2. speakers
  3. 138847-2227

What Characteristic Strikes You First About Un-amplified Music?

Folks,

If we were to all just list the aspects of live acoustic sounds that it would be nice to have re-created in our system, I’m sure we could come to much (though not total) agreement that live sound has those characteristics. But the list I’m looking for is one of order: what characteristics seem primary to your own perception?

So with this in mind, the question is: when you actually hear a live person singing or speaking, or a live instrument being played - e.g. sax, acoustic guitar, drums, violin, etc - and compare it to what you are used to in reproduced sound, what aspect of the live sound impresses you most?

Today when I went for lunch there was a guy playing tenor sax on the sidewalk. He was playing in the quiet Stan Getz style. As I often do, I stopped, closed my eyes and pondered "what is it that, with eyes closed, I’m hearing that I just don’t seem to hear when I’m in front of an audio system, eyes, closed, with the same instrument playing?"

And it’s almost always the same thing that sticks out to me: How LARGE the sound is of the real instrument. Even played at really quiet levels, the sax had a presence that was just BIG, and full, and rich, and just expanded to fill the surroundings so easily. So much body to the sound. In comparison, saxophone through the majority of sound systems is like a diminished, squeezed down, reductive toy-version of the real thing.

I experience the same when encountering, say, someone playing violin. It just sounds so much bigger, fuller, richer, thicker than their reproduced counterparts. Even when the player moves to the upper strings and plays the higher notes, the sound does not thin-out and become wiry as it does on a sound-system, it remains big, room filling, bold.

This is why, for me, I’m always impressed when I hear a speaker system that gives some of that thickness and richness to the sound of voices and instruments - for instance how I perceive this quality in certain wide-baffle bigger box speakers. (Though that quality isn’t the whole shooting match, which is why that isn’t my only criteria).

It’s also why I’ve gravitated to tube amps that I perceive to add that extra bit of body, roundness, richness. (I have Conrad Johnson tube amps). Even a nudge in the direction of added body is welcome.

So that’s the first thing that strikes me - it just hits me whether I’m looking for it or not. Others on the list of live voice/instruments can depend more on what I’m concentrating on. One big one is a timbral/organic quality. I often close my eyes when someone is talking nearby and listen to the quality of their voice. The thing that hits me right off is "that just doesn’t sound like any amplified voice I’ve heard." There is an immediately recognizable "human, organic" timbre to the voice that seems distinct from the electronic recreations through speakers - one is made of flesh and blood, the other of electronics, speaker drivers, etc.

Other aspects that hit me about live instruments are: richness in timbral complexity and ’effortless’ detail, in the sense that detail seems so smooth, just ’there to be heard into as deeply in to it as I want to listen, but not hyped." There is a rainbow of timbral complexity to a live band or orchestra that is homogenized in reproduced music. Then there is the solidity and acoustic "presence" - the "thereness" of a real voice or instrument moving acoustic energy in the room so you just perceive a solid object making the sound. This is different from the more airy, see-through imaging in many sound systems, and why I really desire density and palpability in my sound system.

 And...of course...dynamics. I guess that one seems so obvious I left it for last, but we all have the experience of hearing a drum set being played and just instantly recognizing the life-force behind it, that you typically don’t get in reproduced sound.

So, back to my original question of what characteristics of live voices and instruments stand out to you, in comparison to most reproduced sound?


prof
18 responses Add your response
Post removed 
mapman's avatar
mapman
22,295 posts
 
Nothing specific really.   I find when things are going right,  what I hear  is more a function of the room I'm listening in, where I am in it relative to the source of sound ( which determines the "perspective" on the music, something not often talked about in hifi for various reasons),  and the quality and nature of the recording.  Each recording captures its subject material in a unique way that largely determines what you might hear  or not.  
rego
378 posts
 
The quality of the sound when generated outdoors!
rodman99999
6,158 posts
 
Outside of adding the ability to hear the room, given a well designed/executed venue, adding, "and feeling" to , "hearing a drum set being played" and being able to listen to horns, all the way back to the reed/mouthpiece/lips, I'd say you've covered the focuses I find essential.   Cary tubed main amps, here.  Happy listening!
cd318
2,636 posts
 
Live sounds sounds alive, living, breathing, unpredictable, punchy, dynamically quick, immediate, dramatic and localised to a point of origin. 

