Nice post, Frogman. I would agree wholeheartedly. I am also thinking that the phenomena you describe are also a good answer to a question that has been discussed on this forum quite a bit lately, namely what is PRAT? Too many audiophiles think about timing only in terms of the technical specs, the actual speed of the turntable, for instance. What you describe is a different kind of timing that is far more important, and this to me is the "timing" implied in the term PRAT. |
Atmasphere - thank you, thank you, thank you. Most people can indeed hear digital artifacts just fine, when they have a decent analog system to compare it with. Many musicians like myself have been trying in vain to convince people of what you are saying in this thread without the benefit of your technical knowledge to back ourselves up. You state such things in layman's terms better than anyone else I have ever read. I also like this: "The real question is, no matter how good the digital, 'what would this have sounded like if an analog recording system was used?" I could not agree more. |
That's right - you tell 'em, Frogman! :) |
Vertigo said "I would venture to guess that some very good system's are as good as or extremely close to the live event to the point where the differences are negligible. [blindfolded]."
Absolutely not. In fact, depriving one sense heightens the others. It will be even easier to tell the difference blindfolded, as your sense of hearing will be heightened. A great many of the people in concert halls with their eyes closed are not sleeping - they are listening better.
There was another thread about this recently - there is no way a recording could ever be mistaken for live music, unless one has very bad ears indeed. If one cannot hear the difference, that is a problem, and your ears should be checked. |
Hi Mapman and Vertigo - first, Vertigo, if I misunderstood part of your post, I apologize. I am often reading and typing on here late at night when I am tired after a heavy concert, as I was last night and again now.
That said, Lacee is correct. I'm sorry, but there is simply no way that ANY audio reproduction system can possibly be mistaken for the real thing, even the very best ones (though picking the very best ones is of course VERY subjective). They may sound very good indeed, and I suppose it is possible that someone could prefer them to a live concert (something no musician would ever think, by the way). But to actually mistake it for the live event? Nope. Again, if you have a problem doing this, your ears are nowhere near as good as you think they are. It is not "very close," even in the very best systems, especially if we are talking acoustically produced music, and it never will be. Frankly, I am flabbergasted that the argument is even being made, especially by an audiophile! Not that a "better" or a so-called "golden" ear is needed. I stand by my statement that if someone cannot distinguish between live and recorded music, then they have a hearing problem of some kind. |
Vertigo wrote (among a great many other things): "..make a recording where all things are equal from your perspective(ie, your ears/the mics... are both 2ft from the bass and 5 ft from the drums and directionally the same)and play it back on a system with great tone, heft, speed, no blurring of transient, plays low(so not a ls3/5)(or with a myriad of other brands that are colored and distorted)(not with a myriad of colored, muddy, slow cables, cartridges, amps, etc)but gear with superb timbres and i say the differences between how you heard it while you were standing there playing it and how the playback is...the difference would be negligible. Or to the point where the differences are vanishingly low and unimportant."
I am truly at a loss here. It greatly saddens me that anyone, let alone an audiophile, could possibly believe this. Yes, Vertigo, I understand your points. And yes, I am a professional musician who experiences live music literally every day of my life. My job has also exposed me to the very best of audio reproduction, both past and current, and I have experience with a great variety of recording techniques, mike placement, etc. And no, I do not claim that my own system is the be-all end-all, or that anyone's is, for that matter. And yes, I do have both very good and very well trained ears. In fact, I have been trained to train other people's ears. And yes, I still say that if you really cannot hear the HUGE differences between the live and the recorded in your own above example, or you truly think they are negligible and unimportant, then I truly pity you, as you are clearly missing a very great deal of what the musicians are trying to communicate to you. |
Vertigo - I think most people reading this thread will understand that you have misrepresented my comments. It seemed to me that you were clearly implying that I and everyone else disagreeing with you don't know what we are talking about, that our ears must be inferior, and that we haven't ever heard a really good system, and I was merely responding to that by informing you of my experience. My irritation at your attitude certainly was obvious in my post, but that was all it was. I know I am not the best writer, especially late at night when I am tired and irritated, but I assure you I would never resort to the type of argument you are now trying to attribute to me, which I definitely agree is hogwash, and I meant nothing of the sort. I think my main point was and is obvious enough, and needs no further elaboration.
