Actually along the same lines the BACCH pro edition has a feature that allows you to record/measure a stereo system and recreate it quite accurately on headphones. This would allow for really effective comparisons.
Does Everything Make a Difference?
- Thread starter Ron Resnick
- Start date
...it's a fair, and sometimes overlooked point. Just because it's live, doesn't mean it doesn't suck sonically or thematically.
If live music you listen to “sucks” then I wouldn’t be trying to reproduce it.
Only Non-sucky live music is worth reproducing!
It is a difficult question, as pointed out by @Analog Scott , and I would agree with his comment that you probably have crossover between "pleasing" and "natural" (or live) sound.
We don't all have the opportunity to compare a recording of live music performed in our living room with it's playback on our system, as @morricab did.
To make things as simple as possible, at least for me, I ask myself: what do I want out of my system? Why bother, and not just listen to a cheap stereo? What immediately comes to mind is the ability to dig into the recording to hear all the subtleties, feel the "ambience" of the recording and better capture the unique sound of each musician, with as little coloration as possible. That's when the recording comes alive, at least for me. I get this with good quality headphones. If I could get to the same level with my speakers (with all the benefits speakers bring over headphones) I would be pretty happy.
Last edited:
Will try - will I visit Rhapsody on the way to trying Li-Lac, or will I visit Li-Lac on the way to Rhapsody?
That said, I haven't liked the Marrshmallow covered chocolates in the chocolate shops I have liked. But hazelnut truffles yes
Last edited:
P.S. the reason we go around in circles with these discussions, I believe, is that live music, often heard from an early age, obviously conditions our listening. Everyone uses "live music" as a reference - we cannot escape that.
But things are not so simple, because every instrument (and voice), every venue, and every microphone is going to be slightly different (not to mention the rest of the process that results in the analog or digital media). So how do we know whether what we hear on a recording sounds tonally accurate, for example? We cannot.
Frequency response gives us clues. But a perfectly linear frequency response comes at the expense of some other sound characteristics, so we have to compromise... There is a reason why we are not all listening to Magico speakers, for example.
Moreover, frequency response curves may not be representative of the behavior of a system's performance when playing actual music as opposed to "noise", and may not capture small deviations that become significant when we listen to music ("continuous" sound from an instrument, with all it's complexity) as opposed to a series of distinct sound bytes.
When we consider other aspects, such as a system's ability to reproduce low level detail, the measurements are probably more complex. Fortunately, it is fairly easy to simply compare various systems, we don't need live music as a reference. Detail is really a function of the recording itself, not of the performance (setting aside recording venue acoustics). Also, in many cases, there is much more low level information to be heard on a well-recorded performance than can be heard in the live venue.
The same could be said of other aspects of sound reproduction, such as "presence" and "dynamic response" which can be felt easily when comparing systems with specific recordings. I am not sure you need a direct comparison with live music.
But all these aspects of sound are also found in live music. So we just go around in circles. Just saying something sounds "live" or "natural" is nice, but it is not enough. For every sound characteristic we appreciate, there are always sacrifices that are made.
Last edited:
At least, most of us...
OK, but the bigger difference is that we hear some things and of these, some more than others -- while the mic hears everything, indiscriminately.
When it comes to speakers FR is insufficient; it needs to be supplanted by dispersion characteristics, and design characteristics: i.e. was the speaker designed to be placed near wall boundaries (dropping FR in the bass), in free space, etc...
And then, one needs to correlate measurements with what one hears, and identify what one likes about a speaker and how that is portrayed in the measurements and other speaker characteristics -- IF that particularity appears in the measured data at hand...
As I mentioned above, you need to correlate the measurement with what you hear &, more importantly, what you want to hear.
FR is just an indication - we need to place it in context.
After all, no-one is going to buy a pair of speakers based on some quasi-anechoic measurements... surely!
Regards
(I mentioned speakers because they are the least "linear" of a system's devices)
I spent 5 years building a refining a local and remote streaming system. From the very get-go the system was extremely pleasing with virtually nothing I didn’t like, with the exception of a slight hump in the bass that seemed to affect double bass notes more than anything else. As I continued to upgrade the system, by which I mean the Network I was able to generate some really major improvements in areas I had in no way identified as lacking. In the early days, I could easily describe the differences these improvements made in terms of how they improved the musical presentation, until one day an improvement to a power supply powering a network bridge completely resolved the bass hump. From that point on, I had increased diffaculty in describing changes to the music using hi-fi terminology whereas I found it incredibly easy to identify and describe changes to my responses to the music. Increases in enjoyment levels, strength and intensity of feelings and emotions, ability to totally overwhelm my consciousness with complete musical engagement, changes to the tension levels the music was able to build, often resulting in spontaneous applause at the end of a piece as a way to relieve the intense emotions the music had generated.
