How real does it sound?

PeterA

Well-Known Member
Dec 6, 2011
12,521
10,687
3,515
USA
stehno said:
You won’t find many examples, which in itself should be a testament, but every so often you’ll hear an “expert” exclaim something like what Jonathan Valin said around 2008, “We are lucky if even our very best playback systems can capture even 15% of the magic of the live performance.” I know a few who’ve said that even Valin’s 15% is being optimistic. BTW, I interpret Valin’s use of “magic” as “believability”. Not 15% of the overall music presentation. IME, Valin’s statement is not far off the mark. And yes, I’m well aware there are many who claim many playback systems are capable of sounding very much like live music.

stehno posted this in the Audio Science thread recently. I think it is a pretty interesting topic for discussion.

I once asked JV if he could put a percentage on this idea of our best systems capturing the musical event, and, at the time, he simply told me, "No". I recently heard Suzanne Vega's song, "Tom's Diner" on a CD reproduced on an excellent digital system with mini monitors. That studio recording was extremely believable to me, and if that recording were available on a clean and quiet Direct-to-Disk LP and reproduced on an even better system, it would probably be even more convincing. However, convincingly reproducing Beethoven's Ninth Symphony on a superb recording played on even the best systems available today, I think, is another matter entirely.

I have heard solo instruments and voices sound incredibly convincing on my system, and it is far from being one of the best systems available today. So I think we have come a very long way to being able to reproduce some sounds. But, as we all have experienced, a live performance at Symphony Hall, simply can not be reproduced convincingly in the home. It may sound extremely good in the best settings, but few if any of us would ever be fooled into thinking we were listening to the real thing.

To start to discuss this topic, I think we would have to define what we are trying to reproduce? How complex is the music - a single piano note or a cappella performance , a jazz quartet, or a full symphony? Haven't we all turned around while watching a movie believing the phone was ringing in the next room? Is the reproduction somewhat believable, or are we being asked to identify "is it live/real or just a recording" while blindfolded? The former would seem to have a higher percentage than the latter, surely.

Could an objectivist even attempt to measure such a thing? We could measure a group of listeners to see if they are fooled into believing something is real. If the sounds are simple, perhaps some would be tricked. If the material is more complex, it would be hard to fool anyone, I think. But can we measure, in percentage terms, how real something sounds? And if so, how close would he/she think that we are, in percentage terms, to reproducing a live musical event on the best audio systems available today, if we define more specifically the type of performance we are measuring?
 

LenWhite

Well-Known Member
Feb 11, 2011
424
72
375
Florida
systems.audiogon.com
The central theme of the OP sounds right to me - small scale music on a good audio system can sound very convincing, but large scale performances do not.

I attended a violin recital at Appalachian College in a really good acoustic space a few years ago that indeed was an emotional experience. I've heard similar small scale performances on my own audio system sound as though they're suspended in space, and I could visualize the performer. But thinking about that live performance, the emotional experience was likely enhanced by the visual of how much emotion the performer was revealing. So in terms of a percentage, perhaps with a great recording on my own audio system in a really good acoustic space, the believability factor might be 75 - 85%?

Large scale symphonic orchestral performances are indeed not entirely convincing if for no other reason the sheer scale and dynamics of a live acoustic performance. Again I remember attending a Mahler: Symphony No. 2 performance some years ago that was simply stunning, and it wasn't in the greatest acoustic space. A friend lives near Appalachian College and having heard similar full scale orchestral performances, simply says "it's no contest" when compared to a audio system.

Symphonic orchestral performances on a good audio system (can) allow one to hear more of specific instruments, and even provide an illusion of space one would not hear at a live acoustic performance. But in terms of sheer scale and dynamics, compared to my own audio system maybe the percentage would be 30 - 40% of an acoustic performance in a really good venue.

But having said all this, I've attended a number of live "amplified" music events even with relatively large numbers of performers that weren't nearly as convincing as comparable really good recordings on my own audio system. I think that's because one is not actually listening to the actual performaners, but to the badly implemented and controlled PA systems at these venues.
 

Al M.

VIP/Donor
Sep 10, 2013
8,679
4,467
963
Greater Boston
The central theme of the OP sounds right to me - small scale music on a good audio system can sound very convincing, but large scale performances do not.

I attended a violin recital at Appalachian College in a really good acoustic space a few years ago that indeed was an emotional experience. I've heard similar small scale performances on my own audio system sound as though they're suspended in space, and I could visualize the performer. But thinking about that live performance, the emotional experience was likely enhanced by the visual of how much emotion the performer was revealing. So in terms of a percentage, perhaps with a great recording on my own audio system in a really good acoustic space, the believability factor might be 75 - 85%?

Large scale symphonic orchestral performances are indeed not entirely convincing if for no other reason the sheer scale and dynamics of a live acoustic performance. Again I remember attending a Mahler: Symphony No. 2 performance some years ago that was simply stunning, and it wasn't in the greatest acoustic space. A friend lives near Appalachian College and having heard similar full scale orchestral performances, simply says "it's no contest" when compared to a audio system.

Symphonic orchestral performances on a good audio system (can) allow one to hear more of specific instruments, and even provide an illusion of space one would not hear at a live acoustic performance. But in terms of sheer scale and dynamics, compared to my own audio system maybe the percentage would be 30 - 40% of an acoustic performance in a really good venue.

But having said all this, I've attended a number of live "amplified" music events even with relatively large numbers of performers that weren't nearly as convincing as comparable really good recordings on my own audio system. I think that's because one is not actually listening to the actual performaners, but to the badly implemented and controlled PA systems at these venues.

I agree with you and Peter on large-scale music. Yet even on small-scale music systems can have enormous difficulties to sound real; it depends on the timbre to be reproduced. Human voices can sound very convincing, and woodwinds as well. Yet solo string instruments, especially solo violin, are incredibly hard to reproduce. Just recently I heard a solo violin live from close-by (in a church), and I was stunned once more how complex and rich this timbre is. I have heard solo violin on great analog systems, but even those come not even close to the live sound.

Yet I think there is a difference between sounding real and sounding believable. While a system rarely sounds real, it can sound quite believable, in the sense of fooling the listener sufficiently. I know that a string quartet does not sound real in my system, but on good recordings I can suspend disbelief sufficiently as to be able to imagine that I am listening to an actual string quartet ensemble playing. So in that sense, the believability factor sometimes may be quite high, as you suggest.

As for 'amplified' live events, yes I'd also rather listen to a reproduction of them on my system.
 

spiritofmusic

Well-Known Member
Jun 13, 2013
14,601
5,411
1,278
E. England
I have an ongoing discussion/argument w/Bonzo re live music, specifically large scale orchestral, versus what we can reproduce at home.
His contention broadly (if I'm not misquoting him) is that meticulous application of dsp mch, up to 12.4 ch auro 3D, gets a good deal closer to the event of big orchestral live.
I've heard a setup that he likes here in the UK, and despite it being SOTA in many aspects esp seamless bass control, and ambient retrieval, it doesn't come close.
This is down to one thing plain and simple - dynamics. The Auro 12.4 may do things better than standard 2ch, but it pales in generating the pure adrenalin ride that the horns blasting thru from nothingness that sent shivers up and down my spine when I experienced Scheherazade live at the Royal Festival Hall. This was life affirming. High end systems produce a reasonable facsimile, that's all.
My contention is that you can get something of the purity of live music if you try and max out tone rather than concentrating on dynamics. In many ways I believe a really well balanced home system often trumps live music in the realms of tonal reproduction. As Bonzo knows (but doesn't esp agree w/me), I do feel I'm getting amazing tonal reproduction w/my full range driver/x'overless Zu spkrs mated to Nat audio SETs, and an amazing analog front end. His previous ML Summits were no slouches re tone.
So, in my system at least I want for nothing re tone.
But again live is king, just that tone is easier to approximate.
But dynamics, and true jump factor of orchestral - forget it. I don't believe we're even able to get to 1% let alone 10%. The ability for horns to go from nothing to earth shattering in no time at all is of an order different than just having headroom in a home system.
FWIW, I've heard some uber systems incl full 6 amp monoblock active Linn Isobarik/Naim from the 80s, Krell/Apogee Grands from the 90s, Rockport Hyperion/Tenors and Kharma Exquisite/Lamms from the 00's. So I'm not ignorant of what big systems can do.
 

BlueFox

Member Sponsor
Nov 8, 2013
1,709
406
405
I have no idea how real it sounds, but I do know that it now sounds so good that I just start laughing with pleasure when I play the main system.
 

amirm

Banned
Apr 2, 2010
15,813
37
0
Seattle, WA
A recording is a painting, not a photograph. The person creating it, is creating new art.

Just like a painting looking different in different lights, we unfortunately can't experience the same with different equipment and rooms. So what we enjoy, is yet another manifestation of the art. This means we are pretty far from what the live experience was. And that is just fine as long as our experience is enjoyable just the same.
 

eman

New Member
Jul 30, 2015
8
0
0
100 miles west of DC
I find most recordings quite lacking and they could easily be much better. That just makes the good recordings more special. I can still enjoy Tom's Diner even though the recording is inferior. No big deal.

E
T
 

Billy Shears

Well-Known Member
Jul 27, 2015
255
1
150
I think Amir is right.
The comparison to Live Music does not really apply.
What does Live mean anyway? Live unamplified? Ok but that gets distored by the very process of capturing.
Live Music as we hear it at a concert? I have been to see to many bad sounding PA Systems playing good music that i would want my System to sound like that......
 

Rodney Gold

Member
Jan 29, 2014
983
11
18
Cape Town South Africa
Yeh, I agree .. silly to try compare hifi to "real" , hifi is often BETTER in terms of sound quality. I go to SEE a real performance , not just hear it.
 

Diapason

Well-Known Member
Mar 26, 2014
325
39
260
Dublin, Ireland
As my moniker here suggests, I'm a big fan of organ music (and a decent organist myself) so I'm definitely a believer that the larger the scale, the more difficult to reproduce. Interestingly, a good recording of a single organ stop can be very convincing, but I've never heard anything close to the real sound of a tutti.

I had the pleasure of going to St. Ouen in Rouen recently for some organ recitals, a pilgrimage I had been looking forward to for years. The night before I went, I listened to a recording of Ben van Oosten playing Widor 8 in Rouen, then the following night listened to Ben van Oosten playing Widor 8 while I sat in the building. I honestly wasn't prepared for the ASTONISHING sound and impact of the instrument in real space. I actually said to some friends that hifi is so far off the pace it's not even funny.
 

Johnny Vinyl

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member
May 16, 2010
8,570
51
38
Calgary, AB
A recording is a painting, not a photograph. The person creating it, is creating new art.

Just like a painting looking different in different lights, we unfortunately can't experience the same with different equipment and rooms. So what we enjoy, is yet another manifestation of the art. This means we are pretty far from what the live experience was. And that is just fine as long as our experience is enjoyable just the same.

This! :D Enjoy the live experience for what it is and the reproduction of it as well.
 

audioguy

WBF Founding Member
Apr 20, 2010
2,794
73
1,635
Near Atlanta, GA but not too near!
The central theme of the OP sounds right to me - small scale music on a good audio system can sound very convincing, but .......

I use to believe that as well. And then my wife, as a surprise, hired a three piece jazz combo to come to our home for my birthday.

I can tell you NOT EVEN CLOSE. While an audio system can portray the sound of different instruments, it is not even in the same ballpark to a real live performance. The dynamics of a live drum hit; the "blatt" of a trumpet or sax; the pluck of a guitar string; the space from which each note immenates; the way the sounds of the different instruments jell. How overtones play such a major role in what we hear. It goes on.

A good friend was at our party (his system is off the charts - Magico, Spectral, dCS, perfect room) and he too was amazed and soon realized that no matter how good a room/system is, it truly, truly pales in comparison to live. AND, two channel reproduction will NEVER get us there (but then neither will multi-channel but can potentially get us a very tiny bit closer).

The experience was s seminal moment in my home audio life. The rate at which I (AND my friend I might add) was upgrading/spending took a nose dive.

Please don't misunderstand what I am saying. An audio system can be improved, fun, enjoyable. But n terms of making major leaps toward live, we are barely moving.

There was one experience that did give me hope. Last year at CEDIA, I heard an Auro demonstration of 3D audio that easily was the closest to live I had ever heard. It even exceed the failed Lexicon technology I heard a few years previously. But not everyone will be able to put almost 20 speakers in their room. Nor do I expect much if any available source material. But it certainly did show the potential.

YMMV.
 

microstrip

VIP/Donor
May 30, 2010
20,806
4,698
2,790
Portugal
(...)
The comparison to Live Music does not really apply.
What does Live mean anyway? Live unamplified? Ok but that gets distored by the very process of capturing.
Live Music as we hear it at a concert? I have been to see to many bad sounding PA Systems playing good music that i would want my System to sound like that......

Many times we refer to non amplified music when referring to life comparisons. And IMHO then SOME aspects of life can become part of our references.
 

Mike Lavigne

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member
Apr 25, 2010
12,467
11,363
4,410
there are no rules for what a music reproduction system can actually pull off. in my experience sometimes the system can transport me somewhere not necessarily real but profound. other times it does suspend the disbelief to a spooky level.

I can go down to the Jazz Club at the bottom of the hill for dinner, hear a small combo jazz group for an hour, then 5-7 minutes later be listening to a 15ips 1/4" master dub of Ben Webster 'live' in a similar setting and there is not much difference between the experiences. the system has the dynamic head room to get most all of the 'live' bottom end and snap as well as the deep bass linearity and extension to lay down the ambient acoustic layer of 'air'. they are not identical. which 'sounds' better? mostly my system.

or, like last night, I can listen to an innocuous CD such as 'Wrecking Ball' by Emmylou Harris. it's a multi-track studio album and not real instruments in real space. however; at the current status of the big rig with recent acoustical room improvements it is an ethereal experience. and real (or unreal) completely in it's own way. I was gob smacked by it's layering and decay. and this is just a CD I had zero expectations for, just playing stuff off my server that I wanted to try with all the changes. I tried to read my novel and the music would not allow it.

both experiences are wonderfully real. but neither is perfectly real.
 

FrantzM

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member
Apr 20, 2010
6,455
29
405
I use to believe that as well. And then my wife, as a surprise, hired a three piece jazz combo to come to our home for my birthday.

I can tell you NOT EVEN CLOSE. While an audio system can portray the sound of different instruments, it is not even in the same ballpark to a real live performance. The dynamics of a live drum hit; the "blatt" of a trumpet or sax; the pluck of a guitar string; the space from which each note immenates; the way the sounds of the different instruments jell. How overtones play such a major role in what we hear. It goes on.

A good friend was at our party (his system is off the charts - Magico, Spectral, dCS, perfect room) and he too was amazed and soon realized that no matter how good a room/system is, it truly, truly pales in comparison to live. AND, two channel reproduction will NEVER get us there (but then neither will multi-channel but can potentially get us a very tiny bit closer).

The experience was s seminal moment in my home audio life. The rate at which I (AND my friend I might add) was upgrading/spending took a nose dive.

Please don't misunderstand what I am saying. An audio system can be improved, fun, enjoyable. But n terms of making major leaps toward live, we are barely moving.

