What is it I'm failing to grasp?

@asvjerry I am in NC today.

The Mrs will rarely listen to Tracy Chapman’s “Talking About a Revolution”, and she is not even an American.

Reality may be hard to grasp, but for many their reality is rough.

We were at the NC DMV today and as usual most of the staff was out on compassionate leave. A woman of colour was in the line, a veteran, who could not get a job there… it was pathetic that a skilled and competent woman could not get a job as a clerk/clark there… (and only 2 walking can get in per day.)

I like music and stereos, but it is a first world issue to discuss cables and fuses when we have other issues brewing…

So what I am “Failing to grasp” is reality.
But at least the tide is improving somewhat with each wave hitting on the shore.

*wry s* @holmz , Welcome to NC, if you've never been.  The locals are mostly typical, the 'oddities' mostly tame. ;) 

G. Scott-Heron fan myself, but concerned enough and impressed immensely by the citizens showing up for AK's that have likely never used a weapon, much less a modern military piece...

I own a business that would like to hire, but the qualified are working, the 'causals' are a crap-shoot, and what's left can't seem to follow simple instructions on a phone message to get in touch.  I could only wish a version of that woman with some basic skills we could use would get in touch.,,,

I can empathize, though.  I've been in 'lines like that' long ago...and escaped.

Agreed:  I like my audio stuff. I like what it does, and does for me (and spouse when in range...*g*) as hobby and entertainment.

Cable/Fuse/DAC/SET/ad infinitum/ad absurdum ....when Rome is threatening to burn again for no other irrational but power....and some sort of twisted pride.

Reality....What a concept..  per R. Williams, so long but not so ago....

Overall, I get along with and within it, as I'm sure you do as well.👍

If you find yourself in Asheville, PM.

Local beers are everywhere, I've one within 1/8 mi. from where I sit Now.

I can crawl home, and there's a hotel next door to it.

We can discuss how badly this may go, or come up with some rad-ass behaviors to drink into a dream.... ;)

I'm for a new version of the AVG ( in China, WW2 )....   😏

Enjoy NC, wish the weather co-operates..J

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

...maybe it's not a failure to grasp...

Perhaps recognizing what you already have in hand.

'How Perfect' it has to be becomes either a play thing, literally. *s*

Or turns and bites as a Obsession, an addiction without but one cure:

Find peace in the reason you began, and learn to let go into it.

The tech will always leave you running to catch up.  Always.

We've other to pay attention to, now. :(

It’s just different for everyone. That’s what makes this such a cool hobby. What I find amazing is that no one on this forum has the exact same setup for listening to music. Also, no one has the exact same taste in music. I think some people fail to realize how individualist this hobby actually is. I think this what also leads to the unnecessary arguments. Our goals and expectations based on our individual experiences all lead us to finding a system that works just for us alone. To me that is fantastic. 

@asvjerry 

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.

Call me crazy, but I prefer the sound of my hifi over most live music...because most live music I have heard sounded like crap. Except the symphony I attended at Boston Symphony Hall, or a small acoustic band. Most rock concerts to me sound like utter garbage. 

Perhaps we are not supposed to take it literally. The musical presentation sounds so good, that over exuberance sets in, in describing the experience. Where in reality, it would be shut off in a more reasonable time frame. Not hours upon hours.

mg16 

He just means his system is non fatiguing as live recordings especially on a system that rips your head off after 45 seconds and puts you in flight mode...etc. 

We've heard it before.....

 

Your being way over the top trying to analyze this one.

@stuartk

Thanks for the interesting post.

Having attended many live concerts and performances, of about every venue and genre, over the years - I can concur that listening at those SPLs for the amount of time I spend listening to music at home, would be a bit fatiguing, not to mention ear numbing.

I think that Erik says it well. We can achieve the same level of emotion and enjoyment at lower volumes but it does take a bit of compensating (as per the Fletcher Munson curve) and some attention to the room.