Interestingly, once the music got to this level of intense enjoyment it had the ability to overwhelm any mood. I could have a really tough day or be worried about something and within a couple of minutes of sitting down I would be swept away by the music and be in an entirely different World…..the music becoming incredibly powerful in this regard.
Interestingly, once the music got to this level of intense enjoyment it had the ability to overwhelm any mood. I could have a really tough day or be worried about something and within a couple of minutes of sitting down I would be swept away by the music and be in an entirely different World…..the music becoming incredibly powerful in this regard.
I think this is a very thoughtful answer and discussion of the issues. But we don't have to go around in circles.
Often our respective personal objective for the hobby is a combination of two (or more) of these:
1) recreate the sound of an original musical event,
2) reproduce exactly what is on the tape, vinyl or digital source being played,
3) create a sound subjectively pleasing to the audiophile, and
4) create a sound that seems live
Your personal objective (like mine) might be a combination of 3) and 1) or 4).
Last edited:
Elliot G.
Industry Expert
I agree with Ron here that what someone wants to get from thier audio system is not the same for everyone. This is an old arguement and one that was taken on by TAS a long time ago when Valin went on the three different paths that were not the one the magazine statred down with HP.
I meet many people that don't go to live music, or only go to stadium rock shows and others that only go to small venue clasical or Jazz, they will have differing views on what is "right" for them.
So one that NEVER goes to live music and just listens to recorded music via record/tape/CD/streaming in some configuration his or her reality is vastly different than a regular at say Carnegie hall or the Blue note.
Taking a hollier than thou attitude , which is most of these discussions, just goes around in never ending circles of the same stuff.
How can you possible tell someone that a piano does or doesn't sound like that if they never heard one live? You can't but is that he other persons decision criteria? if it isnt then the discussion is just the proverbial pissing contest.
As Harry used to say to me what is the absolute hamburger?
“Audiophiles don't use their equipment to listen to your music. Audiophiles use your music to listen to their equipment.” -Alan Parsons
This can become very obvious if you have lived in a city with great venues and then move somewhere that does not. Sure, one can travel, but that has its logistical/time limits (unless you are @bonzo75
). It shifts the burden of musical enjoyment to the home setting, but it also can make one more thankful for all the great gear at all price points that is available to help bring music into one's home. And, you have the volume control (who hasn't suffered from over-amplified live sound?) and can use your own bathroom (or can setup a porta potty in the backyard if you really miss it).
Last edited:
Yes, that’s why living in Zurich is great…Tonhalle, Opera house and many small but acoustically good Jazz venues makes it a great place for good live music.This can become very obvious if you have lived in a city with great venues and then move somewhere that does not. Sure, one can travel, but that has its logistical/time limits (unless you are @bonzo75
I would have to pick 2) as my main criteria. Hearing the "uniqueness" of each recording seems essential to me, and a measure of success. 3) is a consequence of achieving 2).
What is the difference between 1) and 4) ?
Not picking 1) or 4) does not mean I don't care about say a saxophone sounding like a saxophone and not like a trumpet or a trombone. But there is a difference between saying that and thinking you can ever have the illusion of 1) or 4).
Perhaps some systems can achieve 1) or 4), but I have not heard them. That does not mean they don't exist. If they do I probably cannot afford them anyway
Last edited:
There are several problems here but I will illustrate just one. There is no such thing as “the absolute sound” or specifically the sound of a live piano. I have the good fortune of being friends with LAPhil’s Steinway piano technician (hate calling him a technician, he is truly an artist) I have spent hours with him back stage and on stage with the three Steinway Ds at Disney Hall. All three pianos sound quite different. Each one can be radically tweaked to suit the demands of each guest pianist with the LAPhil and each individual piano sounds radically different in the piano room and in the concert hall. And they are all Steinway Ds! So which piano with which specific tuning and tweaks in which acoustic space represents “the absolute sound” (singular)? They are all very different yet different hey are all equally real.
The differences in the sound of live acoustic music vary as much if not more than the sound of stereo playback. True references need to be singular, non variable and immediately accessible to work as a reliable usable reference. Live acoustic music is none of the three.
Elliot G.
Industry Expert
They all sound like a piano and if one has never heard a piano, of any brand, in an acoustic space then one does not understand how a piano sounds.
I have heard a Kochanski Guarneri del Gesù violin played in my friends house ( during rehersal) and in a concert hall ( the following day ) and guess what? They sound like a violin just in a different space.
But if you heard a recording of a lesser quality violin, without knowing, perhaps you would conclude that the system is not optimal?
It may all be a matter of degree.
And how does that work as a meaningful reference? If I am trying to match a color it’s not enough to say “red” or “blue” many different shades of red are all red. Knowing what red is won’t go very far in helping me match colors.
And more to the point. Ever heard a piano from the balcony at Davies Hall in San Francisco? If not let me assure you, it’s not a good reference for piano sound. Yet it is just as much real piano sound as any other. But it sucks
Similar threads
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Co-Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |