Do Members use Live Music as a Reference

Do Members use Live Music as a Reference?

  • I use live music as a reference.

    Votes: 50 73.5%
  • I do not use live music as a reference.

    Votes: 18 26.5%

  • Total voters
    68

PeterA

Well-Known Member
Dec 6, 2011
12,522
10,688
3,515
USA
I am curious to learn what percentage of the membership uses live music as a reference against which to judge the success of an audio system.

There is the argument that we should instead evaluate a system in terms of how accurately it copies the original recording, because that is all that we, as consumers, have. I contend that we also have our memories of what live music sounds like, and that these memories can also guide us in our audio evaluations. The criticism, as I understand it, is that our ears and memory can not be trusted, and that the recording does not fully capture the performance, so referring to live music is fundamentally flawed.

Are these seemingly opposed approaches toward system evaluation irreconcilable?
 

Al M.

VIP/Donor
Sep 10, 2013
8,680
4,467
963
Greater Boston
Hi Peter,

great topic. I would suggest modifying it towards 'unamplified live music' (e.g., classical, a lot of jazz) because amplified live music is not a good reference. Or did you not make a distinction on purpose?

Al
 

RayDunzl

New Member
Jun 26, 2014
289
2
0
Tampa
Generally not having recordings of musical events that I have attended with which to compare...

I use my memory (occasionally refreshed) of the sound of specific instruments to decide if I'm satisfied or not.

Piano and, of all things, Banjo, were two that I deemed deficient in the past, I'm much happier with them now.

Adding some cheesy subs and DRC cleaned up the presentation of string bass for me, which was another repeat offender in the past.
 

treitz3

Super Moderator
Staff member
Dec 25, 2011
5,459
961
1,290
The tube lair in beautiful Rock Hill, SC
Hello PeterA and good evening to you. To answer your question after making my choice on the poll? Absolutely. Without question and without reserve. Excellent question sir. ;)

Whether it be live amplified or live non-amplified, both are my reference. In a properly designed system that is well implemented into the room, there should be no reason why you couldn't use both as a reference. Playing Devil's advocate here......if real music isn't one's reference, what is and why should something other than real sound be reference for....well, real sound?

Whether it be a lightning bolt, a train running down the tracks, the way a drumstick smacks a tom hat, the way the same shimmers a cymbal and slowly fades off, the presence of an orchestra, the pleasure of a well amplified rock band at a concert, the way the pluck of a string on a harp differentiates from a pluck on a contrabass violin....all of these things and a plethora more all constitute "real sound", regardless of where you observe said sound(s) or in what size hall or venue you are in. For me, these are all reference for my audio journey's goals.

Tom
 

Argonaut

Well-Known Member
Jul 30, 2013
2,380
1,615
530
N/A
I voted in the affirmative with the caviat that I use live music ,in the main Jazz and Accoustic, as an end to aspire too.
 

Andrew Stenhouse

New Member
Feb 14, 2016
171
1
0
Sydney, Australia
I grew up surrounded by music, all the family played instruments (I was a mediocre trumpet player, a dreadful clarinetist, an abject failure as a pianist (much to the disappointment of my mother - a concert pianist in her youth) but could carry a tune in a choir without much effort) and it was a steady diet of God, The Father and the Son - Bach, Beethoven and Brahms - in our household.

I have always gone to concerts of all descriptions, and have a very good idea what an instrument, and an orchestra, sounds like. It is that experience that I intuitively rely upon in my assessment of hi fi systems. Ultimately, and here is the subjectivist coming out, it is the ability of any system to emotionally connect me with the music being played that is important to my experience.

The corollary of that is I couldn't give a fig whether what I am listening to is accurate or not - I mean accurate to what exactly anyway? - rather I seek that magical time when a systems inherent musicality reaches out and touches me on the shoulder, so what I am listening to is not the system, but only the music.

I have learned that any dogma - tubes are "coloured", ss is "sterile" - is nothing but distraction to that experience. The other thing I have learned is we all like different things, and hear different things, according to our ears and experience. And it is a jolly good thing we do.

So perhaps we might all just learn to celebrate those differences, and respect each other's choices in this wonderful hobby. For me, I find vinyl is more enjoyable than digital for a variety of reasons, for all its inconveniences and expense. But really each to their own, and all power to you.
 

