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?
"I can listen to my system all day long. I'm not at concert levels but it is totally satisfying and engaging. If you can't listen to your system for at least a few hours, you have a problem" Well, you may be right. However, what I'm questioning just now is whether a system that can be listened to all day long can be truthfully said to accurately duplicate the sound of live music. Personally, I wouldn't want to listen to live music all day long. |
"You do understand that not everyone necessarily thinks like you do right? That's the only thing that I can see you might be missing." I get that others don't think like me. I'm trying to understand how it is they think. But as this "thinking" is deeply influenced by "hearing", and I cannot hear as another hears, it would appear that the above effort is not likely to bear fruit. Thanks for helping me clarify this !
|
"For a stereo system, effortless... could mean 2 different things. Either:
I was using the term "effortless" consistent with your first definition. I've experienced the second definition in my system and in others-- no confusion about that!
|
@kahlenz : "Listening to music is not effortless for me. I must be intellectually and emotionally engaged to, at least, some extent. I have to, and want to, think about it." For me, emotional engagement is absolutely key. "Playing music in the background is not the same as listening to music (as I define it). Maybe I could characterize it as "hearing" music, or background noise. I usually find it distracting, and often unpleasant" I agree. Yes! This is why house concerts are so wonderful-- no amplification required! The natural sounds of acoustic instruments reflect centuries of evolution and refinement as humankind is compelled by forces beyond our control to make music. Once you get amplifiers and speakers involved, it is harder for me to totally surrender to it (a good reproduction system can get you there to some degree, but it is a compromise). Well, when I'm in the mood, I can certainly surrender to electric music. Not if the SQ is harsh/fatiguing, though. And I can listen to acoustic music for much longer than electric music. My wife and I have pretty much stopped attending Rock shows because as you say, there are many non-musical aspects that we find seriously detract from experiencing the music-- which is our main concern. I'm not sure whether any of the handful of Dead shows I attended were "transcendent"-- blame the "recreational distractions". The 77 Santa Barbara show was probably pretty good, given that was a good year. I can relate. "...maybe acompanied by a measure of 12 yeard old Scotch and and a bowlful of psychoactive plant material. When I am done listening, I'll turn the stereo off and go do something else". I don't indulge anymore but whatever works for you... |
"A live performance is just that. Anything can happen, hopefully what is suppose to happen does. It is a "Performance". Reproduction on the other hand is tailored to the crew that mixed it and then what you think it should sound like. Different people at the dials. I gave up on live unless I know the band" Well said, sir! . |
Thanks for that clarification. I keep the sound below 70dB on my spl meter. Much below that (cd volumes vary) and the SQ suffers. I have monitors in a living room that's open to both an adjoining dining room and an adjoining entry that is partially open to loft space, above. Ceilings are on the high side. I would prefer floor-standers but furniture arrangement precludes them and subs as well. My impression is that the monitors need to be turned up sufficiently to pressurize the rooms.
|
"Well you can’t listen to everything that comes out of some people’s mouths . Even audiophiles. 😉 However live music serves as a frame of reference. You can’t aim for the target until you know where it is. One may never hit the target exactly dead center perfect but you can get pretty close most of the the time if you really know what you are doing and you have a decent recording to start with."
Makes sense ... although I'm not sure I "really know what [I'm] doing" ! |
"Curiously, even live rock concerts and program albums will sound the best (to my ears) when a system is highly optimized for classical music." I'd never heard this before. A pity, then, that I'm not a fan of Classical! I do listen to much more acoustic music than electric, though. "...as relating to hifi systems, to me a really good system should succeed at both delivering smooth soothing beautiful music most of the time..." Excellent points but re: # 3, above, I'm confused. I'm sure we can agree that all music is not designed to be sweet/soothing/beautiful. I'd be very surprised if what you are suggesting is that the measure of a good system is its capacity for presenting all music in a sweet/soothing/beautiful manner. That would be the definition of extreme euphony, no? Sorry if I'm missing something obvious, here. "Most systems can not duplicate a live performance. They lack the power and bass performance to pull it off. There is also a tendency towards shrillness and sibilance due to poor control of high frequency resonance. Paul McCandless's oboe is a perfect example. In person it is smooth as silk, no pain at all. This is not the case with most of the system's I have heard including many of the systems in my past." Always nice to "meet" a fellow Jazz fan! For the reasons you cite above, I use a Schiit Lokius EQ. I have no idea whether my settings render the music closer or further away from how it sounded, live. I just aim to please my ears. And I hate fatiguing highs! I would like more weight and density in my system. That may require a major DAC upgrade which I can't afford at present. So you're saying there's nothing wrong with me or my system if I don't spend more time listening? Works for me!
