Do you agree or disagree with this statement

[taters]

If you don't listen to live unamplified music twice a month you have no reference point to be able to judge if a system sounds like real music.

 

[andromedaaudio]

I think thats a good starting point , the times i have been to the Amsterdam concertgebouw and also that beautifull hall in Oslo and listened in them it seems those halls are rather dampened .
To me Solid state audio amplifier reproduction doesnt qualifiy as to give a proper reproduction of the hall with classical unamplified music no matter which one , it sounds much to powerfull with far to much drive and control , it might sound nice but it aint correct in my opinion.
Tubes are much more correct as they are never hard on the air ,and overcontrolled in the bass .
With electronic music its the other way around

Piano /percussion are somewhat excluded as they have a harder sound /strong presentation

 

[amirm]

Disagree. Home reproduction is not about duplicating the live experience. It is about faithful reproduction of what is in the source which in most cases has nothing to do with live reproduction.

I don't listen to much classical music so maybe that is the difference in point of view. For the type of music I listen to, they are all artificial mixes and have nothing to do with any kind of live presentation. When guitar plays, I have no trouble imagining it is a guitar. Ditto for piano, etc.

 

[Shaffer]

If you don't listen to live unamplified music twice a month you have no reference point to be able to judge if a system sounds like real music.

I don't listen to unamplified music on my system (oxymoron?); I listen to recordings. There's a gargantuan difference.

 

[audioguy]

Disagree. Home reproduction is not about duplicating the live experience. It is about faithful reproduction of what is in the source which in most cases has nothing to do with live reproduction.

Home stereo does a relatively poor job of either replicating a live event (Or source) no matter how spectacular the system. For my birthday a couple of years ago, my wife hired a live 3 piece jazz band to play in our home. It took about 30 seconds to realize how really little recorded music sounds like live music - not even close.

And I attend our local symphony about 8 times per year. Same thing only worse. The scale, dynamics, spaciousness, and every other thing that makes live music live music does not come close to making it into my home.

As a result, I gave up a long time ago trying to replicate either. My objective is to have a "new" musical experience in my home -- hence the use of synthesized surrounds, etc and whatever else I can do to make listening to music FUN. I am currently auditioning the qol from BSG Technologies for that very reason.

 

[treitz3]

Hello and good morning to you, taters. To me, that was spoken like a true audio snob. I get the impression that he or she was trying to put someone either down or "in their place". Disagree with the statement. I personally have more faith in my aural memory than that.

Tom

 

[cpp]

Home stereo does a relatively poor job of either replicating a live event (Or source) no matter how spectacular the system. For my birthday a couple of years ago, my wife hired a live 3 piece jazz band to play in our home. It took about 30 seconds to realize how really little recorded music sounds like live music - not even close.

And I attend our local symphony about 8 times per year. Same thing only worse. The scale, dynamics, spaciousness, and every other thing that makes live music live music does not come close to making it into my home.

As a result, I gave up a long time ago trying to replicate either. My objective is to have a "new" musical experience in my home -- hence the use of synthesized surrounds, etc and whatever else I can do to make listening to music FUN. .

I agree with YOU , you just can't duplicate a Cream performance at Albert Hall or a Queen live concert in your living room...

 

[flez007]

One listening experience does not cancels the possibility to enjoy them both, saying that, my line of thinking goes to the fact that one can not fight against the perception of our own senses, a good system must be capable to deliver joy and an absoloutly vivid experience even without attending to live concerts that frequently.

I attend to at least one concert a month, plugged and unplugged ones, I enjoy live and reproduced music without trying to make them revalize each other.

My half peso.

 

[rockitman]

disagree

 

[MylesBAstor]

I agree with YOU , you just can't duplicate a Cream performance at Albert Hall or a Queen live concert in your living room...

No but it still serves as a reference point to how to improve the system.

I'm still amazed, though shouldn't be, by the obligatory response of the half empty crew. If your audio system sounds so awful, you shouldn't be in the hobby. Conversely, one should appreciate how your system brings you closer to the sound of real music.

