There Is Nothing Like the Real Thing - Our State of the Art
This is a long expose’. My apologies in advance. Perhaps you will find it enjoyable or thought provoking. Perhaps you will find me in need of therapy.
I am lucky to live in the NYC suburbs that provide multifarious venues for all genres of music, dance, and theater within the inner city and beyond. There are the large venues (Carnegie Hall, Koch Theater, Metropolitan) but many smaller venues where ensembles perform. This weekend I attended a Fever Candlelight Concert of seasonal music at the St. Mark’s Episodical Church in Mount Kisco NY performed by the Highline String Quartet sitting about 25 feet from the performers in a warm acoustic environment. Much enjoyable. Vivaldi L’inverno evoked a tear. However, every time I come home from a live performance, I reflect on the state of the art of musical recording and playback, with feelings that as far as technology has advanced in the past 10 years, we are far off from the real thing. I have spent much time with $1mm systems at dealers and have curated a system within my means that focuses on timbre, dynamics, and image density, at least to my ears. But after listening to the real thing, I have the following observations:
1. Organic nature of reproduced music cannot approach the sweetness, liquidity, and palpability of the real thing. The real thing is detailed but never with harsh artifacts that I still hear even in $1mm systems. Massed orchestral strings is the best example of where the state of the art is getting better, but still far off from the sweetness and liquidity of the real thing.
2. Imaging and staging of reproduced music cannot approach the real thing. I find systems homogenizes the sound field and some separate the sound field images in excess compared to the real thing. When in a live venue, there images are distinct but the secondary harmonics from the instruments and the reflected sounds from the venue mix and diffuse the images in a manner that recorded and reproduced music cannot capture.
3. The dynamics of recorded and reproduced music have a different quality than the real thing. Dynamics is where the state of the art has much improved. Macro and microdynamics of systems I like are well reproduced. The difference I hear is that the leading edge of the real thing is powerfully evident but never harsh. It’s forceful and relaxed at the same time.
4. Many systems today produce vivid detail but in a manner different than the real thing. The way the bow, strings, and sounding board/body of the instrument develops and ripples out into the venue in an integrated manner is getting closer, but not yet there. This, combined with my comments on imaging/staging produce detailed sound that progresses from a point source outward in three dimensions. As an analogy, the detailed sound wave images progress into the venue like the visual image of a fireworks exploding in the sky. Recorded music playback is getting closer, but it’s not the real thing.
I believe the recording technology is most at fault. This belief stems from the fact that some recording labels consistently come closer to the real thing. For example, certain offerings from Reference Recordings, 2L, Linn, Blue Note, and Stockfish produce timbre, staging/imaging, and dynamics closer to the real thing. I do not understand recording engineering to understand why.
What are your observations on the state of the art compared to the real thing? For those technical competent, any explanation why we are not closer?
As you say we are at the mercy of what the recording engineers lay down, and that’s always an interpretation of the original event to some extent. Also, when you hear live music it’s often in a larger, open venue as opposed to our relatively smaller listening rooms, and the room has a huge impact on what we hear. Put a four-piece jazz band in your listening room and it’s gonna sound way different from how they sound in a jazz club. That said, I still really enjoy the sound my system produces in the context of my room even if it’s not quite as good as hearing the live event. It’s still good enough that it can, especially with good recordings, suspend disbelief that I’m not listening to a real performance, which is a main goal of hifi IMHO. |
The most expensive microphones are from 1940s~50's. They sound great. The world's best mic right now is Wavetouch mics. Yes. Finally, modern mics catch up the sound of those 80 years old mics. Wavetouch mic sound: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9couuLwOYLs Mic and speaker have a same topology. If one can make the best sound speaker, one can make the best mic too and vice versa. Wavetouch speaker: https://youtu.be/2ru4D-mOMdo?si=Lj8ZagayG11DqhWq Alex / wavetouch audio |
I think we are not closer because we are chasing the wrong thing. I go to lots of live concerts and have never heard the pinpoint imaging thing that many audio systems are tuned for. Really TAS caused this and took the focus off of tonality and saturation of tone, and the manufacturers then capitulated to get glowing reviews, IMHO. Not to say that many dont enjoy the effect, or that it does not enhance some folks pleasure of audio replay on the home. |
Thank you for your observations. I understand what you are saying. I think there are a lot of companies chasing different sound... as you have mentioned. Like you, I have spent a lot of time listening to live acoustic music, with the intent moving my system to reproduce natural musical sound. Some companies are trying to produce equipment that captures the gestalt and proportional sound quality of the real experience. Companies like Audio Research, Conrad Johnson, and Sonus Faber. if your objective is fidelity with the real thing, it can be approached very closely. But I think this is not the intent of most companies / users... it is often to "sound great" which varies enormously from person to person. |
I am going to create a product named Live Music Generator that will take any studio performance and elevate it to the level of a live performance. It consists of 12 bookshelf speakers randomly placed in the listening room. At random intervals, the sounds of a live performance are added to the studio recording. Here's a small sample:
Enjoy the show, and have a Merry Christmas all. |
If one looks at the steps of recording and playback, it seems a miracle that it can sound fairly real. But trying to chase “real” in one’s audio chain can be foolhardy if expectations aren’t realistic (poor recordings, difficult room..), it’s much better to chase personal subjective satisfaction. This isn’t some competition of reality vs high-end audio sonics, the later is simply a hobby - both can be enjoyed. |
@_dalek__ Spot on. Humorous but true. There should be on-the-spot expulsions for all of the above. Except if the fart is silent. |
I've tried everything. 6'-4" labyrinths in the listen room. Multiple subs. Monster amps. Even dozens of candle scents. But, listening to my Big Sounds of the Drags album at home doesn't duplicate the pavement pounding, eardrum-shattering SLP levels, nor the smell of burning rubber and spent nitro of the live performance at the drag strip. |
