Natural Sound

[Atmasphere]

The musicians performed for an audience of about one hundred people in a fairly large room with a sprung floor, built in 1807 by the famous builder, Samual McIntire. The acoustics are excellent. The music and performance were sublime. As live acoustic music is my reference, I paid particular attention to a few aspects of the presentation.

The first thing that struck me was the sheer energy coming off of the instruments and how resonant the cello was. The floor vibrated with that energy and it was strongly felt as we sat just 15-20 feet from the musicians. The second thing I noticed was that the violin was not very extended, not shrill, or thin, but instead, it had a very rich, colorful tone. The third thing I noticed, and this might be most controversial, was the lack of separation of the instruments.

If I can point something out:
Microphone placement has an enormous effect on how the instruments 'separate'!
You really can't assess how live sound compares to reproduced until you limit the variables! One huge variable is the room. The thing to do was to record that ensemble in the room and then play it back on your system. Then you'd know how the room is affecting the sound of the live performance.

Commercial recordings are the way they are because engineers try to give the the front row center ideal placement. Unless you've heard the same ensemble in the space in which the recording is made, you simply cannot make assessments. This is why I encourage everyone to invest in a set of decent mics and a decent recorder, so they can have a better idea of what they are hearing.

Good mics and a good recorder isn't that expensive compared to the kind of things people are talking about on these threads. The hard part is often just getting permission to record the event.

In my opinion, language should clarify the writer’s intent, not confuse the reader. If you mean low noise floor when you write “black background”, why not simply write “low noise floor”?

If you mean something other than low noise floor, please explain what you mean.

A low noise floor, free of intermodulations, harmonic and inharmonic noise, creates a 'black background'. Its not enough IOW to simply say 'low noise floor' because if that noise floor contains the stuff I just mentioned, your ears can't hear signals below that. So there's less resolution.

 

[PeterA]

I agree with what you say here, but I don’t think Ron brought up pixels or bits, did he?

You can read Ron’s ruminations about resolution in other threads. He seems to refer to specifications for televisions and digital recordings.

 

[PeterA]

If I can point something out:
Microphone placement has an enormous effect on how the instruments 'separate'!
You really can't assess how live sound compares to reproduced until you limit the variables! One huge variable is the room. The thing to do was to record that ensemble in the room and then play it back on your system. Then you'd know how the room is affecting the sound of the live performance.

Commercial recordings are the way they are because engineers try to give the the front row center ideal placement. Unless you've heard the same ensemble in the space in which the recording is made, you simply cannot make assessments. This is why I encourage everyone to invest in a set of decent mics and a decent recorder, so they can have a better idea of what they are hearing.

Good mics and a good recorder isn't that expensive compared to the kind of things people are talking about on these threads. The hard part is often just getting permission to record the event.

A low noise floor, free of intermodulations, harmonic and inharmonic noise, creates a 'black background'. Its not enough IOW to simply say 'low noise floor' because if that noise floor contains the stuff I just mentioned, your ears can't hear signals below that. So there's less resolution.

It is interesting what you decided to quote from my post and what you decided to crop out. Here is another paragraph that you omitted from your post:

"At the risk of raising yet another controversial observation, I want to share my thoughts about the "separation of instruments". I consider this attribute to be similar to the two audiophile attributes of black backgrounds and pinpoint images. Over the years I have read in reviews how some particular components have the uncanny ability to increase the separation of the instruments in the soundstage. Individual instruments are clearly delineated, both tonally and spatially in the presentation. Sometimes the description takes it even further to describe the instruments as though they are occupying their own space and surrounded by air. In this sense, they are described as "isolated". This effect is described as a positive characteristic. I think I have read this when describing both the playback of large scale orchestral pieces as well as small scale chamber performances."

I described what I heard at both a recent orchestral concert and at a string trio. I made reference to equipment and various descriptions in reviews. I did not address recordings in my post. I understand that mic location affects this. My curiosity is about why some components seem to be designed to enhance this separation of instruments when it is not what I heard recently from a variety of live music. This separation is an attribute or effect described as being positive. It seems to me that in is an aspect of reproduced music that people want and like. I have heard it in system presentations. A set of cables I once owned accentuated this effect.

