How real does it sound?

[DaveC]

I think in many ways it's close. The biggest difference is probably the dynamics of live music, especially percussion, isn't that close.

Its interesting to open a Window and listen from outside the house, we've all heard live music outside a bar, etc... Fo me the biggest giveaway is the dynamics.

 

[ack]

Personally, I have yet to hear a system that is "darn close" to anything large-scale.

 

[astrotoy]

I go to about 70 live concerts a year (all unamplified classical music). I don't do it because I want to compare my hifi system to live music. It is because I like to go to see and hear live classical music, whether it be chamber music, solo piano, orchestra, vocal, concerto, ballet or opera. Very few of the concerts I have attended in my adult life (over the past 50 plus years) are of performances with the same performers that have recorded the same program that I have heard live. However, the last couple of weeks have been an exception. We heard six concerts in the nine days between December 3rd and December 11. Three of them had pieces that are available with the same performers on recordings.

However, the context of the performances were much different than the recordings. We heard the Alexander String Quartet play two Beethoven Quartets (ones they recorded for their Foghorn Classics label that I have on CD). They performed them in two different concerts, paired with pieces that either inspired Beethoven in writing his quartet (A major Op18_5) or were inspired by Beethoven (Op95 Serioso). In their December-January series, the Alexander are joined by musicologist Bob Greenberg who gives short lectures about each piece and in this case the relationship between the pieces performed in the concert. Context here means that we are getting an explanation of what is going on, including short excerpts that the Alexander play to illustrate Greenberg's major points. It was so different, and much more enlightening and enjoyable that just listening to the CD. In addition, the acoustics of the St. John's Church in Berkeley are vastly different from the studio acoustics of the recordings.
The third concert was by Joyce DiDonato and the baroque Il Pomo d'Oro orchestra performing her War and Peace Concert of baroque arias. Joyce was in full costume with a male (naked to the waist) ballet dancer and her marvelously talented orchestra, on the stage of Zellerbach Hall. It was a delight for the ear and the eye. We were in our customary 9th row center seats, so had a great sonic and visual experience. I don't have the Erato CD In War and Peace, Harmony through Music, but I may just get it as a remembrance of the wonderful concert. Again, the recording venue is much different than the concert hall and there are no visual clues, so the experience will be much different.

Another concert with the Berkeley Symphony (which Kent Nagano made famous), we heard a newly commissioned piece - James MacMillan's 4th Symphony, given its US premiere - a real test for any future recording, with a huge percussion section. The second half was the Beethoven G major Piano Concerto, my favorite piano concerto. The soloist was Shai Wosner, a fine American pianist. We've heard the G major many times, including when my wife played it 19 years ago with a local orchestra. Here, I listen for the way the piece is played, knowing it well enough to determine whether I like or dislike the interpretation of different sections. The live performance gives spatial clues that have to often be emphasized by a spot microphone in a recording. For example, one of my favorite sections is the viola section carrying the theme in the third movement - something I anticipate and move my eyes over to them as they play it. In a recording, usually the violas have been boosted a bit in volume to make sure they are clearly heard - not necessary in a live concert. Of course in a recording, one can hear Backhaus or Kempff, long since gone.

Finally, I will go back to a live performance I heard in the mid-'60's of Charles Munch conducting the Boston Symphony with the same organist Berj Zamkochian playing the Saint-Saens Organ Symphony in Symphony Hall as the famous RCA recording from a few years earlier. I still remember the thrilling ending of the piece and the ringing of the last notes in the Hall. But that was 50 years ago, and when I listen to the recording, I don't have a detailed memory of the concert performance. While it would be a good comparison point to test live vs. recording, the live is too far past in my memory.

Larry

 

[16hz lover]

http://seanolive.blogspot.com/2010/07/why-live-versus-recorded-listening.html

 

[stehno]

Peter, I guess I come from an ex-pro musician's perspective. To me, when I listen to the sound of a real oboe or the sound of a real upright bass or on and on, I simply hear numerous aspects of tone and "expression" that I do not hear in the home system. To add to that, when I am in the audience at a symphony, I hear such a great "explosion" of sound that I believe my term "miles away" applies to the sound of our systems. I'm not saying that we have not made strides to get closer to the occasional 'fool me' moment. We absolutely have, but I think that we have a 'chasm' left to cross to get to the sound that I know as 'real'. Others, perhaps less musically trained, may not think so...which is great, because it will increase their level of enjoyment more.

