What is it I'm failing to grasp?


I come across statements here and elsewhere by guys who say 1) their systems come very close to duplicating the experience of hearing live music and 2) that they can listen for hours and hours due to the "effortless" presentation.  

I don't understand how these two claims add up. In tandem, they are profoundly inconsistent with my experiences of listening to live music. 

If I think about concerts I consider the best I've witnessed (Oregon, Solas, Richard Thompson, SRV, Dave Holland Quintet, '77 G. Dead, David Murray, Paul Winter Consort), I would not have wanted any of those performances to have extended much beyond their actual duration.

It's like eating-- no matter how wonderfully prepared the food, I can only eat so much-- a point of satiation is reached and I find this to be true (for me) when it comes to music listening as well. Ditto for sex, looking at visual art, reading poetry or playing guitar. All of these activities require energy and while they may feel "effortless" in the moment, I eventually reach a point where I must withdraw from aesthetic simulation.

Furthermore, the live music I've heard is not always "smoothly" undemanding. I love Winifred Horan's classically influenced Celtic fiddling but the tone she gets is not uniformly sweet; the melodies do not always resemble lullabies. The violin can sound quite strident at times. Oregon can be very melodious but also,(at least in their younger days) quite chaotic and atonal. These are examples on the mellower side of my listening spectrum and I can't listen to them for more than a couple hours, either live or at home. 

Bottom line: I don't find listening to live music "effortless" so I don't understand how a system that renders this activity "effortless" can also be said to be accurate.   

What is it that I'm failing to grasp, here?  


 

stuartk

Showing 15 responses by mahgister

It is not so much the system that can do it most of the times, save for very bad designed audio system who will fail to do it, it is ACOUSTIC treatment and especially acoustic control that can create imaging to an optimal level not the gear by itself save at a lower extent level... Even my system could produce " some " imaging in my uncontrolled room few years ago......

Imaging is an acoustic phenomemon resulting from the coupling of the system and the room and their pressure zones distributions interactions...Location of speakers and sound level coordination all along the frequencies range is necessary...Timing of the reflected and direct frontwaves is also a main factor especially in the front/back axis......

if my 500 bucks system can do it in the right acoustic environment then ANY relatively good system can do it...You claim that only three can do it among all the others you listen to ONLY exemplify the general lack of acoustic knowledge... For sure some high end design system are more able than others this is not the question , but any good system can give a tremendous imaging in the right acoustically treated and controlled room...

Then your opinion resulted from lack in acoustic experience and experiments...An electronic equalizer is not an acoustical tuning room device, it is a very limited tool...And you will never get timbre experience right with this tool only...

Very few systems are capable of doing this.

You are wrong here also for the simple reason that timbre is an acoustic subjectively PERCEIVED phenomema, a very complex one integrating in its BODY a time envelope and spectral envelope reflecting ALSO all the acoustic conditions of the room where the timbre experience is recorded or listened to from an acoustical perspective and from choices and location and not only from the vibrating bodies quality of the violin ...

Simple....

Then imaging is very easy to create compared to timbre NATURALNESS ... The acoustic information related to many instruments interaction in space is more easy to retrieve than the complex resonating body of ONLY one and of each one of these instruments in a specific room...It is also a less complex information than the information related to the timbre of the instrument... The acoustic content of a voice is more complex than his location information in space...is it not evident?

A bad timbre of piano is a timbre but the difficulty is to have it right...The same for imaging but it is impossible to have timbre naturalness without imaging conditions with it, it is very possible to create imaging by using time and reflective timing in a room and not succeeding to create a NATURAL timbre for the piano... Why?

Read about timbre envelope perception...A cue?

a violin will sound with different timbre experience in a bad room ...Timbre experience incorporated not only the vibration of the sound source qualities but also we perveive this resonating body of the violin in a particular RESONATING room...

The imaging is the easiest to get right to a RELATIVE extent to begin with...Timbre is the last to get right and the more important acoustical cue and ruler to tune a room...

Of the three the image is most definitely the hardest to get right.

You realize that this "feeling" experience prove nothing for sure because there is and there will be always a difference between a real event and his playback?

The "sound produced correctly" ?

The sound is an ACOUSTIC phenomenon perceived in a specific room , it is a TRANSLATION not a REPRODUCTION...

And imaging is not soundstage, it is not timbre perception , it is not dynamic, it is not listener envelopment ETC...There exist many others acoustical factors...

Why is imaging your main criteria?

Timbre experience with his time envelope and spectral envelope is the MAIN criteria in acoustic tuning of a room, not imaging ...It is very easy to have some imaging, very more difficult to have natural timbre  experience....

You can have SOME imaging perspective experience with an unnatural timbre, but you cannot have natural good timbre experience with bad imaging , Guess why ? If you know something about acoustic ?

A clue: spectral envelope and time envelope of the Timbre phenomenon.... 😁😊

@stuartk, to me it is all about the feeling and the image. Those are the characteristics of live music that are hardest to reproduce.

The feeling is the sound, produced correctly.

An effortless audio system can only means that the gear will not clip at a power demand for me...

And efforless listening in a controlled room will reveal all recording, if the trumpet is distorted or violin too strident you will hear it...

An "effortless listening" system by itself  or by design which will erase all "defects" of a lived recording or studio one, is less effortless than witouth the required quality design ...

It is a controlled room that make any system "effortless" because all is there even with bad recordings...

 

 

Thanks it feel good to be understood when most audio thread are filled with people who dream about  increasing the gear price tag of their acquisition budget completely ignoring the basic fundamental knowledge about sound : acoustic and psycho-acoustic...

But buying and plugging dont ask for brain work....

@mahgister :

The distinction you draw between "reproduction" and "translation" makes a lot of sense, as does your assertion that "acoustic and psychacoustic experience cannot be reduced to, replaced by electronic engineering".

 

 

 

There is no perfect or complete identification relation between a live event and his playback recorded listening experience...They will stay 2 different experiences FOREVER....

One cannot be reduced to the other, and the playback experience cannot reproduce the event... Only some translated take of the recording engineer trade-off choices which is the original lingo from which a translation will be possible in your room "speech"......

Each time what is presented to be a REPRODUCTION of the lived event by consumers electronic design marketing conditioning, is in fact a TRANSLATION through the speakers/ room acoustic in your house of the choices made by the recording engineer... And these choices are translated in your own room acoustic idiom.....

Why?

Because acoustic and psycho-acoustic experience cannot be reduced to and cannot be replaced by electronic engineering...

Save if some want to sell UPGRADING piece to be the ONLY access to high fidelity instead of the more important acoustic education...

In a one sentence: there is a lost of information with the recording process and a lost of information with the limitation of your room... You can optimize your room by acoustic treatment and control by acoustic devices...

Upgrading any piece of gear can improve in some way but cannot replace acoustic at all...The reverse is possible, acoustic control can made upgrade meaningless...Because of S.Q. /price ratio of the piece of gear and his qualitative limited impact compared to acoustic OPTIMIZATION ...

 

If you cannot figure out acoustic then forget figuring out  geopolitic... 😁😊

 

 

«Do you really think that acoustic can explain Ukraine invasion ? »-Groucho Marx 🤓

 

The goal of our audio journey is not to REPRODUCE PERFECTLY a live event : it is impossible...

I am not sure I agree…

One goal might be to reproduce the output of a playback system to match the input,

On the input side, a goal might be to capture the SPL to a file or track as accurately as possible

If both of those are done well, then the output from the speakers will be the same as the performance.

This is possible ONLY if you can adapt the room acoustic feature, geometry, topology and material content to the speakers specific characteristics....

 

Sorry but unamplified live music is important because it is related to an experience of the lived TIMBRE subjective experience of an instrument

I am not sure how phase and polarity affect timbre, but I assume it might.
Heance I would like the output SPL to be matching the recording… and a direct mic into a file without phase alteration and polarity flips, seems optimal. If the engineer can just do what (s)he wants, then all bets are off.

How would the recording affect the Timbre?
And how would amplified music affect the Timbre?

For sure phase and polarity matter and even the noise floor level in your house, and the vibrations and resonance problem with the audio system and other factors as well... Who say the opposite?

Everything will affect timbre perception in your own system and in your room....like all trading choices of the recording engineer will affect Timbre experience in your to begin wiith... Timbre experience is a natural event coming from a sound source which is SUBJECTIVELY evaluated by location and the listener hearing history...There is NO PERFECT ABSOLUTELY OBJECTIVELY ACCURATE timbre experience by definition...

An electric guitar also have a timbre, but when i tuned my room acoustic i was using what i know very well for one million years : voice and choral timbre...

If the voice sound right in your room the electrical guitar will sound right, the reverse is not true... Guess why?

All listening experiments in the electrical, mechanical and acoustical dimensions must be evaluated by the TIMBRE perception value : natural like or artificial...

I am not sure I would trust an “evaluation” when one can compute the fit between, say, two different tracks.

Report this

i dont spoke about OBJECTIVE evaluation here, i spoke about the subjective evaluation of someone TUNING his own room to be able to perceive the more "natural" timbre perception possible... OBJECTIVE acoustic devices and measures CORRELATED to a SUBJECTIVE evaluation PROCESS...

 

The only RELATIVE OBJECTIVE factor in evaluating sound quality is about a specfic speakers/room relation related to your own listening experiments with your own TRAINED ears with acoustic in your own room...nothing else....There is no objective factor unrelated to a subjective evaluation because it is YOUR room tuning experiment...

I never tried to reach a perfect REPRODUCTION of what the sound engineer created in his studio, i tried to make the sound the more natural possible in my own room...Unamplified instrument or voice timbre memory guided me...

Naturalness refer to unamplified instrument because anybody can have a rough idea about a piano or a voice timbre or a guitar timbre...

No one can tune a room with only amplified studio heavily modified music....Guess why ?

 

 

Sorry but unamplified live music is important because it is related to an experience of the lived TIMBRE subjective experience of an instrument, in many different acoustic location in a room or in a huge theater...

The goal of our audio journey is not to REPRODUCE PERFECTLY a live event : it is impossible...

The goal is to TRANSLATE the recording engineer choices and trade-off in our own acoustic treated and controlled room environment in the more possible natural way...

The standard meter to evaluate our failure or success is TIMBRE perception which must be the more natural possible...

For that we must have an experience of a real piano or voice sound in many acoustic environment and locations...

And studio modified popular music is of no help here, voice, guitar, or piano or trumpet or cymbal UNAMPLIFIED are great help to give us some acoustic cues about what and how a "natural" timbre soundexperience must be like...

If we dont get TIMBRE sound right, any other acoustic features will not be of any help and cannot be optimized without optimization of the timbre parameters first anyway....Because in the room the spectral and time envelope of the timbre sound is recreated with all the room acoustic settings and content UNDER CONTROL, and these other acoustic factors like imaging, soundstage, listener envelopment etc, are directly linked and related to an accurate timbre perception evaluation experience...

All listening experiments in the electrical, mechanical and acoustical dimensions must be evaluated by the TIMBRE perception value : natural like or artificial...

This is acoustic experiments  not an opinion about uneducated  taste in gear or sound....

 

I have always had an issue with the "live unamplified music" being the gold standard. As mentioned in previous posts, a lot depends on the venue, where one is sitting, etc.

The way music is recorded is the choices and trade-off of the recording engineers...

No way you can improve on his choices, you can only make his choices blurry and meaningless...Or you can make his choices evident....

Only the acoustic control of your room will make his choices revelatory...

Not the branded name of your gear by itself  nevermind their  cost ...

One million dollars system in a bad room is a bad system nothing else...

Sorry....

how is music supposed to be recorded?

with 2 microphones about 10 rows deep or ..

with a separate mic for the high hats, each cymbal, each drum, the cow bell, etc...

 

 

Reproducing killing decibels live rock music ask for that for sure...

But not listening to choral music or piano...

Array of subs i dont need for sure...Audiophile experience in s small room dont need array of subs...

This illustrate the difference between some music need and some other music need...

This illustrate also my opinion about the correlation between level of consciousness experience related to pattern of sounds and sound level ...

I say that without "elitist" judgment, for example a Dyonysiac collective rock experience ceremony is not a buddhist temple almost silent gong listening.... None is superior or inferior to the other, but these 2 illustrate complete different level of conscious experiences...

Sound is powerful and music too to convey all the levels of possible ecstasy ...

The question is which type of ecstasy appeal  to you the most? Piano and choral music for me...

I wish I could figure out a way to do it for less but I can not and given the inflationary pressure that is on us it is only going to get more expensive. It takes powerful amplifiers, line source speakers and a lot of subwoofers.

 

Great post!...

Voices are my meter unit measuring system impression ... Choral is like piano difficult to have it right...

Voice recognition is our ONLY programmed by evolution survival acoustic recognizing imperative....Music comes with it not without it....Voice is a MEANINGFUL sound and is treated by other paths of the brain than meaningless sound because voices must be prioritary recognized on two level: physical sound  and semantic recognition  ...

nice new study out using brain implants…different part of the brain lights up with singing…. One of my cherished references is unamplified small to medium chorale in a reverberant space captured w a simple Decca tree….

An audiophile without a dedicated listening room is like an olympic runner limited to a wheelchair...I exagerate here yes, but my point is not untrue...

Most people not knowing this prefer to buy 100,000 speakers than buying a dedicated acoustic room created for a specific speakers pair ... Guess why?

It is more easy to do buying and plugging......And writing a review for an audio magazine...After that unplugging the speakers an buying another one pair and writing another review... Ad infinitum...

This is called audio for most... For me it is consumers ignorance....

Acoustician generally dont upgrade.... Why?

Being easy to listen to may mean to some that it has a built in loudness curve, so it's easy to listen to even at low volumes or it may mean being very smooth, with no exaggeration.  Not something I attribute to live music honestly.

Great post indeed.... Thanks....

I learned only one thing in my audiophile experience : acoustic is the key not price tag or gear marketing rethoric.......

I will never read any marketing gear rethoric anymore till my death... 😁😊

Way more interesting to read about acoustic science anyway...

 

The acoustic of my small room is better than most acoustical settings of ordinary theater or ordinary musical scene anyway....

Save for very sophisticated amphitheater, all my listening experience are better presented for me in my room...Especially if the recording is very good for sure...

In many case my experience in my small room is more INTIMATE than from a seat location in the amphitheater where the opera was originally recorded...in some case i am on the theater scene WITH the singers....

Who say better?

A 500 bucks system with an acoustically controlled room for sure...

There is no REPRODUCTION of a lived event... It is an IDEAL.... There exist only concrete TRANSLATION from acoustic cues chosen trade off of the recording engineer to another set of acoustic cues in your room.... I dont even spoke about the specific electronic of your chosen system here which will add differences also...

Marketting consumers gear publicity is not REALITY, it is rethorical means to sell....

Lived event are SPECIFIC  lived event related to seat location for example....Playback system in a small room are another thing....

I prefer my room to most lived event for many reasons, save for the personal touch with some favorite artists which cannot be given by any playback system at any cost anyway....

Bottom line: I don’t find listening to live music "effortless" so I don’t understand how a system that renders this activity "effortless" can also be said to be accurate. What is it that I’m failing to grasp, here?

I like my audio system BECAUSE it does not reproduce live music but translate it in my room acoustic conditions and for my ears..

Yes the timbre of an instrument must be the more natural possible, but in no way a system can reproduce exactly lived event, all system translate it with different success and with different cues on different aspect coming from different recording methods and trade-off choices in each case anyway ...

All acoustic art is to accomodate the speakers/ small room to your own ears liking...

I never compared my audio system to a live event...

No comparison for me at all....

I prefer listening alone in my room save for some rare lived artist genius event....I will pay for sure to see Kathleen Ferrier singing...

...

Then i think the same as you....

By the way a sound appearing "natural" to some ears is not a sound ONLY allegedly "accurately" recorded which is an IDEAL only, but it is a sound also alledgedly "accurately" TRANSLATED in your room acoustic settings and with a specific gear system, which is also an IDEAL  NEVER a complete successful enterprise on ALL counts, especially in complex small room...

Most people boast about their gear and dont understand acoustic anyway....