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?  


 

stuartk

several thoughts i would add to (or reinforce) in this nice discussion

1 - agree with many who have said that live performances come in all shapes, sizes, volume levels - listening to a solo jazz piano without amplification at the village vanguard is a totally different musical experience than hearing beyonce at coachella - also, even at a village vanguard kenny barron solo piano gig, if you sit front row, or to the rear, it will sound very different, at the rear you hear the ’room’ alot more than the piano direct

2 - leaving aside amplified live concerts, even some unamplified instruments like drums trumpet or sax played in domestic environment would be ear piercingly loud - so a critical differentiator of the op’s two notions of sweet vs live is the volume setting of the music being played

3 - as relating to hifi systems, to me a really good system should succeed at both delivering smooth soothing beautiful music most of the time, as well as some (not all) of the excitement and visceral nature of a live performance - but often not simultaneously -- per the point above, the volume level is the primary variable, and choice of recording/its quality is the major second variable

4 - in my own experience, really good systems can play loudly with little strain, less evident harshness to the listener, as harmful distortion artifacts are managed to very low levels by good gear selection and optimized room acoustics - thus better systems can be listened to longer at higher volumes before fatigue is felt

5 - some systems, some speakers do better at low volumes, some others come to life and present the beauty, detail, impact and body of live music at a certain (higher) volume level - this occurs as various transducers exhibit different frequency and phase responses at different db/power levels

6 - finally, we as listeners have vastly different tastes, perceptions, hearing, references to what sounds smooth and sweet, and what sound ’live’

 

@stuartk , first of all most concerts are terrible to horrendous from an audiophile point of view but you did pick some real winners. I have seen Dave Holland three times and loved every minute of it. I have every Oregon record ever made along with every Ralph Towner record. So, musically we cover much of the same ground.

The best systems will duplicate the volume and power (dynamics and bass) of the real performance and with all but acoustic instruments au natural generally produce a more realistic image as the way instruments are amplified in public performances can really screw things up. The Dave Holland Quintet is an example of electrified instruments done right. His records are recorded with the exact same set up he uses on stage which is a real treat when you play back at home.

Most systems can not duplicate a live performance. They lack the power and bass performance to pull it off. There is also a tendency towards shrillness and sibilance due to poor control of high frequency resonance. Paul McCandless's oboe is a perfect example. In person it is smooth as silk, no pain at all. This is not the case with most of the system's I have heard including many of the systems in my past.

A system that is capable of mimicking a live performance will in most cases sound better than the live performance. In my own recent past I just saw Tower Of Power at the Hampton Beach Casino Ballroom. It was a great concert but the bass was boomy, there was an unfortunate echo and there was no image. It was, as far as I could tell, a Mono performance. I have the recently released 50 Years of TOP, a 3 disc live album, start to finish. The recording and sound are wonderful, miles better than that concert. 

If you have not got Oregon, Live at Yoshi's, GET IT TOMORROW! 

If you can't listen to your system for at least a few hours, you have a problem. 

If you can listen for hours, either you just play music for background, or you have nothing more compelling to do.

@mapman 

 

"Well you can’t listen to everything that comes out of some people’s mouths . Even audiophiles. 😉

However live music serves as a frame of reference. You can’t aim for the target until you know where it is. One may never hit the target exactly dead center perfect but you can get pretty close most of the the time if you really know what you are doing and you have a decent recording to start with."

 

Makes sense ... although I'm not sure I "really know what [I'm] doing" ! 

@realworldaudio 

"Curiously, even live rock concerts and program albums will sound the best (to my ears) when a system is highly optimized for classical music."

I'd never heard this before. A pity, then, that I'm not a fan of Classical!  I do listen to much more acoustic music than electric, though.  

@jjss49 

"...as relating to hifi systems, to me a really good system should succeed at both delivering smooth soothing beautiful music most of the time..."

Excellent points but re: # 3, above, I'm confused. I'm sure we can agree that all music is not designed to be sweet/soothing/beautiful. I'd be very surprised if what you are suggesting is that the measure of a good system is its capacity for presenting all music in a sweet/soothing/beautiful manner. That would be the definition of extreme euphony, no?   Sorry if I'm missing something obvious, here. 

@mijostyn :

 "Most systems can not duplicate a live performance. They lack the power and bass performance to pull it off. There is also a tendency towards shrillness and sibilance due to poor control of high frequency resonance. Paul McCandless's oboe is a perfect example. In person it is smooth as silk, no pain at all. This is not the case with most of the system's I have heard including many of the systems in my past."

Always nice to "meet" a fellow Jazz fan!  For the reasons you cite above, I use a Schiit Lokius EQ. I have no idea whether my settings render the music closer or further away from how it sounded, live. I just aim to please my ears. And I hate fatiguing highs! I would like more weight and density in my system. That may require a major DAC upgrade which I can't afford at present. 

@charles7 :

So you're saying there's nothing wrong with me or my system if I don't spend more time listening?  Works for me!