Timbrally, every sound, every voice is distinct from another. 

Reproduced sound is like a photograph of a real thing. It always asks for some level of suspension of disbelief.

geoffkait's avatar
geoffkait
23,365 posts
 
It sounds like a good hi fi system.
Post removed 
tomic601's avatar
tomic601
12,913 posts
 
Great post Prof

ignore the people who think we are already there....

i listen to live unamplified music pretty pretty much every week
but I will say my ears were opened when I built and started using a mobile recording setup - listening to microphone feeds will clue you in to coloration and losses at the first few critical steps in the chain...

i invested in both analog and digital rigs not to fuel the debate but to educate myself

finally I think 2L does some amazing work 

enjoy the music !!!
tomic601's avatar
tomic601
12,913 posts
 
I will disagree on localized to point of origin especially with violin in a fantastic venue like Benaroya... it is diffuse and floats about the stage ethereal and with a dripping sweetness....,

small club jazz jazz trio unamplified at hyper localized happens

helomech
1,687 posts
 
Regarding acoustic instruments - the decay. 
jon_5912
605 posts
 
I've certainly found that a lot of instruments don't image that well live.  I assume it's because they are directional so the way they are held can result in the sound beaming in various directions, bouncing off boundaries making it hard to tell where they're coming from.
prof OP
3,474 posts
 

There certainly are a lot of variables in live sound. But I have to say the impression I have of the bigger sound from live instruments is very consistent almost no matter where I’m hearing them - be it inside, or outside, close or further away.

As for imaging, I’ve always been puzzled by people who say "imaging doesn’t really happen in real life" the usual example being orchestras.

But I’m sure this impression depends on where we like to sit. I’ve always favoured closer, main floor seating to orchestras and often close my eyes. I find the imaging quite precise. Not "etched" of course, but certainly very easy to point directly to any source of sound.  (And I still find that even from further seats, orchestras continue to "image" quite well).

I think the fact I like closer seating also influences my desire for a system to be able to produce an impression of timbral variety. Sitting closer to instruments (again, an orchestra for reference) tends to highlight the detailed differences in their tone, timbre, materials vs the more homogenizing effects of further seats with more hall sound. So I tend to like music somewhat more closely mic’d than many others might. Another influence is probably not only live sound, but my love of soundtracks. Bernard Herrmann’s music, for instance, tends to be closely mic’d - spotlighting instruments and sections - so you get a really visceral sense of presence and texture which I enjoy.


bdp24's avatar
bdp24
9,816 posts
 

Yes, imo many speakers create a miniaturized, doll house-sized version of instruments, especially big ones---grand pianos in particular. And many also make the music sound as if it is being squeezed through the speaker enclosure, the analogy being a couple of bricks missing in a wall, the sound created on the other side coming through those holes.

Then there is the difference in "physicality" between live and reproduced; live music is heard not just by our ears, but by our bodies. Hi-Fi speakers sound eviscerated compared with life music, robbing it of much of it's low-frequency foundation and weight.

Reproduced music is also often missing the immediacy and presence of live, it's startling transient "snap" and dynamics. Horn and electrostatic loudspeakers are known to excel in providing those elements of live sound, as is the Decca/London phono cartridge.

noble100's avatar
noble100
2,419 posts
 
     I agree with bdp24 that live music is not only heard but felt by our bodies.  To me, it was more of a physical experience  than listening to my system at home.
     Music I listen to live consists mainly of small acoustic or minimally amplified ensembles playing rock, blues, jazz and various fusions.  I listen to similar music on my home system  and recreating that visceral live experience in my home system has been a goal.of mine for awhile.    
     I've always enjoyed the euphonic, tonally rich, 3D and life-like sound qualities I perceived in my music through tubes (mainly tube VTL preamp with NOS Mullards) but found I perceive the same qualities in my music now using a pair of good class D amps without the tubes.
     I don't know for certain but I suspect many tube amps would  have difficulty recreating the impressive dynamic range of many high resolution  music sources due to their technical limitations in dynamic range capacity and power output.
     I agree with others on this thread that fast transients, 'presence' which I correlate to detail levels and wide dynamic ranges are important ingredients in live music.  Class D amplification and high-resolution music files recorded direct to digital have been a very good combination in this regard for reproduction in my system since both have very low distortion, are highly detailed with very high dynamic range capabilities.  
     I believe that accurate,detailed and solid bass response with powerful dynamic capacities is another critical ingredient of live music that needs to be present in any home system trying to recreate the perception of live music.  I'm referring to bass sounds such as a solid kick drum strike that you hear and also feel in the center of your chest.
     However, I've discovered it's more difficult and expensive to attain a reasonably good facsimile of live music bass response than midrange/treble response.  I now use a 4 sub distributed bass array system for bass response in my system that approaches live music quality in tonal accuracy, detail, impact and dynamic range. 
     I'm not claiming my system sounds exactly like live music, just a reasonably good facsimile that I consider enjoyable.  
Tim 
cd318
2,636 posts
 
Two great points, decay and imagery. I love the natural decay you often get with live sound but not often with reproduced.

As for imagery, I kind of feel cheated when I'm listening to live sound, say a solo piano, and the imagery is vague and diffuse. Can't help thinking, my hi-fi has more precise and focused imaging than that!

Now I think about, it's true that live instruments do usually sound bigger than recorded their counterparts, certainly through most box loudspeakers. Probably to a lesser extent through giant horns or panels though. 

Good post, gets you wondering whether it's a facsimile of live sound that you want or are just simply in search of some lost, imagined (even unattainable?) fantasy or memory of something heard long ago.  
soix
9,540 posts
 
I've actually thought a lot about this too.  I play in a band so I've had some time to reconcile what I hear when we play live versus a good recording of a live performance.  Obviously the quality of the recording will make a huge difference, so let's just take that as a given along with the fact that electronics and listening rooms play a huge roll in what we hear as well.  I'm focusing on speakers here mainly because ultimately that's what couples the music to the space we're listening in.  A couple of my observations:

- Live, unamplified instruments emit sound in all directions -- front, back, up, down, etc. -- but not necessarily at the same volume level in all directions.  These sounds continue to expand into space and mix together into the "ether" of the room in a complex fashion along with reflecting off the room boundaries and the things in it. 

- The majority of dynamic cone box speakers primarily emit sound in a forward direction.  Some have a rear-facing driver or two.  Then there are dipole planar, ribbon, dynamic cone designs that mostly propel sound both forward and backward at similar volume levels.  Then there are a few omnidirectional designs that send out sound in all directions. 

My thoughts have mainly focused on how these two observations come together as sound reproduction in a listening room.  I find traditional cone speakers can do a good job of capturing the heft and dynamics of a live performance, and those with rear-firing driver(s) can produce an added sense of spatiousness and atmosphere.  But these designs (except for a larger line array types) don't always capture the size and scale of a performance, and they often portray individual instruments, vocals, etc. in a very well-defined but relatively small size.  Like some mentioned above, this is not how instruments image in a live setting -- probably because their sound continues to radiate outward in all directions. 

The dipole planar and ribbon designs, conversely, can do a good job capturing scale and project individual images in a larger way like in a live setting, but they often cannot project the full dynamic force and heft that cone drivers seem to do better.

I haven't heard too many dipole cone speakers, but I'd guess this design falls somewhere between the other two by adding some heft but lacking some scale.  And I've only heard one omnipolar design at a show, and it was an uber-expensive MBL.  It sounded great.  Maybe the closest thing I've heard to a live performance, but it's an exceedingly small sample. 