PeterA

Well-Known Member
Dec 6, 2011
12,522
10,688
3,515
USA
Hi Peter,

great topic. I would suggest modifying it towards 'unamplified live music' (e.g., classical, a lot of jazz) because amplified live music is not a good reference. Or did you not make a distinction on purpose?

Al

Thanks Al. I specifically did not make the distinction. The criticisms that I have read for using live music generally mention "live music" without any qualifiers, so I wanted to ask my question to reflect that. We have discussed the notion that there is no "absolute sound" but rather a range of sound for a given instrument depending on many factors. I think that amplified music also falls within a range, though I happen to think that range is far bigger than it is for unamplified music.

Different people also have preferred instruments that they tend to use for a reference, but I wanted to ask the question in a more general way.
 

awsmone

Well-Known Member
Apr 6, 2014
1,616
513
435
Canberra Australia
I agree with Andrew S

I am aiming to have instruments sound real and use live music as a guide, am a regular concert goer and musician

however the struggle along the way doesn't mean i cannot enjoy the recorded music even on a very ordinary system e.g. car radio
 

Al M.

VIP/Donor
Sep 10, 2013
8,680
4,467
963
Greater Boston
Thanks Al. I specifically did not make the distinction. The criticisms that I have read for using live music generally mention "live music" without any qualifiers, so I wanted to ask my question to reflect that. We have discussed the notion that there is no "absolute sound" but rather a range of sound for a given instrument depending on many factors. I think that amplified music also falls within a range, though I happen to think that range is far bigger than it is for unamplified music.

Different people also have preferred instruments that they tend to use for a reference, but I wanted to ask the question in a more general way.

Thanks, Peter, for the clarification. Yes, this makes sense.
 

Jinjuku

New Member
Apr 18, 2011
228
4
0
Live music and the availability of it to me is why I'm not attempting a $100K in home system. It's just cheaper, more enjoyable, and sociable to get out and listen to it live in all it's forms.
 

PeterA

Well-Known Member
Dec 6, 2011
12,522
10,688
3,515
USA
Hello PeterA and good evening to you. To answer your question after making my choice on the poll? Absolutely. Without question and without reserve. Excellent question sir. ;)

Whether it be live amplified or live non-amplified, both are my reference. In a properly designed system that is well implemented into the room, there should be no reason why you couldn't use both as a reference. Playing Devil's advocate here......if real music isn't one's reference, what is and why should something other than real sound be reference for....well, real sound?



Tom

Tom, your comment in blue is at the heart of the matter and I considered saying something similar in my OP, but I wanted to keep it simple. For those who advocate copying the original recording, if they do not also consider the sound of real music, then they must be left analyzing specifications, measurements, and design typologies. Is that enough to reach a conclusion? Perhaps for determining if one component like a DAC can make an audibly indistinguishable copy of a recording, though I think they also listen for confirmation, but where does that leave one if the copy does not sound like real music? And what about an audio system in it's entirety? How is that evaluated if not by also using live music as a reference?

I am curious to read how those who have voted "NO" in the poll evaluate an entire system and what they think if the system does not sound like real music. Should I conclude that it must not matter to them? From what I have read on other threads, listening is used to determine if a difference between a copy and the original can be detected. Listening is not used to determine if the component sounds like live (real) music. Is this correct?
 

PeterA

Well-Known Member
Dec 6, 2011
12,522
10,688
3,515
USA
I grew up surrounded by music, all the family played instruments (I was a mediocre trumpet player, a dreadful clarinetist, an abject failure as a pianist (much to the disappointment of my mother - a concert pianist in her youth) but could carry a tune in a choir without much effort) and it was a steady diet of God, The Father and the Son - Bach, Beethoven and Brahms - in our household.

I have always gone to concerts of all descriptions, and have a very good idea what an instrument, and an orchestra, sounds like. It is that experience that I intuitively rely upon in my assessment of hi fi systems. Ultimately, and here is the subjectivist coming out, it is the ability of any system to emotionally connect me with the music being played that is important to my experience.

The corollary of that is I couldn't give a fig whether what I am listening to is accurate or not - I mean accurate to what exactly anyway? - rather I seek that magical time when a systems inherent musicality reaches out and touches me on the shoulder, so what I am listening to is not the system, but only the music.

I have learned that any dogma - tubes are "coloured", ss is "sterile" - is nothing but distraction to that experience. The other thing I have learned is we all like different things, and hear different things, according to our ears and experience. And it is a jolly good thing we do.

So perhaps we might all just learn to celebrate those differences, and respect each other's choices in this wonderful hobby. For me, I find vinyl is more enjoyable than digital for a variety of reasons, for all its inconveniences and expense. But really each to their own, and all power to you.


Wonderful post, Andrew.
 

RayDunzl

New Member
Jun 26, 2014
289
2
0
Tampa
I am curious to read how those who have voted "NO" in the poll evaluate an entire system and what they think if the system does not sound like real music. Should I conclude that it must not matter to them? From what I have read on other threads, listening is used to determine if a difference between a copy and the original can be detected. Listening is not used to determine if the component sounds like live (real) music. Is this correct?

music

noun
1. an art of sound in time that expresses ideas and emotions in significant forms through the elements of rhythm, melody, harmony, and color.

I have all that here and I voted "no".
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Ken Newton

Well-Known Member
Dec 11, 2012
243
2
95
...There is the argument that we should instead evaluate a system in terms of how accurately it copies the original recording, because that is all that we, as consumers, have....The criticism, as I understand it, is that our ears and memory can not be trusted, and that the recording does not fully capture the performance, so referring to live music is fundamentally flawed.

I've always found that notion illogical. How could we, as consumers, possibly know what the original recording session sounded like unless we were present? Someone might argue that their system is technically accurate to the recording, but that leaves out the question of whether the recording is accurate to the original live event. However, I will go even further and risk suggesting that accuracy to the recording should not really be a primary objective of a home hifi system. Read farther below for what I feel should be the primary objectives.

I contend that we also have our memories of what live music sounds like, and that these memories can also guide us in our audio evaluations.

I agree with your contention. Live music listening instills the gestalt (a great German term that Harry Pearson liked to use) of the sound of live instruments in to our memory. This allows us to readily recognize the quality of instruments sounding 'live'. An audio reproduction system having that 'live' sound is more important to me than whether that system is accurate to the recorded event - whatever that exactly means. I have no way of knowing what the recorded event should sound like anyhow. What I want from a music reproduction system is 1) emotional communication and 2) the quality of sounding 'live'. Accuracy is a secondary concern, especially if the system cannot communicate emotion or sound live.

It's true enough that our auditory memories of unfamiliar sounds are poor, however, my experience is that our auditory recognition memory is quite good. We readily recognize familiar sounds, peoples voices, and in particular, readily recognize the difference when those sounds seem live versus reproduced.
 
Last edited:

NorthStar

Member
Feb 8, 2011
24,305
1,323
435
Vancouver Island, B.C. Canada
When I go to the music store to buy a guitar, I need to feel the vibes first...its sound and accommodation with my own dexterity.
It has to match part of my soul.

A sound system, a pair of loudspeakers, is its own musical instrument. ...Has its own reference, its own soul.
It still is an amplified musical instrument though, plugged in to the AC outlet, and I can play my own un-amplified acoustic recordings on it, and my amplified electric ones too.

When monitoring my own recordings, I use my own sound system. It's my reference to tell me about my recording techniques.

Just one more view and use to this all love affair with our passion...the music. ...The recordings.
 

esldude

New Member
I have in recent years done some recording. Just amateur recordings not like I am a big time pro guy. Even a little of that is extremely educational.

There are some ways that two mic recordings over stereo playback can get a surprising amount of info right about the real event. Even more so the gestalt of it as someone mentioned. Equally apparent is there are aspects of stereo playback of minimalist purist recordings that simply can never make the sound like what it was live. There are very real limits to two channel playback with phantom sound sources.

There are 'enhancements' of real that in side by side comparison may convince people the result is more real than a hands off approach. These I have never found to be accurate within the limits of stereo reproduction. What they can be are preferred by someone who wasn't at the live event to know the deficiencies. They can hear both and believe some essence of the real event is improved. Your memory of live, and such doctored recordings will always be like using a funhouse mirror to find your way to the truth. Dr. Keith Johnson of Reference Recordings is one of the masters of this. His minimalist recordings never use fewer than 4 microphones and typically closer to 7 or 8 for a stereo recording. His recordings are terrific, but even they aren't a good guide to use along with your memory of live music. Not for a reference, nor for an arbiter of what is accurate in your system. It can help if your system is way off, but I am assuming most here have systems well beyond that stage.

I get the attraction of the idea, the seeming obvious logic to it. The very idea behind Harry Pearson's Absolute Sound as the shining goal to shoot for in reproduction. Carried too far the concept has holes in it.
 

NorthStar

Member
Feb 8, 2011
24,305
1,323
435
Vancouver Island, B.C. Canada
Now, live music; some are majestic, romantic, intimate, passionate, with the artist's expression on his face and body language.

Others are a chaos of merde all over. That's not live, that's drugs and roll.

So my guess is that live music, for 95% (approximately) of the WBF members, is concert hall music from orchestras, operas, ballets, and jazz & blues venues with a sophisticated allure. ...And chamber music in small acoustic venues well inviting and comfortable with all the lights dimmed, and there a piano with someone in its shadow.
 

Gregadd

WBF Founding Member
Apr 20, 2010
10,517
1,774
1,850
Metro DC
The recording is not under our control. It is tweaked from every standpoint, if you think not, even if you just choose to use two mics, you got to choose where to place them don't you?

We are forced to accept the recoding as the master and mix engineers best guess of what they think you will like to hear.

Of course we wish our stereos sounded as close to live as possible. None of you say your system sounds live. So, we can only get someone elses idea of what the recording is going to sound like.

When you play back, if your goal is not to amplify that recording to its highest fidelity, then don't look on in disdain when folks use tone controls and equalizers and what not at home to make their system sound good to them, because if you believe your system should add to the recording in any way, you are not at high fidelity, you are at high choice of tone controls.

I bet anyones system here can reproduce instruments and we can identify what they are, that's pretty much a given. After that, IMO, its the ability of a system to clearly bring you all that is in the recording, as to do otherwise is to color all sound with your preferential brush (hey, not complaining about anyones preference here!).

So, just what does a system do to a recording to make the recording be sounding like the original event, and not do that to every other recording that is played, ie color it all with the same brush. (again, not bad if that's your preference)

We can faithfully reproduce the recording (that is hi fidelity) or we can choose to contour the tone of the system to our choice, now how is that called making your system sound like the real thing? Again, we can only playback what is given to us on the recording, and man, visit a studio to find out how much processing has been done to stuff to try and make it sound MORE REAL to you in stereo!
Of course soemeone knows what the original performance sounds like. The same groups perform the same songs in the same venues, recorded by the same recording studios all the time. Once we deconstruct something man can never perfectly reconstruct it. We learn that in the Nursery Ryhme Humpty--Dumpty. But we can make a reasonable facsimilie. The reconstruction process is not crtical. It's the result that cuonts.
 

PeterA

Well-Known Member
Dec 6, 2011
12,522
10,688
3,515
USA
I bet anyones system here can reproduce instruments and we can identify what they are, that's pretty much a given.

So, just what does a system do to a recording to make the recording be sounding like the original event, and not do that to every other recording that is played, ie color it all with the same brush. (again, not bad if that's your preference)

We can faithfully reproduce the recording (that is hi fidelity)or we can choose to contour the tone of the system to our choice, now how is that called making your system sound like the real thing? Again, we can only playback what is given to us on the recording, and man, visit a studio to find out how much processing has been done to stuff to try and make it sound MORE REAL to you in stereo!

Tomelex, You state that you "bet anyone's system here can reproduce instruments and we can identify what they are." How can we identify them if we do not use our memory of live music as a reference?

What exactly do you mean by "faithfully reproducing a recording? Are you talking about making a file copy of the original that is bit perfect and indistinguishable through measurements, or a component like a DAC playing a file that sounds like the original verified though listening? If this is the case, then I agree, one does not need to use live music as a reference. For this task, it is not even necessary to have ever heard live music or even know what music is.

Do you think it is possible to listen to a recording of a musical performance on an audio system without referring to one's memory of what a live instrument sounds like?
 

RayDunzl

New Member
Jun 26, 2014
289
2
0
Tampa
Do you think it is possible to listen to a recording of a musical performance on an audio system without referring to one's memory of what a live instrument sounds like?

I listen to Toumani Diabate, and enjoy his skill.

I've never heard a Kora.

hb_1975.59.jpg
 

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