I understand if the information is on the recording that a good system will reproduce it and present it to the listener.

 

[Atmasphere]

My curiosity is about why some components seem to be designed to enhance this separation of instruments when it is not what I heard recently from a variety of live music.

I've seen a few articles about how equipment that has a prominent 2nd or 3rd harmonic can enhance our sense of space but that is a topic that I think needs more research.

At any rate its impossible to know how much its 'enhanced' without a recording made in the same room!

 

[tima]

I agree with what you say here, but I don’t think Ron brought up pixels or bits, did he?

Yes.

Here is one thread:

What Do We Mean By "Resolution"?

We audiophiles talk endlessly about various sonic attributes we believe we discern from stereo systems. One of these attributes is "resolution." The 6th definition of "resolution" in the American Heritage Dictionary provides: 6. The clarity or fineness of detail that can be distinguished in an...

www.whatsbestforum.com

Title only search term 'resolution'.
There are other threads on this topic.

There is a tendency among those defining 'resolution' as detail to use the picture/video analogy in terms of pixels in a dimension. 1280x1024, etc. It seems attractive because it has numbers. But to my knowledge unlike a pixel there is no quanta of resolution in sound. Furthermore, sound is continuous, unlike a conglomeration of pixels. I think 'more information' works fine.

 

[PeterA]

I've seen a few articles about how equipment that has a prominent 2nd or 3rd harmonic can enhance our sense of space but that is a topic that I think needs more research.

At any rate its impossible to know how much its 'enhanced' without a recording made in the same room!

We cannot know how much it is enhanced, but we can get a sense of relative enhancement by taking the same recording to different venues and listening to it on various systems. Reviewers seem to comment on increases in separation of instruments with some components. I heard it with specific cables.

I generally hear an increase in separation of instruments when I also noticed that a presentation lacks a sense of ambience or nuance. When subtle information goes missing from familiar recordings, I often hear a spotlighting of instruments in isolation and greater separation. It seems to be an effect of the reproduction. The first time I heard it, I was struck by how different the presentation of the instruments within an orchestra sounded from what later became a familiar recording. On my system, the presentation is completely different.

It’s an interesting effect, and I do not know the cause.

 

[the sound of Tao]

We cannot know how much it is enhanced, but we can get a sense of relative enhancement by taking the same recording to different venues and listening to it on various systems. Reviewers seem to comment on increases in separation of instruments with some components. I heard it with specific cables.

I generally hear an increase in separation of instruments when I also noticed that a presentation lacks a sense of ambience or nuance. When subtle information goes missing from familiar recordings, I often hear a spotlighting of instruments in isolation and greater separation. It seems to be an effect of the reproduction. The first time I heard it, I was struck by how different the presentation of the instruments within an orchestra sounded from what later became a familiar recording. On my system, the presentation is completely different.

It’s an interesting effect, and I do not know the cause.

Without looking to be starting an audio hot war can this type of presentation be connected more specifically with the gear involved in these experiences Peter. Have you correlated repeat elements. It’s hard to identify offenders or eliminate suspects while all identities are concealed.

Sorting through for potential causes it would be good to look for shared components or gear types or other connective patterns in systems noted as perceived as having this attribute. This kind of subtle differentiation is kind of challenging and unlikely to appear in measurements (though it may).

 

[microstrip]

(...) Over the years I have read in reviews how some particular components have the uncanny ability to increase the separation of the instruments in the soundstage. Individual instruments are clearly delineated, both tonally and spatially in the presentation. Sometimes the description takes it even further to describe the instruments as though they are occupying their own space and surrounded by air. In this sense, they are described as "isolated". This effect is described as a positive characteristic. I think I have read this when describing both the playback of large scale orchestral pieces as well as small scale chamber performances." (...)

Just to point that IMO nothing in "they are occupying their own space and surrounded by air " suggests they are isolated. On the contrary - surrounded by air seems to suggest they share the atmosphere of the whole, keeping their energy. I often addressed this aspect, particularly in chamber music - "clearly delineated, both tonally and spatially in the presentation " helps the feeling of interplay between musicians we see, not listen, in real performances.

 

[PeterA]

Without looking to be starting an audio hot war can this type of presentation be connected more specifically with the gear involved in these experiences Peter. Have you correlated repeat elements. It’s hard to identify offenders or eliminate suspects while all identities are concealed.

Sorting through for potential causes it would be good to look for shared components or gear types or other connective patterns in systems noted as perceived as having this attribute. This kind of subtle differentiation is kind of challenging and unlikely to appear in measurements (though it may).

Hello Graham, I wish I could reference some of the reviews where I read these descriptions, but my memory isn’t good enough.

In my own system, I heard the effect with Vibraplane pneumatic isolation platforms under my turntable, Equitech and Transparent power boxes, certain wires and cords. I’ve heard it with Stillpoint and other footers and Shunyata products elsewhere. Perhaps most obvious was certain acoustic treatments that over damped the room. To some extent, it was one of the differences I heard between the SMEV and 3012R tone arms.

 

[PeterA]

Just to point that IMO nothing in "they are occupying their own space and surrounded by air " suggests they are isolated. On the contrary - surrounded by air seems to suggest they share the atmosphere of the whole, keeping their energy. I often addressed this aspect, particularly in chamber music - "clearly delineated, both tonally and spatially in the presentation " helps the feeling of interplay between musicians we see, not listen, in real performances.

Shared atmosphere devoid of musical energy. As I say, the effect gave me the perception of isolation. There was a lack of this interwoven, overlapping energy filling the space that I hear from some systems playing good recordings and live music

I understand if you’ve had different experiences. We can have conflicting opinions on this topic.

 

[microstrip]

Shared atmosphere devoid of musical energy. As I say, the effect gave me the perception of isolation. There was a lack of this interwoven, overlapping energy filling the space that I hear from some systems playing good recordings and live music

I understand if you’ve had different experiences. We can have conflicting opinions on this topic.

Ok - since you do not remember any more where you read it, no point going on.

 

[tima]

I generally hear an increase in separation of instruments when I also noticed that a presentation lacks a sense of ambience or nuance. When subtle information goes missing from familiar recordings, I often hear a spotlighting of instruments in isolation and greater separation. It seems to be an effect of the reproduction. The first time I heard it, I was struck by how different the presentation of the instruments within an orchestra sounded from what later became a familiar recording. On my system, the presentation is completely different.

Without looking to be starting an audio hot war can this type of presentation be connected more specifically with the gear involved in these experiences Peter. Have you correlated repeat elements. It’s hard to identify offenders or eliminate suspects while all identities are concealed.

Sorting through for potential causes it would be good to look for shared components or gear types or other connective patterns in systems noted as perceived as having this attribute. This kind of subtle differentiation is kind of challenging and unlikely to appear in measurements (though it may).

I suspect some of this "separation of instruments" comes from a recording that is the product of multi-mic'ing where the mastering process pulls out a particular passage from a particular instrument or section to hi-light it. This may what I"ll call 'timbral separation'.

Likewise certain gears may evince less than optimal frequency balance, drawing attention to a particular frequency range and thus hi-lighting instruments within that range.

However, as best I understand your discussion you are talking about spatial separation and dimension. Is that correct?

There was a time in my reviewing career where I paid a fair amount of attention to spatial separation and dimensionality. I heard it moreso on some components than others and generally represented it in varying degrees of hotted-up goodness. And since I reported on it, I heard it. As Tao was asking about examples, here's a couple:

"Image outlines were refined with articulate placement and excellent separation. Individual instruments were more in high bas-relief than displaying the three-dimensional effect I’ve heard from all-tube components -- with nicely rounded images but fuzzier about their edges." ARC Ref 2 Phono stage

"As good a soundstage as I have heard thrown with the Triton in place, adding the Typhon was like turning a CAD drawing of a bas-relief panel into a three-dimensional sculpture and using far fewer cycles to get there." Shunyata Triton & Tyhon

Note, we're talking about the listening room experience, not the concert hall experience. I believe my in-room listening is likely more psycho-acoustically active as my ear/brain sub-conciously constructs an image or an explanation during the listening room experience. This is an analytical process.

There may be several factors involved when hearing spatial separation and/or dimensionality.

