Live unamplified music v home audio, another thread/perspective

[morricab]

That's interesting considering that Kessler is SME's main reviewer and Alastair Robertson-Aikman founder of SME was an opera lover and used liver performances as his reference against which to assess the performance of his products, or so I am told. Kessler's reviews often make reference to how realistic something sounds.

Here is an excerpt from his review of the SME 30/12 in HiFi News: "But then, as if this bassy intro was setting the stage, the guitar work and the assorted Latin percussion provided enough treble activity and transient attack to assure the listener that this confident portrayal wasn’t restricted to only a part of the frequency spectrum. By the time the all-vocals emerged, sounding as warm and natural as one would expect of a device conceived by an opera lover, it was abundantly clear that the Model 30/12 was an upgrade in all areas – not just the anticipated by-products of either a longer arm and heavier plinth."

Once I read this about Ken, I decided that his reviews were essentially meaningless to me. However, I never particularly liked his reviews all that much to begin with. I find the reviews from someone like Martin Colloms to be much more on point and helpful in understanding how something really sounded...to him at least.

I had a lot of respect for Art Dudley becuase he clearly likes a natural tone in his listening (tubes and high sensitivity speakers) but then he started saying things like image and soundstage don't matter to him. So, I started to get pretty suspicious about the actual resolution of his system because I have found that you CAN have super natural tone without losing the information that clearly defines images and soundstage and this aspect of stereo is actually one of the main reasons stereo was invented in the first place. To achieve true realism you need to be able to capture both. He seems only interested in a few pieces of the puzzle. Maybe he has difficulty in hear this spatial aspect (like someone who has no depth perception visually...I knew a woman like this once). I guess this also explains his passion for mono recordings.

 

[morricab]

From what I've learnt about reviewers over the years, I take everything they say with large pinches of salt.
Peter, the return to my tt after:
1- an 18 month time gap
2- 6 months solid listening only to digital
3- a 3 months continued exposure to live unamplified -
- will be a fascinating experience.
My deep down instinct is that despite some inherent qualities of vinyl not correlating with live, the things I'm most sensitive to, and most precious of, and can't do without, will be most familiar with in a live v vinyl comparison.
Esp tone density, timbral accuracy, and continuousness.
No doubt there is nothing really objective here, I would never criticise anyone who only sees a correlation between top digital replay and live.
But in my case, what I find so persuasive about live that can be had at home I feel is best covered by lp.
Of course, the sheer limitless energy and dynamic shifts in live unamplified IMHO isn't heard anywhere in digital OR vinyl.

Your last statement is for sure true.

We did a comparison between Lampizator Golden Atlantic and my vinyl rig yesterday. The GA was pretty good and has tone and balance close to analog but was somewhat overly smooth with transients and a snap that the analog did better. Overall, still a win from analog but not world's apart.

 

[bonzo75]

I think all reviewers are data points. I like the fact that Art Dudley likes PTP Lenco and Schopper Thorens 124, and said Tsar DST with the PTP was the best sound he heard. I am quite certain I will end up with the PTP and do a compare to Schopper. I will compare with other belts though like Kuzma XL4, Stabi M, and Prometheus. I have taken his lead of auditorium homage SUT to explore.

I don’t use KK’s data points. If I like a component, I read reviews to see if any reviewer has placed any caveat on it (so that I can go back and check if it matters to me), and if he has done a compare which has found better (in which case I have a new lead to explore). For example, I read the review of Symphonic Line Kraft in detail on Stereophile after I heard it and of the Analysis Omega and Amphitryon on Enjoythemusic. I read Roy Gregory’s compares of Ref 10, VTL, and CJ and could relate to them only after I heard the Ref 10. I am sure it will make more sense if I compare it to one of the other two, but from his review the attributes of the Ref 10 are what I liked, were I to use an Apogee or a cone.

 

[bonzo75]

Your last statement is for sure true.

We did a comparison between Lampizator Golden Atlantic and my vinyl rig yesterday. The GA was pretty good and has tone and balance close to analog but was somewhat overly smooth with transients and a snap that the analog did better. Overall, still a win from analog but not world's apart.

I have compared GG to Kuzma Stabi Ref with Lyra Kelos through the 3-box IO Signature, Kuzma XL4 (with Lyra Atlas, Shelter Harmony, and Colibri through Ypsilon Phono), and to Kuzma Stabi M through ATE 2005 and Music First 12k phono, a 1500 Transfiguration cart.

If the TT is not perfectly set up, the Lampi kills it. You will find a comment from Bill here to that effect when his TT is mildly off. If the TT is well aligned, then a good decca will just be better on tone even with a basic cartridge. The GG will deliver great soundstage and depth unless you have a phono like Aesthetix which also has those characteristics. With the Stabi M-ATE, for instance, the height, width, and depth was higher with the Lampi, as was the explosiveness. With the IO signature well set, the bass and soundstage and depth does get pretty high, as does the density and palpability.

If you compare an original Zep vinyl, the bass cannot be matched by digital. The vinyl reissue sounds no better than basic digital.

That said, as much as I love the Lampi, I will gladly trade it in for a well set-up analog and an Oppo, and then consider upgrading back to Lampi a luxury. I started down the wrong path of digital and envy those who started with analog, and today probably went to digital only for convenience

 

[spiritofmusic]

It's become apparent that my Straingauge energiser box has been a bit sub par, hence my frustration with it on initial listening a couple of months ago.
So, I'm getting it back from a full P. Lederman service, to full Level Seven spec, installing a medical grade R-transformer psu, plonking optimised rig on Stacore Adv isolation.
And then hope for the best in this reassessing perspectives, data points analog v digital v live v home.

 

[ddk]

Once I read this about Ken, I decided that his reviews were essentially meaningless to me. However, I never particularly liked his reviews all that much to begin with. I find the reviews from someone like Martin Colloms to be much more on point and helpful in understanding how something really sounded...to him at least.

I had a lot of respect for Art Dudley becuase he clearly likes a natural tone in his listening (tubes and high sensitivity speakers) but then he started saying things like image and soundstage don't matter to him. So, I startedk to get pretty suspicious about the actual resolution of his system because I have found that you CAN have super natural tone without losing the information that clearly defines images and soundstage and this aspect of stereo is actually one of the main reasons stereo was invented in the first place. To achieve true realism you need to be able to capture both. He seems only interested in a few pieces of the puzzle. Maybe he has difficulty in hear this spatial aspect (like someone who has no depth perception visually...I knew a woman like this once). I guess this also explains his passion for mono recordings.

There's too much fake imaging with false framed imaging in systems today which is nothing but artificial hifi and never exists in any type of live event. I don't care for any of that either and it has nothing to do with system resolution, if anything most of that stuff is a coloration of lower resolution systems. I like mono recordings too and often prefer them to stereo versions; and they're not flat. I disagree with your comment Mono can be more direct and have plenty of ambience, depth and appropriate special cues without the smearing of stereo. Just get mono and stereo versions (analog Lp!) of Sinatra & Basie Live at the Sands and you'll see what I mean. Plenty of fantastic mono Jazz & Classical records out there that are recorded with all the special information Of the venue when it's present.

Live as reference is mostly relevant if we're talking about unamplified music and it's possible to reproduce a close enough faxcimile at home to make it believable and allow the listener to be engaged in the same way as a live venue. There's no live reference with amplified music specially with studio recordings which is the majority of what's out there. In this case you need a dynamic system capable of playing back at the right volume, scale and weight to make it believable.

david

 

[RogerD]

What about RCA Living Stereo done with minimal microphones? I don't get it....without a believable illusion you have nothing but sound...who needs stereo. Mono will never equal the fidelity of stereo.

 

[ddk]

What about RCA Living Stereo done with minimal microphones? I don't get it....without a believable illusion you have nothing but sound...who needs stereo. Mono will never equal the fidelity of stereo.

Your assumption is incorrect ambience, depth and special cues are part of mono recordings too. I'm not knocking stereo but I often find mono the purer experience.

david

 

[jep123]

Once I read this about Ken, I decided that his reviews were essentially meaningless to me. However, I never particularly liked his reviews all that much to begin with. I find the reviews from someone like Martin Colloms to be much more on point and helpful in understanding how something really sounded...to him at least.

I had a lot of respect for Art Dudley becuase he clearly likes a natural tone in his listening (tubes and high sensitivity speakers) but then he started saying things like image and soundstage don't matter to him. So, I started to get pretty suspicious about the actual resolution of his system because I have found that you CAN have super natural tone without losing the information that clearly defines images and soundstage and this aspect of stereo is actually one of the main reasons stereo was invented in the first place. To achieve true realism you need to be able to capture both. He seems only interested in a few pieces of the puzzle. Maybe he has difficulty in hear this spatial aspect (like someone who has no depth perception visually...I knew a woman like this once). I guess this also explains his passion for mono recordings.

I am not sure if this is what is beeing discussed in this thread, but can Mr Dudley get the most out of the equipment he is reviewing with the system he has? Very old Altec speakers, vintage turntables etc? Of course I have not heard any of these components, but isn`t the hole point about reviewing to get the most out of the equipment under review? To give these objects the best possible conditions so that they can sound as good as possible? As the manufacturers intended? Or am I wrong?

JP

 

[microstrip]

I am not sure if this is what is beeing discussed in this thread, but can Mr Dudley get the most out of the equipment he is reviewing with the system he has? Very old Altec speakers, vintage turntables etc? Of course I have not heard any of these components, but isn`t the hole point about reviewing to get the most out of the equipment under review? To give these objects the best possible conditions so that they can sound as good as possible? As the manufacturers intended? Or am I wrong?

JP

In order to appreciate a review you must know fairly well the reviewer, his system and preferences.
Also IMHO a reviewer is not an isolated island in an ocean - usually he is part of a system, such as a magazine or even a group of friends. The editor and manufacturers should do their homework before sending equipment to a reviewer, in order to be sure that the equipment gets a proper and fair evaluation. Art Dudley has been regularly writing to Stereophile for more than a decade - he represents an interesting school of thought of sound reproduction. Although we do not share the same preferences, I really enjoy his very competent and informative writings - many, many years ago he even persuaded me into buying a Thorens TD124 again!

 

[microstrip]

Your assumption is incorrect ambience, depth and special cues are part of mono recordings too. I'm not knocking stereo but I often find mono the purer experience.

david

David,

Some years ago I found an excellent site of "fundamentalist mono" - the owner explained and debated extensively why in his opinion mono was the "best" format" and stereo was an "inferior" experience. It was really a great site, with plenty of information about how to enjoy mono at its best and lists of top mono recordings. Unfortunately I have lost the bookmark, but I would like to find it again. Does my post remember you of something?

 

[jep123]

In order to appreciate a review you must know fairly well the reviewer, his system and preferences.
Also IMHO a reviewer is not an isolated island in an ocean - usually he is part of a system, such as a magazine or even a group of friends. The editor and manufacturers should do their homework before sending equipment to a reviewer, in order to be sure that the equipment gets a proper and fair evaluation. Art Dudley has been regularly writing to Stereophile for more than a decade - he represents an interesting school of thought of sound reproduction. Although we do not share the same preferences, I really enjoy his very competent and informative writings - many, many years ago he even persuaded me into buying a Thorens TD124 again!

I also enjoy his articles, by all means. But this was just me thinking loud, nothing else. But a pair of old Altecs will miss out on a lot of musical information and details. I had a pair of Altecs many, many years ago (30 years or so)... I do not miss them .

JP

 

[spiritofmusic]

I actually rate Art Dudley's reviews, I guess because I'm a fan of where he's coming from ie idler tt, full range/high eff spkrs.
And I love his heartfelt style.
I remain immune to Roy Gregory's faux poetic and Jon Valin's next best thing/categorisation for sound reproduction.
In my last concerts, today viola and piano duo playing Brahms, Dvorak and Tchaikovsky in the moderate size room, with us in 3rd row.
Best approximation yet for what I recognise at home.
But I still maintain I'm not picking up too much specific imaging or depth layering.

 

[ddk]

David,

Some years ago I found an excellent site of "fundamentalist mono" - the owner explained and debated extensively why in his opinion mono was the "best" format" and stereo was an "inferior" experience. It was really a great site, with plenty of information about how to enjoy mono at its best and lists of top mono recordings. Unfortunately I have lost the bookmark, but I would like to find it again. Does my post remember you of something?

No, never came across that site Francisco but please share if you find it again. I'm not a mono fundamentalist nor would I call myself knowledgeable to argue technically but I know what I'm hearing and will always pick a mono version when I can unless it's junk of course.

david

 

[DaveC]

There's too much fake imaging with false framed imaging in systems today which is nothing but artificial hifi and never exists in any type of live event. I don't care for any of that either and it has nothing to do with system resolution, if anything most of that stuff is a coloration of lower resolution systems. I like mono recordings too and often prefer them to stereo versions; and they're not flat. I disagree with your comment Mono can be more direct and have plenty of ambience, depth and appropriate special cues without the smearing of stereo. Just get mono and stereo versions (analog Lp!) of Sinatra & Basie Live at the Sands and you'll see what I mean. Plenty of fantastic mono Jazz & Classical records out there that are recorded with all the special information Of the venue when it's present.

Live as reference is mostly relevant if we're talking about unamplified music and it's possible to reproduce a close enough faxcimile at home to make it believable and allow the listener to be engaged in the same way as a live venue. There's no live reference with amplified music specially with studio recordings which is the majority of what's out there. In this case you need a dynamic system capable of playing back at the right volume, scale and weight to make it believable.

david

Your assumption is incorrect ambience, depth and special cues are part of mono recordings too. I'm not knocking stereo but I often find mono the purer experience.

david

I mostly disagree. I just can't believe you'd say this if you know anything about how music is recorded and mastered. The statement that imaging is a coloration is just plain wrong, it's the result of the recording/mastering process. Otherwise we're all listening to lower resolution and highly colored systems, while of course you are not. You do not have the One Real Truth wrt audio reproduction. Your conflation of music made in a studio using "artificial" or "fake" imaging with a live performance is baseless as they are absolutely not the same thing and shouldn't be expected to be the same thing. So the comparison is a bit absurd imo.

Where I would agree is that there is a lot of poorly done stereo, especially in the early days and in many cases the mono version is indeed MUCH better. But that says nothing at all about the virtues of stereo vs mono, you're simply cherry picking the worst possible and imo misguided use of stereo to make your point. IMO, a well done stereo recording easily trumps a mono recording.

 

[asiufy]

I am not sure if this is what is beeing discussed in this thread, but can Mr Dudley get the most out of the equipment he is reviewing with the system he has? Very old Altec speakers, vintage turntables etc? Of course I have not heard any of these components, but isn`t the hole point about reviewing to get the most out of the equipment under review? To give these objects the best possible conditions so that they can sound as good as possible? As the manufacturers intended? Or am I wrong?

JP

+1 here!
IMHO, he represents a "branch" of the hobby (audiophilia) that's far from mainstream, and, as such, shouldn't be reviewing mainstream components in his "niche within a niche" kind of system.
I don't see how him comparing a pair of speakers under review to his Altecs has any significance for someone shopping for speakers in 2017, for instance. Now, if he compares vintage x vintage, that'd be fine, and I'm sure there's enough of an audience for that stuff to warrant his stay in the magazine.


cheers,
alex

 

[Mark Seaton]

There's too much fake imaging with false framed imaging in systems today which is nothing but artificial hifi and never exists in any type of live event. I don't care for any of that either and it has nothing to do with system resolution, if anything most of that stuff is a coloration of lower resolution systems. I like mono recordings too and often prefer them to stereo versions; and they're not flat. I disagree with your comment Mono can be more direct and have plenty of ambience, depth and appropriate special cues without the smearing of stereo. Just get mono and stereo versions (analog Lp!) of Sinatra & Basie Live at the Sands and you'll see what I mean. Plenty of fantastic mono Jazz & Classical records out there that are recorded with all the special information Of the venue when it's present.

Live as reference is mostly relevant if we're talking about unamplified music and it's possible to reproduce a close enough faxcimile at home to make it believable and allow the listener to be engaged in the same way as a live venue. There's no live reference with amplified music specially with studio recordings which is the majority of what's out there. In this case you need a dynamic system capable of playing back at the right volume, scale and weight to make it believable.

david

I mostly disagree. I just can't believe you'd say this if you know anything about how music is recorded and mastered. The statement that imaging is a coloration is just plain wrong, it's the result of the recording/mastering process. Otherwise we're all listening to lower resolution and highly colored systems, while of course you are not. You do not have the One Real Truth wrt audio reproduction. Your conflation of music made in a studio using "artificial" or "fake" imaging with a live performance is baseless as they are absolutely not the same thing and shouldn't be expected to be the same thing. So the comparison is a bit absurd imo.

Where I would agree is that there is a lot of poorly done stereo, especially in the early days and in many cases the mono version is indeed MUCH better. But that says nothing at all about the virtues of stereo vs mono, you're simply cherry picking the worst possible and imo misguided use of stereo to make your point. IMO, a well done stereo recording easily trumps a mono recording.

The above 2 posts get at a few issues many are dancing around. The playback medium and system configuration is a way for an artist/engineer to communicate an experience. Just as with a book or movie, many different perspectives can be selected from, and some of those are more like a dream-state or animation from a movie where they would never occur in real life, while some are first person vantage points. Now we even have full perspective video of events available. The latter isn't far removed from some of the more recent experiments with 3D immersive audio.

My point is that before we ask if we can recreate a live experience, we should consider if that was what the recording was intended to communicate?

Personally I very much enjoy better recorded live performances, even though certain hi-fi qualities may be softened slightly. There is something to be said for the energy of a performance happening live and a band playing together rather than being pieced together in a studio. Some recordings are more intimate studio creations focused at the listener, while others are a bigger perspective on a performance. A great system should clearly differentiate and communicate those recording and artistic choices. There are plenty of 2ch systems which rely heavily on the reflected energy in the room for staging and spaciousness and hence overlay the sound of the room's acoustics on the performance, making it harder to differentiate the recorded space.

Due to the 2ch focus of many here, I suspect few have experienced some of the Auro3D and Atmos demonstrations put on at trade shows or elsewhere. While most are focused on movie special effects, I have heard some extremely impressive recordings of real life spaces and performances, especially some of the Auro3D demonstrations. In the first demonstrations at CEDIA, Auro had a very large conference room with a large seating area and very high ceilings, making it possible to create a convincing experience for multiple listeners. There were a few impressive recordings demonstrated, but one of the most shocking was made in a public park. The switch from a single height, 7 channel playback, to a 3D height addition that was purposely recorded was startling in the naturalness vs. a mere likeness. Unfortunately few concert Bluray productions have been made with the intent of fully capturing a real experience vs producing what the a mixer/engineer envisions in a live event. There are many practical reasons such recordings will always be rare, but I do hope the future of 3D audio will include some awesome live concert experiences.

 

[DaveyF]

+1 here!
IMHO, he represents a "branch" of the hobby (audiophilia) that's far from mainstream, and, as such, shouldn't be reviewing mainstream components in his "niche within a niche" kind of system.
I don't see how him comparing a pair of speakers under review to his Altecs has any significance for someone shopping for speakers in 2017, for instance. Now, if he compares vintage x vintage, that'd be fine, and I'm sure there's enough of an audience for that stuff to warrant his stay in the magazine.




cheers,
alex

+1000


I started a thread about Art here: http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showt...-audiophile-he-is-certainly-an-audio-reviewer
The interesting thing about his video, at least IMHO, is that nowhere do we get to hear his system. I suppose IF his system truly sounds great, then the fact that he uses old speakers ( the Altecs) as his reference perhaps is not that important. Although his recent reviews of some of the latest gear do leave me with many questions. As an example of this, he reviewed the new AMG 9 arm on his Linn table, trouble is that he hadn't upgraded his table in decades ( reminds me of another S'phile reviewer...can we say JA and his Linn). So the review I get is one that is of a current tonearm on a table that has been vastly improved over the decades since his model. AD then goes on to say that his Garrard's have a certain sound compared to the Linn....how would he know since his Linn is ancient in the hierarchy of the table. What also surprises me is why Linn themselves would let a review like this get out....leading to much confusion about their table and SQ??? Surely, either give the guy the latest version or squash the review...( same could be said for the rep for AMG). All IMHO.

 

[ddk]

I mostly disagree. I just can't believe you'd say this if you know anything about how music is recorded and mastered. The statement that imaging is a coloration is just plain wrong, it's the result of the recording/mastering process. Otherwise we're all listening to lower resolution and highly colored systems, while of course you are not. You do not have the One Real Truth wrt audio reproduction. Your conflation of music made in a studio using "artificial" or "fake" imaging with a live performance is baseless as they are absolutely not the same thing and shouldn't be expected to be the same thing. So the comparison is a bit absurd imo.

Where I would agree is that there is a lot of poorly done stereo, especially in the early days and in many cases the mono version is indeed MUCH better. But that says nothing at all about the virtues of stereo vs mono, you're simply cherry picking the worst possible and imo misguided use of stereo to make your point. IMO, a well done stereo recording easily trumps a mono recording.

There's a difference between what's on a recording and "fake" system generated imaging Dave! IME cables are often the primary creator of this false stage with the same etched images placed in exactly the same locations with the same size and weight on all recordings, there's little or hardly any difference in perceived depth either when the stage is artificially created and framed, that's a system coloration and nothing to with the recording or the pressing.

I wasn't cherry picking nor arguing the virtues of mono vs stereo simply pointing out that mono recordings aren't flat and in some cases more visceral than stereo..

david

 

[RogerD]

Your assumption is incorrect ambience, depth and special cues are part of mono recordings too. I'm not knocking stereo but I often find mono the purer experience.

david

There is no way mono even comes close to stereo in ambiance and imaging. Listen to the Capitol records recording of Nat King Cole with mono and stereo versions. Mono captures about 70 percent of the information that stereo does. Stereo is not just two channels,it captures more information with multiple microphones. Listen to Cavalleria Rusticana in mono vs stereo...no comparison. Brian Wilson of the Beach Boys used mono because he was deaf in one ear. To each his own.