What is Your Test for Comparing Two Audio Components?

[bonzo75]

he has Rockport Lyra's.

Ok - edited, still the same. Concert hall sound is etched compared to what - only another concert hall, or to the home system sound? I can understand if someone says system sound is etched/rolled off compared to concert hall.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

An interesting perspective. Mike Lavigne also says he prefers his stereo reproduction to live -- maybe sometimes as he always tries to finesse it. <smilely>

cf. the post at this link:

What's Best? The Absolute Sound or today's High End Systems?

Back in the day of Harry Pearson and the evolution of the High End Audio, Pearson, in the pages of The Absolute Sound, defined the "absolute sound" as unamplified acoustic instruments and/or vocals performed in a real space, usually a concert hall. The evaluation of reproduction systems (HiFi...

www.whatsbestforum.com

not quite that simple. but more right than wrong.

it's important to note that the post you quote is a description of an anecdotal event, not a generalized or absolute comment. in that particular case what i said was that i preferred the listening experience at home for various reasons. but the live music experience is much more than that. and other live music experiences can have different results. at it's best "live" is better in almost every way. but it's different every time.

maybe if i was weekly doing live events i would much prefer them. but my musical journey has been to optimize my home system, a lifestyle choice, and so for me the attributes and advantages of my optimized home system are better for me overall.

i suppose you are right, i do try to finesse it. it's just one of those things that where it's just not so absolute.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Excellent recordings - I own the first and the third, little experience with the second one. In fact , the Black Saint and Soul Note labels are one of the reasons I will always keep a good vinyl system - I own most of their LPs that I got in a large mint lot from a jazz lover.

IMO you are referring to LP's that I consider that sound more "real" than reality, that I also really appreciate. Addressing Voodoo , the used sound capture and mixing technique create an extremely clear and immediate sound, with a distinct instrument separation, keeping its dynamics, that helps us diving in the performance and enjoying it. This sound type spreads in other LPs of the Black Saint Label.

Although I am not expert in jazz I have been at several free jazz concerts - IMO the experience of live is so different from what we get on these recordings that I can't consider they can be used as a absolute reference.

Alive, free from artifacts, great sounding, yes. But no way I could say with assurance that these recordings sound in absolute more real in a specific top high quality system.

agree that these ultimate type recordings do surpass most live experiences and can sound 'more real' in certain ways since they separate instruments differently than most live experiences and seating opportunities. you cannot quite get the power and ease of the music like live at it's best, especially jazz in a small venue, but maybe more nuanced information sometimes and tonal complexity with the very best recordings and system/gear/rooms.

i think that Ray Brown's double bass seeming to appear in the rear left of my room with all it's power radiating is possibly the most powerful single instrument i have on a recording on vinyl, possibly only surpassed by Ilia Itin's Steinway on the 1/2" 30ips unedited tape work parts playing the Debussy Preludes.

A tricky "reality" question - at what distance do you estimate that you are sitting from performers in a real performance to get the sound we have in Voodoo?

i need a fresh listen to answer. i have a WBF member visiting the next couple of days and i will be sure to play it and pay attention to this question....if my visitor allows me in the holodeck seat. my 'micro' homework for today.

 

[Elliot G.]

I believe that we are seeking a sound that is NOT realistic. It is something else.

I have recently attended a number of live performances (all at Disney Concert Hall) and the thing I have noticed is that I want something more than I hear there. At the live performance, if you are being honest, there is so much noise...noise that you'd reject a system over. Now, there is also a lower mid and bass presence that I have experienced. My point is that I believe we are seeking amore pure and enveloping sound that that of a live performance. Before blasting me, yes, I have sat in rows 3-25 in the performances and always near dead center.