Like audioguy85, while I did enjoy, I found most live (especially rock) performances to be loud and of poor acoustics. Aside from the excitement and engagement of the audience, the performances I most enjoyed, on a musical level, was the small venue, acoustic performances. For the most part, I now prefer to listen to the music I love at home, at levels that don't numb my ears......Jim

 

"What is it that I’m failing to grasp, here? " I don’t think you are failing to grasp anything. As a corollary to your point, no one can say that live music is always perfectly presented. Many of the same problems with acoustics, etc. exist in a live performance and no one even mentions the sound engineers that are typically present on live performances. In my experience there are several sound engineers that have accompanied top flight live performances that I have attended that had tin ears or no ears at all. We eventually will reach a saturation point with anything and emulating our personal playback systems to sound like a live performance misses the point anyway, I think -i.e. live performances are simply not always great and if you reach that point with your home system so it sounds like a live performance, sometimes it’s not going to sound good. Yes, certain, but not all, recordings are going to sound good but that is likely true on almost any system. If you consistently enjoy listening to your system, that, I think is the finish line at least until some new system improvement takes hold of you that you simply can no longer live without.

 

It’s just different for everyone. That’s what makes this such a cool hobby. What I find amazing is that no one on this forum has the exact same setup for listening to music. Also, no one has the exact same taste in music. I think some people fail to realize how individualist this hobby actually is. I think this what also leads to the unnecessary arguments. Our goals and expectations based on our individual experiences all lead us to finding a system that works just for us alone. To me that is fantastic. 

I suppose that we can try and believe that.

… But the arrival of the printing press brought the written word to many, the same way that later Edison’s phonograph brought sound.

(So I am finding it hard to believe that it is tailored for the individual.)

One can argue that the data rate (or bit error rate) is lower with ASCII characters, than with sound, but it is tending towards intellectual masterbation to think that the majority of systems at the playback end… is having a more profound effect than what happens on the front (recording) end.

All of our equipment may be different, but it all likely sounding more similar than dissimilar.

as this thread is now shifting towards a discussion of live musical performances in its many forms, and the sonic issues they can have, it is worth mentioning that this is why, to me, the bbc's substantial research and development in the 60s and 70s into acoustics and monitoring and recording of first classical (then pop) performances - think london philharmonic leading to the beatles - is seminal in its field

that research led to iconic speakers such as the spendor bc1, rogers ls3/5a, and their descendants today, by spendor, harbeth, stirling, graham and so on

Trying to explain to someone else what one of your senses; sounds, smells, tastes, feels like, is very difficult. That is one reason most strange foods all are explained as "tastes like chicken". Most people have tasted chicken so when you say that you expect others to understand, but does their chicken taste experience really match your taste experience, I do not know? Following this logic when someone tries to explain how their system sounds, "like live music" in my mind is the same as "tastes like chicken". No one wants to admit, if it is true, that their system is assembled so badly or their room's acoustic is so horrible that they can only listen at low listening levels for 20 minutes max, so "my system sounds so good that I can listen for hours on end and never become fatigued, and it sounds like live music" is just trying to convey that they like the way their system sounds in their room.

I for one do not go to concerts much anymore, forgetting Covid, because I find rock concerts in large sheds or concert halls a truly fatiguing experience. I enjoy listening to the same band's albums, studio or live, much more in my home. Does it sound like that live experience, I sure as heck hope not. Does it sound fantastic, yes indeed it does and in my opinion it sounds live :-) and I could listen for hours on end.

I think it has to do more with the type of music you are comparing between reproduced and live.

For full energy opera, or symphony or rock/pop/techno music I agree that I can only take so much even if my system is very close to the live experiences I’ve had. And I’ve done all night clubbing events so quite long.

But when it comes to small jazz groups or small group classical chamber music, my system sounds exceedingly like the real events I’ve been to and I can listen effortlessly for hours and hours

Tin eared at mixing boards, lousy pro audio equipment, excessive volume, poor acoustics at concert venue and  excessive crowd noise all detract from live experience. The masses don't attend live music for the sound quality, spectacle and fan worship are the calling cards for the large venue concerts.

 

Its really quite amazing I've actually experienced a number of good sounding rock concerts, there are a limited number of bands and sound guys that do care. Also, rather interesting these rare good sounding concerts were mostly from 1970's.

 

Small venue jazz and classical  have been far more consistently uniform in having at least decent sound quality in my experience. Genres like folk and bluegrass have been generally better than rock, not as consistent as jazz and classical.

