I’m confused. Please explain.
Hello everyone. There are quite a lot of posts of people wanting their system to sound like real instruments like you would hear at the symphony. I don’t see the importance of it. I’ve been to the symphony one time recently and it was nice but until then I’ve basically only listened to music made in a studio, amplified and then mixed. I have been to concerts but even that music was at least amplified.
Surely you listen to more than just classical music. Are you saying studio music can somehow be made to sound like symphony instruments? I want my music to sound like it did when it was recorded if possible. I enjoy many genres of music so I don’t see why I would desire it to sound like I’m at the symphony. I consider my system neutral so it is true to the recording. Thank you for your thoughts.
Regards
Ron
Everyone wants their system to sound the same way they heard the music when it affected them the most. They may claim some sort of 'natural' but really, it is just an excuse. What we all want is emotion. The sound of that perfect evening. The sound of Zep at a concert when we were 16. Something like that.
|
@thecarpathian mmm no, I don't want punk rock to sound like there is a power outage ;-))) |
@sudnh I assumed with your many years of experience and knowledge you would have high end equipment and was curious what it was. With the exception of my streamer and lps being considered entry level ( I feel it performs excellent) I consider my Boulder , Rockport and Nordost gear high end. Add a custom built dedicated room and I really couldn’t ask for more. |
Don’t think knowing my equip will help you any. in general high end equipment tends to maintain consistent output across the entire frequency range as the volume goes up and It get tough (expensive) to do below 60hz bass if you want to play at concert decibels. mid-fi gear will get much louder as mid-fi gear will roll off the low end as you turn up the volume. |
@sudnh You have missed my point completely. I my opinion the only reason to care if my system sounded like live unamplified instruments is if I was into classical music or any other genre played in that way. I want my system to replay the music I have enjoyed all my life at a high level which is amplified studio recorded then mixed. That is my standard I want my system to be able to do well. |
Your view is quite myopic. The idea here is not that ones audio system sound like a symphony. It is that ones audio system sounds like real unamplified voice and instruments that you would hear if live unamplified performers were performing in front of you. This is the only objective way to be sure one’s audio system is faithfully reproducing what was recorded. To have no standard by which to ascertain if one’s audio system is faithful leaves you only with measurements. And if you think that’s enough then that leaves you myopic. |
Ron, I can’t help but think you’ve missed an important point here. The real reason to want audio gear that makes music sound very similar to how it sounded in the convert hall (unamplified) is NOT so that you could confine your listening only to classical music. I’ve heard a lot of classical music in concert halls, but my home listening is at least 40=-50% other things. The reason to get that kind of gear is that the hardest thing for audio gear to get right is the tone and timbre of physical, non-amplified instuments (ie, violin, french horn, cello) & the human voice. Gear that is designed and constructed to do that well, will also make everything else sound as good at it can possibly sound. Gear like this uses the best acitve & passive parts; pays attention to circuit layout & grounding; and is "voiced" to sound very good, not just to measure well. I just finished listening to several hours of heavy funk/R&B music from the past 50 years on a system I put together to produce music of great purity and timbral accuracy (DAC is MHDT Labs Orchis w/tube output buffer; preamp is Violectric V281; amps are Bel Canto class D monoblocks; speakers are Harbeth 30.1s; subwoorer is JLAudio e110. I can blow the walls down with this home office system, and it sounds amazing. But whenever I dial it back and listen to low volume choral and classical music, it sounds exactly as that music should sound. |
You make an important distinction. The point I was trying to make was that I don’t require the level of "reality" that qualifies as "high end" in order to thoroughly enjoy listening. I’ve listened to friends’ high end systems and enjoyed the more refined sonics but in terms of my emotional engagement with the music, I haven’t found their systems to be superior to mine. Having only recently, after a long struggle, succeeded in removing lingering "irritation" from my system, I wholeheartedly concur that lack of irritation is a basic requirement. Irritating sound = irritated listener and none of us want to be that guy!
