How real does it sound?

On the preceding page, I have read what Mike wrote, and I related to it. ... [POST]331555[/POST]

Classical music and Jazz, and some Blues too...are among the genres where I get comfortably numb with myself and my surroundings.
The smooth flow of the music ... without spoken words ... speaks to my inner soul and without asking any questions, none.
That, is the power of the music we can all experience...no matter the outside world on how it evolves or degenerates.
When emotionally transformed in pleasurable ways, that's how real it sounds.

* I am listening to Nick Cave right now..."Push the Sky Away"...on CD.

I also standby my OP#2 because I have attended both large scale orchestral performances and small recitals as reference points.

While I agree there is no such thing as "the absolute sound", I do believe a well assembled audio system can provide a comparable sound to a small scale live performance with a well recorded and mastered source. And though the scale and dynamics of a large orchestral performance is much greater than any audio system I've ever heard, my own audio system can provide nuances not present at live acoustic performances.

As to live "amplified" performances, I haven't heard one comparable to the sound on my own audio system. The venue acoustics, quality/operation of the amplifying equipment, seating, audience noise, etc. always have prevented SQ; although I can appreciate the spontaneity of a live performance.

I keep a record of my album information including volumes so I can preset the preamp volume control and concentrate on the music content because there is no standard in the audio industry when it comes to volume and unfortunately SQ. There is always an optimum volume for every album which often can only be determined after listening to the entire album.

Mike Lavigne said:

over the last few years I've had the privilege of listening numerous times with a friend who is a Professor of Music Composition, classical composer, and classical conductor......and musician. I have learned a great deal about classical music from listening with him, asking questions, and getting great lists of music to buy. but when we listen different things matter to each of us. he has strong views on what composers he likes and what conductors he likes. when he recommends recordings he will tell me about 'audiophile' recordings, and then great performances. and many times they are quite different. I've likely moved a bit in his direction, but only a bit. unlike many others I did not grow up listening to classical music, never played an instrument, and never had any exposure to it. so it's only the last 15 years of listening, reading liner notes and thru osmosis that I've learned.

I view it as at least part blessing to be able to blindly enjoy great sounding classical and not get my head twisted by pedestrian performances. yet I don't get the full benefit from ultimate musicianship either. I've certainly began the process of understanding the magic of great performance, and it does enhance my enjoyment. but I'm only scratching the surface with understanding the nuance of classical music. i do listen to classical more than 50% of my listening.

so to answer your question; mostly i just go with what touches me, and don't think too much about why. i do have my favorites, and they are not always the best sounding. there are most definitely recordings where i recognize that the sound is outstanding but the soul is missing......they are 'demo' only.

with jazz recordings this aspect of taste and attraction is so much easier and more natural for me. i care almost 100% about the performance and the recording is quite secondary. i basically almost never play jazz where i don't love the performance. of course; those great recordings which also are great performances are what i enjoy and play the most. i love that most 'golden age' jazz was so well recorded.....and that the musicianship was superb as the bar was so high for those performers, and it was recorded in analog. we are so lucky to have that to enjoy.

Click to expand...

I don't think we are a lot different. Among the most ridiculed composer by the hip crowd, Bruckner's music stirs my soul and my imagination. He may also be the most well known composer with the most dead interpreters, Furtwängler being the one person whose renditions stir me the most, but a lot of his recorded music is often badly recorded or simply not available or lacks the dynamics of more recent recordings. By modern standards, his DG recordings of the 8th and 9th symphonies are not up to modern recording standards, but to me are among the most beautiful pieces of music i have ever heard. I also love Sibelius, but thankfully his best interpreters, in my eyes, are still alive, and the recordings are lovely, too.

And what about the "Delta Blues", whose earliest recorded performers made the finest music ever produced in America? The best of them, Tommy Johnson and Ishman Bracey, were recorded in the 1920s! This music has been remastered (several times, i think), but again, by modern standards, the recordings are not very good, but for me the scratches and hisses enhance the soulfulness of their sorrow.

You guys like Bill Frisell? ...Big fan here...I'm listening to his album "Big Sur" (CD). ...In the now, outside on my veranda with a cold beverage. ...No room, no walls.

* I also love the old Delta Blues.

I agree the larger the scale the more difficult to recreate. Systems with more driver surface area and/or those that use horns have more potential to do a better job recreating larger scale music ime... "There's no replacement for displacement" applies to audio too.

Recordings are almost always compressed because there are few systems capable of reproducing the scale and dynamics of some instruments, especially drums. So if you start with a compressed recording there is no hope of recreating life-like dynamics. I've heard an uncompressed drum kit track played back on GR LS-9 line arrays and it did a good job with it, these drums were way more convincing than any other system I've heard. The speakers are huge and have a ton of drivers, most recordings don't come close to testing their dynamic abilities. So I don't know, given the right recording... one that would break most systems.... it seems possible to come much closer than we might think but recordings are just not made with full dynamic range.

Also, when it comes to amplified music you're just listening to a system reproducing an event in real time, with all the limitations of audio equipment. Although there are some venues with really nice systems that are fun to listen to. Infected Mushroom at the Ogden in Denver was a cool experience, their system is ridiculous... hearing protection required.

tomelex said:

Sooner or later, is what I said.

Click to expand...

Actually, you said, “I am just saying that the realization of what stereo can and can not do comes to us all, sooner or later.”

IMO, you may as well have said, sooner or later, everybody will come to the realization that a McDonald’s hamburger is not the same quality of meat as a Ruth’s Chris filet mignon. Simply because there’s little truth to your statement and you have almost zero evidence to support your claim. In fact, I would attest there’s more evidence to support the opposite.

The truth is that billions eat McDonald’s hamburger and many of them don’t know and don’t care about the quality of meat they eat. The truth also is that a few million have eaten at Ruth’s Chris and many of them don’t know and don’t care about the quality of meat they eat.

The truth is, regardless of the industry, performance-oriented or not, a lot of participants haven’t a clue and never will experience such a realization that you claim everybody does sooner or later.

tomelex said:

Does your two channel stereo system have built in limitations by the very physical state of being a two channel sound replicating system or not? I don't see any room for argument there......

Click to expand...

Your question seems a bit loaded here. If I take your question on its face and answer yes as you are apparently expecting me to, then perhaps you’ll assume my response is an admission:

1. That I need more channels.
2. That componentry, speakers, inferior electrical mgmt, and inferior vibration mgmt have little or nothing to do with anything we hear.
3. That the physical limitations of my 2-ch system are similar to others.

In which case, there’s plenty of room for argument as my response below should indicate,

1. I do not need more channels.
2. Componentry, speakers, superior electrical mgmt., and especially superior vibration mgmt. have everything to do with what we hear (and don’t hear).
3. IME, my system has very few and quite minor limitations compared to others I’ve heard.

tomelex said:

I guess your other points cant be discussed till we get past this point?

Click to expand...

Sure they can be discussed.

Whether I respond or not to your first question ought not change the fact that you have no evidence supporting your claim about everybody sooner or later comes to the same realization.

Whether I respond or not to your first question ought not change the fact that high-end audio was intended to be a performance-oriented industry and like other performance-oriented industries and sports the goal is excellence and our task is to pursue excellence with a passion.

But your defeatist words imply to me that even though today high-end audio may be far from the mark, everybody should give up the ghost and train our brains to become satisfied with what we have just because you did. Almost as if to insinuate you already know for a fact there are no more stones to uncover that could reveal even greater levels of performance. And there is no hope of improving from where we are today. Again, there is no truth to this insinuation.

Guys the reason this discussion is getting out of hand is because there is no basis for us to agree on in the first place. "Real" and not "Real" natural and unatural are more subjective than we would like. In many cases as with many recordings this comparison does not even apply.

