Is Live, Unamplified Music the Correct Reference for the Sound of our Audio Systems?
- Thread starter Ron Resnick
- Start date
- Detail Retrieval
Quite a bugaboo, given that many audiophiles think detail is the existence ultime of audio. I like detail, too, but if you go back to live music, it is a lot more cloudy than many audio systems represent. Occasional flashes of marvelous tone and detail emerging from random clouds of ambience. If you are sacrificing soul for absolute detail, it is fine if you just like it that way, but I don’t like throwing out the baby with the bathwater or isolating goals that much.
- Full-range Extension
Lows and highs are difficult to produce all that well, and likely don’t really survive the journey through the microphones/venues that well, so I will settle for an emulation of naturalness.
- Midrange magic
Self explanatory. Never too much midrange magic. Included with that is imaging and tonality. Toobs, anyone?
- Effortless all out dynamic range
A system that does 0 to 120 db with instantaneous speed and full stop is going to be extremely large and expensive, and probably in a large sonic space. Given that most music is compressed in some way, it is likely unnecessary for home audio. Effortless dynamic range also needs to convey the very soft parts with vibrancy and audibility. What criterion is there for all out dynamic range? 120 db at 3Khz is a lot different than 120db at 20 Hz. A system that can do 120db pink noise without much distortion for five seconds with a very low noise floor probably qualifies as full dynamic range.
Most audiophiles who put a true full range uncompressed recording on their systems will likely be embarrassed that they are constantly turning things up or down during the presentation when the dynamics change.
I would peg my own system as having a dynamic range of 108db, which is probably still overkill for an audiophile system with most kinds of recorded music sources. 105 db of dynamic range is probably plenty if you want your neighbors to still like you. Without instrumentation, it is hard to be exact about any particular system.
A 120db system would blow your wig off in certain instances, but I don’t really care or desire those instances.
- Absolutely ruler-flat technical performance
Boring
- Absolutely extended, filigreed highs...but not one iota of harshness
It depends on if the music is intended to be harsh, but I also value my hearing, so a few dots of harshness are OK source dependent but not necessarily required.
I will sacrifice this authenticity to the gods of enjoyment if he harshness is gratuitous.
- Deep propulsive bass
Booty call, gotta have it, but music can be enjoyed with a mere theoretical low end if there are no practical alternatives.
Quite a bugaboo, given that many audiophiles think detail is the existence ultime of audio. I like detail, too, but if you go back to live music, it is a lot more cloudy than many audio systems represent. Occasional flashes of marvelous tone and detail emerging from random clouds of ambience. If you are sacrificing soul for absolute detail, it is fine if you just like it that way, but I don’t like throwing out the baby with the bathwater or isolating goals that much.
- Full-range Extension
Lows and highs are difficult to produce all that well, and likely don’t really survive the journey through the microphones/venues that well, so I will settle for an emulation of naturalness.
- Midrange magic
Self explanatory. Never too much midrange magic. Included with that is imaging and tonality. Toobs, anyone?
- Effortless all out dynamic range
A system that does 0 to 120 db with instantaneous speed and full stop is going to be extremely large and expensive, and probably in a large sonic space. Given that most music is compressed in some way, it is likely unnecessary for home audio. Effortless dynamic range also needs to convey the very soft parts with vibrancy and audibility. What criterion is there for all out dynamic range? 120 db at 3Khz is a lot different than 120db at 20 Hz. A system that can do 120db pink noise without much distortion for five seconds with a very low noise floor probably qualifies as full dynamic range.
Most audiophiles who put a true full range uncompressed recording on their systems will likely be embarrassed that they are constantly turning things up or down during the presentation when the dynamics change.
I would peg my own system as having a dynamic range of 108db, which is probably still overkill for an audiophile system with most kinds of recorded music sources. 105 db of dynamic range is probably plenty if you want your neighbors to still like you. Without instrumentation, it is hard to be exact about any particular system.
A 120db system would blow your wig off in certain instances, but I don’t really care or desire those instances.
- Absolutely ruler-flat technical performance
Boring
- Absolutely extended, filigreed highs...but not one iota of harshness
It depends on if the music is intended to be harsh, but I also value my hearing, so a few dots of harshness are OK source dependent but not necessarily required.
I will sacrifice this authenticity to the gods of enjoyment if he harshness is gratuitous.
- Deep propulsive bass
Booty call, gotta have it, but music can be enjoyed with a mere theoretical low end if there are no practical alternatives.
Last edited:
Let me offer a rather obvious answer: It is, IFF you are trying to reproduce live, unamplified music. Therefore, "reference" is a relative term. It is for me, as I don't really listen to electronica or other types of synthetic music. The more important question for me is, do recordings offer a semblance to live, unamplified music, to start with? And I don't really think so, for the vast majority of them. Therefore, that goal is rather a lost cause, save for some rare small-ensemble recordings.
But what is the point of this thread? It's been discussed numerous times before, so is this any different?
Last edited:
Not only do I believe in a live reference, I also believe in strategising the whole system experience around live? What do I mean?
So, sonically, as we have all discussed, the system should represent our mental template of the live experiences we have had. Generically speaking, and ignoring exceptions like Mike's, for me, the vocal and violin concerts are best done by planars - this is what I would choose for choral, opera, and arias. For piano, brass, and woodwinds, I prefer the flow and tone or SET+horns. For symphony, it becomes a tough choice. If it is a tutti based orchestra, like B's 9th, then I prefer planars. If it is a symphony largely dominated by softer, quieter movements, like Mahler 3 or 7 (which have an emphasis on brass and woodwinds), then SET+horns. Overall, I prefer SET+horns if I had to have only one system, while ideally I would like two. On a budget, it would be a planar.
None of these systems are capable of properly producing a good rock concert, or an amplified musical like Aladdin (seriously folks, of the 50 - 70 concerts I have attended the past year (17 unamplified since this Jan, just counted, plus two musicals (Hamilton and Grinning man)), one of the most exciting was Aladdin. Take your kids there, they will love it too. The bass, dynamics, choral, and overall music make it fun to attend as well as to fantasize from an audiophile viewpoint).
If you want to do both rock and classical, my best choice remains the big Apogees. And yes, I have attended a fair share of rock concerts, including watching GnR and ACDC thrice, Iron Maiden, Black Sabbath, Soundgarden, Eric Clapton 5 times, Dylan, Knopfler, etc and some Zep cover bands.
That was the speakers. Regarding source, I cannot see bass and flow and liquidity and tone being recreated by digital like by vinyl. So, if one wanted to listen to violin or original rock LPs, vinyl should be the main choice. Bonham sounds anemic on digital and on the wrong LP reissues compared to how he sounds on originals and the classic 45s. But, how much do you give up sonically? Practically speaking, I wouldn't advise vinyl unless you can afford 10000 records, or very few well curated 200 - 500. Digital is good enough. Vinyl is better.
Why did I mention the point on the number of records? Everytime I go to a good performance, I come back on youtube and look at different performances of the same piece. If you visit sites like talkclassical, gramophone, violinist etc, you will find loads of recommendations for your favorite classical pieces. There is only one way to gain exposure to so many, and that is streaming. You can then pick a couple of favorites on vinyl.
As an example, read the performances mentioned here on page 5, and see if you feel like listening to them. If you strategised around this, you will need a streamer. If not,
for just sonics, vinyl. http://www.gidonkremer.net/uploads/Ludwig_UK-EN_FINAL_0.1.pdf
So, sonically, as we have all discussed, the system should represent our mental template of the live experiences we have had. Generically speaking, and ignoring exceptions like Mike's, for me, the vocal and violin concerts are best done by planars - this is what I would choose for choral, opera, and arias. For piano, brass, and woodwinds, I prefer the flow and tone or SET+horns. For symphony, it becomes a tough choice. If it is a tutti based orchestra, like B's 9th, then I prefer planars. If it is a symphony largely dominated by softer, quieter movements, like Mahler 3 or 7 (which have an emphasis on brass and woodwinds), then SET+horns. Overall, I prefer SET+horns if I had to have only one system, while ideally I would like two. On a budget, it would be a planar.
None of these systems are capable of properly producing a good rock concert, or an amplified musical like Aladdin (seriously folks, of the 50 - 70 concerts I have attended the past year (17 unamplified since this Jan, just counted, plus two musicals (Hamilton and Grinning man)), one of the most exciting was Aladdin. Take your kids there, they will love it too. The bass, dynamics, choral, and overall music make it fun to attend as well as to fantasize from an audiophile viewpoint).
If you want to do both rock and classical, my best choice remains the big Apogees. And yes, I have attended a fair share of rock concerts, including watching GnR and ACDC thrice, Iron Maiden, Black Sabbath, Soundgarden, Eric Clapton 5 times, Dylan, Knopfler, etc and some Zep cover bands.
That was the speakers. Regarding source, I cannot see bass and flow and liquidity and tone being recreated by digital like by vinyl. So, if one wanted to listen to violin or original rock LPs, vinyl should be the main choice. Bonham sounds anemic on digital and on the wrong LP reissues compared to how he sounds on originals and the classic 45s. But, how much do you give up sonically? Practically speaking, I wouldn't advise vinyl unless you can afford 10000 records, or very few well curated 200 - 500. Digital is good enough. Vinyl is better.
Why did I mention the point on the number of records? Everytime I go to a good performance, I come back on youtube and look at different performances of the same piece. If you visit sites like talkclassical, gramophone, violinist etc, you will find loads of recommendations for your favorite classical pieces. There is only one way to gain exposure to so many, and that is streaming. You can then pick a couple of favorites on vinyl.
As an example, read the performances mentioned here on page 5, and see if you feel like listening to them. If you strategised around this, you will need a streamer. If not,
for just sonics, vinyl. http://www.gidonkremer.net/uploads/Ludwig_UK-EN_FINAL_0.1.pdf
So you really want to try and reproduce LUM?
I just heard Dudamel conduct the Vienna Phil last night at Carnegie in a spectacular all Brahm's program (Academic Festival Overture, Variations on a Theme by Haydn, Brahm's Symphony #1). What I would suggest is doing what I always do after attending a live event. Go home and turn off your system for about a day.
As the Borg say: Lower your shield and surrender your ship. Resistance is futile.
I just heard Dudamel conduct the Vienna Phil last night at Carnegie in a spectacular all Brahm's program (Academic Festival Overture, Variations on a Theme by Haydn, Brahm's Symphony #1). What I would suggest is doing what I always do after attending a live event. Go home and turn off your system for about a day.
As the Borg say: Lower your shield and surrender your ship. Resistance is futile.
Now there is a audiophile who clearly understands the ginormous differences between live and recorded music. When I was on the chase to "perfection" I would come home from a symphonic performance, put on the same music, maybe even by the same conductor with the same symphony and get massively depressed. A really bad idea.
Exactly.
Or you can do what Ked does which is to go to another live performance that night!
Good post.
I think in addition to live music, comparisons can be made that advance your goals according to lists like the above.
While recreating live music is problematic for many reasons we can still improve our systems and get closer to what we prefer. This might depend a lot on what we listen to and prioritize. It also depends on variation of human perception and what is stored in their aural memory. Personality, life experience, etc may go a long way to determining the outcome of a system. IMO there is no right or wrong, but if you are going for advancing high fidelity there are 3 main goals that encompass most everything you'd put on a list like is posted above:
1. Tone/Timbre: This is where hearing live music is critical, but the most telling instrument might be the female vocal and we've all heard plenty of that as we all, presumably, have mothers.
But this is key as without it the illusion is far less believable and can be almost irritating... 2. Resolution: This is key towards reproducing instruments with complex timbre correctly. You may have tone down but string instruments, vocals, etc have a complex timbre that can't be faithfully recreated without enough resolution. Also, resolution is responsible for the presentation of spatial information and is key toward producing the "you are there" effect, without it you won't get that immersive 3-D soundstage that makes it feel as if you're at the recording venue.
3. Absence of fatigue-causing distortions: Glare, harshness, grain, and accentuated leading edges are a partial list of common fatigue-causing distortions that need to be avoided like the plague they are. Fatigue is auditory poison and will cause you to lose interest in listening to your system. This can be tricky as often these kinds of distortions are perceived as positive at first.
IMO, if you achieve the 3 points above, along with decent conventional performance aspects like full, smooth frequency response, smooth polar plots, decent listening room acoustics, etc.. that this will get you closer to the goal of a true high fidelity system and it will sound closer to live music as a result. So, I do agree with the live music comparison but we often lack a road map to get there...
+10000
There are members here who love old fashioned horn speakers who believe that what you said isn't true!!!
These same folks seem to be in lala land, IMHO. Comparing LUM to their systems and proclaiming that they can reproduce LUM simply shows us that these guys don't go out to live music enough...or at all! They then have the temerity to claim that 'if' you don't agree with them, then you are not an experienced enough a'phile. What a complete joke!!!! 
+10000
There are members here who love old fashioned horn speakers who believe that what you said isn't true!!!
You're entitled to your opinion but you don't know what you don't Davey, simple as that. Better to address me directly than taking cheap shots this way.
david
Did I mention you by name in my above post, but if the shoe fits, LOL!
You didn't have the guts and still hiding behind stupid emojis!
david
I was in Ireland recently , for a wedding..heard tons of unamped music at pubs etc but one performance stuck in my mind..At the wedding reception there was an unamplified bass player and pianist making beautiful music.. what went thru my head after standing right next to the performers was ... the double bass sounds better on my hifi...
, I sometimes compare too , and with voices ,piano stuff like that or an orchestra as its heard through a back hall seat my system sounds pretty convincing imo( I need better acoustics I know )But the closer the mike the more difficult it becomes as audio systems fall short on dynamics /sparkle and tone.
But there are also movies I ve watched 50 times maybe , because they sound so awesome on my system
IMHO this time your obsessive love for vinyl made you shoot in your foot. Pick favorites on vinyl after a concert, reading gramophone or looking around in the net?
We almost do not have significant classical performances on vinyl that are not at less 30 years old. Independently of our divergences on sonic aspects of digital and analog, attempting live performances was something that drove me towards digital recordings - I want to listen to current performances by new people and my contemporaneous, not just to the same approved "best performances" selected by audiophiles to audiophiles. Listening to stereo recorded music is a continuous learning process - our preferences are eventually dictated by our experience.
Hah, Hah! You had me going there for a minute. I thought it was going to be another "After hearing live, my home stereo was ashes" comment.
In live concerts, I experience synesthesia, for example, purple and red clouds and smoke rings of sound coming off of cymbals. I seldom have that with stereo systems.
IMHO this time your obsessive love for vinyl made you shoot in your foot. Pick favorites on vinyl after a concert, reading gramophone or looking around in the net?
Listening to stereo recorded music is a continuous learning process - our preferences are eventually dictated by our experience.
I think you have completely misinterpreted what I wrote. I am suggesting having both. You can stream 15 performances, including the current. You can also pick the golden performances of vinyl from 30 years old, for sonic reasons of analog. In case you didn't get it, I made a case for digital over vinyl, followed by getting a couple of vinyl performances. You are not picking up favorites for vinyl reading about on the net. You are reading about on the net for ALL recommended performances, hearing them on digital, could be 10 or more. Not suggesting you buy them on vinyl at all. Listen on digital first.
Similar threads
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Co-Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |