Live vs. Reproduced?

[garylkoh]

This is my understanding of the matter.

Jack, that was an excellent post. The only proviso I would point out is the definition of a "large space" vs a "small room". To my understanding, in order to qualify as a large space, the smallest dimension has to be greater than the longest wavelength reproduced. This means that for a bookshelf monitor loudspeaker with 50Hz f3, it's about 20ft, and for a full-range with 20Hz, it's about 60ft. Hence, no matter how large we all think that our generously-proportioned listening rooms are, we are all in "small" room acoustics.

Hence, to get "sense" of live you only need to have a room that is larger than the longest wavelength of the frequencies that give you imaging. To get "sense of live" you need a room that is larger than the longest wavelength of the frequencies of the sense of space.

Just as an illustration, take a small bookshelf loudspeaker out into your garden. Make sure the nearest wall is at least 20ft away. Place them 6.5ft apart, sit 10-ft away and have a listen. Now, just listen to one of them. It can be quite a revelation. I find that I learn far more about acoustics with simple empirical experiments. Math and physics can explain to me someone else's understanding of acoustics. The empirical experiments show to me what the real world is like.

[garylkoh]

Not at all. We're talking about extremely subtle stuff here, but the tiny nuances that are clearly resolved when I put on my headphones and invite Shelby Lynne to whisper into my ear are lost in the ambience of room reflections.

Tim

I like it when I can imagine smelling her perfume when she whispers behind my ear - but then I'm sitting in my PJ's unshaven and unwashed because it's Saturday morning.

We love our illusions, and make no mistake, it is all an illusion, but it's MY illusion.

[garylkoh]

Gentlemen, can we please refrain from pointing barbed comments at each other? It's sufficient to say that you enjoy something. It's overboard to say that others who value different aspects of reproduction are enjoying illusions, etc. Let's just keep it cleaned up, OK?

Lee

Oops. Sorry, Lee. I hadn't scrolled down so far yet. But I did say that it's my illusion....

[RBFC]

The intent is to keep discussions cordial. You are all good guys, we just get passionate about this pursuit, that's all. It tends to get blown up and misinterpreted a bit.

Lee

[fas42]

Trouble is, I'm not really sure who Mark or Tim are referring to ...

Not to worry, it's all good, clean fun, it's only a hobby after all, or mostly, in the case of some who are trying to make a buck or two out of the whole exercise!

Of course Steve is correct about enjoying the music. My unfortunate problem is that when the music doesn't come out right, it irritates intensely, and I have the further misfortune of liking music that has been "badly" recorded. So I do have a dilemma ...

For something like over 10 years I just didn't bother trying, let everything just gather dust, and listened to normal stuff -- old Sony integrated, bottom of the range Marantz CD player, no fuss listening. Of course then you're in a mood just to enjoy the music and ooze with the moment. Trouble was, there was quite a bit of music which was a hopeless mess listening this way, so I was finally inspired to get back into the game again, so see if I could make the dud recordings play ball.

As part of this stage of the journey, I joined the city's audiophile society, to see whether people had advanced the cause or not. Nope, quite disappointing, same old problems: expensive gear, very impressive on "correct" recordings, pretty disasterous on everything else. So, for me it was back to drawing board, trying to sort out how to guarantee always to be able to get good sound, which is where I still am.

So I'm not after perfection, I'm after getting maximum musical pleasure out of all the recordings I have. If I could walk into a store and for a reasonable amount buy a complete setup that did the job I would be very happy, Tim's is about the closest here in that category, that is on the way to doing the job but from what he's saying it's still not there. I'm excluding that of Vince's because it's too pricey, and it had to be significantly modified.

I know what is possible from the recordings I have, and so my goal is to always enjoy the potential that is embedded in the tracks. I am just not interested in a Ferrari that you can't take beyond second gear because it'll shake itself to bits ...

Frank

[JackD201]

We should start a thread

Horribly Recorded Music We Love Unconditionally

I've got quite some tracks to add to THAT list

[tomelex]

@Tom

Even in a forest we feel the air. We feel the wind, and can feel the relative humidity in the absence of it. The sound of the wind and the feel of it is coincident or at least our brains process it that way. Just a few weeks ago I was treated to one of my ultimate audio experiences. I was lying on a day bed with my eyed closed just listening to the surf, wind and the laughter of children. Amazing how I could feel the rhythm of the gentle crashing of the waves through the day bed. The Big Guy upstairs makes the ultimate audio systems! I do get your point as well and appreciate it. I'm guilty of the headphones and sub thing by the way. My daughter thought I was nuts. I should've locked the door

What we often forget is that hearing is a total body experience. 1/10the body exposure has absorption coefficients from 20kHz to 1kHz similar to 3 inches of compressed fiberglass. Below that we've got about half the absorption which is still a lot. Now think of the thousands upon thousands of nerve endings on our skin and hair follicles. The body effects may not be obvious but neither do we feel the effect of multiples of our own weight on the soles of our feet every time we walk, step, hop or run even if these nerves are sensitive enough to make us go into fits with a pin prick or a feather. It's a bit like focus vs. peripheral vision. We could be watching the principle action on a wide screen but it is the filling up of the peripheral spaces with imagery that gives us the sense of scale and envelopment.

.

Very Interesting!

Although you are right about physically feeling music, unless it is real real loud and close (unamplified), I have not noticed this physical thing, however, I will try to open up to it next time and see if I can "feel" the music, as deaf people can. That part of me needs more sensitiviy training.

Tom

[fas42]

Horribly Recorded Music We Love Unconditionally

I've got quite some tracks to add to THAT list

C'mon, Jack, give us your worst! I'm busting to know ...!!

Frank

[Phelonious Ponk]

We should start a thread

Horribly Recorded Music We Love Unconditionally

I've got quite some tracks to add to THAT list

I'd put most of the early Beatles records on that list. It gets worse, for sure, but they're not what I'd call good. The re-masters are an improvement. Then there is Layla...

Tim

[DaveyF]

Many years ago, my a'phile society held a 'bring your worst sounding CD or LP to the meet" meet.
I won... with an LP titled Faust 'the Faust tapes'..which, although quite a rare LP, amazed the
group with how bad the music was. There were some real "loosers" that night. Some of the then current pop was among them...my personal favorite was the 'Britney Spears' album...cannot remember the title.

Getting back to my thoughts on 'Live vs Reproduced'; I personally do not like the headphone experience, although 'phones can give an impression of spaciousness, they always sound to me to be far less 'relaxed', if you will, than a good in-room system or 'live' experience. Therefore,IMO, compared to a 'live' hall, they are the least realistic of all transducers in regards to making me think that I am in a 'live' hall. YMMV.