce it and such, I know that I am close. As resolving as my system is, I still want a hair more. I can't say whether that will be sufficient or not because I am not yet there, but I believe that I am nearly there. Well recorded vocals that do not have instruments drowning out spatial details do render a "you are there" reproduction on my system, but then they were so engineered, because most were not recorded with a single stereo microphone. Different producers and engineers achieve different levels of realism. It's much like 18'th century scientists saying that science is akin to thinking God's thoughts after Him as they discovered different things. I hear pretty much what the engineer intended us to hear, assuming a good enough system to do so. You know when you are there when most of your recordings sound good. Subjective, sure, it's all you have after the fact. Listening fatigue is none existent for some fortunate people who's systems don't resolve differences in cables, and in the less fortunate, it drives them to attempt perfection. I am very near my idea of perfection, I am able to listen for hours now. Everyone has their own perception of sufficiency, and beating up others due to their level of sufficiency is an exercise in true ignorance and arrogance, which I was quite guilty of in the past. Now I could care less if you need a cheep 1960's hand held mono transistor radio to be content, or a billion dollar tube system that requires a room the size of a concert hall to be content. As long as you don't have to abuse others to achieve your idea of audio Nirvana I am thrilled that you are content.
“Over the decades I have increasingly been dissatisfied with electrified concerts. I now stick to acoustic symphonic and unamplified jazz. Otherwise my system sounds better. ”
Where does one find a jazz concert where no one is using a microphone?
Long ago I helped - well, stood around uselessly - at a recording of a choral concert in a chapel at an Oxford college. We had a coincident pair of crossed ribbons(good ones) feeding directly a set of Quad ELS’s via Quad II amplifiers, all set up in the vestry separated from the chapel by a wooden door. You could hear the choir entering the chapel and walking by the microphones, their footsteps well outside the speakers, quite uncanny. Needless to say this was about as good a sound as you can get.
‘However if you cracked the door so you could hear the choir through the crack, and compare it with the sound through the speakers, it was night and day. The live sound was alive, and the speaker sound might as well have been a pair of Cerwin-Vegas or JBL’s.
So no, Hifi is pretty much hopeless in recreating a real concert, no matter how expensive it is. It can remind you of it at best.
Growing up in a musical extended family, non-musical sounds always defeat the belief for me. Once digital touched my emotions in the later 90's, begone! SOTA Star Sapphire (including Allen Perkins upgrades. After a system is fully tuned (see nearby 'The hunt is over.." topic comments) and on nights where the planets align, yes there are those moments for me of bringing in the performances. Feat's 'Waiting for Columbus' is an earlier mention. At the University of Alabama's 1970's performance, I took lots of time to crawl around the arena and soak in as much of the sonics as possible, somehow knowing this is the best rock will ever get for me. Recently, it was fun to note that John Atkinson of Phile uses "Fat Man in the Bathtub" as an evaluation tool from "Waiting...," as do I. Also agree that solo sax and piano can perform the live in the room trick. Mostly though, when satisfied with the system and after deciding upon the genre, it becomes meditative, thoughts drifting along with the performances, a wonderful part of living with a modern system's abilities to be present. Mostly, I end those nights with gratitude for the many friends, including Techs that helped with the process. More Peace, Pin
Caution, if you invest in extremely expensive components such as cables costing over $20,000, you invest your ego in believing you are too clever to have been taken even though you will only imaging it sounding better because you can't admit any difference is so subtle it is difficult to impossible to hear it. If junk science such as amateurly done uncalculated physics is in the likes of skin effect which can only attenuate the playback volume a few hundredths of a decibel at frequencies beyond the limits of human hearing in the advertisements with no graduate school or even undergraduate school credentials of the designer praised in audio magazines and catalogues, that should end all credibility.
While you can often judge how closely an in-store demonstrates the kind of live performance in large differences in design of amplifiers and speakers, the emotional content of the composition and the interpretation of the performers is much more powerful than subtle differences beyond the point of diminishing returns.
Therefore, don't make exaggerated sensitivity to sonic differences a bicycle tire pump to your self-esteem and don't put up with being judged solely by how expensive your audio components are.
I can imagine a real orchestra playing before me on many recordings (especially those with mini miking.) if I close my eyes. It isn’t a real orchestra in my listening room so much as the sound coming from a seat in the front of the balcony. At that location it isn’t so loud. After all, a lot of sound is dissipated in a large hall. I can hear the layout of the orchestra from side to side with the instruments in their proper space.
No, of course it’s not the real thing, but, it’s so close, I can trick myself into thinking I’m really there.
A longtime friend plays in a world wide band.( 40 yrs) When I get my tickets and passed ,he has us seated in front of the mixing board. Great sound! If your system images up as well out,( Not Atmos) try Grand Funks " Caught in the Act" for a good live recording. Unspoken ,play it loud! This isn't the band he's in.
Unless your listening room is at least 50’ wide and deep, you will never correctly hear an orchestra. The math alone gives me a headache.
Right now I’m listening to Wayne Shorter, Piano, bass and drums. I can reach out and touch the bass, but with this particular mix, the drums and piano fill every bit of space. And that’s with only three instruments, not the appropriately one hundred in an orchestra.
Are we really trying to recreate the performance? Every time, every place, every piece I perform with any given ensemble (my own or someone else’s) it sounds different…with inherently good and bad things happening sonically. But I will at least enjoy it as long as I can hear and spacially enjoy hearing us together relative to my physical position in the group.
a listening setup…it’s coming from boxes (or other binaural sources). My intent is not to recreate what I know will never sound like my group (or listening to a group) in the same room. But to create that immersive and sonically engaging sound field that can elicit those same aural triggers. In fact I’m hoping it won’t sound the same as if musicians are right in front of me (which in the truest sense/in actuality is simply not possible), as I want to be as much in awe of the qualities and capabilities of my system as I am of the music I’m listening too.
It’s so interesting to me that (often) good mono recordings can sound just as engaging as stereo recordings, which I believe is connected to your excellent question. The overarching aspect of this that we should be considering is how unique, odd, enigmatic and wonderful human hearing and our sensory psyche can really be.
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.
