Better than Live??

[DaveyF]

I had the pleasure of listening to a VERY good system today. Philip O'Hanlon of 'On a Higher Note' presented a group of a'philes some excellent dsd files and upscaled SACD's and also did an AB with a Brinkmann Bardo TT. Speakers were the superb Giya G1's..which were set up correctly and sounded better than I have ever heard them before. The amps were a new Class D design, which I cannot remember the name ( and frankly while they were good, still exhibited some of what Class D is famous for IMO,...in other words some fatigue after extended listening). OTOH, overall this system was one of the best I have ever heard!.
However, while the group was listening, the presenter asked what the group thought of the sound....and to my absolute amazement, one of the listener's opined that this sound was better than "live"

Apparently, this guy does listen to "live" music BUT stated that in the typical venues that one hears "live" music...that this system sounded better to him. I am NOT of this opinion, BUT it is an interesting opinion nonetheless. Have we come far enough with our best system's to state what he said?

 

[JackD201]

He should get better seats

 

[Johnny Vinyl]

I don't agree or disagree with what he said as I think that sometimes "live" just sucks. For instance, rock concerts on many occasions. The loudness levels completely distracts from any enjoyment I would hope to experience. Give me a good LP or CD at home any day. Live blues or jazz or a classical recital in smaller venues are where live is better IMO.

I guess therefore it depends on what is being played.

 

[Asamel]

There was a WBF thread about a Northwest Audio Group event where they recorded a performance. First the members listened to the live performance as it was recorded and then went to another room to listen to the recording. For some the recording was better - they could hear the vocals better for instance. It depended on where they sat in the room. For them the recording was better.

The same thing was demonstrated at a local show in a large venue. A friend who was at the show remarked how the guitarist seemed to be playing so feverishly but he could hear little of it. I had the monitor feed on tape and I could hear every note. He, indeed, needed better seats.

 

[prerich]

I don't agree or disagree with what he said as I think that sometimes "live" just sucks. For instance, rock concerts on many occasions. The loudness levels completely distracts from any enjoyment I would hope to experience. Give me a good LP or CD at home any day. Live blues or jazz or a classical recital in smaller venues are where live is better IMO.

I guess therefore it depends on what is being played.

All too true, John! If the system sounds "better than live", it has more than likely imparted some type of favorable coloration (I know ...audiophile blasphemy) to the program. The live performance should be the true reference...if its ment to be listened to live. Have you ever listened to a studio recorded album, and then here it live, and like the studio rendition better? It's because the mixer has added his take on the music on how it should sound. You'd be surprised how many artist have no input and really don't want any, in the mastering of their music now. In the old days they were there step by step, now do your takes and it's over!

We must also realize the truth and stop being willingly deceived...speaker makers voice their speakers to sound a certain way and cater that sound to the music their customers would purchase. Live blues, jazz, and gospel are ment to be listened to live, because of the call and response nature of the genures and the fact that audience reaction becomes very much part of the music.

This may prompt another thread all together, but I've always been under the impression that the only truly neutral transducer is the original! If a Hammond b-3 sounds distorted and dirty, that's the reference. All speakers impart their colorations (time to just admIt it folks), and we gravitate to those we like.

 

[garylkoh]

There was a WBF thread about a Northwest Audio Group event where they recorded a performance. First the members listened to the live performance as it was recorded and then went to another room to listen to the recording. For some the recording was better - they could hear the vocals better for instance. It depended on where they sat in the room. For them the recording was better.

The same thing was demonstrated at a local show in a large venue. A friend who was at the show remarked how the guitarist seemed to be playing so feverishly but he could hear little of it. I had the monitor feed on tape and I could hear every note. He, indeed, needed better seats.

A plug for the Pacific Northwest Audio Society meeting:

If you are in the Seattle area, please consider coming to join us - 2nd Thursday of every month. More details here:
http://www.audiosociety.org/

 

[DaveyF]

That's a great video Gary, Thanks. I have done this type of comparison between my Taylor guitar and a recording of same. Everyone, at least in the groups that I have done this for, prefer ( and by a pretty large margin) the 'live'. One comment that I consistently get is that the 'live' guitar sound is far more explosive and dynamic than the recorded. The 'punch' of the 'live' guitar is IMO extremely difficult or perhaps almost impossible to re-create and playback.
OTOH, I do agree with those that say that the recording technique/gear is critical... along the lines of what Mike L was referring to in the video.