I agree with you since there is never any agreement on what it sounded like or should sound like. People in my opinion are looking for what they want it to sound like more so than what it actually sounded like.
I have said that here are many searching for something without knowing what it is. If you don't have a goal I have no idea how you would find one.
No stereo system ever has sounded like a live full scale rock concert IMO. No Stereo System has ever sounded to me like a full orchestra at Carnegie IMO.
So for me we have a shot at getting a small jazz club or night club with limited performers in a smaller space . This we can get significantly closer IMO and it is my direction with my system is to get as close as I can there since the rest IMO is not a reachable destination.
I have never heard a system , including all the big ones , in big rooms that I have ever heard that makes me believe there is a full orchestra in front of me. I have sat dozens of times in the first 5/10 rows at MSG, Nassau Coliseum, Jones Beach, Red Rocks etc and never in my home , or anyone else's have I ever believed ( no matter how stoned) that that band was in my house. Did I enjoy it? yes. did I like it ? Yes was it real hell no.
So PK I agree we are searching for something else. How do I define it? Not really sure...
After thinking about this some more I also think that without the room and I mean a really good one and for orchestra or rock concerts a large one coming close becomes even harder. HP had a small room and he had really great sound and on somethings a palpable suspension, I think my room can do the same, however my room isn't what Oliver Gobel built that is huge and has the space to place gigantic speakers and stacks of subwoofers and have the room stay further out of the sound equation by design and by size. IMO if you want to get to listen to a huge sound, like a full orchestra , you need a larger space and the of course the gear, room and set up to make it happen.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Realism in the strict sense is not attainable. I look for believability.

to me realism/realistic = believability. interchangeable words. resembling what is real in degrees. it's a worthy aim of our music reproduction efforts.

'suspension of disbelief' is merely a matter of our reaction to all our senses and our mind changing our feelings.

real OTOH = real life.

so real is a different thing than realism.

we toss around these terms freely. this is just my viewpoint on what they mean to me personally.

 

[Rexp]

Yes, of course, the factor of subjectivity is baked in, as it should be. One person’s "realism" is another person’s faulty reproduction. For example, one person may swoon over the dynamism of a particular reproduction and may call it realistic, and at the same time all another person hears is coloration. Obviously, there can be no speaking of "objective realism".

A good system is objectively more real sounding than a bluetooth speaker.

I remember demonstrating a system for Pattie Boyd in my hifi shop, Dusty Springfield was playing. The first thing she said was 'I can see Dusty, it's like she's right there' . And she knew Dusty personally.

Realism is the illusion of reality and can be achieved with good equipment/recordings.

 

[Kingrex]

The way I trained my ears was by working on live to two or four track recordings. At the beginning I just thought it was great fun to hang out with musicians and be part of the project. But in fact the reality was that it made me very sensitive to instrument timbre (why isn't this spelled "tamber"? ). The other dimension is width/depth of soundstage and where the musicians are placed within it.

Now the third characteristic is dynamics. How do you capture those dynamics cleanly? It is largely good mics and mic placement. Now the hardest part for me has been getting the playback right with speakers. I struggled on dynamics while I had my various and beloved Magnepans but now have found nirvana with the Alexia Vs. But I would also suggest that getting the bass correct and lowering noise via grounding and power conditioning and things like tranquility pods were critical to that.

Another critical piece was a really good ADC and DAC as most of my recording work has been hired digital with a notable exception of running a tape decl on some ASO classical performances and Chesky's New York Reunion session. But the larger point is that many ADCs and DACs, and I might add almost all of the pro audio ones, don't get the instrument timbre quite right.

It's a very challenging process getting all these things to work at once. But I do believe HP was on to something by suggesting a benchmark like a live event is required.

Lots of people think they can get a few microphone and record a band. My only knowledge is from some TV shows and such about bands, but it seems its a monumental task to record properly. Well known bands seem to seek out specific people to do the work. Even the venue. Like an old house with the drums in a stairwell. Or a Church. Or a specific studio.

 

[Kingrex]

At the airport, my wife and I immediately knew it was a live miced guitar playing in a food court Not recorded music.
Its washed out and muddy. The slap of the hand over powers the finger work. I prefer home to this. But it is a distinct sound we both recognized as live.