|
I more or less agree with @stuartk, so I should add that no system can fully reproduce the rich tone of fine instruments. But I think sounding “real” is the most basic requirement for a high end system, because I know what real sounds like, and euphonic, or pleasant to listen to, and not irritating, is a close second. |
I’ve played a classical guitar for a long time, and listened to many. I know what they sound like, and in different rooms and venues. As far as I’m concerned, a system that can’t get a guitar to sound real must be all wrong. If you are familiar with piano, recordings of piano are also great tests, and hard to get right. I miss tone controls. Difficult to play rock as it should be (loud!) in a domestic setting. |
I own a very nice hand-built "boutique" acoustic guitar. It sounds wonderful -- the best by far of the many acoustic and electric guitars I’ve owned in 50 years of playing. So, it goes without saying that, when I’m listening music, I’m stringently analyzing how well my system presents the sound of acoustic guitars compared to my Boucher. No. I don’t expect that of my system and it’s not a problem. I guess I’m firmly in the "good enough" camp. I suppose, had my exposure to music been on a high-end system from the very beginning, I might believe emotional engagement was a function of sonics but that wasn’t the case. I started with transistor radio and graduated to a $99 component system in high school, by which time music had become a hugely important focus for me (this was before I’d started playing).
|
@hifiguy42 "I would guess I'm an outlier, but I actually don't enjoy most (in person) live music." I get it. At my age, I've discovered that the proximity of the Port-A-Potty(s) is the number one priority for me at live events. Yes, even higher than sound quality. The "coolness" of the commemorative T-shirt may be a strong 2nd. |
I own a very nice hand-built acoustic guitar. It's a gorgeous sounding instrument. When I listen to my modest system, do I compare its presentation of acoustic guitars to the"live" sound of my Boucher? No. Never. Being emotionally and physically engaged by the music is my top priority. I started out with a cheap transistor radio in bed every night. In my teens,when my love for music exponentially intensified, I had a $99.00 component system. My enjoyment of music is not fundamentally dependant upon sound. I've regularly sat in friend's listening rooms,listening to systems much, much more expensive than mine and my experience of the music is not "better" than when I'm at home. I guess this puts me in the "good enough" category.
|
Relevance or Irrelevance based on the category of listener 1) Musicians who genuinely care about how their instruments sound during playback: Relevant
2) Mastering Technicians Irrelevant
3) Musicians who are about ...'get it over with dude, i need to get paid, got bills to pay' Irrelevant
4) Audiophiles: Irrelevant
5) General Masses/Non-Audiophiles: Irrelevant
|
I would guess I'm an outlier, but I actually don't enjoy most (in person) live music. Listening to other people who don't understand that when music plays, you shut your gob. The singing along by people who shouldn't sing. The phones held aloft for two hours to record the entire event. The price of concessions. The quality of most PA systems which sound like they were set up by a deaf sadist. I could go on. I would without question rather listen at home. I do like live recordings, I just don't want to be there myself. I don't understand the draw. |
As an dealer of "pretty decent" audio gear, I was proud of our product selection at the time. I got word that the Polish national champion string quartet was coming to our area. So, I got tickets. About 47 seconds into the performance, I hated every speaker we sold. Lower midrange detail, as a example, was simply non-existent by comparison. So, I knew the vocals weren’t "right", nor the piano, nor electric guitars, etc. So, I went speaker shopping. And, amp shopping. And, source shopping. And, cable shoppping. And power delivery shopping. And, accessory shopping. Until we got closer to "live" music. Which we did. The reference to "concert quality sound" is a powerful and effective marketing tool. Reconnecting to the emotional experience of a live performance is the pinnacle creating a real connection to the equipment and the listener. Classical music is often used in marketing in that it represents the ultimate statement of refinement and sophistication. Even those who have little real life interaction with the genre can relate. Some will develop "a very sensitive antenna" as it relates to musical nuance in a system designed to play music at home and strive for a level of perfection. Some won’t. And, some will simply settle for "good enough", which is not a wrong answer if it makes them happy. |
And that's our hobby in a nutshell: I want a particular sound but I don't really know what that sound is. That's why I settled for the sound I now have as good enough for me. If circumstances and finances change, then so will my system. Many failed attempts preceded my present stance and now it's very enjoyable. Those who have heard it love the sound. Through planning, luck and plain old serendipity, I'm now at the point of diminishing returns. Until then, I'm done fretting over it. All the best, |
That's why every so often I like to make my own live recordings. Although that removes a lot of variables, some remain. The mics, mic preamps, cabling ... it all makes a difference. But it does provide a reference point. |
My system makes Billy Joel sound like Sir Georg Solti.
The goal is to make music sound as close as possible to what is recorded on the medium. Classical is often used as an example because it is easier to know what a piano sounds like than a rock guitar, as the latter is very dependent on the artist. When my system was on display at THE Show last month, I got a lot of complements in the form of "the piano really sounds like a piano" or similar. |
My interpretation of the OP is that he seems to think that we all listen to Classical Music as our preferred genre and that we follow Harry Pearson dictum that our systems should approximate the sound of live acoustic instruments in a concert hall. The first assumption is clearly wrong. While it is true for myself personally tha I exclusively listen to CM, if one spendssome time in the Music Forum and it will become clear that Classical Music is a niche here as it is everywhere. There does seem to be a higher proportion of contributors who listen to CM at least some timethan the general population. Regarding the Absolute Sound Goal: 1) It really can’t apply to electrified popular music, where the sound is significantly determined at the mixing console at either a concert or recording venue. There are some classic rock LPs that have been reissued in over 100 mixes. Which one is the correct one? Many albums are recorded by having musicians play parts in different rooms, sometimes different continents apart. 2) it is a ridiculous goal to aspire to for any genre. My listening room is will never approximate the dimensions of a concert hall. A system that would be appropriate to fill that space would sound awful in my home. I aspire to sound reproduction that makes me forget these issues when I’m listening and is doing a reasonable job of reproducing what the engineers have placed on the source. It’s really up to the sound engineers to take the source and make it sound realistic to a listener
|
Unless you were in the mastering room where the sonics are finalized, you have no real idea what a specific recording is supposed to sound like. This applies to acoustic and non-acoustic recordings. Live, unamplified music is an imperfect reference point, but still it is a reference. Let's no dismiss it entirely. |
I think the sound of real instruments is only part of the equation. Real instruments as they sound in which space, and from how close? I would not typically want a solo piano piece to sound realistically like I was in the middle of a big auditorium complete with two second reverb time. I want the expensive seat, right up close and personal, and as it would sound in a smaller space with few reflections but that’s just me. |
Plus 1, @kerrybh. I’d say the same thing, except I have never seen Willie live, so it would be fill in the blank for that part. When I do listen to Willie on my system, I particularly enjoy the way my system beings out his unique annunciation when he sings--that’s the stuff I like to hear. Actually, when I did used to frequently attend small venues to see artists I was really into (Lucinda Williams, Steve Earle, Cowboy Junkies to name a few) seeing them perform was primary for me, and the sound quality of the performance was secondary. It was a plus when the SQ was good or great, but that was not what I went for. |
I think the goal is to achieve a reproduction of the music that you find the most enjoyable and relaxing for the resources you are willing and able to devote for building a system. Do that and you've put together a system that works for you. Its not an algebra test. I like Willie Nelson, a remarkable talent. I've seen him a few times in different venues. When I listen to Willie on my system, it sounds like Willie, and sounds better than any of his live shows that I've attended, although you lose the excitement of watching him make music. I also like Leonard Cohen and his Live in London album is one of my favorite pieces of music. I wasn't there but I doubt it sounded better live than on my system given all the variables. Either way, I love listening to that recording on my system and that's good enough for me.
|
"If one chooses audio equipment by what sounds good at the moment you can end up on a wild goose chase."
ghdprentice, What an inappropriate statement to make. Nothing Ronboco said should lead anyone to say what you said: "But, as you choose components that way, your system can start sounding flashy and soulless…" Go look at Ronboco's system and room and get back to us. Ronboco, based on the room and equipment you are using, I bet it sounds great. If it sounds good to you as well, then don't worry about what others' goals are. You ask a very good question: "Are you saying studio music can somehow be made to sound like symphony instruments?" That's a good question for a recording engineer. I bet George Martin, recording wizard for the Beatles, or the genious Brian Wilson would give you a very quick no. You have no trouble identifying the voices or the instruments in these recordings and they more than likely sound better than their live performances of the same music. I would venture to say that if you are satisfied with what you hear listening to various genres of recorded music on your system, it would approximate very closely an unamplified live music event. Don't we all know what a human voice or a piano or a crashing cymbal should sound like? |
There is nothing wrong with picking what sounds good to you, regardless of how that sound matches live acoustic instruments. All systems sound quite different from live acoustic music and even if we seek to most faithfully reproduce live music, we can arrive at radically different sounding systems depending on our priorities on what qualities are most important. That is why “accuracy” and “fidelity to live music” are useless criteria; we have different goals and priorities in attaining that sound. It helps to hear a lot to develop your own personal preferences. It is easy to get drawn off the right path by something flashy that briefly excites but soon gets tiring so one should do a lot of listening to learn about your own “sound.” When it comes to popular music, I hardly think fidelity to the live concert experience is the goal; I would junk my system if it sounded that bad. |
For me, the benefit of listening to live acoustic music is to familiarize yourself with what natural unmiked acoustic instruments sound like. Piano, guitar, voice, violin, cello, trumpet, sax, clarinet, etc. That can help you recognize the subtle nuance of a recorded acoustic instrument when it sounds right. Symphonic music can also help you pick up on the subtle ambient sounds of a concert hall, and natural dynamics. Electronic and miked instruments can sound like whatever electronics they’re being played through, which makes for a less natural and less reliable reference. It's pretty common, and frankly fairly easy to get a system to sound like a dance club, but much harder to get one to sound like natural music. In the end, to each his own and we should setup our systems to our own liking, but I definitely find it useful to know what a natural instrument sounds like when evaluating a system. |
If one chooses audio equipment by what sounds good at the moment you can end up on a wild goose chase. I know, I’ve been there. Wow, that flashy presentation of my test disks sounds great! But, as you choose components that way, your system can start sounding flashy and soulless… and / or makes one genre of music sound great at the expense of others, and / or highly detailed but without the sounding natural like music. So training your ear to the real thing can give you an unchanging standard to shoot for. It can’t be electronically reproduced music, since that adds a whole new set of arbitrary layers between the instrument, other electronics and speakers. So acoustic music is the way to tie your judgement to reality. I typically bring up the symphony orchestra because it produces sounds from the very edge of perception to overloading the hearing… very high db… unamplified. It also has single instruments as well as massed and covers the audio spectrum. But during the twenty years I got serious about training my ears to what the real thing sounds like, I also listened to lots of pianos, unamplified jazz, etc. all these help you create internal ruler with which to judge audio systems. There are lots of simple mostly two microphone recordings of symphony orchestras are available that naturally capture the venue… and all the subtitles. When you start out, you know how to identify few of the dozens of attributes of music… so, if you learn what the real thing sounds like, you are more likely to get a system that reproduces variables you don’t know about yet. When I started to listen seriously to un-amplified music to learn what it sounded like, my audio choices got much better. All genera of music improved at once, and the attributes I couldn’t put my finger on like rhythm and pace got better… it got more involving. |