I'm not sure we'll ever fully capture the total experience of a true live and unamplified performance.  But at the same time, I marvel at how much of it good systems can capture and portray.  I once read that a theoretically perfect speaker driver design would be like some plasmatic orb, which kinda makes sense and maybe why the MBLs sounded like they did.  

Where I am currently given all this?  Hell I don't know.  I was 90% sure I'd end up with Joseph Audio, Vandersteen, or ProAc speakers -- all of which I love -- for a long time.  Now, largely because of this "live" sound issue I'm thinking more along the lines of something like a Nola (not sure the omnis I can afford will suffice).  But here's one thing I'm 100% sure of -- whatever speakers I ultimately choose, I will also have at least two high-quality subwoofers.  Having heard good, properly set up subs in several systems, I find them to provide a good dose of the "ether" of a live room that I find absolutely essential.  With the subs disengaged, the sound goes flat and a lot of the "liveness" disappears.  Anyway, I've gone on way too long.  Sorry.  Nice thread @prof 
prof OP
3,474 posts
 

Excellent stuff, soix!

As it happens, I'm both a fan of Joseph Audio (was planning on the Perspectives) AND I own MBL 121 radialstrahler speakers!  (And Thiels, and others...) .  So I have a bit of experience comparing these things.

As for live vs reproduced, the "does it sound live from outside the room" test is always interesting.  For one thing, it's easier to get the sensation that a live player is coming from the sound system from outside the room than from sitting in front of the speakers.   That's because (I surmise) of various factors that make two stereo speakers producing the sensation of a live object in front of you is more challenging given the way stereo information departs from reality, and also when we are directly in front of the speakers there are actually MORE tells that it's reproduced.

In contrast, outside the room you are getting essentially a "mono" signal coming from the room (say, even for a single sax), which is the sound of the speaker combined with the room.   So I find, for instance, often if I play a track with a single well-recorded instrument it can sound fairly convincing, eyes closed, in front of the speakers, but even more so from outside the room played at the right volume level.

Still, though I've used this "does it sound real from outside the room" test many times over the years, certainly not all speakers have sounded equally realistic.

The absolute champ has been my MBL 121 omnis.  I have recordings of, for instance, me playing acoustic guitar, and recordings of my son practicing saxophone.  When I play those through the MBLs and listen from outside the room, it's uncannily convincing.  I've fooled a couple of people with it (who thought my son was in there playing sax).  The MBLs also hold up probably the best in terms of realism when sitting in front of them as well.   

There's a fabulously well recorded album:  Requiem for a Pink Moon: An Elizabethan Tribute to Nick Drake

Which includes a number of Nick Drake tunes played on Elizabethan instruments and in that vocal style.   If you want to hear vocals naturally recorded, in a natural sounding acoustic, I think it's hard to do better.

When I play those tracks with eyes closed on various speakers it's always amazing.  My big Thiel 3.7s in particular sounded incredibly authentic.   But when I play it on my MBLs it just leaps to another level over any regular box speaker.  All those "tells" that the sound is coming from speakers in any direction sense disappear and the acoustic melts in to the room, with dimension and acoustics that seems to stretch realistically "behind" the singers in a way that doesn't with normal box speakers.   It's the most realistic vocal presentation I personally have encountered.  Even the Harbeth speakers I owned, which were suitably renowned for vocals, could not provide that last iota of realism the MBLs seem to provide.


wolf_garcia
6,704 posts
 
I was mixing an acoustic guitar concert at a club with all the normal bar ambient noise, although during the show the crowd (mostly) stops talking...the goal during the soundcheck is always to get a sound the performer likes so they’re happy and comfortable when performing, so it’s not simply my opinion affecting the sound of the show. The show was a success, sounded great, no problemo...until a grumpy older dude comes up to me after the show and says something like, "I don’t know why you need to amplify the guitar so much, I saw Andres Segovia at at Carnegie Hall and he was un-amplified." Uh...OK...
Log in to respond
More to discover
80x80
TAD TAD-CE1TX-K
80x80
Wilson Audio Sasha
- Obsidian Black on Black Trim - Recert w/ 3 Yr War.
80x80
PSB Synchrony T-600