Irv when you listened to the soundlab's was it a tube or solid state amp driving them?
I have M2's driven with tubes and cymbal stricks are very lifelike on my speaker/amp combination;I find it strange that a soundlab speaker failed to impress on that test;maybe Mapman is right with a upstream system error. |
You know, now that you mention it, I think the Sound Labs were driven by Audio Research tube amps. My last opportunity to listen to SLs was a slightly used pair of A1 px (the audiophile version) in the owner's home. So you may have got me on that solid state statement, though I have heard SLs driven by solid state amps. I was so fascinated by the speakers I can honestly say I don't remember much about the rest of the system (but it was very high end). I was also listening to CDs only, in case anyone else wants to argue the analog case. ;)
Ya know, if there was ever a speaker a person could fall in love with, it's the Sound Lab A1s. When they're good (like on full orchestra, chamber music, acoustic jazz, etc) they are incredible. I ended up not buying them because I do like rock and roll and contemporary jazz a lot, and for these types of music I find the SLs a little frustrating. I also suspect that part of the SLs magic is a coloration, and part of it is the dipole nature of the beast, and you also need a near-perfect room to situate them properly.
All I can say is try the test yourself and see if you think I'm full of bs or not. A lot of high end speakers convey a lot of information, so that you can hear minute differences and nuance, but they fail various realism tests. (My Legacys were like that.) I just find it interesting that in my personal experience I stumbled upon a little test that so few speakers pass. And the two that do are very controversial, to say the least. Lots of people on Audiogon don't think the B&Ws or the Revels are best they've heard. |
While I enjoy music over my system quite a bit, it cannot match the enjoyment of a live concert (I listen to mainly classical and small folk and jazz ensembles). I think a big part of it, apart from the sheer volume and power of an orchestra going full tilt which no system can match, is that every so often the stars align or whatever and you experience a magical moment where all the musicians are on the same page, or a performer just gets it right, and you hear true inspiration, both in the playing and in the music. Those moments are rare, but I find far more of them in live performances than on recordings. |
Irv-I find my setup to come very close to my standard of reproduction that being the Pink Floyd concert in Mpls,Mn during the delicate sounds of thunder tour,extreme dynamic swings probally not at the level of a full orchestra though.My M2's are not the newer panels but I am still very happy with them and are the finest speaker I have owned thus far.I think if you get a chance to hear a soundlab again do so as it might change your opinion;I have never heard the Revels or B&W but I know they get excellant press and owners swear by them. |
Rleff, as I mentioned in my posts, I think there's a lot to love in Sound Lab speakers. They are remarkable. But when your wife is a drummer you get a tendency to judge speakers by how realistic they make drum kits sound. I've also been fascinated over the years by how rare the "shock and awe" feeling of realism is in audio. I'm honestly not trying to even imply that the Revels (or the B&Ws for that matter) are really better than the SLs, they were just better *for me* at the time I made the decision. |
|
I like the ability to control the volume and replay the same original performance again-n-again with the muscians changing stuff. |
Rebbi, It's true, some type of protection is essential at most live venues, but try earplugs intended for musicians, e.g., from Musician's Friend. They are intended to reduce the volume more ratably over the entire audio spectrum. They do not cut the volume as much, but will not so completely ruin the sound as the pink foam ones. |
Not to mention you can sit around in your boxers on a far more comfortable couch, sipping a single malt into the wee hours at home. |
People complain about rock concerts being to loud and they have a point. But remember a full orchestra can also go over 100 dB. I have been to a concert hall and depending on the piece played it can reach SPL where it almost starts to hurt. When you have over a 100 musicians in a orchestra hall going full out with a large copper section it can get really loud. Many musicians are a "little" deaf because of this. Especially the one sitting just in front of the copper section. |
It seems like there are a few people who like their stereos more than music itself.
While I appreciate a great sounding concert (from a sound quality perspective), I've never gone to one for the sound quality. Call me crazy, but I think going to a concert is all about the artists doing what they do best.
If you think your stereo sounds better than the real thing, have a good acoustic guitar player play in your room in the sweet spot, then put on your best recorded acoustic guitar track and compare. No contest. Same can be said for just about any instrument, except instruments that need to be moved further away due to volume - drums and cymbals, etc.
I've heard several systems that easily cost more than the national average home price. No, I don't own one and don't really have a desire to (on offense meant to anyone who does). None sounded nearly as good as a real sax being played. There's a presence to live instruments that gets lost in every recording.
I'm sure many will disagree. I have no problem with that. |
Kbark, I play the classical guitar so I know how acoustic guitar should sound like. With the right speakers and good recording, I can get fooled into thinking there is someone in front of me playing the guitar live. It's when you get into complex music like an orchestral piece that the illusion of live music falls apart in almost all systems I've heard.
If you like going to crappy sounding halls to listen to music, more power to you. You gots more choices but for me a bad hall could ruin a performance because whatever the artist intended get screwed up by the bad acoustics. |
We the audience will never know how the artist intended that music. Most of the time the artist doesn't have any say in the mixing or production process of an album.
The "storm" sound effects with "riders on the storm" was not an idea by the Doors. The original Let it be Album by the Beatles was also heavily modified by Phil Spector.
I think this happens all the time. The artist delivers the raw material and the label will turn it into an album of which they hope they will sell millions. |
Good thread and thought provoking on many levels. I enjoy both but can certainly see when it's not possible to hear an artist anymore (ie. deceased, etc) that it's not only better but the ONLY way to listen to them is at home and it may as well be a really good hifi! Besides, listening to some recordings is such a time machine that it can't be compared to going and hearing live music. I dig em both and
really put them side by side as equals in the thirst for the beautiful art of music. (but man oh man, hearing Sarah Vaughn belt it out in an outdoor covered venue is one I will NEVER forget!) |
+10 Kbarkamian...
HI-fi doesn't even come close ............. |
The whole point of this thread was to share and get feedback on why I or you may think reproduced music could sound better than live. But I've noticed some will blindly state live is better than reproduced hands down. I agree only on limited (dare I say rare) occasions this seems to be the case. When I listen to a recording at home, it's much more of an intimate experience as if the artist is performing only for me. Like others have stated, I can control the volume, lighting, temperature, etc of my environment. I'm not distracted by others coughing, yelling, BO, and farting(it has happened) next to me. I have to say MOST of the time I enjoy music on my system than going to a live event. |
Have we all been brain washed into thinking live music is better than reproduced without any qualification? For me that qualification is significant. Unamplified live music should be the reference provided it is performed in a high quality acoustic venue. But enjoyment of music, at least for me, transcends whether the music is live or recorded, but many times in favor of reproduced. Some may chastise me for saying this, but I have a feeling many feel the same way but are afraid to say this publically or even admit it to themselves. |
By "better" in the above post, I mean "more enjoyable" just in case someone tries to nit pick semantics. |
I too like my home system better than Amplified live music.
Everytime I hear live music, I can hear the coloration
of the speakers they are using, the amps they are using, etc. The best thing I find about live, is you actually see the performers. |
I'm not debating what is more enjoyable. Everyone's idea of enjoyable is personal. I don't think that's the true intention of the thread, but I didn't start the thread, so what do I know?
The simplest way for me to put it is that there's a presence to live instruments that is lacking in recorded music. |
Kbark, reasons why one enjoys his home system more than live music IS the original intent of the thread. |
I tend to agree that classical is best appreciated live. Rock is a crap shoot. Smaller venues are better. If it's too loud and yes most are I wear earplugs which hurts the sound but allows me to keep my hearing. I used to enjoy rock more when I had a few beers. Now I can't stay up that late. Most of the up-and-coming bands play small bars and often don't come on until late. What self-respecting 50 year old wants to put himself through waiting half the night to hear music at 1 am in the morning and then drive home? I'd rather have a half-decent night's sleep and listen in the morning with a cup 'o tea and a clear head. |
"The simplest way for me to put it is that there's a presence to live instruments that is lacking in recorded music. "
I don't agree with this statement as a rule, but I think there are four reasons why this is often true in most peoples' listening rooms:
1. Venue. Most people do not listen to recorded music in rooms as large as live music is played in. You can't have live-sounding "big sound" in a small room.
2. Volume level. Live music is often too loud for a listening room, and we all know (or should know) that volume level is an incredibly important factor in how anything sounds.
3. Putting the usual chest-beating stuff aside that is normally posted on Audiogon, the vast majority of audio systems are not capable of reproducing live sound levels, so they can't sound live. Reproducing a solo grand piano, for example, is unlikely to sound realistic if you have a pair of 10" woofers that have to reach well into the midrange.
4. Most speakers aren't very good. They have colored frequency responses, or they have non-optimal dispersion characteristics or other anomalies that color the sound.
On the other hand, if you have a large room and large, accurate, low-distortion speakers with a lot of amplifier power behind them, on a few really outstanding recordings you can get surprisingly close to live sound. In my experience, with some solo instruments, to the point that you can't tell the difference. Of course, the difficulty of maintaining that illusion increases in proportion to ensemble size, so even chamber music is out of reach for most of us. But a solo guitar? Been there, done that, you can get eerily close. |
Originally i thought you were comparing live instruments to a recording of live instruments on your system. It appears you are comparing a live rock concert to the same music being played on your hi-fi system ...
OK, pack 60 people into your listening room and then let me know if it is still better than the live performance..
:)
|
I'm lost. Weseixas, who are you responding to? |
Yea man, who are you responding to? But who wants to recreate live rock concert in their home unless you want to permantly damage your hearing? |
because I am in control of the bass integration; audience control; and overall volume. Tired of overblown bass amplification; disrespectful dumb-asses talking on their stupid cell phones; and also of having to wear ear plugs at live events. Acoustic group, small jazz ensemble, and classical events excluded. |
I do not hear many live performances these days that I would prefer to listen to in terms of sound quality alone over what my gear is capable of these days.
A home system is still no substitute for the full sensual impact of a great live performance though.
Maybe well done large scale classical or similar types of live music in a larger quality venue perhaps.
I think my limits at home are mostly that of scale, where room size is the bottleneck, not quality these days. Not to say it is perfect but good enough to fit the bill very well most of the time. |
A lot of the posts above definitely resonate (pun intended) with me. After re-reading this post before submission, I realize that I am being verbose and pedantic, but it's a slow, warm and humid Saturday afternoon, and I am in a mood to be verbose and pedantic. Apologies in advance!
I would add that subject to several exceptions and as a very general matter, I like the home venue best. As a threshold matter, I agree with the OP that many folks think that live music is the absolute reference. In fact, there is another OP running here on A'gon which is capturing comments about the importance -- or lack thereof -- of so called accuracy.
Frankly, I think the concept of sonic "gain on a wire" is nonsense. If the absolute standard is listening to an unamplified, un-modulated, un-engineered, un-dubbed/mixed and unadulterated performance, then I think most of us would be disappointed. Instead, IMHO, I think venue ambience, comfort, company and drink are non-sonic/muscial factors that contribute to the enjoyment of an overall live or home performance.
Now, in the case of classical music, as a Philadelphian, I am fortunate that the Philadelphia Orchestra is just downtown. Both the orchestra and the venue -- the brand new, high tech Kimmel Center -- are world class top of the line. Nothing is better than taking in a performance at the Kimmel, with the company of my lovely wife (who by the way irrationally deeply hates and resents my stereo rig), sitting in nice comfortable seats located in the center of the orchestra section, and having a glass of wine at intermission. All followed up, of course, with a late evening snack at "Upstair at Varelli's" down the block after the concert. A real treat and musical experience!
Also very enjoyable is taking in a live performance of a one or more musican/vocalists at a local watering hole, while having a drink or cup of coffee with my wife either before or after taking in a flick. Very nice indeed.
On the other hand, I agree 100% with Elizabeth that going to a huge rock concert where the SPL is in excess of 120db and my ear wax liquifies -- is definitely not fun. Many years back, my wife and I took in an Elton John/Billy Joel concert. I had to stuff paper into my ears because the high SPLs were otically painful. Not so much fun.
So, in between taking in live performances of the type and genre described above, I very much enjoy the engaging and musical experience that my home rig provides. However, I do not delude myself by thinking that I have assembled a rig that reproduces music with the accuracy of "gain on a wire." OTOH, that doesn't mean that my rig doesn't provide me with a ton of enjoyment -- because it does!!!
Cheers and have a great July 4th weekend!! |
I know that this comment is slightly off topic but for what it's worth, I've stopped asking whether my rig captures the "Absolute Sound" of live, unamplified, acoustic instruments, and shifted instead to asking how well my rig reproduces what the recording engineer intended. Dark Side Of The Moon, for example, isn't about the Absolute Sound, but (in part) about whether all the phase manipulation stuff that Alan Parsons did in mixing down the album gives me the creeps in the way that he (presumably) intended it to do.
As for live music, I agree that the SPL's of pop concerts has killed a lot of the enjoyment for me.
I've been to two rock/pop concerts in the past 10 years. One was the Steely Dan "Two Against Nature" tour in Dallas. The experience of hearing Bodhisattva live, played at an insanely fast tempo, was ecstatic and I'm glad I was there. But waking up at 4 a.m. with my head buzzing, unable to hear anything else, increased my paranoia about middle-age hearing loss and made me resolve to bring ear plugs to my next amplified concert.
Then, a year or so ago, we heard James Taylor at Bass Concert Hall, very fine venue on the University Of Texas at Austin campus. The show was good, but again, pointlessly, abusively loud.
I'll close by just saying that to me, listening to music at home and in concert are two different kinds of experiences. |
I think it helps to think of your home/room as your own personal venue and play to its strengths rather than fighting it's weaknesses.
All venues sound different. The same venue sounds different even depending on where you sit.
Thinking this way, my goal is to make my room/venue the best it can be regardless of the music playing.
I am somewhat uniquely fortunate perhaps in that I am able to run speakers in 6 different rooms off my gear so I have 6 different and distinct venues to mix things up with and chose from. |