There was one experience that did give me hope. Last year at CEDIA, I heard an Auro demonstration of 3D audio that easily was the closest to live I had ever heard. It even exceed the failed Lexicon technology I heard a few years previously. But not everyone will be able to put almost 20 speakers in their room. Nor do I expect much if any available source material. But it certainly did show the potential.

YMMV.

I agree and will post some of my personal experiences...

I lost my Audio systems and a lot more the past few years in events , some I don't even mention by by names ...

In some ways forced to listen mostly to Live Music (Miami Concert Halls are far from great but ...) and headphones which can be great to listen to music and can bring a new understanding in what purity and correct tonality means but will never IMO replace a speaker based system in term of suspension of belief...The tone can be gorgeous .. but the visceral impact is nil. Headphones are even further from the real thing than ...

I believe that many audiophiles have lost touch with what the real thing sounds like. They may find the very limited experience of their audio system close to "Real". Even in an hobby so dominated by subjectivity, anyone with a functioning pair of ears will eventually come to attest the Galaxy-spanning distance that separate any of the better audio systems to the Real Thing when they are compared up close ... even on small scale .. Be it Chamber music or a Jazz Trio... That says a lot a lot about the power of our imagination to allow us to accept our limited systems as something resembling the truth ...
Real? Our systems don't even come close
 

Billy Shears

Well-Known Member
Jul 27, 2015
255
1
150
Again This is not about being in touch with anything, its about enjoying music to the max in wathever form it presents itself...
Sure you can get a Audiosystem to reproduce natural Timbres but its not the only thing you can appreciate.
 

microstrip

VIP/Donor
May 30, 2010
20,806
4,698
2,790
Portugal
(...) I believe that many audiophiles have lost touch with what the real thing sounds like. They may find the very limited experience of their audio system close to "Real". Even in an hobby so dominated by subjectivity, anyone with a functioning pair of ears will eventually come to attest the Galaxy-spanning distance that separate any of the better audio systems to the Real Thing when they are compared up close ... even on small scale .. Be it Chamber music or a Jazz Trio... That says a lot a lot about the power of our imagination to allow us to accept our limited systems as something resembling the truth ...
Real? Our systems don't even come close

We could say that now you are the one using the hyperbolic language to describe differences. :) IMHO some systems with adequate recordings can sound very believable. But I am G- row listener, I hate row A.

Let us think scientifically - which part of the sound wave is not possible to reproduce in our systems? How close can we go?
 

Al M.

VIP/Donor
Sep 10, 2013
8,679
4,467
963
Greater Boston
We could say that now you are the one using the hyperbolic language to describe differences. :) IMHO some systems with adequate recordings can sound very believable.

Yes, but I think there is a distinction between 'believable' and 'real', with the standard for the former being much lower, see my post # 3.
 

microstrip

VIP/Donor
May 30, 2010
20,806
4,698
2,790
Portugal
Yes, but I think there is a distinction between 'believable' and 'real', with the standard for the former being much lower, see my post # 3.

Yes, and you are correct. But I do not like the word real, as recordings should be "more real" than performance - the recording people are known to purposely enhance them to compensate for the different listening space, time and conditions.
 

About us

  • What’s Best Forum is THE forum for high end audio, product reviews, advice and sharing experiences on the best of everything else. This is THE place where audiophiles and audio companies discuss vintage, contemporary and new audio products, music servers, music streamers, computer audio, digital-to-analog converters, turntables, phono stages, cartridges, reel-to-reel tape machines, speakers, headphones and tube and solid-state amplification. Founded in 2010 What’s Best Forum invites intelligent and courteous people of all interests and backgrounds to describe and discuss the best of everything. From beginners to life-long hobbyists to industry professionals, we enjoy learning about new things and meeting new people, and participating in spirited debates.

Quick Navigation

User Menu

Steve Williams
Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator
Ron Resnick
Site Co-Owner | Administrator
Julian (The Fixer)
Website Build | Marketing Managersing