And now you guys have me thinking about live music. I ask, should live music really be the holy grail of audio experience? Based on my live concert experiences, I would more often choose to hear my audio system over live music. I point to poor sound reinforcement, less than favorable venue acoustics, even poor performance as reasons to favor the in home experience. While I can accept live music as the ultimate musical experience, it more often doesn't live up to it's promise. |
I think some are missing one of my points, imaging and lifelike sound are only one point at issue. I'm also saying that resoution is heard and/or at least somewhat defined by how well your system images and soundstages. A more palpable, dimensional image allows more detail to be hear. I contend a sytem that doesn't image and soundstage well is not maximally resolute, ie. the very spaciousness of the image and soundstage allows you to hear things that were formerly bunched up within less dimensional images and soundstaging. |
Shadorne, yes, you are correct, you do not want an inflated image, that would sound less lifelike. The image could also be asymetrical, relative width, height or depth could be out of synch, those sorts of issues I would describe as phase issues. I am talking about correctly formed images, precision AND spaciousness. |
Jax2, my point is not to equate audio reproduction to live music. I'm only pointing out live sound is dimensional as well. The point I want to focus on is the resolution/imaging dynamic. Also, when I speak of live sound, I'm focusing on unamplified live sound, I've been to plenty of concerts that had very little percieved image dimensionality. |
Newbee, I would agree that live symphonic music does not contain many of the imaging cues we get in audio reproduction. However, listen to a small unamplified quartet or grouping, I do hear a lot of the same imaging cues. Still, the point isn't a comparison to live music, rather the resolution/imaging dynamic.
And yes, I agree with you and Tvad, I do think imaging drives many of us in this hobby. I guess this all came to mind as I listened this past weekend to two cds that had a combination of mono and stereo tracks, (some tracks were from the exact same recording session, music was released in mono and stereo, I see this a lot from 60's releases). I just didn't hear as much information on the mono tracks as the stereo tracks. This diffentiation was the greatest I had heard up to this point. |
Shadorne, I partially agree with the notion that more resolution makes it an obvious recording. I agree that you may hear more disagreeable things, but lately I find that even sonically challenged recordings often have certain sonic aspects which are not that disagreeable. With more resolution I seem to be able to hear those less disagreeable things more, my mind focuses on the less disagreeable things, making the recording more palatable and organic. For instance, I like a lot of garage rock, this weekend I was listening to Bubble Puppy, mostly pretty badly compressed with the exception of the vocals. Because the vocals were not compressed I was able to focus my attention here, the vocals made the recording sound palpable in spite of instrumental compression. I would also add, even with the excessive compression, my system seemed to be extracting every last bit of dynamics from this recording, ie. even the compressed instrumentals sounded better than I recall from previous listenings. I would agree that certain sonic deficiencies suffer more from increased resolution, tonal anomalies bother me the most. |
Speaking of live performance and imaging. I have a friend of 30 plus years who owns a sound reinforcement company and does some recording studio engineering. Jimmy was the first audiophile I ever encountered, this back in high school, 1970's. He remains perhaps the most anal retentive audiophile I've ever met, nothing misses his attention. Anyway, he constantly berates the sound reinforcement and recording establishment, poor equipment and poorer technique. The sound of his concerts and recordings is beyond reproach, I hear much more in the way of imaging cues at his live concerts, I suspect most of the live music events most of us attend sound less than stellar.
Jimmy does most of his sound reinforcement these days for reggae artists in the Caribbean, also some periodic jazz dates up here. An example of his work can be found on the Winston Walls with Jack McDuff release, "Boss of the B-3", on Schoolkids Records. This is live recording done at the Ark in Ann Arbor, Mi. and the SerenGeti Ballroom in Detroit. Jimmy does sound from an audiophile's standpoint, ultra rare in the concert and studio business. |
Wavetrader, you hit the nail on the head. SET amps and coherent speakers go a long way in presenting these sonic virtues. Not to say other amp designs can't do the trick.
I also agree the more resolution, the less it sounds like a recording, maybe not live, perhaps we could call it palpable and/or organic? |
Its not all meaningless drivel if you want to take meaningful steps towards attaining sound that moves your soul. Understanding the language of sonic performance gives you the knowledge to reach your goals. Without knowledge of the language, this is a foreign tongue, aka your drivel. |
Wavetrader, exactly my findings. |
Hmm. I agree with all of you. MrTennis, yes, timbre and tonality are critical, but as Shadorne mentioned, why settle for just that. There is absolutely no inherent reason why a system can't excell in tonality, timbre, PRAT, dynamics, imaging, soundstaging, and every other aspect of sonic performance all at the same time, why limit yourself to optimizing only one or two aspects of sonic performance. My goal is to have a good balance of all of the above, I'm not even sure I can place a priority on any one aspect, it seems I prioritize based on needs. For instance, a new analog setup has been doing many things correctly, but dynamics were sorely lacking, ie. I prioritized improving dynamics, job done, now something else will become the priority.
I agree that maximizing resolution is the key to upgrading all parameters of sonic performance. Each step up in resolution may expose a flaw that was previously hidden, and so you 'fix' that flaw and take a further step up in resolution, and so on.... And so, Dave is correct, "there can be no such thing as too much resolution." The worst case scenario is a bad recording sounds worse than before, that is the fault of the software. |
My last statement about bad recordings sounding worse may in fact be wrong. My view on higher resolution and sonically challenged recordings has evolved over the years. I'm finding that high resolution may in fact improve the sound of many lesser recordings if that higher resolution is accompanied by a coincident improvement in the other sonic parameters. Lesser recordings can actually sound better than before.
If the higher resolution you're extracting results in a more palpable, organic sound, its all to the good for the lesser recording. I can't think of a single cd or album I've tossed in the past couple of years, I tossed perhaps 10% of my recordings prior. I've returned a number of times to these previously trashed recordings and found new life and interest in them. Perhaps there is no downside to properly balanced high resolution. |
Back to live music and imaging. I've lived in Ann Arbor, Mi. environs my entire life. Living so near the University Of Michigan has allowed me the opportunity to hear countless musical performances by UM music school students.
The music is generally classical, groupings cover the whole gamut, all the way from orchestral to soloist. There are many venues to choose from, with acoustics ranging from world class to hopeless. Since most are free, I can choose to sit wherever I like, I'm pretty sure I've sat in nearly every possible position. Sound reinforcement varies from minimal miking to natural acoustic.
The variability in imaging at these concerts is astounding! Yes, there can be more of a flat perspective with the large symphony playing very dense and dynamic pieces. But with smaller ensembles, and even the symphony playing more intimate pieces, there is a multitude of imaging effects. Live music can cover the broad spectrum of imaging effects, from holographic to dead flat, it is all there.
For anyone to say audio reproduction should not try to mirror these imaging effects is preposterous! You are simply missing out on part of the musical event with lesser imaging.
As to what Learsfool hears as far as tonality and image specicifity, I hear the exact same thing. I do think one has to train themselves to hear these things. My early training came from Jimmy, my audiophile/sound reinforcement friend, and later on, music appreciation courses at UM. |
Mapman, I'm not saying reproduced images are exactly like 'real' images. I'm saying whatever amount of imaging exists on a recording should be able to be reproduced on a high resolution system. Yes, there are flat recordings, these should be reproduced as such. The point is, imaging exists in live music, and should also exist in audio reproduction if it is on the recording.
The greatest problem is knowing exactly the imaging properties of the original recording. I suppose we would have to be at the recording session (in some cases) or at least hear the master tape. |