|
"Went to live performance of Beach House over the weekend. I came away with the feeling I'm spoiled by my home system. And this is the exact sentiment I've had with all live performances I've experienced in last four or five years". I had to leave the last live Jazz performance I attended early because the music was so loud and fatiguing! I complained to the sound man and he said he was only following the instructions the group had given him at the sound check. This was an all acoustic group called The Cookers with multiple horns and the sound was more abrasively painful than anything I'd ever experienced at any Rock show.
|
"Live: listening to Pat Methany or Dave Brubeck sons at the Lobero in Santa Barbara is vastly different from listening to Santana in Las Vegas or at the Microsoft theater." Agreed. I heard P. Metheny at the Lobero in the mid 70's. S. B. was a music-lover's paradise in that decade ! " I guess what I’m trying to say is, if you are listening to un amplified music, isn’t that the true sound that one would be trying to reproduce? Because anything amplified, now the guitar amp, mic choices, and PA system plays such a big part of what you would hear live. " Sure. But to play devil's advocate, even if a performance solely utilizes acoustic instruments with no amplification, each venue sounds different, acoustically. Furthermore, the sound in any venue will vary according to where each audience member is sitting and regardless of location, each member will perceive sound uniquely. Which person is hearing the "true sound"?
|
"Unless you listen to classical music and the rare Jazz or Pop/Rock album, most recordings are designed to NOT be a recording of a live event. In fact, since they are multi-tracked and multi-layered, there are capturing a performance that never existed in the physical world. They represent something the artist or producer decided they wanted you to hear." Good point! "So the bottom line is you buy a system that pleases your ears and brain, nothing more". To me, this is reality. I suppose if I had unlimited money, I could chase "fidelity". That's not gonna happen, so focus on pleasing my ears, in my room. "Is it the same as "live"? Nah. But it can be compelling, sound like real instruments particularly when the arrangements are spare". Yeah. I was listening to "Let It Bleed" yesterday and everything sounded more real on tracks like "Love In Vain", due to the more spare instrumentation, than on the purely electric cuts. "Live music reference point sort of a straw man. But what else are you going to use as a comparison? The radio? Another person's system? Dealer's? Forum opinions?" I gave up attending live music long ago for various reasons so all I have are my ears. I don't buy anything I can't demo in my room and return if necessary. "Bottom line for me is quality over quantity in a listening session" Can't argue with that ! The "live" hope for audiophiles tends to be towards more jazz and classical music" Yeah. Jazz and various acoustic styles Newgrass/Folk/Singer-songwriter/Celtic comprise the bulk of my listening. "I think a lot of the difference is just sheer sound volume." Excellent point! I appreciate your comments and, I think perhaps you misunderstood me. . . or perhaps I did not express myself clearly. What seems paradoxical to me is claiming 1) one's system displays high fidelity (accuracy in reproducing the source) while 2) offering as "proof' the fact that one can listen to the system all day. I may be mistaken but it seems to me that the above is not possible. Either all the music one is listening to on such a system is extremely well recorded or the system itself is "smoothing out" the sound of the recording. However, it may well be that there is no paradox here with very costly systems and that I simply haven't heard a good enough system. |
"I often find myself searching for recordings that make my system sound better. I think I might be attracted to recordings that make my system sound best rather than the songs themselves". This was true for me years ago and it felt like "the tail wagging the dog". Now, that's not the case and my system is much more revealing than it was, then. I accept that there are some CDs I simply can't enjoy due to recording/mastering choices but I no longer feel like my listening choices are determined by what sounds best on my system. "I should think that all this audio gear is to try to reproduce a recording, not a performance. You can't get closer to any 'performance' than what the producer/engineers provide for you on the source. The closest you can get is to hear it the way that they wanted you to hear it." Makes sense.
|
"ain’t no such thang those that pursue 'accuracy' etc etc are just fooling themselves but once you free yourself of that notion, and pursue what sounds right to oneself, then the fun begins..". Thanks for the affirmation of common sense! This has been and will continue to be, my approach.
