I have changed my mind about this over the years. The absolute sound (closest to real live music) just can't be accomplished even though I have heard some spectacular systems that get close on some music. So years ago I changed my system to give me the sound I wanted. I'm much happier now and all my music collection can be enjoyed for what it is: Recorded music.
Besides, timbre and dynamic nuance is where the music is. Everything
else is audiophile stuff that many confuse for components of music.
Think that’s wrong? Look up any meaningful text, book, article, etc. on
the subject of MUSIC and find the chapter on “sound staging”. Good luck.
Who said that? Whoever it was, remain in hiding, because it makes no sense. No one talks about "sound staging" with respect to music because with music the performers are right there. If Bruce Springsteen walks in and starts playing right there in front of you what idiot is going to exclaim, "It sounds like he's right in front of me!"
Oh wait. I know which one. The one that thinks the absence of this in music books means audiophiles made it up.
@russ69: Great attitude! Indeed, Absolute sound is an illusion, for all recording techniques are flawed, and each technique distorts in a different way, so there cannot be an absolute when everything is relative...For me, music reproduction is all about creating a world for yourself through music. I measure systems on how effective they are in creating a universe for you. Another consideration is: what kind of universe are they portraying? The general trend today is towards a visual cue-based portrayal, where you can "see" and "touch" the hyper-magnified and sound that has it's contrast turned up to the max so we can gleam more information, which produce heightened visual and auditory cues.... It's quite fascinating. My favorite universe portrayal is not this hyper-magnified universe. My ultimate audio universe is all about connecting your emotions, soul, mind, will and being to the universe of sound. Substance, not the show. Depths instead of the surface. The purpose is time travel to a long gone era, healing, inspiration, living for a brief time in different worlds shown by the soundscapes...
Oh wait. I know which one. The one that thinks the absence of this in music books means audiophiles made it up.
Soundstage or imaging concepts exist for sure....They exist for me...But they were created with the progress of electronic audio and speakers design...When i listen to my system i note their existence or lack of...But the more important concept is a musical one: recreation of the timbre experience...This musical concept precede by far the many audiophiles modern concepts about sound linked to the audio market and engineering..
Nobody then can contest that the audiophile concepts exist and make sense...
The central point is if we want to judge the accuracy of our system the main central concept is the musical concept of natural playing tonal timbre....That is what i read about in the posts of frogman...
And this is my experience in my listenings experiments to embed rightfully my system... The "timbre" experience is the crux perceiving experience....
This dont negate the fact that i want good depth imaging and large soundstage at all... But creating a better timbre experience give us the rest.... Enlarging or improving imaging is good but dont give us a better natural timbre completely by itself if we dont focus our attention toward timbre... The acoustic settings conditions to give a better timbre experience will gives us all the other experience... The opposite is not always true...
The acoustical explanation for that is in the definition of timbre itself by 5 characteristics which for their existence ask for a complex acoustical balance in the room which balance will give us anyway imaging and soundstage as a secondary effect... But modifying the soundstage by itself dont give us necessarily a better timbre experience... It is for this reason that listening to timbre is fundamental to refine and fine tune our acoustical settings in the right direction....
Why don't speaker manufacturer's publish their speakers responses?! What are they hiding? Why can't I tune my speakers to suit my ears? And why won't Magico return my phone calls? oh, wait, wrong thread. You guys are discussing the pleasures of actually listening to and enjoying music. My mistake, I'll take my comments elsewhere.
Another element is that even those of us with really good hearing do not hear live performance exactly the same, though it should be close. So, one will prefer these speakers and another - those. But it should not be far apart. I think, Frog prefers big electrostatic speakers and quite a number of audiophiles do. I don't. Does it mean that my hearing is worse ? Maybe, maybe not. My musician friend also prefers electrostatics, by the way. I know this - I hate horns, any horns.
@glupson, I have also recorded/played a piano, guitar and cello in my room. I try and set up my system/room to get as close to the timber and decay of the notes/tones played by unamplified instruments; This method works for my tastes. By the way, I am NOT a musician. Again, the sound reproduced, has to be enjoyed to our different likings.