 

[andromedaaudio]

To me , the hifi systems (regard less of price) lose big time compared to big bands playing close for example , or when you stand in a bar and a rockgroup is playing
whether amplified or not , the sound of the drums is way more powerfull snappy than on a stereo set.
The only thing that came a bit close was wilson maxx 2 s (which are very generous in the bass ) driven by ml 32 (excellent bass control) that drove Halcro DM 68 , that gave a bass that was incredible hard /tight

 

[Mike Lavigne]

If you don't listen to live unamplified music twice a month you have no reference point to be able to judge if a system sounds like real music.

i disagree. only with the frequency of listening to live music. certainly one needs some sense of what live music does, both good and not so good, in the path to system optimization. it's a piece of the puzzle but not the whole picture. the perfect audio system cannot replicate live music. it should completely reproduce the recording with it's good and bad things. they (live music and the recording) are different things.

our senses are trained our whole life on what reality sounds like, so you don't need a twice a month live music tune-up for your ears to validate that ability.

which does not mean that experiencing live music regularly is not a great thing to be doing.

 

[FrantzM]

No but it still serves as a reference point to how to improve the system.

I'm still amazed, though shouldn't be, by the obligatory response of the half empty crew. If your audio system sounds so awful, you shouldn't be in the hobby. Conversely, one should appreciate how your system brings you closer to the sound of real music.

Good Morning Myles

As usual our little sparring session

I find myself somewhat in agreement with you butnot entirely (What else is new? ) . There must be some point of reference. Live performance can be that metric. But let's admit it . Our systems are very removed from what we hear live. All and any of them. or to soften the blow all of those I have heard. I go to concert fairly often. Sometimes when the music is not engaging. I find myself trying to get what could audio systems do to get it. You know ... trying to feel the depth of stage or even the soundstage we so much speak about, you know the one that becomes broader when we change one little thing . , For starters in most halls you get a wide field of music coming from all directions and not a laser-focused sketch of the orchestra we so much rave about in front of you, almost a visual delineation, Yes the orchestra is there well defined but not etched in space. Then there is that sense of volume of the venue and the loudness of music and the transients and the swelling and collapsing of music... Most systems just barely begin to suggest those .. There is a rush of sound in an orchestra that our systems just don't (yet? I am an optimist) deliver. I , also have come to the conclusion that we must take recordings as a different experience, related to Live but rather like a second or even third cousin.. They come from the same family you can see the resemblance but ... these people are definitely very different

Yet our systems do certain things right , the better anyway. They are able to reproduce certain instruments to the point of fooling a listener. I don't mean orchestra or ensembles. I am saying "instrumenst" and for that we need the reference of what the real instruments sound like. We would like to think the piano is the most difficult instrument ,etc, It might well be but most system fail abysmally at individual instruments their glaring weakness bowed instruments, in particular violins. A strident instrument with lot of mid and high frequencies energy. Yet audiophiles often marvel at a syrupy sounding solo violin to the point that when they find systems that reproduce a recording of violin correctly, they perceive it as "bright", Hi-Fi-ish (to me a nonsense we want Hi-Fi)... etc. Same thing about most bass instruments where the audiophile standard was for years a weak approximation of reality, most often flabby and weak. Many audiophiles would be surprised to see how far removed from the real things their system is not in term of scale (it is a given we can't) of volume (same , we can't) but what I am calling for now tonality. Getting at least the tone right. Much is made of designer voicing in the audiophile world and too often, that "voicing" severely screws-up the reproduction. And often it begins with not reproducing properly what is on the medium. A sin committed most often by High End products than we care or want to admit. This affectation is seen in many components and systems. They have a sound of their own that has nothing to do with the reality of what is on the medium or the instruments that were recorded. A one-ness regardless of the recording in question, everything is beautified or sound with the same "voice". Another affectation of High End Audio is the system that can only reproduce a very small portion of the Audio spectrum, almost forcing their owners to listen to one type of music or one type of instruments ... And even then the portion is so limited that only a smallish, tiny part of those instruments or genre of music frequency range is reproduced correctly, robbing the reproduction of life and realism.

Thus I believe that regular bits of encounter with reality can help someone get a better system. Enjoy music more.. Commune with it if you will. Call it Education, re-education. Learning etc. Maybe not a requisite yet, exposing yourself to real music makes you more aware of the limitations of your system and help you recognize and look for solutions to make it closer to reality thus to more enjoyment.

 

[DonH50]

If you don't listen to live unamplified music twice a month you have no reference point to be able to judge if a system sounds like real music.

I am not sure there is a numerical value you can place on this... What if it was three times a month? Or three times every two months?

There are performances that have stuck with me for years, and others forgotten (often thankfully) in a week. How good the performance and venue is a factor -- I don't want my system to sound like some of the live performances I have heard. Or even performed.

Which brings me to the whole "must sound live" debate. Personally, my goal is to have a system that sounds pleasing to me. Having been in the biz for decades, on both sides of the mic and sales floor, "live" is not my main criteria. There are far too many variables with live sound, and the chances of a recording sounding exactly like sitting in the hall or club is very small. You can often get a better take with more artistic emphasis in a recording. The fact that it is not live does not take away, and sometimes enhances, the listening for me.

OTOH, I want the instruments and vocals to sound realistic, and of course that implies I know what they are supposed to sound like, which in turn implies some exposure to live, at some point.

For me, for orchestral works, I suppose it's every Tuesday at rehearsal...

YMMV - Don

 

[danielk141]

I disagree.

If you don't listen to live unamplified music twice a month you have no reference point to be able to judge if a system sounds like real music.

In my case, I played coronet in grade school band. I constantly reference an event we performed in an auditorium. We marched in from the back of the auditorium.
The trumpets came in last, behind us. When they kicked in, I found out how loud & intense a group of trumpets can really get, in a large venue.
Very few systems I've heard over the years can accurately present a trumpet(s) this loud & dynamic. Many can play music louder than the original performance, but then
the selection becomes fatiguing.

 

[GaryProtein]

In my case, I played coronet in grade school band. I constantly reference an event we performed in an auditorium. We marched in from the back of the auditorium.
The trumpets came in last, behind us. When they kicked in, I found out how loud & intense a group of trumpets can really get, in a large venue.
Very few systems I've heard over the years can accurately present a trumpet(s) this loud & dynamic. Many can play music louder than the original performance, but then
the selection becomes fatiguing.

I don't think the fault lies so much with the individual systems.

Most recording engineers are BUFFOONS who only THINK they know what they are doing.

They compress the program material, they add and subtract what their limited knowledge or monetary backers tell them to do, and we are left with crappy recordings.

I have made recordings with my old Tandberg 64X a long time ago and my Nakamichi Dragon using my equally old but good Electro-Voice 664 microphones, of string quartets in my living room that far outperform anything I have purchased simply because I didn't do anything to the recording while it was being made.

 

[DaveyF]

Agree and disagree
Agree that one should listen to live, preferably uamplified,music. Do not agree that you need to have a particular frequency.
Would add that IF you can play an instrument yourself ( even IF you do it poorly) this will help you hear what that particular instrument sounds like. Exposure to the real thing is important, IMHO.

 

[Andre Marc]

Agree and disagree
Agree that one should listen to live, preferably uamplified,music. Do not agree that you need to have a particular frequency.
Would add that IF you can play an instrument yourself ( even IF you do it poorly) this will help you hear what that particular instrument sounds like. Exposure to the real thing is important, IMHO.

Seeing guitar god Uli Jon Roth tonight.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5e5072S-hBg

 

[DaveyF]

Seeing guitar god Uli Jon Roth tonight.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5e5072S-hBg

Andre, where are you seeing Uli? He is way underrated IMO, only wish I liked his music better than I do.

 

[Andre Marc]

Andre, where are you seeing Uli? He is way underrated IMO, only wish I liked his music better than I do.

Brick By Brick. I find his output from 2000 on to be sublime. FYI...I might have an extra ticket (on the house). PM if interested.