How real does it sound?

[NorthStar]

I'm sure some of you here have some David Chesky music recordings from his Chesky Records music label. ...I do too.
And every time I listen to one of them (CD or SACD) it becomes obvious the unique style and sound from David...you can hear deep in the background...the ambiance, the atmosphere, the natural reverb of the venue/studio...and the special capture from the mics. ...It has that natural live studio character. ...The singers are always very clear...with great presence...the vocals are rich, and live and alive.

I was listening again, yesterday, to one of them. ... ENTRE Marta CADA Gomez PALABRA ... JD301 (2005)
It is the technique he uses here that I want to convey...the music itself...the artist, Marta Gomez, is not for everyone, and that is not the point; the point is the recording technique...the way her voice was recorded and now reproduced by the system. ...And with all the musical instruments of course.

Now, switch to a totally different music record label, ECM fom Europe. ...The bass, acoustic bass; they know how to record it best, in my opinion.
ECM music record label is more my groove...some very nice soft and meditative jazz music, and always well balanced. It helps too that there are only few instruments played by only two, or three, or four musicians of great sensibilities and senses. ...The ECM artists, I find them liberating...they are among the best, in my opinion.

Now, we switch again, to classical music...from Reference Recordings, with professor Keith Johnson.
We have the full orchestral power, and the better your hi-fi stereo gear, the better the power is fully resolved with all its verve...this is grandiose musical stuff.
...One of the very best in conveying the hall's dimensional space with the orchestra playing in it.

And to stay with classical music, we have Channel Classics recordings. Here too there are some unique qualities in the music reproduction...and a good balance between the music and the everything else surrounding it...like if it was present this time in your listening room. ...It was recorded very clearly and cleanly, as if optimized for our own reproduction @ home.

We all love our music...some more than others...some voices and quality recordings we simply dig...Holly Cole, Patricia Barber, Jacky Terrasson, Cassandra Wilson, ...other older ones from Billie Holiday, Ella Fitzgerald, Nat King Cole, Chet Baker, etc. ... and Blues too from various music record labels...Analog Productions Originals, AudioQuest Music, Alert, Blue Note, Verve, Impulse, ...and each of them music record labels have their own 'signature' sound. ...Just like live music.

 

[stehno]

I use to believe that as well. And then my wife, as a surprise, hired a three piece jazz combo to come to our home for my birthday.

I can tell you NOT EVEN CLOSE. While an audio system can portray the sound of different instruments, it is not even in the same ballpark to a real live performance. The dynamics of a live drum hit; the "blatt" of a trumpet or sax; the pluck of a guitar string; the space from which each note immenates; the way the sounds of the different instruments jell. How overtones play such a major role in what we hear. It goes on.

A good friend was at our party (his system is off the charts - Magico, Spectral, dCS, perfect room) and he too was amazed and soon realized that no matter how good a room/system is, it truly, truly pales in comparison to live. AND, two channel reproduction will NEVER get us there (but then neither will multi-channel but can potentially get us a very tiny bit closer).

The experience was s seminal moment in my home audio life. The rate at which I (AND my friend I might add) was upgrading/spending took a nose dive.

Please don't misunderstand what I am saying. An audio system can be improved, fun, enjoyable. But n terms of making major leaps toward live, we are barely moving.

There was one experience that did give me hope. Last year at CEDIA, I heard an Auro demonstration of 3D audio that easily was the closest to live I had ever heard. It even exceed the failed Lexicon technology I heard a few years previously. But not everyone will be able to put almost 20 speakers in their room. Nor do I expect much if any available source material. But it certainly did show the potential.

YMMV.

You sir, are astute, objective, and have ears to hear. As a result, I suspect you possess what is known as well-trained ears. Even if it's just because of one significant experience.

I'm curious which room did the band play in your home and were you at all concerned with the room acoustic anomalies while they were playing?

 

[marty]

I am just saying that the realization of what stereo can and can not do comes to us all, sooner or later. The liberation is when you understand the limitations of stereo and your brain can look past the idea of it needing to be fooled into "being there" and just "being in the moment".

Set yourself free of the chains of the magazines and the perennial flowery language and the never ending references and titallations to get your brass. If you can not describe in words what is so wrong with your system, what is a weakness that irritates your sensibilities, then your system is best enough.

Well said. It was the key to loving music when I listened to AM radio, to my first pair of Advents, and to the fancy gear I have now. Letting the gear thing go is the key to enjoying the music. Truth is, sometimes it ain't so easy.

 

[stehno]

I am just saying that the realization of what stereo can and can not do comes to us all, sooner or later. The liberation is when you understand the limitations of stereo and your brain can look past the idea of it needing to be fooled into "being there" and just "being in the moment".

Set yourself free of the chains of the magazines and the perennial flowery language and the never ending references and titallations to get your brass. If you can not describe in words what is so wrong with your system, what is a weakness that irritates your sensibilities, then your system is best enough.

I don't get it.

1. Where's the evidence showing that the realization of a playback system's limitations comes to us all sooner or later? So far, I've only seen maybe 2 or 3 here make such an admission?

2. Why can't such a realization ever be something as simple as a "wake up call", "waking up and smelling the coffee", being intellectually honest, etc. where those coming to such realizations now have an opportunity to become more focused with a better defined target on the wall and pursue it? As opposed to not having a target on the wall previously and spending much time and money then?

3. Why is it that when one comes to such realizations in high-end audio, it's time to pack it up and just be content with what one has?

I can't think of a single real performance-oriented industry or sport where such philosophies as this are considered acceptable.

 

[FrantzM]

We could say that now you are the one using the hyperbolic language to describe differences. IMHO some systems with adequate recordings can sound very believable. But I am G- row listener, I hate row A.

Let us think scientifically - which part of the sound wave is not possible to reproduce in our systems? How close can we go?

"Believable" as opposed to "Real"...

 

[marty]

Where's the evidence showing that the realization of a playback system's limitations comes to us all sooner or later?

You're kidding, right? Do you really think that anyone who has heard live music doesn't understand their system's limitations?

 

[esldude]

Was recording a small group of acoustic musicians last week. I set levels and had everything going. Took off my headphones and was listening at the end of the room. Room being recorded in was ever so slightly smaller than my listening room. I found upon playback in my similarly sized listening room even in meager stereo the results were not terribly off. Much better than 25% suggested elsewhere. I would peg it at 60%. Having access to the direct mic feed, and also listening hours later in my own room, I have some reference. So stereo isn't all that terrible when room sizes are similar.

I also find it may be a learned skill, to listen to recordings made in larger spaces to compensate for the size difference in venues vs listening space. Like model representation of the real thing in scale. Works well at least up to a 5 to 1 ratio. So things can be better than some surmise, and yet lots of room for advancing reproduction forward. I think with well done 15 channel playback we could advance those ratios up a bunch. Maybe 50 to 1. Not pure conjecture on my part. Educated conjecture if you will.

Now my personal philosophy has been for many years that two good channels beat 5 mediocre ones. I think things have advanced so 5 or more channels aren't all that mediocre, and we may be at a point where even at somewhat less than astropheric pricing several channels can be a benefit. A benefit which exceeds what 2 extremely good channels can manage by a considerable margin. I would like to see high end become more channels and not so much about stratospherically priced two channel systems. Surely top dawgs can put up 20 or more channels instead of 2 monolithic $100k plus coffins in the room. Need I mention DSP?

 

[stehno]

You're kidding, right? Do you really think that anyone who has heard live music doesn't understand their system's limitations?

I wish I was. But now it's my turn.

You're kidding, right? I have to assume your time spend in audio forums is limited. But on the other hand, it seems many prefer to remain silent about this very issue as there's potentially significant implications about how one responds to this question. IOW, people may think whichever way they respond, they'll be put on a hook and they'll never be able to get off that hook.

It would be interesting to see the results of an anonymous poll taken with a question like:

"On a scale of 1 to 10, where zero is no music and 10 is the live performance or the absolute sound, which number best represents the very best reproduced music experience you've ever encounter from a high-end audio system?"

But the only problem with the findings of such a poll is that some-to-many will consider the results as a majority rules matter. As in, since most entered 8 or 9, it must therefore be true. On the other hand, if the majority enters an 8 or 9, others might see this as illustrating how uneducated we might be about what we hear.

 

[stehno]

Much better than 25% suggested elsewhere. I would peg it at 60%.