What i am trying to say is that for most of us the objective is to create a event that suits our own idea of good or real. If there is anyone that plays a e-flat on a instrument and wants his audiosystem to sound identical then good luck with that (not saying that it would not be theoretically possible). But for most of us its not the aim in the first place. I listend to Madonnas ray of light yesterday. 99% of the Music on that Album was made on a computer. Was what i experienced real or not real, Natural or unatural ? ( Jeez you are right, maybe i am starting to sound like a Zen Monk now

Billy Shears said:

What i am trying to say is that for most of us the objective is to create a event that suits our own idea of good or real. If there is anyone that plays a e-flat on a instrument and wants his audiosystem to sound identical then good luck with that (not saying that it would not be theoretically possible). But for most of us its not the aim in the first place. I listend to Madonnas ray of light yesterday. 99% of the Music on that Album was made on a computer. Was what i experienced real or not real, Natural or unatural ? ( Jeez you are right, maybe i am starting to sound like a Zen Monk now

Click to expand...

Agreement on everything you say other than starting paragraph. We are having these arguments because many audiophiles think that by upgrading their system they are getting closer and closer to a live presentation. Or that listening to live presentations allows them to listen to a random other track and know if it is closer to live or not.

BTW, love the Bonsai in your avatar.

Billy Shears said:

What i am trying to say is that for most of us the objective is to create a event that suits our own idea of good or real. If there is anyone that plays a e flat on a instrument and wants its audiosystem to sound identical then good luck with that (not saying that it would not be theoretically possible). But for most of us its not the aim in the first place. I listend to Madonnas ray of light yesterday. 99% of the Music on that Album was made on a computer. Was what i experienced real or not real, Natural or unatural ? ( Jeez you are right, maybe i am starting to sound like a Zen Monk now

Click to expand...

Of course, for synthesized and amplified sounds it is hard to know what sounds realistic or not -- realism is not even a goal here.

Yet people who discuss realism in audio usually refer to reproduction of unamplified live music, and mostly have extensive experience with the palette of its sounds -- depending on acoustics, distance from players etc. -- from attending concerts of such music in different venues. These live experiences are the reference upon which they draw.

If you don't have that reference, and don't listen much to music from unamplified instruments on your system, then all bets are off --everything indeed becomes subjective.

***

Obviously, it is impossible to know how the music originally sounded that was recorded. The recording all depends on the microphones used, the monitors listened to by the engineers and their frequency response in the particular studio they were used, the mixing etc. However, even though there is a rather wide palette to the sound of unamplified instruments, again, depending on acoustics, distance from instrument etc, there is a range of believability of sound, and any recording of such music should fall somewhere within that range.

amirm said:

Agreement on everything you say other than starting paragraph. We are having these arguments because many audiophiles think that by upgrading their system they are getting closer and closer to a live presentation. Or that listening to live presentations allows them to listen to a random other track and know if it is closer to live or not.

BTW, love the Bonsai in your avatar.

Click to expand...

Thx Amir
There is nothing wrong with the persuit of "reality". Its just bordering on the impossibe to have a agreement on what we should be aiming for and therefore (and for the above reasons) any discussion about this should be taken with a pinch of salt...

Again Al, thats fine but

in a practical sense, its all dependant on the Recording. it cant be any more real then what is on the source

tomelex said:

I don't know why we are comparing hamburgers or say even cars to stereo systems.

We should be comparing high end watches more likely to stereo systems, thus watches keep time and you can measure which watch does it the best, also you could measure which stereo system overall moves a signal from its input to the speaker output and decide between two of them which one did it with the least distortions, etc. (not preference in how it sounds). However, high end watches and hi end stereo systems share one thing, the beauty is in the eye or ear of the beholder, and that's just preference.

There may be greater levels of performance to be discovered from two channel stereo, but it still has its physical limitations. Just like high performance sport cars do not fly, neither do high performance two channel stereo systems sound any "realer" than the two channel system limitations allow. Yes, the physical limitation of two channel stereo applies to your system just like it applies to anybody elses two channel stereo system, the fact that you have reduced whatever distortions you have, does not now make your two channel system overcome the very reasons why it, per the OP will never sound real, as in a replica of the original time and space, to be very very precise. You may discover that your system will never replicate the original time and space or you may continue to pursue it doing that until it sounds real enough to you, but I dont think you will ever be able to convince a majority of established audiophiles that it does replicate the "real" sound....there was only one guy on this site who said he heard a stereo system that sounded real, and for some reason, although he has the means to obtain the exact system, he never has. I dont think he was really being serious, but argumentative when he posted that.

So, understanding from my viewpoint if someone thinks that two channel stereo can replicate a live event then there is not much room for dialog on that subject for me. Other things yes, no problem. Lets just disagree on that and move on shall we

Click to expand...

As I suspected, your question was loaded and geared toward a more than 2 channel solution.

Perhaps if you looked at it another way, you may change your opinion about this potential solution.

Most instruments radiate somewhat of a of a 360 degree dispersion in a live unamplified performance. Much like a very wide angled flood light. But for whatever reason (outside the scope of this illustration), by the time the music is recorded and played back at the speakers, each of those many instruments radiance of sound becomes far more like a narrow angled spot light.

Now if you want to say this negative transformation is due to physical limitations of speaker and everything prior to the speaker the signal remained near 100% fidelity, you just might have a point.

But if you're not out and out making that statement, then your claim that more than 2-ch. is the solution is pure speculation and no more than a SWAG.

Okay. Let us try and work this backwards. Two channels is by definition fully sufficient for complete life-like fidelity. We know this because if attending a live event we have two ears that work this out with two channels of information. So two is enough.

To do full replication upon playback we only need a linear distortion free method of recording what the listener's ear drums would have received and play it back so the listener's ear drums get the same exact stimulation by waves in the air. Do that without interference from ambient sounds at the listener's actual location and you could fully replicate the aural experience. In terms of the ideal this is quite simple.

Okay, still working backwards.

Make a mould of the listener's ear canal, pinnae, head and torso. Place microphones in place of ear drums with the same response as ear drums. Place device in the musical venue and record. Play back at the listeners eardrum and you have full musical reproduction that replicates reality.

Well some parts of this are somewhat impractical. Not at all theoretically wrong, or even beyond doing. Just not practical.

We could simplify this somewhat by putting microphones in the artificial torso/head at the ear canal opening. Also doing playback of recordings at that opening. Knowing what response changes to make between ear canal opening and ear drum would not be difficult to work out. Even individually for each person. So a little DSP could fix this right up.

So the next impracticality is individualized head, torso, and pinnae shapes. That I think can be finessed somewhat. Experiments have shown people who have their pinnae shape altered learn to use it at native capabilities within a few hours. At which point they can switch back and forth between two shapes immediately. ( I am being a bit fast and loose with facts here, but only a bit). Seems quite likely the same is true of head and torso shape as well. So make recordings to the ear canal with standard life-like averages of head/torso and ear shape to the ear canal. Combine that with invididual ear canal response shaping and you once again can have full fidelity to the real event. Once the listener has a few hours experience to adjust anyway.

PeterA said:

. . . The performance of a male chorus in a stone cathedral was utterly convincing. . . .

Click to expand...

Have you heard the recording "Psalms" by the Turtle Creek Chorale? This is a Reference Recordings HDCD. The sound quality is excellent. If you have a system that will reproduce the very deepest tones, this recording at realistic performance volume levels will literally rattle your room. Make sure items on shelves won't fall off--no joking.

I never would have purchased this recording for the religious value, but it came so highly recommended to me that I bought it.

This recording could make an atheist a believer!

http://www.amazon.com/Psalms-Turtle...3&sr=8-2&keywords=psalms+turtle+creek+chorale


I have always enjoyed male choral works.

DO you know the name of the recording you heard?

If you want to move further away from reproduction at the ear canal itself, you need only develop methods to fully replicate the small sound field at the ear canal opening.

So is two channels using speakers at a distance capable of that? Not presently. It might be one day. The old Qsound process gives reason to think it might well be possible. Still the goal is to manage a properly massaged sound field at the ear canal opening. Blumlein's developing the idea of stereo through two spaced speakers was a nifty, clever idea that made nearly tricking our hearing work pretty convincingly. It mostly can mimic in at least believable fashion directionality, depth, genuine timing differences and more. Our brains can fill in the blanks pretty well otherwise. But it can't truly accurately recreate the soundfield around our ears for true 3D fully enveloping sound.

Seems most multi-channel approaches are filling in the other reflections and space making our brain have less filling in the blank work to do. It also likely adds something to recreating the sound field of the original recording at our ears somewhat better. Nevertheless much of it is still tricky our hearing somewhat. That maybe good enough too. Without hearing the original performance in the original venue we already can get it well enough there is not much to complain about. In the case of most modern pop music there is no original venue. So getting close at all is plenty good enough. Considering that were we sitting in the mastering room with the musician on artificially spaced recordings we might have had different preferences it is quite possible using our preference on playback can sound better to ourselves than what the artist choices were.

So do we need two or more than two channels?

esldude said:

If you want to move further away from reproduction at the ear canal itself, you need only develop methods to fully replicate the small sound field at the ear canal opening.

So is two channels using speakers at a distance capable of that? Not presently. It might be one day. The old Qsound process gives reason to think it might well be possible. Still the goal is to manage a properly massaged sound field at the ear canal opening. Blumlein's developing the idea of stereo through two spaced speakers was a nifty, clever idea that made nearly tricking our hearing work pretty convincingly. It mostly can mimic in at least believable fashion directionality, depth, genuine timing differences and more. Our brains can fill in the blanks pretty well otherwise. But it can't truly accurately recreate the soundfield around our ears for true 3D fully enveloping sound.

Seems most multi-channel approaches are filling in the other reflections and space making our brain have less filling in the blank work to do. It also likely adds something to recreating the sound field of the original recording at our ears somewhat better. Nevertheless much of it is still tricky our hearing somewhat. That maybe good enough too. Without hearing the original performance in the original venue we already can get it well enough there is not much to complain about. In the case of most modern pop music there is no original venue. So getting close at all is plenty good enough. Considering that were we sitting in the mastering room with the musician on artificially spaced recordings we might have had different preferences it is quite possible using our preference on playback can sound better to ourselves than what the artist choices were.

So do we need two or more than two channels?

Click to expand...

What? Of course not Just as you say in your earlier post below.

esldude said:

Okay. Let us try and work this backwards. Two channels is by definition fully sufficient for complete life-like fidelity. We know this because if attending a live event we have two ears that work this out with two channels of information. So two is enough.

To do full replication upon playback we only need a linear distortion free method of recording what the listener's ear drums would have received and play it back so the listener's ear drums get the same exact stimulation by waves in the air. Do that without interference from ambient sounds at the listener's actual location and you could fully replicate the aural experience. In terms of the ideal this is quite simple.

Click to expand...

You were correct here in that 2-channels is sufficent. BTW, this was nice, concise, to the point, and overall indisputable paragraph. it's too bad you didn't stop here instead of pursuing further down your rabbit hole.

stehno said:

What? Of course not Just as you say in your earlier post below.



You were correct here in that 2-channels is sufficent. BTW, this was nice, concise, to the point, and overall indisputable paragraph. it's too bad you didn't stop here instead of pursuing further down your rabbit hole.

Click to expand...

Well, the point of going further rather than stopping was hoping to stimulate interesting discussion more than you said/I said back and forth. The sound delivered appropriately to the ear drum is the point. Doing so with in the ear headphones would be a big turn off for me. I much prefer listening to speakers of one sort or another. So going from what is obviously possible how far away from headphones can we make it work? That is the area worth discussing imo. And that may or may not require more than 2 channels. Or may not even be possible.