 

I've never thought or characterized my system as sounding like live a event, instead it presents as artists performing in my room, far more intimate than any rock concert I've attended. With live jazz or pop vocalists recordings at smaller clubs my system presents as if I"m in the audience. If I only listened to these type recordings I'd be totally invested in believing my system sounds like live musical events. I don't like vast majority of live rock recordings, my system in no way presents illusion of myself in attendance at those concerts.

 

 

+1@jessica_severin and sns

I don’t believe I could get, nor would I want to get my system to perform at the audaciously loud level and scope of a live rock concert. it does come close to re-creating the scope and feel of the small venue jazz performances put on regularly at a local dining club, as well as the classical chamber music performances hosted at a local historic cathedral that was designed for acoustics.

I still enjoy all genres of music, just some at considerable less volume than live.....Jim

 

I enjoy the energy and excitement that accompanies a live performance, be it 5 concert harpists playing jazz improv, a symphonic presentation by the local organization, or a outdoor/indoor 'popular music' extravaganza....

The worst of the latter have been in venues that should Never happened.

Dave Matthews in a basketball arena....no amount of pro mix could overcome the echo distortion incurred, to the point of leaving our seats and just milling about searching for Anywhere Better....even if we couldn't tarry for long.

As my ears aged, I found the biggest drawback was that my ears finally gave up 'working' when subjected to the cheering, whistling, and just outright howling from the audience.  Wearing 'roadie' grade earplugs helped for awhile; later on, an 'audiophile' version allowed for the nuance to override the noise, but...

It has to be Someone that I Really want to hear live these days....my aids seem to agree, since at excessive dB they mute automatically.

I chalk that up to saving me from myself...*G*

I've grown to enjoy streamed concerts recorded professionally 'off the boards' when the mix has been done with the fan appreciation in check.
Most 'fan flix', done within the audience, suck.
The only ones that held their own were (and are) the 'deadicated' fans of the G. Dead that brought sometimes sophisticated means to do so. *L*

Most cell-shots are just awful,
There is hope, as more small digital devices for 'field recording' are becoming available...whether one can get them past the entry check points is still an unknown...

All of us tailor our equipment to our own tastes, space, and (of course) budget.
The 'lucky' can pursue to the limits of the above.
Most hit their own 'acoustic ceiling, whether by the above having limits, and perhaps the largess or lack of in the 'significant other' in their lives.

There is absolutely nothing wrong about this, it occurs in most of ones' life.

You may want a Porsche, but drive the Dodge.

You may have the 911, but wish it would entail the costs of the Dodge.

The trick is finding the balance that suits.  And satisfies... :)

Don't stop enjoying it.

Happy weekend, y'all. *S* J

many great responses here.

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.

I have attended several (more than I remember) concerts.  Jazz in small venues (best), Jazz in large venues, classical, rock, etc.  most concerts (not all) are amplified.  even in small venues.  So, unless one is sitting right next to the stage, you are hearing the music from amplifiers and speakers, and that is dependent on the sound engineer.

But, small venues, up close.  wow!. 

Examples are Shirley Horn everytime she  visited LA, I would go see her.  What a treasure.  So sad she passed.  It was just her on piano and vocals, with her drummer and bass player.  wonderful.  Could listen all day.  Eliana Elias also in small venues is wonderful.

Pat Metheny group when they were together was great.  at least three hours performing.  no talking.  Amplified, but the performances were great.

To me, listening fatigue is dependent on the music and recordings, and the system.

One can only take loud for so long before the system starts to shut down to protect itself.  Bad recordings are another cause of listening fatigue.

I'll take Jazz recordings from the mid-to late 50s, sixties and early seventies any day.

Another issue is knowing what to listen for and for me, making sure my system can accurately reproduce the recordings properly and also accurately showcase instruments correctly.  I've played classical violin, and several other instruments. I know what a real (non-electronic) violin, piano, etc. sounds like.  So, when I listen to systems and the instruments don't sound real, it drives me out of the room.

Same with bass.  If it is too much and not accurate or boomey.  I can't deal with it.  Bass reproduction should be accurate, not exaggerated.  Some equipment emphasize bass to the point that it isn't what was recorded.  And people listen to it and say, boy, that bass sounds great.  others listen and say, that's not real, that is exaggerated.  The system, including the room, should be flat in frequency response from 20Hz to 20kHz. one can tune the system and room for certain taste, but peaks and valleys are what  one should be trying to eliminate unless there is a hearing issue where equalization is required.

to the OPs original post.  I can listen to my system for many hours with no issues. I know and hear the differences between certain artist and their instruments.  certain violins, certain pianos.  Joe Sample vs Bob James, vs, Bill Evans, etc.  

