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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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!
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....
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.
**** . 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.
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.
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.
**** 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.
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
**** 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.
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.
**** 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.
@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.
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.
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.
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....
@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...
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.
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.
In my experience the areas of timbre and dynamic nuance are precisely the areas where most “audiophile systems” fall short. The deviations from what is heard live are sometimes grotesque. Excessive and often harsh highs, overblown and discontinuous bass and sometimes a kind of hyper detail that simply does not occur in live music. That kind of sound can be impressive and even the most pleasing for some. So be it. I prefer to work at voicing my system so that, first and foremost, the end result moves the sound in the direction of what I hear live in the areas of timbre and dynamic nuance. It is, in fact, possible to get surprisingly close sometimes. Soundstaging? A distant third concern; if at all. It has little to do with music. So, no concerns about parking space 😉.
Going back to the first point of agreement, that reproduced music will never sound EXACTLY like the sound of live. True, but much can be done to voice a system so that, overall, it moves the reproduction of timbre closer, not further away, from the general sound of live. To me, that is a far better choice for reaching enjoyment. Why? Because more of the MUSIC is preserved.
Frogman is a musician and i bet a very good one...
I am not a musician...
Only an average audiophile wanting to create a good system.... All that frogman says is in the same way my own test criteria to tune and install the rightful controls of the working mechanical,electrical and acoustical dimensions of ANY audio system beginning with mine...
Forget all any other concept, when testing an audio system the basis is the natural playing subtle dynamic of tonal timbre of instruments...Nothing else....
Acoustic settings of a room are the most important of the 3 embeddings dimensions controls....The acoustic settings of the room must make possible the recreation of the tonal envelope of a playing instrument...If not the room acoustic is bad... Be it a concert hall or your audio room....
Experiencing the natural perception of timbre is the fundamental question in audio, in concert acoustic or small room acoustic...
If an audio system can did this right it will do the rest right, if not, nothing will be right even if it seems a relative improvement with a so called "upgrade" with a new hyped electronic design...
It takes me years to erase all the audiophile illusions pertaining to gear, upgrade, electronic design, warm,cold,imaging,soundstage etc....They are secondary concepts pertaining not to music but to some "artificial" and conditioned impressions of sound by the commercial market...
It is the perception of music that is the core of acoustic in audio not sound.... If we speak of sound we are no more in audio but in physics...
Is my system able to recreate natural timbre of piano playing in my room ? That is the question the first one and the last one....
Anything else is marketing vocabulary to distinguish different kind of electronic designs approach...BUT audiophile experience is mainly about musical acoustic not about electronic design progress only and mainly....
Give me now an average relatively good system i know how to make it sound at his optimal level.... No upgrade needed....
The chance that a relatively good average system working at his optimal level satisfy you or even surprize you is indeed very great... It is my experience...
«The walls of Jericho were destroyed by sound not by music, in the same way sound may destroy the ears»-Anonymus Smith
Welcome to the club. I've never really made "live music" reproduction my primary goal. There were many reasons for this, including not wanting to annoy the neighbors, but now that I have more space between myself and them I just don't want to listen to the majority of my music at concert levels. I want my music to be fun, not necessarily demanding. Of course I want a system capable of concert level output, but is that what I listen to most of the time? Really is not, and I make no apologies to anyone.
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? If you take those same performers and place them in a different venue the sound you are hearing is going to be different, not to mention if the performance is not a solo performance do the players have the ability to properly mix themselves?
OTOH at an amplified show, they have tools that help in the mitigation of the venue acoustics to an extent, so there should be less variation due to the venue. Of course there is still someone out front manipulating the reproduced sound to their taste, so probably not the best example of a standard either.
So is a standard even possible with that many variables?
As enjoyment and fulfillment is the goal, the music has to come first for me. When the music comes first, there’s a whole exciting world of variety and discovery available. When the sound is primary, the enjoyment is confined to that somewhat limited parameter, not nearly as meaningful as the world of music. Approaching a listening session with the goal of sonic titillation can easily be detrimental to really getting into the music.
It’s not easy communicating exactly what is meant with the written word. In classic fashion for an Internet forum we end up “talking” past each other, making inaccurate assumptions about what is meant by someone else and digging our heels in when taking positions on the subject at hand. So, what exactly is the point here? Better still, what exactly is meant by “the sound of live”?
I think there is agreement about two things: Reproduced music, no matter the genre, will never sound exactly like live and reproduced music is for enjoyment (duh!).
FOR ME the components of music that suffer the most as a result of the record/reproduce process are timbre and dynamic nuance. Not, dynamics in the sense of how loud things can get, but in the sense of how alive the music sounds; even (especially) when very soft and how seamlessly it moves from, for instance, very very soft to just very soft; and between all the other steps in the dynamics scale. For purposes of this thread (and for me, generally) imaging, sound staging, holography and their ultimate scale are completely irrelevant to me; and not very important in general. Why? Because if one is sitting outside our audiophile designated “sweet spot”, all that goes to hell anyway. I hope that there is also general agreement that anyone who can’t enjoy a recording if sitting outside the sweet spot probably should reconsider his priorities. 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.
In my experience the areas of timbre and dynamic nuance are precisely the areas where most “audiophile systems” fall short. The deviations from what is heard live are sometimes grotesque. Excessive and often harsh highs, overblown and discontinuous bass and sometimes a kind of hyper detail that simply does not occur in live music. That kind of sound can be impressive and even the most pleasing for some. So be it. I prefer to work at voicing my system so that, first and foremost, the end result moves the sound in the direction of what I hear live in the areas of timbre and dynamic nuance. It is, in fact, possible to get surprisingly close sometimes. Soundstaging? A distant third concern; if at all. It has little to do with music. So, no concerns about parking space 😉.
Going back to the first point of agreement, that reproduced music will never sound EXACTLY like the sound of live. True, but much can be done to voice a system so that, overall, it moves the reproduction of timbre closer, not further away, from the general sound of live. To me, that is a far better choice for reaching enjoyment. Why? Because more of the MUSIC is preserved.
To borrow the sign off used by one of our more controversial Audiogon members:
I get overpaid to do live sound production/mixing and actually have some shows sort of booked for September (we'll see about that, but I mention it because I don't want anybody worrying about me), so I'm to blame for some reinforced concert sound. That's right. It's my fault. That said, there are gigantic differences between un-reinforced performances and everything else, as well as recorded vs live...so what? Do you think watching an F1 race is like driving? Food shows are like eating? Are they supposed to be? No. I can play an acoustic guitar any time (not while driving...that's illegal) and yeah...it sounds groovy, but is a symphony going to set up in my house to play Benjamin Britton for me? Doubtful, and there's not enough parking. My hifi rig makes music sound good enough to be very enjoyable, concerts are fun, get over it.
We are all in agreement that music is for enjoyment and I would never pretend to force my preferences on anyone, I was merely expressing what they are. I want to think that if I play a Diana Krall song in my system and it sounds like what I heard in the concert in Brazil, then this is a good start. I don’t need nor do I want the ability to add more body to her voice to make it sound nicer to my ears. That’s just me.
Had an interesting reminder two years ago on the merits of live music, and the difficulties with reproducing it. Was dealing with some health issues, and while recovering, there was a common area where we would chat, play chess etc.
There was a guitar there, and one person played. By no means a virtuoso, but able to play and captivate.
I commented to the player that you had to spend a lot of money on a sound system to get anywhere near the experience of the sound we were experiencing there.
This was a cheap guitar, in a somewhat crappy room acoustically and yet, it sounded so real - because it was.
I'm not so much interested in the measurements, numbers or graphs as far as accuracy goes. But I am interested in reproducing the experience of that intimate sound.
Live events often give us pleasant memories. Sometimes, that live event is listening to the radio while driving with a love interest you just met. Wanting to experience those moments again is important to me.
Again, not so interested in charts and numbers, but I do want to have some kind of emotional resonance that connects back to the real moment.
And as we all have different memories and experiences, we have different interests when it comes to the sonic signatures of our systems.
Of course it is for one’s enjoyment. Who said otherwise? What some if you guys miss is the fact that, for some, when the reproduced sound gets as close as possible to the sound of real that is, in fact, when there is the most enjoyment. Enjoy your music any way you want. Me? I want realism.
"...I expect to hear what Miles Davis intended for me to hear..."
Did you know the tape machine was reported as running slow?
"...It is more important to like what you are hearing that for it to conform to some standard. Try it, you may indeed just like it..."
Thanx, That's what I am saying. Good or bad, it's all for your enjoyment. It's not a contest to see who can play Also sprach Zarathustra at music hall levels or who's system measures the flattest. .
"...unamplified acoustic performances remain the standard for judging how close our systems get to the sound of live."
@russ69 I've been to hundreds of shows. For me, I'm with Russ. It is more important to like what you are hearing that for it to conform to some standard. Try it, you may indeed just like it.
@glupson This is absolutely correct. More and more artists are getting involved in that process to ensure that their message is getting out as envisioned. Thanks for pointing that out.
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.