The OP’s questions are good, although ’the real thing’ is slippery. In this case it seems to apply mainly to acoustic music in good sounding concert halls, classical music perhaps. So what about rock for example? I go to rock concerts to get the live experience, the extra something beyond the recording and production in the studio. But for sound? Seldom. I rather listen to the best recordings and productions of the songs, in a good audio system, at home. In this case, "the real thing" is to reproduce the music as good as possible as it was recorded and produced. Usually in the studio. With increasing emphasis on production, from the mid 60s onwards. Not just a good recording, but production as part of the art. This means that you usually cannot hear "the real thing" in live setting. It exists only on the reproduction, the album or track. For example, I cannot hear I am the walrus, or Strawberry fields forever, in a concert, even if all the Beatles were alive and well today. What I can do, however, is to get such songs to sound as good and "real" as possible, compared to the intention - from the producers, engineers, and the artists involved. I use large bipole speakers (Audiokinesis Dream Makers) that excel in reproducing live concerts and a three dimensional sound, with very good timbre and tonality. Live recordings are often a joy. Still, for the best sound, I usually go to the studio albums. On a basic level I understand what the OP is talking about. I play a c flute, alto flute, and some guitar, often trying to play along with the music reproduced from my system. There is certainly a distance, between what I hear from the live instrument, and what I hear from the playback. Especially with the flute. Even if the distance is smaller, with the best recordings. |
I saw David Bowie in concert one time, at Meadowlands if I recall. Let's just say he lived up to his reputation as a terrible live performer. His band was mediocre; a couple of regulars and session guys showing up for the paycheck. Terrible arena acoustics. I was actually glad it was over. Later at home, I put Ziggy Stardust and the Spiders From Mars on the platter, lowered the tonearm, sat back, and soon everything was all right again. Just sayin
|
@viridian i whole heartedly agreed. TAS, especially its founding EIC Harry Pearson focused on pinpoint imaging. However, he also established a lexicon to describe timbre, tonality, and saturation of tone (what I was describing as image density and palpability). I have established a system to focus on exactly what you have identified. I tried to describe how I feel the sound stage of the real thing develops where the focus of an individual instrument is blurred by the primary harmonics of other instruments, secondary harmonics of the instrument, and venue acoustic reflections. I find the recordings by the 2L label are beginning to approach this on my system, as well as a few other labels. I find the much desired Mercury Living Presence somewhat exaggerated sound stage, but with timbre, tonality and saturation you speak. When I speak of the real thing I mean acoustic instruments, not amplified, such as a jazz ensemble or orchestra. This is where I believe the state of the art has room for improvement. Also realize pinpoint imaging is correct for many studio albums where performers are isolated in sound booths and engineers establish the mix. Here, the state of the art should permit us to hear the mix as imagined by the engineer. I feel this has been accomplished to the most part. |
@mark200mph, @noromance, @ronboco |
@waytoomuchstuff The drag strip is, truly, sensory overload. Ain't nothing like the smell of burned nitro mixing with the olfactory rush of deep fried turkey legs and burning rubber all swathed in 140 db of rampaging funny car. |
@acresverde I took a peak at your system post. Surprised at the synapse short circuit I caused based on the sophistication of your system. Horns not a fav of mine but your system and attention to detail lends me to conclude you know what you are doing and must be able to relate at some level to what I am saying. |
This is perhaps the most covered topic on REGs audio forum. (REG is Robert Greene, the longtime reviewer in TAS.) The two speakers which immediately wowed me as they had a live music vibe re their spaciousness, imaging and even tonality were the Spica TC-50 and Magnepans. (Being so relatively inexpensive, I own both.)
|
i dont understand how we could compare such different experiences which cannot be compared... Your location in a big Hall will determine for a big part everything... In your room your acoustics parameters and location... These 2 different experience can be valuable...But will remain forever different...
i am happy with my system ability and his limitations...Because i was in control of them not a victim...Nothing is more gratifying than to be responsible for a well tuned system/room... I will not compare my experience with my room /system to any lived experience... They differ too much positively and negatively at the same time with one another in respect to their advantages and inconvenience...
|
@saboros Bringing back memories of excellent products and transformative experiences. A friend had the TC-50s driven by top of the line Counterpoint electronics and sourced by a Sota Star Sapphire with a Gram tone arm and Koetsu Rosewood. Magic.
|
@_dalek__ +1 I hope to never reproduce the experience of my last few live music concerts. Incessant talkers/yelling, restless people constantly on the move, poor quality sound in poor sounding venues.
I don't understand how the live concert experience has become the de facto gold standard for listening to music. I've been attending live music performances for over five decades, some sound reinforced others not. I'd never want to reproduce at home the drivel vast majority of amplified concerts. On rare occasions volume is reasonable, sound quality fair, but then you have atrocious environmental noise levels. Acoustic or minimal sound reinforcement performances generally better on sound quality front, excessive environmental noise can still remain salient and bothersome for me. The idea visual senses also being stimulated at live events also underestimated or neglected altogether, this sometimes distracts my aural senses.
I much prefer the controlled environment of home listening vs live performance. |
to the OP …. quite astute… keep chasing and wondering and being blessed with a dearth of acoustic music in reverberant space… Loved and appreciated your 2L comments in my own field recording experience / experiment… the first introduction of distortion is microphone selection… there are no perfect transducers… quickly followed by microphone placement… then … , well you get the idea.. You can of course try a relatively simple and not terribly expensive sojourn down the path by hiring a small string ensemble to play in your listening room and capture using the affordable zoom recorder… |