So, "live" does not mean accurate either. especially if "live" is amplified.  I've been in  really small venues where the artist were still amplified and sounded like a mess.  Shirley Horn live at Vine Street. Well, I was there.  yep,  the recording sounds very much like the live event.  

For me, it was me trying to get to that "I'm there" moment with my system.  No need to upgrade (unless I was given a piece and price I couldn't walk away from).  Randy at Optimal Enchantment in Santa Monica was very good at that.

Better equipment out there.  you bet.  But, does my system in my room sound great?  yep.  Does it sound like live?  depends on the recording, the miking used, etc.  Early CD recordings sound terrible.  Music is great but the recordings were terrible.  Stanley Turrentine (Don't mess with Mr. T).  Great music, horribly recording LP.  OMG.

enjoy

Live music in the past was far from perfect and most artists would not take the risk of producing a 'live album' as technical things with others usually went wrong during the performance until Deep Purple produced 'Made In Japan' album and everything changed.  With stereo it has the advantage to show the listener what would sound in perfect condition according to ones mind.....

The Strata-East copy of Winter in America from GSH and Brain Jackson is stunning.

It’s now expensive only b/c it is on the Strata-East label and possibly the most accessible and best known album in the their catalog. (The Bottle, which is a little later, if I remember right, is the UK equivalent of the same record, and at one time was cheep). Cool, chime-y Rhodes sound. Gil Scott’s vocals/spoken word. Bad-ass sound. And only scratches the surface of the S-E catalog. But well loved here. I can immerse myself in this stuff. And that’s only the beginning insofar as spiritual/soul jazz is concerned.....

Aside from sucky acoustics, and bad sound live, some "live" albums benefit from the energy the band picks up from the audience that is reflected in their playing. I'll take that over a more pristine studio record because of the performance. 

I remember seeing Ministry live in the 90‘s and it was literally a full frontal audio-visual assault on the senses that left you shocked. Something you had to come down from. Not sure it was something you could or would want to produce in your llistening room.

I agree with what ja..ku..bz said,

pop/rock bands went in to a studio, recorded an album, along the way the lead vocal (like Jagger) would add slightly higher, slightly softer, earlier, later vocal layers to fatten up the sound. The engineer would add a layer out of phase to broaden the vocals. Then the band figures out how to play it live and makes some sacrifices or sneaks in some recorded stuff to enhance the live stuff.

so most of the music I heard first as recorded, then eventually as live. In the case of ELP, I knew Brain Salad inside out having wore out the vinyl grooves. When I finally saw them perform that album live, so many things made more sense and by seeing I heard a lot of things I missed.  

On an audiophile level, there’s no way an MSG concert delivers quality. But on the emotional level nothing on a hiding system comes close.

unlike Dead Heads, I could not stomach seeing ELP dozens or hundreds of times live.  I just would not get anything out of it, to the contrary it would bring down the value of each performance. How do I know? I’ve enjoyed concerts so much that after seeing a band I immediately afterwards bought tickets to another show. Second time around always disappointed in that it never had the same impact. Let a year or 2 pass and seeing that band again was freshly exhilarating.

on another level, some performers are only good live (my opinion). Take Frampton, was totally unknown to me. Then comes out his live album, I loved almost every cut. I thought to myself “ who the heck is this, where did he come from, I’m gonna go out and get more of his albums”.  Got his studio stuff, didn’t like a single song, not even the studio versions from   “Alive” album.  

 

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...

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...

 

 

I might tend to agree with OP’s introductory statement.  It seems despite often inherent anomalies in live music, the buzz word or catch phrase “just like LIVE or You are there” seems to be the most validating and complimentary audio cliche around.

 

There are different issues. First, the SQ in live performance might not be good at all unless it is unplugged. Hence it is important to have a good audio system at home.