 

[puroagave]

A plug for the Pacific Northwest Audio Society meeting:

If you are in the Seattle area, please consider coming to join us - 2nd Thursday of every month. More details here:
http://www.audiosociety.org/

the comments about hearing more detail at playback than during the recording session are interesting. one must take into account the playback feed is what the mics 'hear' up close vs what the audience heard behind the mics where the room effects diffuse/smear details. thanks for sharing.

 

[andromedaaudio]

I think it depends on what you want to reproduce , get most hifi systems to reproduce a big band , nowhere close i bet , small (acoustic ) settings yes

 

[NorthStar]

A plug for the Pacific Northwest Audio Society meeting:

http://www.audiosociety.org/

---- Thank you Gary for sharing; I enjoyed that video, it is rewarding.

I particularly like the comment from Max Kosobutsky, then the one from Roger Cheng.
And it was also nice to put a face to Mike Lavigne.
{Max's comment is the best IMO; I can fully relate to it.}

- To recreate the ambiance (the music space of the recording venue and live performance),
only the microphone's techniques, and the right microphones will allow that closer facsimile from the reproduction.
Mic positioning is key. ...We talked about this before to quite extended 'resolution'.

Clarity is nice, but balance is even nicer. The live music performance and the live music reproduction are two different variables (events). The search for perfection is not to recreate one like the other, but to perfect the techniques of each one. ...And room's acoustics play a major role, and it's different for the live performance and it's different for the reproduction.
...Of course, the space for each is different; unless you are listening to the reproduction in the exact same venue as to where the live performance took place --> Then you'll/we'll have some more to talk about. :b

Cheers and Happy Easter!

* In addition, post #9 (from Rob) is dead on.

 

[GaryProtein]

I don't agree or disagree with what he said as I think that sometimes "live" just sucks. For instance, rock concerts on many occasions. The loudness levels completely distracts from any enjoyment I would hope to experience. Give me a good LP or CD at home any day. Live blues or jazz or a classical recital in smaller venues are where live is better IMO.

The loudness level and bad mixes and distortion have kept me away from all but the four rock concerts I attended in my life--and I was sorry I went to those.

All too true, John! If the system sounds "better than live", it has more than likely imparted some type of favorable coloration (I know ...audiophile blasphemy) to the program. The live performance should be the true reference...if its ment to be listened to live. Have you ever listened to a studio recorded album, and then here it live, and like the studio rendition better? It's because the mixer has added his take on the music on how it should sound. You'd be surprised how many artist have no input and really don't want any, in the mastering of their music now. In the old days they were there step by step, now do your takes and it's over! . . .

Many recordings are better than live. The engineers mixing live concerts (I'm not talking about unamplified classical concerts) don't know what they are doing, and neither do many in recording studios, but at least there, we have the benefit of second takes and do-overs. I find the studio mixes are invariably better than live because the recording can be perfected for posterity and I would rather listen to that then a not so perfect live performance. If a live performance involves amplifiers, there is no contest, I'd rather listen at home, and yes, that even goes for operas at any world famous opera house because everyone is miked and you are listening to amplifiers and speakers, not the real live voice.

 

[DaveyF]

After a little research, I realized that the amps were the new Mola Mola Class D mono blocks. Class D has come a long way, BUT I still think they were the weak link in this great system. Anyone else heard these amps?

 

[Mark (Basspig) Weiss]

The major flaw in this demo video is that the recording space and the playback space are different. The second major flaw is in the fact that there are two sound sources spaced way apart versus the one sound source of the guitar in the original performance.
A good test of a system is in a relatively 'dead' room, where the performer plays, and then a few seconds later, the playback occurs. This reduces the 'auditory memory errors' (because we forget much of how something sounded in the first 30 seconds of silence) and eliminates the confusion of venues.
I like to take my violin out and make test recordings, while walking back and forth past an ORTF pair in my studio. I am playing at a location close to where the speakers are, or at least as close as I can physically stand, so when the playback occurs, the sound source will be coming from the approximate same locations. The end result is amazingly hard to tell apart, with eyes shut, just purely listening to the sound. The hardest aspect is imaging as the violin 'walks' from left to right. Experimenting with mic placement has a great deal of influence on this.
Way back in '82, I had a friend come over and play his guitar, harmonica and sing. I taped it on my AKAI 747dbx on to Scotch Master tape and played it back on my (then new) mid/hf speaker system that I'd designed. We'd literally gotten the mic location tweaked such that it was extremely difficult to reliably tell the live from the recorded without the aid of vision to see what's really going on.

 

[GaryProtein]

I have been to a couple of live recording and immediate playback sessions, and I am convinced the greatest degradation in sound comes from the recording consoles and engineers who don't know what they are doing--not most high quality playback systems.

 

[rockitman]

I have sat at many amplified concerts, where i wish i was at home listening on the stereo.....unamplified, never.

I guess you never saw the Grateful Dead then ? One of the best live amped concerts you could ever see/hear during the mid 80's to 90's.Think Meyer Powered Ultra Sound. Most main stream acts paled in comparison sound quality wise.

 

[microstrip]

I must be a lousy kind of audiophile - although most of the real performances I attempted lately were amplified sessions (and a few of them did not need it!) I enjoyed them more than my stereo. The social part of it - going there, being with friends, the lighting, seeing the performers, the atmosphere around the concert, and debating the performance at the break with a drink in my hand are factors I really appreciate.

Also there is the surprise factor in a real performance - IMHO the fact that you know you are assisting to a unique act also creates a bias expectation that increases your listening pleasure!

 

[LL21]

The major flaw in this demo video is that the recording space and the playback space are different. The second major flaw is in the fact that there are two sound sources spaced way apart versus the one sound source of the guitar in the original performance.
A good test of a system is in a relatively 'dead' room, where the performer plays, and then a few seconds later, the playback occurs. This reduces the 'auditory memory errors' (because we forget much of how something sounded in the first 30 seconds of silence) and eliminates the confusion of venues.
I like to take my violin out and make test recordings, while walking back and forth past an ORTF pair in my studio. I am playing at a location close to where the speakers are, or at least as close as I can physically stand, so when the playback occurs, the sound source will be coming from the approximate same locations. The end result is amazingly hard to tell apart, with eyes shut, just purely listening to the sound. The hardest aspect is imaging as the violin 'walks' from left to right. Experimenting with mic placement has a great deal of influence on this.
Way back in '82, I had a friend come over and play his guitar, harmonica and sing. I taped it on my AKAI 747dbx on to Scotch Master tape and played it back on my (then new) mid/hf speaker system that I'd designed. We'd literally gotten the mic location tweaked such that it was extremely difficult to reliably tell the live from the recorded without the aid of vision to see what's really going on.

I noticed a few comments were that the acoustic space seemed less clear than the recording...i have to imagine that sitting in the audience with far greater reverb relative to the voice several yards/meters away...vs sitting where the mike was (within 3 feet/1meter), must have been quite a different experience. I imagine that sitting within 3 feet of the guitarist would have generated far clearer presentation, and far great macro/micro dynamics than sitting back 20-30 feet in a vaulted ceiling Church.

 

[garylkoh]

The major flaw in this demo video is that the recording space and the playback space are different. The second major flaw is in the fact that there are two sound sources spaced way apart versus the one sound source of the guitar in the original performance.

The objective was not to "recreate live". It was, we would have used one mike and played back with one speaker. The objective was to compare what you hear at a live performance and what was recorded and played back on the "reference" system the club members listen to at almost every meeting.

 

[garylkoh]

I must be a lousy kind of audiophile - although most of the real performances I attempted lately were amplified sessions (and a few of them did not need it!) I enjoyed them more than my stereo. The social part of it - going there, being with friends, the lighting, seeing the performers, the atmosphere around the concert, and debating the performance at the break with a drink in my hand are factors I really appreciate.

Also there is the surprise factor in a real performance - IMHO the fact that you know you are assisting to a unique act also creates a bias expectation that increases your listening pleasure!

Micro, I must be the same lousy kind of audiophile you are

 

[mep]

I wanted to think the entire premise of this thread was rather silly, but based on some of the responses I see that several people think their stereo systems sound *better* than live music. And I suppose the argument has some legitimacy if one takes into consideration the worst possible sounding live concerts and contrast them against some of the most well-recorded music. However, if anyone here really thinks that we are close to capturing all of the energy and dynamics of music being performed live, you are seriously delusional and need to get out more. Go stand next to someone blowing on a trumpet and please tell me how many watts you think it would take to come close to reproducing the sound of that trumpet and how much dynamic range you would need to capture that live sound. Ditto for a drum set-any drum set. While I was at Axpona 2013, I saw the smallest jazz drum kit I have ever seen. It was the smallest kick drum and snare you could possibly imagine. This was a 3 piece jazz combo playing live at Gibson's steak house. I was maybe 3' from the drummer and the sound intensity and dynamics just about knocked me down. We are not capturing that level of realism yet I'm sad to say-not even close. There are energy levels, intensity, and dynamics that come from instruments that our microphones just can't come close to capturing. Sure, we get some of the lightening in the bottle, but meanwhile, there is a gigantic electrical storm taking place and we just have one little piece of it.


So if you want to tell me that your stereo system sounds *better* than live music, that statement better come with a bunch of qualifiers.