I agree-- the right word, in the right place, at the right time, can make all the difference!
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?
177 responses Add your response
@stuartk , I think you underestimate yourself. Does any system you have heard approximate the experience you get at a good live concert? Sound? you can get a good approximation of the sound out of a table radio, good enough to be able to identify the song and sing along. But, at a good live concert with just the naked instruments or with an excellent sound system you get much more, enough to raise frisson. Obviously, there is something missing is most home systems. You hear the music fine but you do not feel it. You may not be conscious of this but it is a missing piece of the puzzle. I know a few people who will attest to the fact that even if your imaging is second rate if the feeling is there you are 95% of the way home. As I said before, imaging in the best home system is surrealistic. The images are even more detailed than what you get at the best live concerts even perhaps the acoustic ones. |
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.
|
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...
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...
|
@stuartk , No. I mean feeling not emotion. You feel music. There is a video of a man who is 100% deaf but he loves playing music because HE CAN FEEL IT! The best systems can produce the feeling of a live event. This requires the ability to play cleanly at louder volumes, 85 - 95 dB and produce accurate bass flat down to 18 Hz, lower if you can get there. Imaging is a very interesting topic. In reality, imaging with a stereo system is in many ways surrealistic. At it's best imaging certainly adds to the experience. It is neat to be able to imagine walking around the individual instruments as if they existed in space. Very few systems are capable of doing this. In my experience precisely 3. The first one change my entire concept of HiFi performance. It was based on Pyramid Metronome loudspeakers and Threshold electronics. The owner, a high school teacher put on one of the Art Blakey albums and all the instruments hung in space. The second was a Peter McGrath system at Sound Components based on Stacked Quads and Mark Levinson electronics. Same effect. You can probably guess what the third is. The timbre, the feeling and the image are the three aspects of Hi Fi performance that have to be managed to produce a life like performance. 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. |
@stuartk , They all are hearing the true sound. A guitar amplifier is part of the instrument. Musicians pick amplifiers and speakers to get the sound they want. If you are listening to the individual instruments through their own amplification you have the true sound. If the amplifiers are microphoned and you are listening them through a PA system then it is not the true sound. This is the sort of thing you get in stadium concerts. The "true" sound can differ do to location but it remains the true sound. The same thing happens with vision. We can both look at the same tree but we see it from different angles. We see it slightly differently but it is still the real tree just a different perspective. I think we all know what it feels like to be at a live performance. My goal has always been to produce that feeling in a comfortable and safe way. |
I’ll clarify. I would not have gone out and bought the remaster version either. I never read a review. I had the studio LP for years and maybe played it once. Not my cup of tea as they would say. It was a gift from a friend. I put it on to see how it sounded. The tracks are extra tracks added. They are not the studio version of the originally recorded tracks. They are intimate live recordings of the 2 songs where George sits nearly alone and throws his heart and soul into it....acoustically. They are the only 2 tracks I listen to. So, if you ever get the chance to just listen to them it is worth the listen..but probably not the purchase price for sure. Again, thanks for this thread...it has been a pleasure following. R |
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. |
Though I am not a huge Harrison fan I like all things Beatles and from "the Inner Light" the farther one travels the less one knows is appropriate here. I put in dedicated lines to all of my equipment only to find through reading posts that is not even close to enough (except to me) Like you I am actually very satisfied with my equipment. My room is more a mess than a listening room most of the time....very un-dedicated. Your thread is awesome and so much discussion is enlightening. I have enjoyed it more than any other to date. I am working towards the acoustic improvements of the room these days. I have no doubt that is where it will end for me. I have my dream VTLs and speakers. A small cable improvement may happen here or there (and I plan to add a Denafrips Aries II DAC soon) but the room is now #1 on the list. I hope you can listen to the 2 cuts I listed only because I think it will give a feel of the live performance in your room exclusively for you. That is what I felt and emphasizes I have been on the right track for my listening experience. He sits between my speakers and plays and sings to me. Thanks my brother. R |
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. |
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 |
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. |
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. |
"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.
|
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. |
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...
|
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.
|
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. |
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. |
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....
|
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 🤓
|
"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.
|
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? |
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. |
This is possible ONLY if you can adapt the room acoustic feature, geometry, topology and material content to the speakers specific characteristics....
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?
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 ?
|
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.
I am not sure how phase and polarity affect timbre, but I assume it might. How would the recording affect the Timbre?
I am not sure I would trust an “evaluation” when one can compute the fit between, say, two different tracks. |
I’m with @holmz @mahgister on this one . |
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....
|
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. |
