System that sounds so real it is easy to mistaken it is not live

@atmasphere , not to mention that mine are 8 feet tall which means the volume does not dissipate nearly as quickly as point source systems. Horns can make up for this with extreme efficiency and controlled dispersion. Other dynamic speakers not so much.  

@dekay Sorry.  Slip of the typing finger.  1971, Bristol VA/TENN King College (now "University") concert.  We played a set, they played a set.

Will promise to proofread my posts from now on!!

Cheers!

Haven't been to a lot of live concerts, but if my system would sound like the ones I have attended (including most recent on), I would trash it immidiately and get my 80s boom box out as an upgrade. 

Sarcasim is obvious ....points restored...

Claiming to read minds when doesnt read post,  automatic disqualification for Sheldon Garcia...

Many years ago as an audio dealer peddling "descent stuff" , I attended a concert featuring the Polish national champion string quartet -- to "recalibrate" my ears.  It didn't take long to come to the realization that our equipment was embarrassing insufficient at replicating the experience of a live performance.  The lack of lower midrange detail struck me as the most prominent deficiency.

As a result we upped the ante on just about everything in the musical chain and lived happily every after.  Well, for 2 more decades, anyway.  

Much of the energy used to drive the Sound Lab is soaked up by the passive crossover, because SL (for other compelling reasons) chose to use a resistance in the RC network that comprises the high pass filter that is much lower than the natural impedance of the panel itself, sans RC network. Thus the amplifier is expending more energy to drive the resistor than to drive the panel. With RC network removed, the big SLs are remarkably efficient and present an impedance in the 20 to 25 ohm range (never below 20 ohms) from about 100Hz to 5kHz. Impedance goes up below 100Hz and down between 5kHz and 20kHz. This gets rid of the midrange impedance issue that Ralph alludes to. And of course it’s favorable for an OTL tube amp. I daresay that a 50W amplifier is sufficient; my Atma-sphere amps with about 100W are coasting. Of course, you also have to replace the treble audio trans with a suitable full range audio trans. They’re not easy to find.

Your Soundlabs has a sensitivity of 89db SPL at i meter

@rauliruegas Being that the Sound Lab is a large curved panel, you have to add 6dB to the rating to find out the effective sensitivity when you are back about 10 feet. The reason is that at 1 meter most of the output of the speaker is not picked up by the microphone. Roger's sensitivity numbers on his website doesn't tell the whole story, since sensitivity is a voltage measurement and so impedance is pretty important. The Sound Lab is 30 Ohms in the bass (the sensitivity is stated for 8 Ohms), meaning its efficiency is actually higher by a good 3-6dB in the region where most of the power exists.

The speaker isn't hard to drive for any other reason than impedance. If you have amps that can drive the impedance the numbers @mijostyn provided are entirely realistic in many rooms.

@rauliruegas , thanx a bunch Raul. I sit 4 meters away. You have to remember That my system is line source. It's volume does not fade with distance like a point source system will. Yes, each main speaker has two transformers. They are nothing near as complicated as the crossovers in most modern high performance speakers. I also take the bass below 100 Hz out of them with 48 dB/oct digital filters which increases their headroom rather dramatically. 105 dB peaks is not a problem at all. Each one has a 350 watt amp on it and each subwoofer has 1800 watts on it, all 4 of them. 

@atmasphere , come on Ralph you just squish them in there. Hold that thought:-)

@lewm , the 6 ohm MC Diamond has more gain in voltage mode, about 3 dB. It definitely sounds better in transimpedance mode. Bass drums have more punch and the bass has more definition. I spent 30 minutes going back and forth on a number of different records. You can't hear the background noise until the tonearm lifts but then there is a hiss you can hear clear across the room and you know how tall ESLs are when it comes to projecting noise. This is at 95 dB or minus 6 dB FS. The Seta L 20 is 12 dB quieter, an awfully expensive solution. 

Is is not that a system should sound exactly like a specific live performance. It is that a system should be able to convince you that you are sitting in front of a live one and supply a similar amount of sonic satisfaction. The experience will never be the same without the visual aspects. A BluRay player and a large screen can take care of that. May not be quite the same but then you do not have to fight the crowds or the traffic. 

We wholeheartedly agree that there is nothing that compares to a live performance, whether it’s on a street corner or in a concert hall. All of the attributes ultra high-end systems seek to replicate are experienced in these live venues. Many advances have been made in modern high-end audio equipment to optimize impulse response.