**** Whoever it was, remain in hiding, because it makes no sense.****
Isn’t projection a fascinating thing? Moments before reading the most recent posts here I stumbled across a series of comments on another thread about the author of the above comment; a, er..., “popular” subject of discussion, btw. In one of those comments it was pointed out how said author “goes into hiding” when confronted and called out for his typically demeaning attitude. I won’t bother; always better to keep idiocy out in the open.
The best sound i have achieved is going for the microphone feed sound when you achieve a sound like that you never go back to a pleasing or euphoric sound you just hear the recordings and music so much better.
**** I am a tad confused. When I read about those that use an acoustic performance as their standard for measuring their system. When you are listening to the performance at a venue, are you not hearing the combination of the performer(s) and the venues acoustics? ****
Fair question which goes to the meat of the OP’s question.
Have you ever been walking down the street and heard the sound of a musician practicing his instrument (or a singer vocalizing) wafting out of an open window? Even from a block away one can tell that it is the sound of a live person playing his instrument and not a recording. Perhaps it is a Jazz quartet practicing. Or, one is at a street fair and from a good distance away, still out of sight, one can hear a band playing. Talk about different venues!! What is it about that sound that so immediately tells us that it is the sound of live and not a.recording? It is the immediacy of the sound, the sense of aliveness (richness of dynamic nuance) in the music and the richness of timbral detail; all without the addition to the sound of the electronic artifacts which are the inevitable byproducts of the amplification/ “sound reinforcement” and record/reproduce processes. Even if that band at the street fair happens to be a Rock band playing electronic instruments, the immediacy of the sound and absence of ADDITIONAL electronic artifacts tells us that the sound is live and not a recording.
The case for the use of recordings of acoustic instruments as “standard for measuring their system” is simply because there are far fewer variables to confuse matters. In amplified performances, not only does one have the sound of the instruments themselves (yes, a Strat has a different timbral signature than a Gibson), but one also has the variables of the amplifiers, cabling, mics, PA, sound board, etc.; not to mention the engineer’s whim.
You are correct. All concert halls have different sounds. However, those differences and their effects on the timbral (tonal quality) and dynamic detail of the sound of musical instruments are far less than the effects of the electronics of amplification. In the absence of all that amplification gear, the sound remains closest to and with the immediacy and richness of timbral detail of that sound wafting out the window.
Reading your post I understand why some musician could enligntened very simple fact that has been forgotten when we compare amplifiers or dac, or anything audio....
Thanks...
You are correct. All concert halls have different sounds. However, those differences and their effects on the timbral (tonal quality) and dynamic detail of the sound of musical instruments are far less than the effects of the electronics of amplification.
I will add that all rooms and theaters or recording studio has something in common when they modify by their geometry, topology and their acoustic content the possible lived sound event , the common universal acoustical laws, which are akin to the vocabulary and syntax in any language, each room speaking his own acoustical language.These acoustical universal laws are what make possible the translation of one acoustic condition, the room or theater of the lived orginal event, into an another acoustical circonstances and conditions, the room of the listener....This possible translation is made WITH ADDED ELECTRICAL AND MECHANICAL NOISE tough when we go from the original event to our room listening the same concert for example....
This translation is modified with some ADDED electronic noise, mechanical and electrical, that we must CONTROL or decrease in our room to make possible the RECREATION of the "timbre" dynamical event with the less distortion possible.... When we recognize the musical timbre that come from our audio system, it must be the more resembling possible to the musical timbre coming from the original event in spite of the addition of the inevitable mechanical and electrical noise added by the audio electronic and the choices from the recording of the lived event... When we have this relatively natural timbre perception tough in our room, it means that our audio system is relatively rightfully embedded in his working dimensions....
It is the reason why the acoustic of our room being the acoustic translator of the original event is more important than the gear itself most of the times....
«Ears recognize sounds in any room and in any language»-Anonymus Acoustician
«The heart feel the music of any country like his own»- Anonymus Musician
«Mother’s song is the ancester of all language»-Anonymus Son
**** No. Just no. #1 effect is speakers. #2 is usually the microphones. #3 is acoustics of the concert hall, #3b is where you are sitting. The electronics of amplification would be somewhere, comparatively down around 10.****
As usual, missing the forest for the trees in the rush to nit pick and get your digs in. As painful as it may be, please read my posts in their entirety. If you take my quoted paragraph literally and out of context, yes (maybe), speakers MIGHT be #1; depending on the particular gear in question (“Crown”, anyone? 😊). In the context of my overall comment, “electronics of amplification” refers to the totality of amplification gear; the process of amplification. If you read and consider the total post, it is perfectly clear what is meant.