Well said, DaveyF. I suspect you sir have well-trained ears.

However, I don't know if it's wise to justify having well-trained ears because you're a musician. There are plenty of (think many) musicians who are unable to come to your same conclusions. (You can verify some of this by reading their product endorsements in advertisements in most any audio magazine.) And then there's one who has the most well-trained ears I've ever encountered and I don't think he can read a single note from a music sheet nor play any instrument.

As for your last sentence, to add to that I would say, the good news for this industry is it seems very few have well-trained ears. Hence, I suspect the "enhanced" enjoyment you also mention.

 

[DaveyF]

Well said, DaveyF. I suspect you sir have well-trained ears.

However, I don't know if it's wise to justify having well-trained ears because you're a musician. There are plenty of (think many) musicians who are unable to come to your same conclusions. (You can verify some of this by reading their product endorsements in advertisements in most any audio magazine.) And then there's one who has the most well-trained ears I've ever encountered and I don't think he can read a single note from a music sheet nor play any instrument.

As for your last sentence, to add to that I would say, the good news for this industry is it seems very few have well-trained ears. Hence, I suspect the "enhanced" enjoyment you also mention.

Agreed, there are plenty of well trained people with great hearing that are not musicians...although IME most do attend a lot of live music. As an a'phile, it has been my experience that we tend to listen to similar things that good musicians do..and at the same time, we listen for other aspects that musicians simply don't.....if that makes sense. Timbre and purity of tone are high on both practitioners lists, imo. Pacing, exact tune and variation of tone, perhaps less so. ( less than musicians do).

 

[Ron Resnick]

Personally, I have yet to hear a system that is "darn close" to anything large-scale.

I wish you could've heard the gigantic Cessaro system we heard in Munich. It had some unexpected bass problem, but the scale and grandeur of classical performances on this thing was pretty convincing to me.

 

[Steve Williams]

Personally, I have yet to hear a system that is "darn close" to anything large-scale.

Off the top of my head ack I would suggest a trip to Manila to hear Jimmy's system and then lets talk.

If Manila is too far away I would suggest a trip to Cedar City Utah to hear his Bionor's and then let's talk

 

[stehno]

Personally, I have yet to hear a system that is "darn close" to anything large-scale.

(above for reference only)

I wish you could've heard the gigantic Cessaro system we heard in Munich. It had some unexpected bass problem, but the scale and grandeur of classical performances on this thing was pretty convincing to me.

Off the top of my head ack I would suggest a trip to Manila to hear Jimmy's system and then lets talk.

If Manila is too far away I would suggest a trip to Cedar City Utah to hear his Bionor's and then let's talk

You guys are serious? Ack’s gotta travel great distances to hear a playback system that might satisfy a coveted characteristic (in this case large-scale music)?

I'm curious. How rare is this bird? Cuz it almost sounds like you guys are suggesting there exists maybe only a handful of playback systems in the northern hemisphere with this capability.

I'm unsure but are you per chance implying that you're somewhat in agreement with those who think most or all playback systems are incapable of achieving high levels of believability? Only certain characteristics? Across the spectrum?

Can you elaborate on what you are implying?

 

[Al M.]

Peter, I guess I come from an ex-pro musician's perspective. To me, when I listen to the sound of a real oboe or the sound of a real upright bass or on and on, I simply hear numerous aspects of tone and "expression" that I do not hear in the home system.

As a musician you have heard many instruments very close-up. In my experience sound reproduction becomes a bit less problematic for a less close-up perspective of instruments, more like the typical audience member would hear them.

To add to that, when I am in the audience at a symphony, I hear such a great "explosion" of sound that I believe my term "miles away" applies to the sound of our systems. I'm not saying that we have not made strides to get closer to the occasional 'fool me' moment. We absolutely have,

Exactly.

but I think that we have a 'chasm' left to cross to get to the sound that I know as 'real'.

Exactly too. I think you are right on both counts. It just depends on the perspective from which you approach the issue. I have formulated a recent experience in a current thread as such:

Recently I also sat about 5 meters away from the piano, at a recital of Stockhausen piano pieces in Killian Hall, MIT in Cambridge, Massachusetts. The recording of those pieces that I play the most also happens to provide a rather direct sound. While my system is limited in many ways, I was astonished that, when I play that recording at a similar loudness as heard at that recital, it actually provides a rather quite good resemblance of the impact, macro- and micro-dynamics, and overall timbre of the live piano experience. Even though of course there are many finer timbral differences that easily differentiate reproduction from the real thing.

I think that covers both perspectives, the "we are close" as well as "there is still a chasm" ones.

And yes, large scale orchestra -- forget it. And the scale issue becomes worse the closer you sit (and we are not even talking about timbre). On the other hand, I was surprised that my system could get relatively close to reproducing the scale and energy of an ensemble of about 15-20 players from row 4 in a hall of a size on the smaller side of medium (Payne Hall, Cambridge Mass).

 

[ack]

(above for reference only)

You guys are serious? Ack’s gotta travel great distances to hear a playback system that might satisfy a coveted characteristic (in this case large-scale music)?

Quite serious... all the way u pto the Magico Q7. I suggest more exposure to live symphonic music and then we can have a more meaningful discussion. I'd love to hear a system that does Also Sprach Zaratustra (and similar) justice, and have yet to. For one, we just can't record such scale.

 

[ack]

Off the top of my head ack I would suggest a trip to Manila to hear Jimmy's system and then lets talk.

If Manila is too far away I would suggest a trip to Cedar City Utah to hear his Bionor's and then let's talk

I'll go as far as to say, Impossible - can't even record such scale.

 

[PeterA]

I'll go as far as to say, Impossible - can't even record such scale.

Guys, if you refer back to the OP, the topic is not whether or not our systems sound real. I think we can all agree that no system out there, even the best one in existence, can fool us every time with every kind of music. No one is claiming that an audio system can reproduce the sound of a full orchestra, let alone a solo cello or piano. The topic is much more general: How real does it sound?

The posts have ranged from "darn close" on some types of music on the best systems to "not at all" or "impossible" on Mahler's 2nd symphony on any system out there. Jonathan Valin suggested perhaps 15%. Does that sound reasonable? Can we arrive at some consensus, somewhere between 0% and 100% real, or is this a hopeless discussion?

I suppose the first question that needs to be answered is whether or not the industry is making any progress at all. If it is, toward what end? Sounding more transparent to the recording or more like the sound of real music. If it is making progress, then we are above 0% and will be even closer in a decade. Debates about the sound of vinyl reproduction are all over the place and many argue that little or no progress has been made since the height of the LP in the 1980s. But if we think about digital reproduction, there is little argument that digital is improving.

Just read ack's latest posts about his modifications to his DAC. It is pretty clear that he thinks digital can be improved. So if progress is being made, how real does the best system sound? Close enough to illicit a strong emotional response in the listener, even on Mahler's 2nd? Not at all resembling real music?

Assessing where we are in this elusive journey was the purpose of my OP, not arguing that we have so far failed at reaching the goal. That we have not arrived is pretty clear.

 

[DaveyF]

Guys, if you refer back to the OP, the topic is not whether or not our systems sound real. I think we can all agree that no system out there, even the best one in existence, can fool us every time with every kind of music. No one is claiming that an audio system can reproduce the sound of a full orchestra, let alone a solo cello or piano. The topic is much more general: How real does it sound?

The posts have ranged from "darn close" on some types of music on the best systems to "not at all" or "impossible" on Mahler's 2nd symphony on any system out there. Jonathan Valin suggested perhaps 15%. Does that sound reasonable? Can we arrive at some consensus, somewhere between 0% and 100% real, or is this a hopeless discussion?

I suppose the first question that needs to be answered is whether or not the industry is making any progress at all. If it is, toward what end? Sounding more transparent to the recording or more like the sound of real music. If it is making progress, then we are above 0% and will be even closer in a decade. Debates about the sound of vinyl reproduction are all over the place and many argue that little or no progress has been made since the height of the LP in the 1980s. But if we think about digital reproduction, there is little argument that digital is improving.

Just read ack's latest posts about his modifications to his DAC. It is pretty clear that he thinks digital can be improved. So if progress is being made, how real does the best system sound? Close enough to illicit a strong emotional response in the listener, even on Mahler's 2nd? Not at all resembling real music?

Assessing where we are in this elusive journey was the purpose of my OP, not arguing that we have so far failed at reaching the goal. That we have not arrived is pretty clear.

If we agree that home reproduction is still a long way away from the sound of the 'real'. ( I know some will argue that it is not...--); then can we assign a value as to how far away?? IMHO, Valin's suggestion of 15% could be argued for. Have we progressed towards this elusive goal? I would suggest that we really have ...but not in any great way. The fact that the original Quads and many of the older well designed tube amps ( I'm thinking of some of the SET's of yore and the likes of the Marantz 9's) are so prized today would argue for this.

 

[RogerD]

If we agree that home reproduction is still a long way away from the sound of the 'real'. ( I know some will argue that it is not...--); then can we assign a value as to how far away?? IMHO, Valin's suggestion of 15% could be argued for. Have we progressed towards this elusive goal? I would suggest that we really have ...but not in any great way. The fact that the original Quads and many of the older well designed tube amps ( I'm thinking of some of the SET's of yore and the likes of the Marantz 9's) are so prized today would argue for this.

Probably the greatest reason for the 15 pct is the dynamics which I think 15 is too low. One must remember given the size of a concert hall or a church...to fill your listening room is far easier. I would say closer to 50 pct and that is darn good for the best systems in a much smaller space. The next thing is scale and that is totally dependent on how the recording was mic'd. Listen to Pet Sounds 40th anniversary DVD,the recording session, that scale is pretty darn good.

 

[andromedaaudio]

IMO it depends on the venue/ type of music a lot , i think a" big band" would be the hardest for any system,....all falling short on dynamics

 

[ack]

So if progress is being made, how real does the best system sound? Close enough to illicit a strong emotional response in the listener, even on Mahler's 2nd? Not at all resembling real music?

Yes, I would say it's close enough to illicit a strong emotional response - absolutely! In fact, we see that in the various system-thread descriptions, folks just have a lot to love about their systems.

 

[the sound of Tao]

Perhaps it's not so much about it all sounding exactly real as it is about seeming to sound sufficiently real. The tipping point from one state of perception into another is does it sound real enough to not lead you into noticing how real it isn't sounding. So virtually real might be more about just not being generally inconsistent from expected sensation in any way as to distract you from the ongoing state of connection to the music or in moments of appreciation of the qualities of the sounds. Unless you are actually questioning yourself specifically about what sounds real.

If your focus is on just listening to the music then the shift or sharp change of perception triggered by a perceptual clash from apparent inconsistencies within the current real time experience while the mind is referencing it against the expectations of sensations based upon previous perceptions in similar experiences. In the background of our current experience the mind is constantly referencing and chasing connection to previous relatable experience.

If we had never heard a real piano live would we ever ever feel that the recorded piano we are listening to doesnt sound real enough. So the benchmark is perhaps built on or even reset when say in a live performance where we experience that sound or the music even more intensively because of a better performance, or a better listening position or just because in that occasion we are in a better state to correlate the experience more fully. The quality of the live experiences we have may give everyone a different benchmark for what is 100% real sounding.

Where instruments don't seem real is also about potential sonic inconsistencies in tone or incoherence in the sound field then making you shift your mental focus to question the perceived spatial or temporal characteristics (any deviation or clear inconsistencies in space or time domains) or what is missing in the experience say with a lack of a sense of associated presence (or the lack of the artefacts of presence... a kind of atmospheric deadness) or in the expected related ranges of loudness or dynamics.

 

[PeterA]

Yes, I would say it's close enough to illicit a strong emotional response - absolutely! In fact, we see that in the various system-thread descriptions, folks just have a lot to love about their systems.

Ack, I'm reminded of a short video you shared with the forum of your lady friend reacting to the music played on your system. She was clearly startled at what I presume was an overwhelming sense of realism. She was sitting with other friends on your sofa while you demonstrated your system. You filmed her reaction. I just scanned your system thread looking for a link to that video but could not find it.

Her expression and reaction to what she was hearing kind of says it all. "Close enough" to illicit a strong emotional response - absolutely. Indeed.

If you can find that video, please post it. It will make your case.

 

[ack]

Ack, I'm reminded of a short video you shared with the forum of your lady friend reacting to the music played on your system. She was clearly startled at what I presume was an overwhelming sense of realism. She was sitting with other friends on your sofa while you demonstrated your system. You filmed her reaction. I just scanned your system thread looking for a link to that video but could not find it.

Her expression and reaction to what she was hearing kind of says it all. "Close enough" to illicit a strong emotional response - absolutely. Indeed.

If you can find that video, please post it. It will make your case.

I can't remember where I posted it... but here it is again - low sound and video quality, iphone 4S, sorry; but the message is clear. And don't forget, I said large-scale is Impossible, not this