Traditional systems, especially the speakers, distort the phase on a frequency by frequency basis. This muddies the impulse response and takes away the depth, layering and imaging of sound that comes from being in the same space with the musicians.

We work extensively with Dirac Live in audio systems, and it has brought us closer to the goal of recreating the feeling and texture of a live performance.

Dear @mijostyn: Sorry but  everything the same your statements are wrong, it does not matters the quality level of your room/system.

I have no doubt that your system performs really good but even that fact it's far away, more that what you believe through your first hand experiences, from live MUSIC and if you still think that way then your ears are foolishing you.

Now, you post very often that listen at 95db SPL seat position that means that peaks could goes as higer as 105db SPL. I don't know if your seat position is at 1m. or 3m-5m,, maybe between 3m-4m.. Your Soundlabs has a sensitivity of 89db SPL at i meter and I'm wondering which distortion levels you measured at your seat position at that 95db-105db SPL that seems could be higher than the live MUSIC levels.

Btw, you posted that crossover speakers degrades the signal but the transformers in your speakers does it too . Nothing is perfect.

Anyway there are a few issues against what you posted.

Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,

R.

The fun thing here is knowing that microphones, electronics and headphones have been so real sounding they can fool a jaundiced audiophile and have been able to do so for decades.

I can recount several experiences where this was underlined in spades. I won't do all of them, here's one (ask if you want more): I was doing an on-location recording of a choir concert about 30 years ago, using an Ampex 351-2 tape machine, a set of Phillips small diaphragm tube condenser mics and a set of $20.00 Radio Shack headphones. After the intermission the choir was gathering at the other back stage door from the one at which I was stationed. Apparently they were going to do a number where they walked in while singing. So I rolled the tape. All of a sudden someone started singing behind me; I figured they were a soloist going to enter the door where I was. I looked around but no-one was there; I had missed the soloist entering the stage earlier (luckily got the tape rolling in time...)!

I could never get the machine to do that off of the tape playback, but off of the mic feed it was easy. Sometime if you get a chance, get your hands on a Zoom recorder or the like and headphones and see how easily you can talk while its in record mode. If you tend to shut up when someone else is talking you may find it hard to talk in this situation until you get used to it, especially if your voice is delayed. That's how real sounding mics and headphones actually are.

When we use speakers playing in a room and using a recorded media its another kettle of fish and much harder to get that spooky real thing I referred to in my first post on this thread.

“In another room “ stories are absolutely irrelevant. When the source is in another room with respect to the room inhabited by the listener, the ear and brain are deprived of several cues used to distinguish live from reproduced music. Phase and bandwidth included. When it’s an unaccompanied vocalist or single instrument, it becomes plausible that you’re hearing a live musician, until you check it out by entering the space containing the source.

Closest I have come is when I was playing solo piano on vinyl, and my wife who is a pianist was a couple of rooms over called out to me and asked who was playing (she knew that I don't play and thought that I had a visitor sitting at her piano.

Absolutely!

No. Not even close. Although, playing a Taylor 410 myself, Magnepans seem to get closest to an acoustic guitar.

No sarcasm backtracking...deduct 9 points.

"The vast majority of albums are recordings?"  "Who knew? "

@wolf_garcia 

It was sarcasim ...you missed it  ... before your sarcastic reply. 😉 too funny...

@lewm It takes a whole lot bigger can to get them all back inside!

 No need to say more. I’m sorry I opened up yet another can of audiophile worms.

A little nostalgia.  This was our room at 1996 Waldorf Stereophile Show. Timbre Technology TT-1 DAC, ESP Speakers, Synergistic Research cabling, Nagra  tape deck, CJ amps, ASC Tube Traps....

"....At Stereophile's 1996 High-End Hi-Fi Show, at the Waldorf=Astoria in New York City, in order to promote new releases on my label John Marks Records, I arranged with ESP to hold a demonstration and press reception in their exhibit room on the show's Press Day. Arturo Delmoni was to play, live, one solo part of J.S. Bach's Concerto for Two Violins. The other solo part (Arturo again) and the continuo reduction, having previously been recorded by Jerry Bruck, were to be played back via Nagra and Conrad-Johnson electronics, the ESP Concert Grands, etc. The plan was to present a "Music Minus One" live demonstration for invited members of the press, then pour some champagne and socialize.

Earlier in the day, Stereophile writer Lonnie Brownell had asked me whether he could bring to the event a couple of nonjournalist friends he was showing around the Show. I imagine my eyes grew quite a bit larger when Lonnie's friends turned out to be drummer Max Roach and pianist Tommy Flanagan.

Trumpeter Clifford Brown has always been a near-mythic figure for me. (I wanted to name our son Clifford, but that was vetoed.) To shake hands with someone who, apart from his own achievements, had worked with Brown, was a very special moment. Since that time, I have learned that Roach's impulsive gesture of stuffing a couple of hundred-dollar bills into the pocket of a strung-out Miles Davis was the spur that shamed Davis into getting clean, with all the resultant music we have to be grateful for.

Roach and Flanagan were on time, which for this kind of thing means early, so I sat them in the front row, then felt like a totally inadequate idiot as I tried to make small talk. The room eventually filled and the demo began. Arturo worked his customary magic, and time stood still.

All too soon, the music was over. We poured champagne, and it was my pleasure to bring glasses to Roach and Flanagan, who looked quite pleased with the proceedings. They then wandered into another room in the suite, as did most people.

Jerry Bruck and I also had with us a master-tape clone of cellist Nathaniel Rosen's not-yet-released CD Reverie. We put that on the Nagra and began playing Richard Strauss's "Morgen," sung by soprano Kaaren Erickson. Moments later, Max Roach walked back into the demo room, looked around in surprise, chuckled, and said a bit sheepishly that he had come back in "to hear the young lady sing." He thought a live soprano was next on the program. A priceless memory.

So, music lovers, there you have it. The previous version of ESP's Concert Grand fooled Max Roach into thinking a live soprano was in the next room. The new speaker is, according to its designer, better in nearly every way. How much more can I say?"

henry53, In a small club listening to a vocalist backed up by a small jazz group or to a small jazz group alone, you certainly can hear a degree of "realism" not easily replicated in the home.  In that sort of set-up, some of the instruments and a vocalist typically will be electronically amplified, but if you're sitting within about 20-25 feet of the performers, the PA system typically does not really pollute what you hear to a great degree. To demonstrate the difference between that sort of live listening and your home system, ask a professional musician to come by your house and play a few tunes in your listening room, preferably standing between your two speakers.  Concerts in large halls are a whole different ball of wax, up or down.

Yes. Sounds like the players are live in my room every day with my current setup and not just with live recordings.

Whilst not really being keen on YouTube reviewers or experts Zero Fidelity probably made the single most relevant statement about hifi I have heard in my 50+ years with this 'obsession', "which type of fake do you want?". No sound system can or is even designed to, replicate live performances.  To be honest almost all live concerts in halls and other venues sound terrible, recordings of them sound worse. Recorded music is created in exceptionally controlled conditions designed specifically for recording music. You cannot get near the clarity and detail live via essentially PA venue's speakers. Of course in terms of the experience, when its good, you cannot beat live, but forget sound quality.

"standing on the side of the stage in 1972 and listening to Duane Allman and Dickey Betts play live is about as close to "real" as I have ever heard."

Duane died in 1971.

Did you mean "surreal"?

DeKay

NO! If anyone thinks recorded sound is superior to live sound(not amplified live sound) then that’s an oxymoron. They are saying they don’t like live sound(which is of course the standard simply by its very nature), that they prefer colorations which is their valid choice but it’s not real. I can hear Gordon Holt turning in his grave.

As I said in my post, I heard a concert recently that was live but was inferior to what I can hear on my stereo.

What is "real"? What a slippery hook on which to hang an aesthetic discussion of what makes something sound significant.

Wouldn’t we agree that a stereo that produces an intimate, detailed, textured sound of an oboe sounds more like an oboe -- more "real" if you wish -- than how one sounds at distance, off axis, in a church with less than great acoustics? If the latter one has some "live" quality that you prize, would you prefer a stereo that produces *that* than the one which is more significant sounding but lacks that "live" quality? 

In this example, the recording of the oboe has more presence, tonality, emotion, detail, and punch than the one heard live. So why wouldn’t the presence of all those qualities -- plus the emotion -- add up to greater "reality" where "reality" is best understood as "significance"? In my view, it does.

Dispersion characteristics of real instruments tend to be very different than speakers, and that can be a giveaway. I read that Dunlavy tested his speakers in an anechoic chamber - on axis. He could get the speaker to fool someone in that situation so they couldn't tell if it was the real instrument playing in the anechoic space, or the speaker. Once you have a live acoustic space of moderate size it can be harder to fool someone in a blind test.  A drum kit played in a living room will create an intensity and impactful force of sound that I don't think any stereo speaker set can reproduce in that same space - and that's probably a good thing.  Possibly an array of speakers ready made just for the purpose could do it. 

The types of sounds playing through the stereo are usually a dead give away that it's the stereo. I don't have anybody in my house that's a great musician, or who can make a sound in my house sound like it was recorded in another acoustic space. Those recordings that have more pedestrian sounds like people simply talking, and were recorded in a space with a similar acoustic to my own, those have scared me a few times. One time I remember was when the system was on but I didn't know it, and a voice suddenly came over the speakers out of the blue. It gave me quite a shock. Another case was on headphones, of all things. I was listening to outtakes between tracks and in the recording some guy was laughing in the back ground. It sounded just like my friend's cackle and I got the impression he was somehow in the house when I thought I was alone in my house in Oregon and he was supposed to be in Florida with his girlfriend! 

Not yet. If you don’t go out and listen to live music for a while you can fool yourself into believing your system comes close until you go see a show. Then it’s back to reality unfortunately. Personally I am not sure if I would want that in my home as I find most concerts leave me with strained hearing.

So that takes us down a different road of inquiry. A never ending contentious one. We can all agree that sometimes the live experience is not so great, because of room acoustics, ambient noise, noisy audience, bad amplification, etc but live instruments don’t lose their dynamics, even then. I was more responding to Mijostyn’s post advocating digital intervention, to artificially flatten the frequency response in the listening room, and enormous woofers (the way I think of the dynamics of live music has little to do with thunderous bass). I do agree with him that crossovers are often the enemy of verisimilitude.

When you say “improve on live sound”, what does that mean?

I can't speak for anyone else, but IME if the stars align with the right recording and system setup, you're not dealing with a noisy audience! Plus the mics are placed optimally whereas at a live performance you deal with whatever location you got.

When you say “improve on live sound”, what does that mean?

Since I play the guitar, no nothing can capture the live perfromance3 of my Les Paul into Marshall amplifiers.

@bigkidz The guitar player in my band plays a Les Paul hollow body into a Marshall Major(!) on a single Marshall stack (he used to use two but geez...).

If your speakers have sufficient efficiency (mine are 98dB so slightly more efficiency than the Marshall stack) you can reproduce such a thing very convincingly 😁 Best done with no-one home...

Lots of opinions here in all directions.

Lets take an example. Two weeks ago I saw Smashing Pumpkins and Janes Addiction at the Boston Garden. We were dead center, 20 rows back. It was so loud I had to use my Etymotic ear plugs. The sound was in Mono and there is always an echo in that venue. The light show was fabulous. 

I have a Blu-Ray of the Smashing Pumpkins Oceana concert. I think it was in New York. The recording was probably taken off the sound board and was well mixed with the instruments and voices in their proper location with reasonable blackness between. Played back at 95 dB with the bass boosted just a little the dynamics are very pleasing and realistic. Given that my system is a line source top to bottom the soundstage is vary large and lifelike. The audio experience is far superior to the live concert but the light show is no where near as overwhelming. 

Next is Mike Stern at the Blue Note in NYC, again dead center and two tables back from the front of the stage. We were listening to the live instruments and not a PA. I would guess a little louder than 95 dB, but still quite comfortable. Mike also has a recent BluRay, The Paris Concert. Given there is no light show the experience is scarily similar. I can match the volume perfectly. The size and timbre of the instruments is close enough that you would need do do an A/B comparison to identify the differences. Perhaps there is not quiet as much snap to the snare. I wish all live recordings could be like this one. 

Creating life size images is the purview of line source systems. It is apparent that many people who have responded to this threat have not heard one, particularly one that maintains it's line source behavior down to 10 Hz. Assuming a quality recording, the sound is usually superior to what you hear at a live venue. The dynamic range may not be as great but if the volume is satisfactory you do not notice this.   