 

[bonzo75]

Realism in the strict sense is not attainable. I look for believability.

You mean how deeply you believe it is real?

 

[Tuckers]

I am aware that my take on realism is a somewhat forward perspective of instruments. I attribute this to playing trumpet, flute and guitar badly as a child, 10 years of classical/improvisational jazz at my families concert grand piano (my sister still has it so I can revisit that sound, and my brother in law is pretty good), plus a few of painful years abusing a violin after 40. Piano sounds better recorded closer to the bench than in mid-hall to my ears. Piano and violin recordings are my go to for judging a system for realism (links to favorites). But for example, I generally don't prefer Deutsch Gramophone's longer hall perspective in recordings.

Last night I was listening to an early Mercury Living Presence Original pressing (Henyk Syzering's Brahms Violin Concerto). Somehow with their classic three mic recording technique it is a very forward and vivid perspective, which I love. There are some horn systems that capture this really well. The result of this highly edited recording is incredibly realistic to my ears on many systems.

I also listened to Jordi Savall's Hesperion XXI Granada DSD. This is recorded live at the Alhambra in Spain. I've heard Hesperion live in a church about 10 times when Jordi spent a season in my area. I've never been to the Alhambra (top 10 wish list though). The recording is incredibly ambient and fills my room with a huge soundscape. Because of my experience hearing Hesperion in person, I think my brain does a good job of mapping their instruments into this recording and it sounds more realistic than somebody that's never heard them. Is it realistic? No, This is pure fantasy, but I can be transported. It is very convincing.

One of the more realistic piano recordings I've heard that has the perfect acoustic placement capturing the full tone and power of the piano Is Nicolas van Pouke's The Schumann Collection, Vol 2. Available in 32 bit DXD resolution, this is what piano sounds like to my brain. And I am pretty happy how my system presents it.

 

[microstrip]

(...) I also listened to Jordi Savall's Hesperion XXI Granada DSD. This is recorded live at the Alhambra in Spain. I've heard Hesperion live in a church about 10 times when Jordi spent a season in my area. I've never been to the Alhambra (top 10 wish list though). The recording is incredibly ambient and fills my room with a huge soundscape. Because of my experience hearing Hesperion in person, I think my brain does a good job of mapping their instruments into this recording and it sounds more realistic than somebody that's never heard them. Is it realistic? No, This is pure fantasy, but I can be transported. It is very convincing.

As I have listened to Savall performances for a few times I also benefit from the real, including the visual experience, to reconstruct some aspects of the performance when listening. I fully agree with you, not exactly realistic but very convincing for me.

 

[the sound of Tao]

One can aim for a “lively” system (one that breathes life into the music, as opposed to one that sounds dull) without aiming for “realism”.

A system can sound lively without achieving the scale and loudness of a real performance. You can be fully aware that the presentation is not “real” and enjoy it for what it is. It’s like watching a photography and being amazed by the contrasts and detail knowing that this is never how you see things with your own eyes.

Feeling the musician in the room is “presence” not “realism” and this can be achieved without spending lots of money on high end equiplment.

Also, you don’t need a system that reproduces everything from 20hz up to 20khz to sound lively and enjoyable.

Yes that’s largely all in agreeance with the big picture and these things you point to are not divergent from what I am saying… realism is simply dependent on a wide range of intermeshed things and for each of us these can change with having varying listening sensitivities or on our particular values and expectations based on how we have already listened to music and in what ways it nourishes us the most… so I’d imagine any of these components of realism can become differently prioritised elements within a whole more realistically aligned sonic and musical experience.

 

[pk_LA]

Ok - edited, still the same. Concert hall sound is etched compared to what - only another concert hall, or to the home system sound? I can understand if someone says system sound is etched/rolled off compared to concert hall.

I suspect that regardless of my answer you will not accept it.

With that said, I do find various frequencies more etched at Disney Concert Hall when compared to my home setup. I think it is important to note (again) that much of the performances are being amplified into the hall.

 

[bonzo75]

I suspect that regardless of my answer you will not accept it.

Nothing to accept. Your home system is not a reference, the concert hall sound is. The fact that you have got used to your colourations at home, and your acoustic memory is defined by what you listen regularly, makes you think the concert hall sound is etched in comparison.

. I think it is important to note (again) that much of the performances are being amplified into the hall.

Had no idea one of the leading concert halls was amplifying classical music except the one odd San Diego one reported by miniguy.

 

[bonzo75]

Natural does not mean real or realism.

How is it different from realism? Except for the fact that if a bad recording is played, it should not colour it to make it sound realistic

 

[tima]

The fact that you have got used to your colourations at home, and your acoustic memory is defined by what you listen regularly, makes you think the concert hall sound is etched in comparison.

This is a very good point, not such much about PK but generally. What is the source of one's musical template in their head? If live music exposure is minimal or listening room experience is dominant, that is one explanation.

 

[PYP]

Nothing to accept. Your home system is not a reference, the concert hall sound is. The fact that you have got used to your colourations at home, and your acoustic memory is defined by what you listen regularly, makes you think the concert hall sound is etched in comparison.

That can happen with redesigned halls too. A major renovation of Carnegie Hall resulted in an etched sound vs. the previous iteration. So, which one is the reference? I preferred the Hasselblad version to the Leica one. Given that, if I wanted to recreate one at home, it would be the less etched one.

 

[bonzo75]

That can happen with redesigned halls too. A major renovation of Carnegie Hall resulted in an etched sound vs. the previous iteration. So, which one is the reference? I preferred the Hasselblad version to the Leica one. Given that, if I wanted to recreate one at home, it would be the less etched one.

Different halls have different sounds, none of them is etched. One can have higher frequencies than the other at your seat, the orchestra can play differently (one performance in one hall sounds richer than another one). If your seat is extremely close, you might experience the “too loud” bite in any hall.

They are all references. The fact that different halls have different sounds so how do you judge realism at home is just flawed logic

 

[tima]

This problem with these words increased when people started interchanging or conflating the terms natural with real or realism. And then started adding convincing and believable and authentic.

We are free to interpret the meaning of what others post, but I do not think it is helpful if readers start changing words freely corrupting the original post’s meaning. Natural does not mean real or realism.

I agree about inbred vocabulary. While I try to pay attention to what I write, I am guilty of occasional sloppiness in my word choice.

We distinquish between real and reproduction regardless of how we characterize reproduction.

Natural sound as we (you and I) use it is in the domain of stereo reproduction and certainly is not synonymous with "real". We talked about this iirc in one of Karen's threads.

Authentic is an interesting word -- I tend to think of it as 'genuine' or 'not a copy'. In that sense authentic sound is not, imo, equivalent to natural sound.

I have no issues with 'believable sound' though it may be slightly weaker than 'natural sound'.

We have a new one word descriptor, “believable”.

Now 'realism' I agree is kinda tricky. An on-line dictionary says its strongest synonym is 'reality' then it finds 'naturalness' a second tier synonym. Dictionaries ... go figure. Gordon Holt says of realism: "A subjective assessment of the degree to the sound of an audio system approaches that of live music."

'Realistic' may be more apt than 'realism'. Realistic sound resembles live sound but is not live sound.

In the end perhaps you are right about 'natural sound'. For me there is no ambiguity, though ours is an idiosyncratic phrase. Naturally others will disagree.

 

[Amir]

All systems are colored and all audiophiles listen to coloration, there is no real sound, there is no sound like live music. both groups of analog/tube/horn and digital/solidstate/cone have coloration and we should go out of this debate.

The important thing is our reaction to music not to the sound and I believe in this regard overally (not always) analog/tube/horn systems are better than digital/solidstate/cone systems.