If I am mistaken in your attitude, and my irritation is misplaced, I do apologize. I leave you the field, since further discussion seems pointless, and I sincerely wish you joy with your listening. |
Hi Vertigo - I have been away from the computer for a few days. I do apologize for the pity comment. That was indeed going much too far.
I have been thinking about this subject while away from the forum the last couple of days, and I did come up with one example where there would not be a significant difference between live and recorded music, and this would be purely electronic, or synthesized music. However, some would say that this example does not even count, because in this case, there technically is no real live "performance," you are hearing a recording - even in a recital hall the piece is played over the sound system, not "performed". There was in fact a thread here in which this was discussed a couple of years ago, I think, though there the question was whether or not such an event constituted a performance.
However, in every other case I could possibly think of, there is a very significant difference between the sound of a live and recorded performance. Electric guitars, for example, have an acoustic element to them. There are a great many very subtle aspects of timbre in particular that are not picked up by a recording, no matter how well it is done and how good the system is that is playing it back. Or as Frogman has mentioned in another thread, there is an energy associated with time and rhythm that is not only physically felt but also perceived by the ear (or perhaps more accurately, the brain) that does not quite translate fully to a recording.
Quite honestly, I have never known a single individual who could not tell the difference between a live performance and a recording, even just a single human speaking voice, again even assuming your suggested experiment where you are in the same room and the exact same distance from the speakers as you are from the performer. I'm not talking about hearing a distant television set, say in another far off room, and not being able to tell if that is real or not. I have absolutely no doubt that you and anyone else could do your experiment with a person's voice which you had never heard before, and you would very easily, in fact instantly, be able to tell the difference blindfolded or however else you wanted to make the test. |
Hi guys - if I may chime in on a couple of things about this harmonica example:
Vertigo wrote: "a harmonica is an instrument that pushes very little air and since it pushes very little air, how it interfaces with the room is probably negligable."
This is incorrect. As any musician will tell you, every room has a very significant effect on your tone, no matter what the instrument. A professional musician can adjust for this variable and still create exactly the sound wanted in most cases, but this sometimes requires a fairly big adjustment. This does not have mainly to do with how the sound is created, by the way (so your speculation about the airstream size is almost irrelevant) - it is almost entirely the effect of the acoustics of the room on any sound in it.
As for this: "Am i missing something but isn't the bottom line this...that what is emanating from the speakers and what i hear from my live harmonica are negligible? (qualifier: the harmonica in my mouth has a different directional point of view since it is inches from my ears.)(but the timbres are negligible)(believe it or not... i don't care)"
One thing that needs to be added here, assuming that you are playing the harmonica, is that the sound you hear will be quite a bit different from the sound anyone else in the same room is hearing, for the simple reason that you, as the player of the harmonica, are also hearing the sound INSIDE your head. Again, this is by no means insignificant. If you record yourself, and listen to the playback over speakers, you will sound different to yourself (basically the same reason your own voice sounds different to you than to everyone else, or to you when you hear it recorded).
This is why musicians do not rely on their ears alone - we are constantly asking others to go out into the hall and listen to what we are doing for confirmation that it is indeed sounding exactly how we think it is. This is especially the case for my own instrument, the horn, since we have the additional circumstance of our bells facing backwards, but it is true of all instruments. We also record ourselves for the same reason, to make sure that we sound exactly like we think we do. You will also hear very tiny "impurities" in your sound, usually extraneous noise that your body is making along with the production of your tone that is not actually part of your tone, and which are inaudible to anyone else, even someone sitting right next to you, and which will not be picked up by the mike, even if it is placed ridiculously close, as digital mikes often are, but that's a whole other issue. You learn to separate these noises when critically listening to the sound you are producing. This is one of the main things that serious music students have to get used to - the fact that you do not hear your own tone exactly as everyone else does. But the main point is, no, the difference between what is emanating from the speakers and what you hear from your live harmonica will not be negligible, especially if you are talking about your own playing. |
Hi Vertigo - I'm sorry, but you are again misrepresenting my argument. When you say "In order to have meaningful dialog you guys will need to understand the distinction between playing STYLES and the timbre of a hohner marine band harmonica", along with some of your other examples, I can only conclude that you are talking (and listening) in a much more general way than I and Lacee. I have been speaking of timbre throughout this whole discussion - I am certainly not confusing it with musical style! Yes, the same harmonica will be recognizable as a harmonica, no matter who is playing it, of course, in a general sense. What I have been trying to get through to you about timbre is much more specific than that.
Say 10 professional musicians who are very proficient pick up the exact same harmonica and play the same simple folk tune on it (no question of different styles coming into it) - you should be able to identify basic differences in each of their individual timbres that they produce on that same harmonica, even playing exactly the same thing. I do not of course suggest that you should be able to then identify each separate person again in separate hearing, this type of what some might call "critical" listening needs much training, but you should be able to tell the basic difference when a different person picks up that same harmonica.
To give another example - if I play the exact same thing on ten different horns, you should still be able to tell that it is me playing all ten of them, even if I chose the ten most different sounding models I could. My personal timbre (again, this is a separate thing from style) will come through, no matter which instrument I am playing on, despite the difference in the timbres of each individual horn.
Perhaps you feel that these differences are insignificant. If so, all I can say is that most serious listeners/music lovers/audiophiles would not agree. Certainly no musician would. |
Hi Vertigo - like Frogman, I am dumbfounded by your posts. Either you have not been serious this entire time, and this has been one giant troll; or, if you are truly serious, I throw up my hands in despair. If you really are curious for more info on musical terms, I suggest to you a truly great book called "How To Listen To Music", by the famous American composer Aaron Copland, widely available. I have recommended it many times on this site, and it has helped a great many music lovers and audiophiles learn much more about music and gain much greater enjoyment out of listening to it (not just classical music, by the way, but any style you listen to). I hope you check it out, and I sincerely wish you joy in your listening. |
Hi guys - Frogman, thanks for your excellent post. You are so much better at explaining these things than I am. Vertigo, your last comparison to the human voice is exactly right as well. As Frogman said, the instrument becomes an extension of your body. One of my teachers talked about the need to feel "grounded" when you play, because of this. Wind instruments are very similar to the human voice. We manipulate the tone both with our airstream and with our "embouchres," or the muscles in our faces used to play. No recording really captures these subtle changes with total accuracy, which is one major reason why we musicians keep insisting that no matter how good the recording is and how good the playback system is, it is definitely not the same thing as hearing it live. And yes, the term "tone" is much more commonly used for this personal aspect of sound than "timbre." I did not use the term earlier so as not to add to the confusion, but I probably added to the confusion by not using it. Once again, I am glad I became a musician instead of a writer! |
Yes, Unsound, I realize that Orpheus 10 was responding to Terry9. That in no way invalidates what I said, however. In this particular context, I mainly wanted to make the point that far too many audiophiles rely on measurements instead of their ears, especially when "distortions" are in question. |
Lacee makes a very important point. Any musician would agree that we would rather listen to a poor recording of one of our favorite musicians than an excellent one of someone mediocre. While I appreciate that a great many people in this hobby are into it mainly for the toys and the science of it, IMO they are often missing the forest for the trees. |
Phaelon, as you may be aware, many modern composers in fact believe that all noise, even silence, is music. John Cage being the primary exponent of the theory. Nice post, by the way. |
Unsound and Orpheus - one can measure "distortion" all one wants. The problem is, some types of "distortion" are much more musically harmful than others. There is admittedly more "distortion" in analog, however the distortions of digital are much more musically objectionable because of the frequencies at which they occur, and for other reasons. So the measured amount is beside the point, really. IMO, too many audiophiles get hung up on measuring instead of training and using their ears to tell them what sounds more like the real thing. |
The human hearing system, meaning the ear combined with the brain's perceptions, is still not fully understood. It is definitely more sophisticated than any machine yet made. To name just one example that affects the audio world, it has been proven by research that the brain does indeed perceive frequencies above 20,000Hz, even though supposedly the ear cannot hear them. This phenomena has not been explained. However, it is my understanding that the vast majority of designers of digital audio equipment still routinely process out all frequencies above that, on the theory that we can't hear them. |