@dgluke : "In other words, you might be comparing vastly different experiences against your own" I think you're right about this... "The idea is giving you the impression that you are at a live performance and a home system can do that but, it is not easy and you have to spend at least 100K to get there not to mention the room." No way will I ever have 50K, let alone 100K, to spend on audio! "Listening at loud volumes - concert-level volumes - is intensely satisfying but for a limited period of time." I've no desire to further damage my hearing bu ;listening above 70 dB-- I love music far too much. |
The Dead both delight me and drive me nuts. They were capable of playing at such a high level but were so wildly inconsistent, even within the span of a single show. I really enjoy some of their studio albums-- A. Beauty, Workingman's. W. of the Flood, Blues for Allah but I've only found a handful of live shows I can enjoy during the time period I favor (70 -77). Skull and Roses, Europe 72 and Steppin' Out succeed in my opinion because they are cherry-picked anthologies. Europe 72 was my first exposure to them, live and those particular versions, enhanced by the overdubbed, in-tune vocals, still constitute my favorite Dead listening. In fact. it's one of my very favorite albums, period. I guess I have a love/hate relationship with their music. So. In response , I'd assert their live playing both supported and undermined the claim that they performed better on stage than in the studio. But then. I'm admittedly not a deadhead. Do you like CRB ?
|
I do appreciate what I have and this post was not intended to be a complaint in any way. I was simply hoping to better understand a viewpoint that mystfied me. I had no idea it would spark such an interesting discussion but am gratified that it did so and in such a consistently civil manner. I agree that we're focused on first world problems, here. I'm as disturbed as anyone about the activities of Mr. Putin. |
I've been distracted by personal issues so have not been able to keep up with responses to this thread but I imagine having a consistent reference, as you've had with the Oregon Symphony (presumably in the same hall), would be an incredibly valuable resource in terms of system building. But for those of us who lack such a baseline, it would seem our sole option is simply "pleasing our ears", no? |
"Your being way over the top trying to analyze this one." It seems to me that anyone who's remotely serious about this hobby has been exposed to the truism outlined in my initial post and been compelled to come to terms with it. The number of responses suggests the topic is not as breezily dismissible as you have asserted.
|
OK. . . You are speaking of a physiological sensations. This not something I tend to focus upon, whether in the audience at a live event or in a home listening environment. Perhaps because I've played guitar for many decades, my focus is on the music -- the intervals, pitches, tempos, and the ebb and flow of tension and resolution (and hence, emotional responses) these shifting aspects generate. If I am focusing on sound, then I've lost track of the music.
|
I did have that problem-- my listening was (for awhile ) largely determined by what sounded best on my system-- but that hasn't been the case for some time. Whether Folky guitar and vocals, Newgrass, Celtic, solo piano, acoustic or electric Blues, Country, Jazz vocalists, ECM Jazz, Jazz quintets, Jam-Bands or Mahavishnu Orchestra, I don't perceive of any "genre bias" in the system. My memory for SQ is not simply good enough to emulate what you've accomplished. I could never be certain that, once back at home, what I recalled hearing in the concert hall was accurate. So, I'd be back to square one-- pleasing my ears. Fortunately, I'm OK with this and, with considerable help from forum members, it's worked pretty well, so far. |
"What it does is to bloom the mid range and bass at the expense of artificial slam and in your face details and make for realistic and relaxed musical presentation" I've never heard Audio Research but I have heard a system powered by Atmasphere that seemed to do what you describe. When you say it "blooms the mid range and bass", your words suggest to me that the gear in question is deliberately engineered to produce a euphonic presentation. I understand the appeal of this but, with all due respect, do not understand how it can also be "realistic". Or am I mistaken in assuming by "realistic" you mean "true to the source"? I feel a bit like the dumbest kid in the class, here.
|
Thank you for taking the time to further explain. Now I understand! I've had SS integrateds that sounded lean/fatiguing and tube integrateds that sacrificed detail and bass focus for the sake of a "liquid" midrange. My current integrated is a Hegel H390 that has excellent bass control and much more detail than I've ever had (without fatigue) combined with a midrange that is (to my ears) natural sounding without the tubey "liquid' quality. More midrange bloom would be wonderful but the gear I've owned so far has inclined me to believe there are always trade-offs--emphasizing detail tends to risk ending up with fatiguing highs and pursuing a euphonic mid-range risks loss of bass control and resolution. However, from what you've said, I gather AR avoids such compromises and "does it all". I may be able to afford used AR in time. Until then, I use a Schiit Lokius with my Hegel H390 and am quite content. |
Yeah-- I accept the limitations imposed by not having a dedicated room. I'm not chasing "the absolute sound" nor am I unhappy withy my system. But I know there's a whole lot I don't know about audio, so when I see something repeated as a truism that seems to run counter to my listening experiences, I feel compelled to try to deepen my understanding. This was my motivation in starting this thread. |
Yes-- I've been very gratified by the content of this thread. RE: ATMP, I read a ton of reviews of the recent remaster and decided it was not for me. Dhani asserted his primary goal with the remaster was to attract younger listeners and the reviewers' characterizations of the SQ certainly seemed to bear this out. It's not likely I'll buy it but I appreciate the recommendation. I'm glad you're enjoying your system. At some point, we'll move and then I'll have a dedicated room. |