Regardless and more importantly, thanks for making and confirming my general point with your hasty comment and its stated “hierarchy”. Glad you agree with me on the general point. How nice it would have been, instead, to agree with the general idea as you did anyway and then go to the specifics; or, God forbid, ask for clarification in a friendly manner. Regards.
The only thing you're going to get in your room is reproducing what's on the medium not what was originally live in the studio or live in a concert venue. The more transparent or neutral your electronics sans speakers will only take care of that part of the equation in your reproduction effort . Should your speakers have a flat FR from 20hz to 20khz adjusted to the Harman curve? Are nulls and peaks in your room addressed ? Testing has shown most people prefer that. Perhaps you don't, but are you reproducing what's on the medium in a neutral way? To me trying to chase a live concert sound in your room is a fool's errand. I can get a trumpet to sound like a trumpet but not like one playing in my room, I really wouldn't want that, same with drums, guitar, violins, pianos. I've been in enough rooms playing and singing having a good time but that's not what I'm looking for nor what I expect from my stereo. I only expect to try and reproduce whatever medium I'm listening to with as little coloration as possible. In other words what used to be known as high fidelity.
First, let me begin by saying I love music. Almost all music, very few exceptions. I also love audio equipment. I have had excellent equipment over the years, Tubed amplifiers from the best, Wilson speakers, expensive connection cables, designated rooms with wall treatments, on and on it goes. Now I’ve gone to streaming with good equipment and excellent speakers, average connections. So why? You will never reproduce music as it was actually played. Most concerts are held in huge buildings, awkward seating and distance. Reproducing that sound is a waste of time. Music on record or cds have been engineered. In many cases the original sound was not so good and made better by an engineer. Searching for the perfect sound is in the ear of the beholder. No two people hear the same. In my opinion it’s like looking for that perfect driver for your golf game. Every year the manufactures have now developed the one for you. Whoever said stop when you find the sound you like was in my opinion correct. Save your money for something more important because people spend millions on this search and still are not happy. It’s how you hear the music that counts. As Happy Gilmore says, go to your happy place, relax and enjoy what you have. This hobby can be incredibly expensive and be never ending.
**** . I only expect to try and reproduce whatever medium I’m listening to with as little coloration as possible. ****
We are in agreement.
IOW, what does “with as little coloration as possible” mean if not trying to get as close as possible, as concerns timbre, to the sound heard live? Of course, also accounting for the medium’s influence on the original (live) sound.
As I have pointed out, I would add detail of dynamic nuance as a second priority. In a sense, distortion of dynamic nuance is a “coloration” of sorts.....in the realm of dynamic performance. Components have a signature not only as concerns timbre and the amount and type of coloration that they add to timbre, but also in their dynamics performance; how they convey rhythm.
With as little coloration as possible in the electronics, in other words tube distorion generators need not apply. Straight wire with gain or at least transparent within a humans auditory range. All we're doing is trying to reproduce the medium not the concert.
It seems many people, reading many posts for me, have no idea at all about what is TIMBRE perception...it is normal it is a very very complex concept taking 5 steps to be only grossly described....Then....
First it is impossible to perfectly record the original lived timbre event.... The mic choices type and location make it impossible... Add to it all mixing and all the three kind of noise linked to all reproduction system you have ...No perfect reproduction is possible...
Second it is possible to RECREATE in your room, if your room is well prepared and controlled acoustically, an experience of TIMBRE perception which will do justice to the lived original TIMBRE event ....But it is impossible to RECORD it totally and exactly like it was in the firsat place....It is impossible to perceive it like the original event was also..... It is only possible to recreate it relatively "near" his original truth using acoustical laws for your room settings....Not electronic design of speakers or dac or turntable or any gear only... But mainly the recreation by your ROOM of the original event...Not his pure REPRODUCTION, his recreation only....It is possible by acoustic principle in working use...
The perception of sound and the experience of music has been polluted by too much electronic engineering vocabulary and market hype and not enough acoustic science vocabulary...
Most people are so ignorant they called the most important tools to fine tune room acoustic "tweaks" namely only secondary addition to the audio system.... The Controls of the mechanical electrical and acoustical working dimensions are fundamental not secondary addition to the basic electronic design... And between the three source of noise acoustic is the main source and also the main tool....
Audio is almost ALL acoustic.... Not electricity first.....Pecording is electricity and electronics....Perceiving is not.... Timbre cannot be recorded like it was originally it ask for some acoustic conditions set in place to be born again for the ears, it does not ask for the branded name of some hype known gear first....
An easy example of ignorance is the way people put costly gear in a non treated and non well controlled room and call the result Hi-FI because of the total cost of electronical engineering.... Any musician know that.... Me too....
I have always been fortunate to find that the hi-fi gear that most mimics real life sound is the equipment that I enjoy the most. I’ve never understood the desire for flat sound that so many seem to search for, other than it just gives you the foundation for adjusting the sound to emphasize what sounds best to you. Giving that the physiology of the ear, the resulting vibrations, and the brain’s interpretation of it is different for each person, the idea that there’s a single universal goal we should all strive for as audiophiles in order to be listening “correctly” ( whatever term you believe fits best) is frankly a little nuts. Every brand of recording and playback equipment has it’s own flavor of sound. When you’ve spent the cash to get equipment that you know does a great job producing clarity, detail, and completeness, then just pick out the flavor that pleases you the most and voila! Listening pleasure ! It’s sadly so much harder to compare components these days as there are so few hifi shops around anymore, and purchasing some pretty expensive pieces based purely on others’ recommendations is a real roll of the dice. Although the desire for improvement may be present, there should be balance. Some listeners describe what sounds to be almost an obsession with finding something that’s better than what they have, and really feel they’re missing something and thus, rob themselves of really enjoying what they DO have. Nothing wrong with seeking improvement, right up to the point where you spend more time feeling that something’s not right rather than experiencing the joy of hearing great music thru wonderful gear. Keep it balanced grasshopper, and the result is always good whether you’re seeking to improve or not!
Not going to get it to sound like 'real live music' because you have no idea what the circumstances are under which it was recorded, what the mic placement was, how it was mixed, etc. 'Real live music' is subjective, not objective. You can hear it from the front of the venue, you can hear it from the back of the venue, you can hear it sitting next to the performer, and it does not sound the same at all. Seems to me that the object should be to have music sound as much like the master as possible, after it was recorded and mixed.
Not
going to get it to sound like 'real live music' because you have no
idea what the circumstances are under which it was recorded, what the
mic placement was, how it was mixed, etc ...
You can have a fairly good idea if you make your own recordings.
You are just making excuses for your vastly wrong statement
Logic only knows wrong statements, "vastly wrong" pertain to rhetoric inflation...Sorry.... 😊
No discussion could go anywhere if someone does not distinguish natural timbre perception from a street musician for example and the noise or distorsion necessarily added from microphone choices and location trade-off to speakers, with in between these two, all other electronical additions and choices trade-off or distortion of the lived event from the recording and mixing itself ....
And we must also distinguish this original timbre event ultimately from the way and settings of our own room acoustic and electrical noise floor and mechanical gear constraints that will inhibit and/or make easier by a trade-off of their own also, a "recreation" with only a relative truth value in relation with the original timbre perception of this same recorded event....
It is the reason why acoustic settings and controls of the room of the listener plays a so great role in the recreation of the timbre "envelope" in his own way, without never duplicating the original timbre "envelope" ....It is not only the analog or digital source which play a major role, but the room acoustic is the last judge and jury at the same time and at the end of this recreation process...
It is why naturalness of musical timbre perception in the listener room is the benchmark test for any audio system and any acoustical recording of a single instrument....The piano for example....And this test perception will vary with each person, house, and gear....It is never a reproduction in the absolute sense it is a recreation....
Not only any musician know this, like non musician can or could, but they feel it in a more stronger way, unlike you and me.....Especially in the listening experience born with their own instrument....
Then arguing with a musician about "timbre" complex experience and concept is not wise....
«Even God cannot argue with Bach about contrapuntal logic, but my wife did it many times»-Groucho Marx
Live music is quite variable in its experience just as our systems are. I have been to hundreds of live musical events in my 30 years of adulthood. Sitting high up in the nose-bleed of a 20,000 arena listening to a band plan is more about being there than the sound of the music. Sitting in the 2,500 seat Orpheum Theater here in downtown Memphis is a huge leap but still doesn't match my system. I actually saw a band there a few years ago and had listened to them at home many times. I was constantly comparing the sound of the concert song to my memory at home. I even came home and listened to one of the albums after the concert and had the volume up louder than usual and it was far superior. When you get into the really small venue with minimal amplification then you really start to hear the instruments. Alejandro Escovedo used to do a lot of bar concerts with his string quartet. His finale was an amazing song where they would unplug and come off stage into the crowd. They created a circle where I was the 6th member of that circle. I still get chills thinking about that experience as it brought tears to my eyes. I don't ever hope for my stereo to create a true live event, but I am always analyzing the individual instruments and voices to sound realistic as if they were in my room. That is what I believe we are all here for. God I love music! I went on a 2nd date tonight...I started laughing during dinner because she said, "I never listen to music". I like her and am taking this as a challenge to open her eyes.
Now we have a poster that thinks he is an art expert as well as an audiophile. Wrong on both accounts! I prefer some artists over others and the poster is wrong on how art is displayed. If you go into a Weinstein gallery and look at Nottebohm, Kincaid, Coleman, and other artist work, you will see dim rooms with lights highlighting each piece of art to see the highlights and the 3D effect of say Nottebohm. For music, I prefer good studio recordings most of the time mainly because live rock/jazz/blues performances for the last 20 years have been artificially bass boosted, and some areas have terrible acoustics. A good amphitheater or a smaller venue can sound spectacular. As for my audio system, I want my system to sound like a real instrument: a 20” ride cymbal to sound different than a 16” ride/crash cymbal, a sax to sound like a sax, not some blurry substitute. This requires a good audio room and good audio equipment IMO
As I said, we are in agreement about the main topic of discussion here, so I’m not sure what the problem is. I’m glad we agree. Here are three of the most relevant (to this silly tiff) comments in my post; the third being the one which you feel necessary to call “vastly wrong”.... while still agreeing with the main point:
**** What is it about that sound that so immediately tells us that it is the sound of live and not a.recording? It is the immediacy of the sound, the sense of aliveness (richness of dynamic nuance) in the music and the richness of timbral detail; all without the addition to the sound of the electronic artifacts which are the inevitable byproducts of the amplification/ “sound reinforcement” and record/reproduce processes. ****
**** .... but one also has the variables of the amplifiers, cabling, mics, PA, sound board, etc. ****
**** You are correct. All concert halls have different sounds. However, those differences and their effects on the timbral (tonal quality) and dynamic detail of the sound of musical instruments are far less than the effects of the electronics of amplification. In the absence of all that amplification gear, the sound remains closest to and with the immediacy and richness of timbral detail of that sound wafting out the window. ****
You then go on to quote me.....
**** You are correct. All concert halls have different sounds. However, those differences and their effects on the timbral (tonal quality) and dynamic detail of the sound of musical instruments are far less than the effects of the electronics of amplification.****
.....and declare:
**** No. Just no. #1 effect is speakers. #2 is usually the microphones. #3 is acoustics of the concert hall, #3b is where you are sitting. The electronics of amplification would be somewhere, comparatively down around 10.****
However, you leave out for the last sentence of same comment with which I, AGAIN, make it clear that I am referring to the TOTAL effect of ALL the gear of the amplification process. Not to mention, you ignore all my previous similar comments.
So, back to the silliness at hand.
“Vastly wrong”? I don’t think so. Your own comment shows that you believe I am correct in my main point. Good. So, again, not sure what the problem is then. Yes, I think that your reaction is “nitpicking” considering that, yes, it is abundantly clear what it is that I am referring to.
Apology to all who “happened” to be subjected to the silliness of the argument above.
Many interesting comments and responses to the OP’s question; and, for whatever it may be worth, I will take one last stab at explaining my position on the topic. (“oh, goody”, is heard form the peanut gallery 😊).
I think that the reason for some of the disagreement is the lack of overall consistency in the meaning of the terminology used to describe what we hear and/or strive for. This leads to lack of understanding of a poster’s comment and what are, for me, obvious contradictions in many of those comments. Just two examples of the contradictions, and apology for paraphrasing a bit:
”Striving for the sound of live is a fool’s folly”. Yet, in the same post the same poster goes on to state: “I want my system to have as little coloration as possible”.
Or, the most misused and abused term in audio: “accuracy”. “I want my system to sound “accurate”. Or, “I DON’T want my system to sound accurate”. Accuracy to the true sound of music, warts and all, can never be a bad thing in my book
Or, a poster states that he he doesn’t want his sound to resemble live, but wants it to sound “natural”. Huh?!
Some of these terms sound great and all, but just what do they mean? “As little coloration”, compared to what?! “Accurate”, compared to what? “Accurate” does NOT mean thin and sterile. It means like the sound of music; sometimes sharp and even ugly and sometimes warm and lush. I think that if the terms are to have relevant meaning the answer is obvious: the sound of live acoustic music and we should strive for more consistency of meaning. Only acoustic (unamplified) music is free of the colorations of electronic amplification/processing. Yes, different venues have different “colorations”, but that is a different story and those colorations are not as egregious as those of introduced by amplification.
It has been correctly pointed out that “The only thing you’re going to get in your room is reproducing what’s on the medium not what was originally live in the studio or live in a concert venue.” True, but at that point in the chain of reproduction the sound is still a huge step closer to the sound of the original event and will be far more “accurate” and far less “colored” than what we end up hearing come out of our systems. So, why compound the problem by adding colorations in an effort to make the sound “more pleasing”? This begs the question, how do we know what the sound really is like at that step in the chain? We don’t. What we do know with certainty is that it will be a heck of a lot closer to the sound of the original event; and, if that event happens to be an acoustic event, all the better. Why all the better?
Again, putting aside the issue of soundstaging which has little to do with music, when the recorded music is acoustic it will have suffered the least from the effects of electronics and more of the timbral texture and rhythmic signature that are what define a musician will be preserved. FOR ME, even if the recorded music is electronic in nature, a system that is voiced to do justice to acoustic music will ultimately be more pleasing. It will better let me hear what is on the medium.
Hello Russ69, I’ve been through the same situation as you. I have 3 systems in my home. One system is 200 watt SS class A mono amps into Electrostats and two other setups are tube amps, EL34 100 watt and mono 18 watt 300b amps into conventional speakers. I’ve found that thru experience, accurate sounding systems are not what I’ve enjoyed best long term. What I’ve moved in tweaking my systems is a very transparent sound, with great detail and resolution but with fullness of tone and musicality. So my setups are super open and super expanded with great detail, height, depth, and resolution but above all, the systems have been tweaked to reveal tonality and musical fullness. When I think of an accurate sounding system, I think that the sound is sharp and thin at times, lacking a sense of sounding like REAL MUSIC should. I’ve heard some very accurate high level systems and they’ve sounded great but when compared to a system that gives all the same detail and performance but in a more relaxed and musical way, I prefer the latter sound. So I’m trying to understand what do you mean by an absolute sound.
Striving for the sound of live is a fool’s folly”. Yet, in the same post the same poster goes on to state: “I want my system to have as little coloration as possible”.
Nothing contradictory I can see. I am not striving for live sound in club, concert hall or outdoor venue but the best reproduction of the media I am listening too. In striving for reproduction I want my electronics to add as little coloration as possible to the media. If I am playing digital then I want a DAC that measures beyond human hearing so I am not coloring the media, I want an amplifier that measures as close as possible as well again not adding to the media. It all falls apart when speakers and your room are tossed in but I aim for speakers with a very good FR, measure the room, address the problems either with passive or active solutions. Maybe this is also a fools errand but I figure I've done the best I can to try to recreate high fidelity of the media not the live event. I have no control over the production of the media but I can try to get off of it what was put on it as best as I can. I understand I am in the circle of confusion as F. Toole puts it but I figure it's the best I can do.
We all do the best we can do and thanks for addressing my comment. I understand your point, but it is obvious that I didn’t do a good enough job of explaining that point. I see it as a contradiction because as I said before: how do you know? How do you know that those “perfect” measurements are absolute and reflect precisely what the medium is “saying”; that they tell, not only the whole story, but the true story. I realize that those measurements are all we have to “prove” the technical side of things, but in my experience they often don’t tell the whole story. I prefer to use measurements as a guide, but let my ears have the final say; and my ears often tell me a different story. Example of one area where you and I would definitely disagree: FOR ME, good tube gear, those “distortion generators”, while having their own issues let me hear nuances in the areas of timbre and sense of aliveness that I don’t hear from most solid state and the result, to my ears, is usually closer to what I hear live; and, yes, I’ve heard and owned some pretty good solid state gear. I believe Ralph Karsten has done a very good job here of explaining the technical reasons for some of this. Way above my (technical) pay grade,
As I said before, I don’t think we disagree fundamentally. You want to get closer to the medium; I want to get closer to the original event. The medium is closer to the original event than anything that can be achieved by going in the other direction with manipulation of the sound in order to meet a personal ideal. I call it getting as close as possible to the sound of live. You call it adding as little coloration as possible. I’m good with that.
It’s just word games. One is either satisfied or not. “How many times have you heard someone say "If I had his money, I could do things my way" But little they know that it's so hard to find One rich man in ten with a satisfied mind”
That negates electric guitars and synthesizers. Sometimes the amplification is critical to the production.
do you mimic misunderstanding? Or you really dont have a clue?
I cannot truthfully tell myself..... I am a bit naive perhaps....
Frogman speak about acoustic non amplified instrument and voice for being textbook case of Timbre experience, perception and jugdment, the ultimate test, in speech control acoustic and in music, and in audio....
That's too binary. Partly satisfied and partly not, that's closer to reality. Microphones are primitive things compared to ear. They cannot hear everything there is to hear. So what do we do ? Do we try to manipulate the recording in an effort to compensate for what microphones missed or leave it alone ?
Acoustic is but one form of music. It’s not a given pinnacle and there is much variation from instrument to instrument such that calling it a general "reference" is questionable.
Maybe you don’t think as deeply as you feel you do?
Astonishing!
I know now that you dont have a clue...Or do you only want to never admit ignorance?
The word acoustic may be used to describe the sound of non amplified instrument , like in acoustic guitar....In some post of frogman where he give the example of non amplified instrumental timbre in a living event illustrating his own musician experience of timbre.... This is one thing....
But in all my posts i was spoken about the concept of acoustic, like in acoustic physic, room acoustic, or acoustic science in general which encompass physics and for example adress very deep problem not only about TIMBRE concept in music but about also speech recognition etc....
Then your observation about the adjective "acoustic" associated to a non amplified instrument is one thing that hide to you or you hide it to yourself i dont know, the deep concept behind timbre perception and experience...Frogman was using it without your confusion tough....
All my posts spoke about that....They spoke about the impossibility to REPRODUCE the original timbre experience but only to RECREATE it partially, nevermind the source digital or analog, in specific rooms always, always differently but in a possible acceptable way; we will call this possible truthfull recreation, naturalness of the timbre instrument experience or perception, nerver mind if it is an acoustic guitar or an electrical one ...the 2 type haver also a timbre"envelope" relative to the structure of the instrument and dynamically linked to the room for his creation and also for his recreation...Amplified or not....
In acoustic concept ANY insruments amplified or not, own a timbre "envelope" that is recreated differently in different acoustical settings.... All my post to you for the last 4 weeks now were about that experience and concept of acoustic, not the adjective associated with a nbon amplified instrument like in the exemple of frogman...
Then saying that in your words "acoustic is one form of music" clearly refer to non amplified instrument for sure, but it is not the non amplified instrument that are at the pinnacle of the musical and acoustical experience, IT IS THE TIMBRE CONCEPT and PERCEPTION and EXPERIENCE in ACOUSTIC SCIENCE in a specific room, never mind if it is a violin or a theramin amplified instrument...
The variation between instruments amplified or not, did not change the necessary acoustical settings and necessary controls in a room for the recreation of the timbre experience by the human ears...READ THAT 2 TIMES... It is the main point....
Ouffff
"acoustic is one form of music" is a very bad sentence conceptually.... Amplified sounds instruments or not amplified sounds instruments play the same music not each one his own form of music...The musical perception of timbre exist in the 2 cases... In the 2 cases a lived musical event, with unamplified or amplified instruments could never be reproduced without trade off and some lost or transformation by the electronical process of mixing and recording and also all the electrical noise in the reproduction system.... I used my room controls to recreate the best i could some natural timbre perception for amplified or non amplified instrument, the 2 own their own natural "envelope" pertaining also to the room where the microphone recorded them in the first place...I want my room to help me to recreate this the best i could....nevermind if i own a dac or a turntable ....
😁
such that calling it a general "reference" is questionable.
What is the general reference is the timbre " envelope" dynamical texture of ANY instrument.... For sure all the musician experience is usually with acoustic instrument but this dont change the mathematical definition of timbre in physics and in musical or audio room acoustic....This is the timbre perception which me and frogman called the benchmark of audio and music experience...
I will mute myself if you dont add other incoherent observations....
With some people i dont feel to be a deep thinker at all but frankly with you i feel i am very deep....Sorry....
If I may add to this semantic debate. Acoustic means it is related to sound/hearing. Nothing more elaborate or precise than that.
Having said that, most of us take "acoustic" guitar as the piece of wood (or whatever that material is) with strings over it and a few more necessary parts and without any electricity involved. Of course, some concerts have even that "acoustic" guitar associated with a microphone.
If you check virtually any concert involving guitars, you will see multiple instruments swapped throughout the performance. They were picked for some reason and even two "acoustic" guitars will not sound quite the same. Now, it is on you to figure out which one is the more real one.
It is amazing how good some of the programs have become.
Just this month some scientist use the eyes of an insect connected to an A.I. device and use it with success...
THEN my point is not doubting technological progress...
My point is about MEANING.... In human perception also lie meaning, and using dials to REPLACE human perception is not the essence of human experience, even if dials are useful....
And you are right about that, tomorrow A.I. will work without ANY human help whatsoever....This does not solve the meaning problem.... 😁😊
IMHO any [audio] system that makes brushwork sound like tape hiss, is not doing its job properly. as a restoration tech and musician [mediocre] for 3+ decades, electronic hiss "lives" in a totally different "neighborhood" than any drummer's brushes. it is something like the difference between rose noise and white noise. that little nitpick aside, the absolute sound can be approached generally at great expense both in $$$$$$ as well as energy [both psychic and physical], having to optimize room acoustics as well as the synergy of equipment working together and the right recordings. there are comparatively few recordings out there that "get it all right" in terms of making a good deep round sound which btw can be heard as such [to a notable if variable extent] even on much cheap equipment. such perfect recordings will of course on the best equipment will virtually transport you to their recorded venue which is the room where the mics were placed and NOT the control room. the majority of recordings out there give you the control room sound at best, IOW highly processed and markedly different from raw feed. all this said, i found some old advents or even old nova 6 speakers gave a surprisingly balanced and mellow yet clear [enough] sound for the vast majority of recordings i pumped through them, though the trebles were not the clearest, imaging was merely suggestive and the depth wasn't there, still they sounded nominally pleasing, somewhat musical [makes one's fingers snap and feet tap] and above all, inoffensive. on the contrary, many old recordings on audiophile equipment sounded borderline harsh [or outright harsh] and flat and, well, offensive to me. i suspect these recordings were tailored to sound "right" on typical consumer equipment of the day, IOW not really revelatory-sounding gear, with some euphonic coloration going on.
One factor that no one seems to have considered is that everyone's hearing ability doesn't conform to a template....just like vision can vary from individual to individual, from that of a hawk to the myopic Mr. Magoo, so does the critical sense of hearing. This may help explain why we perceive differences when a group (more than one) are listening to music from any given stereo system. Definitely not the major factor, but shadings can make a big difference. This theory only bolsters the position that you should tailor your system for what sounds good to YOUR ears, not someone else's. As I've aged, I find myself preferring the sound of what many would call mid-fi components or mediums of reproduction (vinyl and RTR tape, for example). As long as we're all still involved in the hobby, that's all that really matters.
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.