I know this is an esoteric group but my introduction to " not live but close enough"

was walking up the hill to the officer's club on Phan Rang AFB in '70 or '71 and from

a hundred or so feet away wondering how they got a rock & roll band in Vietnam.

Once inside, I discovered the magic of AR speakers with a large Macintosh amp 

cranked up to 11. Life hasn't been the same since.

I had such a system and room about 20 years ago. It was glorious.

Recorded music is "processed" by the engineer and a BUNCH of equipment.  In the old days, it was mostly tube gear. If you are unfamiliar with that, visit an "old time" recording studio.  Digital music uses "chips" that process "bits" and drop many of them that it considers "extraneous" to the final product.

As for "realistic" reproduction, I have yet to hear anything better than the ARC/Magnepan combo set up correctly playing either master tapes or direct-to-disc recordings, both of which are "processed" as well.

As for our friend with the guitar and amps, standing on the side of the stage in 1972 and listening to Duane Allman and Dickey Betts play live is about as close to "real" as I have ever heard.

Cheers!

@fuzztone
I know I am likely going to take a hit for bullying, but you did it first. 

Might I suggest a remedial class in ENGLISH for you. Buy the way I did show this to my cousin who has her Doctorate in English and is an English professor at a prominent Eastern University. Though not grammatically perfect, the intended message is clear and to the point.

Some close-miked recordings can fool you into thinking there are musicians in the room.  Think Nils Lofgren's Acoustic Live.  Or others like that.

@atmasphere  - LOL

Since I play the guitar, no nothing can capture the live perfromance3 of my Les Paul into Marshall amplifiers.

We did punch out a Manley Steelhead with parts upgrades and that was a big improvement.  Stock form - no so much.

Happy Listening.

As an audiophile, I’m not sure we’re going for a system that sounds “live”. I think what we are trying to achieve is “sound stage” and “detail” for starters. There’s a lot more variables associated with the venue with a live sound and I’ve never heard proper “sound stage “ at a live event. To me, they’re two different worlds and two different types of sound. 

On youtube you can find "Live in the Studio" recordings with really fine dynamics. Not damaged that much through the recording and mastering process. With a good system playing at real levels they can feel like you're there.

Try Cory Wong. Not least the videos with Sonny T and Michael Bland.

Sadly the MBL system mentioned  was well over $150 k 

their stand mount speakers the  126, and120   Use the Exact same Tweeter and midrange  units  that sit on top ,they have dual opposing wooferson the bottom  ,I am. Thinking about maybe the verygood model 126 , and just use my SVS 4000 SB powered subs then  you  have a full range speaker at a fraction of-the cost. 

Possibly the weirdest and now my favorite Atmasphere post ever...yeah man!

Reviews of my Klipsch Heresy speakers often say they sound like live music. I don't necessarily agree but it's comforting to my fragile ego...I've been in the live music business for decades as a musician and live sound "Knob Turner," and like most everyone here I strive to reproduce the sound of street musicians using a cheap bass amp as, clearly, that's a true reference. Also gas powered leaf blowers...the sound of fall in New England. The vast majority of albums are recordings? Who knew? 

Mine can replay quite well the few live recordings done well in existance .

Trouble is, the vast majority of albums are a recording so if even remotely playing as recorded and manipulated during and post recording ,how could it possibly sound live? Good tube microphones and proper placement are what captures live dynamics an art lacking across the majority of recorded music . 

A really good tuner back when good fm was plentiful on the dial often gave remarkably good live sound as well...

@audioman58, yup....a good omni set up properly in a space and driven by decent equipment can do that...and not just in the sweet spot.

Haven't been lucky enough to hear a pair yet.

And would avoid hearing 4 in surround....spoil me permanently,

The most “ real music “ , I ever heard: Denon m 101 /Thorens 124/2 ( turntable ),; Daniel Hertz M6L/ Audio Aero Prestige (préamp/CD-player) ; Audio Aero Prestige monoblocks / Mal Valve 2/ VAC 300.1 and the magnificent Ilumnia Magister MK2 speakers ! Live music at home ! Great !

NO! If anyone thinks recorded sound is superior to live sound(not amplified live sound) then that's an oxymoron. They are saying they don't like live sound(which is of course the standard simply by its very nature), that they prefer colorations which is their valid choice but it's not real. I can hear Gordon Holt turning in his grave.