Not quite sure what you're referring to here but I hope you're not referring to the deliberately grossly inferior hypothetical 25% I mentioned in another thread.

If we're talking the same thing, my general range is 40 - 60% with a definite leaning toward the 50 - 60% range but of course it depends on the playback system.

 

[audio-land]

"On a scale of 1 to 10, where zero is no music and 10 is the live performance or the absolute sound, which number best represents the very best reproduced music experience you've ever encounter from a high-end audio system?"

Interesting question, I went to Nice, France three weeks ago, attended Jazz Festival at the last day on Sunday, closing performance by Larry Graham, thousands of people, I was 40-50 meters away, waow, I thought I have heard 5 on stereo systems, it turned out to be 0,5 (1-10 scale)

 

[Fidach Lad]

I have a question: given the choice, would you prefer to listen to a so-so sounding, recorded performance of your favorite piece of classical music played by your favorite symphony and conductor of this piece, or to a excellent recorded performance of another orchestra and very good conductor of the same piece?

 

[microstrip]

I am just saying that the realization of what stereo can and can not do comes to us all, sooner or later. The liberation is when you understand the limitations of stereo and your brain can look past the idea of it needing to be fooled into "being there" and just "being in the moment".

Set yourself free of the chains of the magazines and the perennial flowery language and the never ending references and titallations to get your brass. If you can not describe in words what is so wrong with your system, what is a weakness that irritates your sensibilities, then your system is best enough.

This is just the problem for many people. They think they fully understand the limitations of stereo and their implications and they become jailbirds of their assumptions. They do not understand that the poetry, the magazines and reviewers are part of a system that is needed to create a dynamic system that has been improving the stereo reproduction along the years with the participation of the listeners. There is no liberation in this hobby, although one is free to stop anytime to take a rest.

Can you explain what you mean by "being there" and "being the moment"? I agree music is "being the moment", but we can not separate the moment from place.

 

[microstrip]

"Believable" as opposed to "Real"...

 

[Mike Lavigne]

I have a question: given the choice, would you prefer to listen to a so-so sounding, recorded performance of your favorite piece of classical music played by your favorite symphony and conductor of this piece, or to a excellent recorded performance of another orchestra and very good conductor of the same piece?

over the last few years I've had the privilege of listening numerous times with a friend who is a Professor of Music Composition, classical composer, and classical conductor......and musician. I have learned a great deal about classical music from listening with him, asking questions, and getting great lists of music to buy. but when we listen different things matter to each of us. he has strong views on what composers he likes and what conductors he likes. when he recommends recordings he will tell me about 'audiophile' recordings, and then great performances. and many times they are quite different. I've likely moved a bit in his direction, but only a bit. unlike many others I did not grow up listening to classical music, never played an instrument, and never had any exposure to it. so it's only the last 15 years of listening, reading liner notes and thru osmosis that I've learned.

I view it as at least part blessing to be able to blindly enjoy great sounding classical and not get my head twisted by pedestrian performances. yet I don't get the full benefit from ultimate musicianship either. I've certainly began the process of understanding the magic of great performance, and it does enhance my enjoyment. but I'm only scratching the surface with understanding the nuance of classical music. i do listen to classical more than 50% of my listening.

so to answer your question; mostly i just go with what touches me, and don't think too much about why. i do have my favorites, and they are not always the best sounding. there are most definitely recordings where i recognize that the sound is outstanding but the soul is missing......they are 'demo' only.

with jazz recordings this aspect of taste and attraction is so much easier and more natural for me. i care almost 100% about the performance and the recording is quite secondary. i basically almost never play jazz where i don't love the performance. of course; those great recordings which also are great performances are what i enjoy and play the most. i love that most 'golden age' jazz was so well recorded.....and that the musicianship was superb as the bar was so high for those performers, and it was recorded in analog. we are so lucky to have that to enjoy.

 

[PeterA]

I wish I was. But now it's my turn.

You're kidding, right? I have to assume your time spend in audio forums is limited. But on the other hand, it seems many prefer to remain silent about this very issue as there's potentially significant implications about how one responds to this question. IOW, people may think whichever way they respond, they'll be put on a hook and they'll never be able to get off that hook.

It would be interesting to see the results of an anonymous poll taken with a question like:

"On a scale of 1 to 10, where zero is no music and 10 is the live performance or the absolute sound, which number best represents the very best reproduced music experience you've ever encounter from a high-end audio system?"

But the only problem with the findings of such a poll is that some-to-many will consider the results as a majority rules matter. As in, since most entered 8 or 9, it must therefore be true. On the other hand, if the majority enters an 8 or 9, others might see this as illustrating how uneducated we might be about what we hear.

Here are three votes from me with the caveat that I don't think there is such a thing as an absolute sound. But there is a narrow range for what a solo instrument or voice actually sounds like depending on the space acoustic, temperature, mood, humidity, any number of variables. No two instruments sound exactly alike, but most violins sound like other violins, within a narrow range. It is this narrow range which I use as a reference for unamplified, real instruments in a real space heard by a person.

Who knows what an amplified electric guitar really sounds like? I think Jimi Hendrix said that he plays amplifiers, not guitars.

1. I was at an audio show in NYC three years ago. One of the exhibitors was demonstrating a digital source with some new speaker system. He played some amplified pop/rock/jazz extremely loudly. There was a lot of distortion, my ears hurt and I thought the sound was terrible. Interestingly, later than night there was a live performance in one of the hotel's function rooms. A four or five person band was playing some music. My buddy and I went, listened to the introduction and then stayed half an hour for part of the performance. It sounded very much like the music we heard earlier that day during that digital demonstration. It was way too loud, highly amplified an distorted. The guitars and drums shattered our ears and the sound was a mess. But you know what? It sounded just like that terrible, overly loud stereo and distorted demo. I would give this a 8 on a scale of 10. I was astonished at how similarly terrible both sounded.

2. About two years ago I went to a small concert of cello and piano sonatas in a private and grand house in Boston. This was the type of setting that this kind of chamber music was originally performed in. The musicians were retired members of the BSO. The music and sound was sublime. However, during one of the solo cello pieces, some of the lower notes excited a room node exactly where I was sitting, about fifteen feet away from the instrument. I then went home and played Bach's cello suite No. 2 by Starker and Brahms Sonatas for Cello and Piano with Starker and Sebok, both on Mercury. I matched the volume setting pretty closely according to my iPhone app and compared the sounds. They were very similar. I would give this a 7 out of 10. I also did this comparison with a solo cello I heard in the Vienna State Opera during a closed rehearsal a few years ago. I was sitting about twenty feet away. This was also about a 7 out of 10 when listening to my system.

3. I hear five or six performances of the Boston Symphony Orchestra per season. Very slightly left of center, row G. A performance of Rachmaninov Piano No3 or Beethoven's Violin Concerto sounds completely different on my system, and not nearly realistic. However, I can still be emotionally moved by the performance. I would give this a range of 3-7, the 3 being when the full scale and impact of the orchestra kicks in and a 7 being when the solo violin is playing.

So I don't care if this puts me on the hook for anything. This has been my experience. I'm sure others will disagree. And I think these ratings will differ slightly depending on how accurate and large scale one's system is. I do think it depends on the kind of music that is being played, whether or not it is amplified music, and the particular aspects of the sound that one is focusing on: Tone, presence, dynamics, scale, etc. If emotional connection to the music is what matters, then I have experienced, in a few rare cases, a very close approximation between a reproduced performance and a live performance.

I can't put down a vote for one specific number, because too much is variable. So from my three examples above, it is somewhere in the range of 30-80%. From my OP, it depends very much on scale, volume, and type of music and performance. 2-Channel in a well executed system with the best recordings can do pretty well on small scale stuff, IMO. And super loud, distorted and amplified music can also sound pretty convincing on really big digital systems.

 

[GaryProtein]

We could say that now you are the one using the hyperbolic language to describe differences. IMHO some systems with adequate recordings can sound very believable. But I am G- row listener, I hate row A.

Let us think scientifically - which part of the sound wave is not possible to reproduce in our systems? How close can we go?

With a good system we can reproduce extremely close to all of it.

It's the recording and mastering that is lacking.

For example, the very expensive remastered ESOTERIC recordings have great performances, but sorry folks, they sound completely mediocre.



PeterA--I have had the same experience. Also, as you said, there is no absolute sound.

 

[esldude]

Not quite sure what you're referring to here but I hope you're not referring to the deliberately grossly inferior hypothetical 25% I mentioned in another thread.

If we're talking the same thing, my general range is 40 - 60% with a definite leaning toward the 50 - 60% range but of course it depends on the playback system.

Yes, that is what I was referring to with the 25%. So we apparently have a similarity of opinion that when done well we can approach something like 60%. I do realize any percentage like this is somewhat arbitrary. Perhaps a good experiment sometime is to do a minimalist 2 channel recording. Then record the recording while being played back. Repeat this for maybe 5 times thru and see how much is left.

 

[GaryProtein]

To start to discuss this topic, I think we would have to define what we are trying to reproduce? How complex is the music - a single piano note or a cappella performance , a jazz quartet, or a full symphony?

The complexity of the music makes a big difference in the realism of the reproduction. The ubiquitous female solo singer at shows is ridiculous. For recordings of small groups, jazz and string quartets, I prefer close miking and to have them sound like they are in my living room. For full orchestras, I like to have the sensation of being transported to the concert hall which is one reason I sit 20-21 feet from my speakers. In a real orchestral performance, you aren't listening to the performers at close distance and it can't sound real if you are too close.

When I go to classical concerts, I dislike sitting close. The fifteenth row is fine for me with an orchestra. During rehearsals, conductors walk around the hall to see how the orchestra sounds, making sure what they hear on the podium sounds right in the seating areas of the hall. They don't just stand on the podium to listen.

 

[stehno]

Here are three votes from me with the caveat that I don't think there is such a thing as an absolute sound. But there is a narrow range for what a solo instrument or voice actually sounds like depending on the space acoustic, temperature, mood, humidity, any number of variables. No two instruments sound exactly alike, but most violins sound like other violins, within a narrow range. It is this narrow range which I use as a reference for unamplified, real instruments in a real space heard by a person.

Who knows what an amplified electric guitar really sounds like? I think Jimi Hendrix said that he plays amplifiers, not guitars..

I appreciate your forthrightness, Peter.

First, let me say that I was not attempting to take a poll here. I was only trying to suggest the idea and I think it would help some if the poll were taken anonymously.

About that polling question I suggested, it was intended to list one's single very best experience with a playback system. By your responses, are you implying here that your playback system is your best experience with any playback system? Nothing wrong with that. But usually a response to this type of question is more of a one time unforgettable event. Something like, "I heard the XYZ system at CES 2013 (or at somebody's home) playing my favorite music and I couldn't believe the level of musicality I was hearing."

With regard to "the absolute sound", I think it was Harry Pearson who came up with the concept. And I think that's what it's intended to be, a concept. Simply a general well-seated audience perspective of a live unamplified performance occurring in an acoustically reasonable space like a concert or recording hall. In fact, I speculate Pearson or whoever came up with "the absolute sound" concept was intended to weed out performance comparisons like the one you provided in your #1 example above.

But your responses are good as they help open up a can of worms (that needs to be opened) if such a polling question were presented. One such question that come to mind include (not to be answered here but to perhaps better qualify such a polling question):

- Was the approximate playback system volume level similar to what you expect to hear if you were attending the live performance?

This alone is a very important qualification as I'm reminded of a clownish reviewer who visited my home some years back who apparently took great pride in listening to all genres of music at about 55 - 60 db at most. Literally, the volume was at 2 notches above silence. I have to assume elevator music volume levels must cause his bowels to loosen. I had to leave the room during his audition as it took everything in my being not to throw his keister out into the street.

 

[stehno]

Yes, that is what I was referring to with the 25%. So we apparently have a similarity of opinion that when done well we can approach something like 60%. I do realize any percentage like this is somewhat arbitrary. Perhaps a good experiment sometime is to do a minimalist 2 channel recording. Then record the recording while being played back. Repeat this for maybe 5 times thru and see how much is left.

Good, I thought we might be on the same page here but I didn't want to presume anything. Now what I find interesting is that you originate your grading scale starting from the top-down, from the live performance down to the reproduced version. Whereas I've surmised my grading scale starting from the bottom-up. Maybe we should get together and go bowling sometime.

But in the end, it's all arbitrary with so many potential variables (assuming many participants), no matter how one attempts to reasonably quantify things, we're back at square one because it's all so arbitrary.