As to home listening, indeed, unless the system is not really good my intension is to shut down it soon after powering it on. So far, i did not have a headphone that i could listen for a long time period. If you listen mostly rock then  o agree that you don't continue hours and hours auditioning different alboms. Jazz and classical music is a bit different. I not often dedicate all my attention to the music i am listening to, and when this happens, indeed it does not last for hours. Nevertheless, i would not support annoying SQ even as a background. 

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.

On the other hand… I would trust 2 mics onto tape or digital recording as true, long before I would trust 1/2 dozen players, in booths, with up to 32 tracks, playing at different times, and mixed down to two track… as being close to true.

The is just less to f up with a two track recording that is not amplified.
A multitrack studio piece has so many opportunities for getting something jacked up, that it is almost a heavenly miracle that it is as good as it is.

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.

I’m with @holmz ​​​​@mahgister on this one .

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.

 

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?

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.

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 ?

 

 

An interesting question. I have just not been able to read through the entire avalanche of replies.

A system should do a great job of reproducing the live audio experience… from a live recordings, as opposed to a studio recordings.

If you want to calibrate your ears to your system, you need to use live acoustic music. Live rock can be used, but it is so highly variable with the sound guy / venue it is hard to use reliably.

 

But the idea is to use live acoustical music, I used the Oregon Symphony over 10 years of concerts plus acoustical jazz concerts to calibrate my ears and then to implement my system. The was the empirical ruler I used (after 35 years of other stuff). Then my system started to reproduce all music well…

As far as concerts… yes loud rock and jazz concerts are… well frequently they sound terrible. But a good system should reproduce that. The thing you have to watch out for is systems that are “detailed forward or highlighted”… these stick the details in your face as opposed to being realistic. With ten years of experience at the symphony hall, the details don’t slap you in the face as they do in rock concerts. Rock and other electronically amplified concerts with terrible amplification and too much treble, volume and distortion (not the purposeful stuff), just sound terrible… although exciting. If you listen to an auditorium with good acoustics with good acoustal instruments, you hear the venue, the reflections of the instruments off the sidewalls and ceiling blending into a series of arrival times. But they are not in your face like highly detailed solid state equipment frequently portrays it. Detail scraped from the media can sound a lot like an electronic concert… jacks you up… but are very fatiguing.

If you get a audiophile system right it will reproduce what is on the recording correctly… studio recordings will sound great… live rock albums will convey the excitement (all the fatiguing high frequency distortion). It will convey the music without accentuating the details or low level distortion. Well recorded music will send you to heaven.

 

After fifty years of pursuing high end audio my system finally does this. You can see it under my ID. The folks manufacturing the components of my system understand this. They have not spent decades designing components to scrape details for no reason, or to follow the current fad, but to reproduce the true musical experience. They are seductive and draw you in with the magic of the music… unless you put on a live, badly produced live recording. Then you get that. A true high-end audiophile system is a thing of beauty and magic that is really hard to tear yourself from.

@ghdprentice 

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? 

@ishkabibil 

"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. 

 

From OP  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.   

 

I don't get it.....other than volume issues.....

 

what actual "effort" is required to listen to a live performance?

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 🤓

 

@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".

 

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".

 

 

 

OP… you said, “But for those of us who lack such a baseline, it would seem our sole option is  simply "pleasing our ears", no? ”

 

Over time you realize you follow your own ears on the music you like at the moment… I did. But it kept optimizing one music type at the expense of others. So, I started going out and trying to listen to “real acoustic music”. This is the long game. The results have been fantastic, with all music types getting better. It has been really a rewarding facet to direct my system.

@ghdprentice 

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.

I find it difficult to believe any audio system could always be effortless listen. Not all musical instruments create effortless sound, For instance, trumpets can be biting, incisive, massed violins during crescendos can be piercing, snare drums can be sibilant, etc. So an effortless sounding system is certainly not accurate.

 

Add the wide variability of recording quality, which sometimes impacts real time evaluations of my system. Just last night I experienced this constantly changing, real time evaluations. Started off with pop vocalist recordings, most were of the live in studio type performance, my system was in effortless mode, then I went into some well recorded electronic music, Zero 7 shoe gaze, chill music, still effortless mode, then we go into some less well recorded edm music, some ok, then starts to get on my nerves, so go to Yes first album, better, but still lacking in naturalness, then go to some late 60's more commercial pop rock, pretty bad. So listening session sound variability last night went from sublime to pretty awful. I presume my system was being accurate in these different portrayals, certainly, effort was required on my part, at least some of the time.

 

Sometimes its hard to stay on point with an accurate system, in other words, lets say you play multiple mediocre recordings continuously over an hour or so. You may think to yourself system still needs work, but then you play high quality recording, suddenly your system becomes perfect!

 

Some years ago, I deluded myself I could create an audio system that could make virtually all recordings effortless. That system could certainly make some recordings sound simply beautiful, but over time I found myself subconsciously playing only certain kinds of music, couldn't handle complex, dense music with quick transients and pace. Over time I tired of that system and it's inability to play nice with the wide variety of music I listen to.

 

Ghdprentice spot on in voicing system. Reproduce the "real acoustic music"  with accuracy and everything falls into it's rightful place. Just don't expect your system to be effortless or even good all the time. Its a fact of life I love some music that's rather poorly recorded, and I will always continue to play it. Sometimes you just have to turn off the analytical part of brain with these recordings, otherwise the effort will overcome the pleasure.

 

@sns:

"I find it difficult to believe any audio system could always be effortless listen"

So do I !

However, I've encountered such claims repeatedly, which is why I started this post. 

 

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...

 

 

Some of the parameters that strongly influences your emotional involvement are how forward the sound is and how much the details are highlighted. It the details are thrown in your face … emphasis on high frequency (?) it creates excitement but also makes a much larger percentage of recording fatiguing.

After ten years of religiously attending the same symphony hall. Listening to the reflections across the hall, the direct versus reflected sound… the different rise and fall,  consolidation of sounds and just how details are presented… I really get it. The orchestra is only fatiguing at crescendos that overload the ear drums. I have also heard many other concerts. This led me to craft a system that does acoustical correctly and has led to all genre getting better.

 

What truly high end companies like Audio Research have done is transcend the immediate gratification in presentation of details and slam to reproduce music in a natural and organic form. 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 that makes all but truely bad albums sound good… but there are some… bootleg, and just tinny bad recordings… and there are nothing you can do with those.

@ghdprentice 

"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. 

 

@stuartk

 

Sorry, may be I stated this backwards. Typically solid state amps tend to be very lean in the midrange and upper bass, but rise quickly in the bass. So the slam is very artificial… it is the contrast between the lean and a big boom in the bass. The midrange and bass bloom fully fleshed out the details in the midrange (adding weight to voices) and details to the bass… it is amazing and really natural. What the real thing sounds like. The big slam is not. This is very relaxing to hear. 
 

I would recommend Robert Harley’s “The Compete Guide to High End Audio” to help with the terminology and concepts. It can be really helpful in getting ones arms around sound characteristics.

@ghdprentice :

 

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. 

@stuartk

 

Great. Yes… AR avoids any compromise. I looked enviously at folks buying Audio Research equipment when I was young. Then I bought one used second tier preamp… then a basic AR Phonostage… slowly built the system I have now over decades… well worth the persistence and dedication it took to get here.

I think larry5729 and I have a similar view. I can’t put up with recordings that sound horrible on my system. I listen to many choice well recorded CDs that make my system scream with pleasure! I lived in CO. and Red Rocks rules, baby!

stuartk....your listening room is the auditorium. I always went to the seat closest to 2/3rds back from stage and center. I never liked the overly loud location near speakers. I preferred to protect my ears and at 67 feel I still have good hearing. In the words of Mick "can’t always get what you want" boo-hoo for sure. I hear you man!

I agree with you about live performances but doubt I will hear it at home like in the venue. There is a place in Indy (the Murat Theater)....it will probably be my favorite venue ever. I attended the Yes concert when all of the original members joined together again. Chris Squires bass sounded like it does on a studio recording....In fact the whole concert was like a studio recording.

So I’ll offer this out for listening to everyone: George Harrison’s "All things must pass" reissue 2 CD set.(2001) Track 11 and 12. You want to feel a "live" performance in your room? This is amazing. I get goosebumps and hair rising from it. The raw emotional performance George gives is so satisfying. He is in my room playing for me. This is effortless in my opinion, also....at least in my room on my rig.

To all of you....happy audio-in’ till death do we part. "In heaven I walk through fields and reach out and the best doob lands in my hand and when I say I want to hear a band, they appear and play for me live." Amen. :) Rick