One factor is focus which I can vary while listening, tighter or wider. Generally I'm more apt to find dimensionality in a tighter focus. On a wider focus I have an orchestra before me in a concert hall as an object, but sounds are interwoven.

While finding (or 'seeing') spatial separation is my product in my head, certain components or systems may cause me, may incline me to find or self-generate spatial separation more than other components. But I cannot tell you if they share anything in common that is behind this cause.

Same holds true for recordings. Particularly if it is true that certain recordings intend to enhance a sense of the spatial.

Given (at least for me) there is little of this aspect of in-room listening going on in the concert hall, the question remains where to place it in assessing your stereo as sounding natural.

 

[aljordan]

Hi Peter,

I also don't hear instruments in their own individual space when I listen to live music, but I do of course hear much more openness and expanded space than when I listen at home. In live performances I am usually appreciating the tonal beauty and fullness of acoustic instruments, and the artistry of the performers. I never think of soundstage when listening to live music, but I do love the sense of openness in a good hall, and instruments do sound tonally well separated even though I can't locate their individual position in space.

Having said that, and even though I don't hear it in concerts, I do like the sense of open 3D space that I can get from a well setup stereo in a good room , as long as it doesn't come at the cost of limiting tonal fullness. I find that a stereo in an overly live room will sound confusing and distracting and that too many reflections will highlight certain frequencies in an unnatural and ugly manner. It sounds much like when I go listen to live music in a too small club that has overly reflective cement walls and floors - it may be "natural" for that room, but it still sounds terrible and I really dislike such experiences.

Switching gears a bit - does your preamp sum to mono? Have you ever experimented to listening as mono through just one of your speakers instead of stereo through both? I ask because it would remove the comb filtering of the stereo setup, and may sound more like what you experience spatially with live music (just guessing here - I've never tried it).

Alan

 

[the sound of Tao]

So some sketchy thoughts and perhaps more of a question… have we passed from an era where realism and fidelity to recording live acoustic music was a regular guide and the driver and underlying intention of both recording and replay. Have we maybe moved through and past aims just for rendering realism to more expectations for sensations that reflect almost a kind of hyper realism maybe.

Out of a growing emphasis on replaying sounds that are more synthetic and gear that uses more synthetic materials have we moved away from and lost context with the traditional experiential scales of acoustic based performance in music.

I love not just music based in acoustic instruments but also electronic and synthetic music where the sound benchmarks are just more open ended. Has music production of the electronic age shifted us beyond the acoustic instrumental framework in expecting how music and our systems should sound.

Say that music references less to traditional acoustic benchmarks and sound simply becomes less bound by precedents and in an age of growing sensation more sensational and surreal and emphatic in sounds.

A synthetic sonic leaning could create with it more an aspect of hyper realism rather than rendering sound based around traditional acoustic references.

Synthetic materials and processes bring out more sensation a bit like in photoshop or illustrator where a graphic image is deep etched with a highlighted surrounding edge presenting ultimately as a more cleanly clipped collage with more pop. Images more clean and clear and outlined in sharper relief.

If the music we replay is dominated by less naturally acoustic derived sounds does that alter what we seek and then build and optimise our systems to play.

 

[PeterA]

Hi Peter,

I also don't hear instruments in their own individual space when I listen to live music, but I do of course hear much more openness and expanded space than when I listen at home. In live performances I am usually appreciating the tonal beauty and fullness of acoustic instruments, and the artistry of the performers. I never think of soundstage when listening to live music, but I do love the sense of openness in a good hall, and instruments do sound tonally well separated even though I can't locate their individual position in space.

Having said that, and even though I don't hear it in concerts, I do like the sense of open 3D space that I can get from a well setup stereo in a good room , as long as it doesn't come at the cost of limiting tonal fullness. I find that a stereo in an overly live room will sound confusing and distracting and that too many reflections will highlight certain frequencies in an unnatural and ugly manner. It sounds much like when I go listen to live music in a too small club that has overly reflective cement walls and floors - it may be "natural" for that room, but it still sounds terrible and I really dislike such experiences.

Switching gears a bit - does your preamp sum to mono? Have you ever experimented to listening as mono through just one of your speakers instead of stereo through both? I ask because it would remove the comb filtering of the stereo setup, and may sound more like what you experience spatially with live music (just guessing here - I've never tried it).

Alan

Hello Alan, my Lamm LL1does not sum the channels to mono, but my Lamm L1 does. I have not done the experiment. I did once listen to a mono record on one of my speakers, turning off the other channel. It was an old Ella Fitzgerald record, and it sounded great.

I agree with you that if our listening rooms are overly live, the room sound will interfere with the recorded sound on the record, and the result will be a mess. My room is pretty good with standard room furnishings. I only have the problematic protruding fireplace surround to contend with which I do with a variety of wood planks. The effect of audio file acoustic treatments is very easy to hear in my room. I experimented with those for a number of years and for a while did enjoy the effect. They seemed to filter out low level information and I eventually removed them and re-oriented my speakers to achieve a more natural sound. That was a long time ago now with my former system.

I too appreciate the very open and clear sound of live music in a good hall and know exactly what you’re describing. That is one of the reasons I changed my system.

 

[Atmasphere]

We cannot know how much it is enhanced, but we can get a sense of relative enhancement by taking the same recording to different venues and listening to it on various systems. Reviewers seem to comment on increases in separation of instruments with some components. I heard it with specific cables.

I generally hear an increase in separation of instruments when I also noticed that a presentation lacks a sense of ambience or nuance. When subtle information goes missing from familiar recordings, I often hear a spotlighting of instruments in isolation and greater separation. It seems to be an effect of the reproduction. The first time I heard it, I was struck by how different the presentation of the instruments within an orchestra sounded from what later became a familiar recording. On my system, the presentation is completely different.

It’s an interesting effect, and I do not know the cause.

If a system lacks low level detail, things like room ambiance get lost. So images are in greater relief. I liken this to the idea of posterboard images placed on the stage rather than 3D musicians. The more room ambiance you can retrieve, the less stark specific images will be as they are thus imbued in their ambient profile.

This assumes that the recording is done with a minimum of microphones. As soon as multiple mics are used and mixed the recording is worthless for this sort of discussion.

 

[PeterA]

If a system lacks low level detail, things like room ambiance get lost. So images are in greater relief. I liken this to the idea of posterboard images placed on the stage rather than 3D musicians. The more room ambiance you can retrieve, the less stark specific images will be as they are thus imbued in their ambient profile.

I agree with this, and it is also a condition which leads to what I consider a “blacker background” precisely because there is less ambient information describing the performance venue. With this lack of ambient information, I do notice images which become more prominent and spotlit and begin to occupied their own space separate from others. The effect is amplified when the system does not properly present the energy from the instruments, expanding into the listening room. When this energy is presented by a system in a listening room, it tends to fill in the space in and around the musicians, it begins to resemble what we hear live.

This is one of the many ways that recordings and playback equipment work in concert to create a listening experience removed from what we hear from live music.

 

[PeterA]

So some sketchy thoughts and perhaps more of a question… have we passed from an era where realism and fidelity to recording live acoustic music was a regular guide and the driver and underlying intention of both recording and replay. Have we maybe moved through and past aims just for rendering realism to more expectations for sensations that reflect almost a kind of hyper realism maybe.

Out of a growing emphasis on replaying sounds that are more synthetic and gear that uses more synthetic materials have we moved away from and lost context with the traditional experiential scales of acoustic based performance in music.

I love not just music based in acoustic instruments but also electronic and synthetic music where the sound benchmarks are just more open ended. Has music production of the electronic age shifted us beyond the acoustic instrumental framework in expecting how music and our systems should sound.

Say that music references less to traditional acoustic benchmarks and sound simply becomes less bound by precedents and in an age of growing sensation more sensational and surreal and emphatic in sounds.

A synthetic sonic leaning could create with it more an aspect of hyper realism rather than rendering sound based around traditional acoustic references.

Synthetic materials and processes bring out more sensation a bit like in photoshop or illustrator where a graphic image is deep etched with a highlighted surrounding edge presenting ultimately as a more cleanly clipped collage with more pop. Images more clean and clear and outlined in sharper relief.

If the music we replay is dominated by less naturally acoustic derived sounds does that alter what we seek and then build and optimise our systems to play.

Graham, That is a very interesting question. I do not know if we have passed completely away from that era, but it seems that recording and reproduction efforts are evolving and changing. What I hear typically now are more effects meant to grab attention and stimulate rather than reproduction that resembles what I hear from live acoustic music. Some might argue that reproduced music and live music are sounding more similar, and that may be the case with electronic music, but I would argue that today's recordings and the modern gear that I have heard are sounding less like live acoustic music. It is all still fun and enjoyable, but I think aesthetics and values are shifting.

I do think a part of it is the way music is made. There is much more electronic and amplified music. Musicians often do not play together during the recording process. Gear has gone from efficient and analog to inefficient and digital. What is a reference any more? How is electronic music supposed to sound? I do not think this is necessarily a bad thing, it is just different, and the way it is. Fortunately, we still have a lot of choices in music, recordings, and playback gear.

 

[DaveC]

Wow, lots of posts since I checked in, been super busy so no chance to reply in time.

On recordings, I'd just say that unless you're familiar with recording music and playing it back on your own system you're just guessing on what sounds right. Even then, as @microstrip correctly pointed out, mic choice and setup can make a really large difference, but you should still get the overall "vibe" and space of the venue.

So I'd just put out there that these live vs system comparisons are confounded by the fact the listener has no point of reference whatsoever.

IME, there are other points of reference that are actually objective and can lead one to the traditional definition of "high fidelity" TO THE RECORDING. And if that fidelity is realized it will also make live recordings sound more real. In other words, you can absolutely disregard any live music references, as they are going to be very subjective and honestly, not based in reality. People complain that it's difficult to hear differences in A/B testing separated by mere minutes, yet we're supposed to buy into the idea that someone can judge what sound realistic and natural based on their individual subjective experience of live sound separated by hours, days or weeks? Even when the person was not present during the recording, and has no idea what the recording setup looks like or what the intent of the folks doing the recording is?! Really? Sorry but this seems absurd.

A better way to judge system performance is how unique it can make each recording sound, or put another way, how little it adds of it's own character overall. We can easily judge resolution by how well it presents spatial attributes and how realistic and distinct the timbre of complex instruments like strings and vocals are. Vocals are especially hardwired into our brain because we hear it live everyday and it's not difficult to tell how well a system recreates vocals. How different does a violin sound vs a viola? All these things can be measured in comparison, while not as satisfying as a measurement, it's still possible to objectively determine how neutral a system is to the recording. And by objectively improving our system's performance, it will allow live recordings to sound more live, and for the system to more accurately portray the intent of the recording.

What we need overall is a balance between preference and objective performance. Personal preferences are totally valid but can be informed by making sure the system works well on an objective level. An example: Many people ask me for a warm cable, they tell me their personal preferences are for a warm tone. I send some cables to demo, one of which will absolutely not be warm, it will be as neutral and resolving as possible. A vast majority of the time, maybe 80-90%, I'll hear back that the person prefers the neutral cable. We need some amount of warmth to smooth out noise and artifacts, maybe hide flaws in a poor recording, but the better the system the less warmth required. When people hear a neutral cable that improves spatial performance and timbre, and understand the difference between the two, almost everyone without exception prefers the sound of a neutral and highly resolving cable. Their desire for improvement is real but they don't necessarily understand what will satisfy that desire until they experience it.

So sounding "natural", or like your own subjective experience of live music sounds good in theory, who wouldn't want that? But it's not achievable using the metrics espoused in this now 336 page thread because 1. The recordings don't exist or are very rare, and 2. You have no point of reference to judge what you're listening to unless you were there yourself.

 

[microstrip]

I agree with this, and it is also a condition which leads to what I consider a “blacker background” precisely because there is less ambient information describing the performance venue. (...)

From "Glossary: Sound Quality (SQ) by Tom Martin " Aug 15, 2024

https://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/hi-fi-audio-glossary-sound-quality-sq/

By ‘black background’ we generally mean the myriad elements of noise and distortion that mask or blur the rendition of small signals (e.g. reflections in a concert venue or harmonics from an instrument). So, when a speaker or DAC or amplifier is introduced into a reference system and resolution or ambience or inter-transient silence or depth of image or soundspace rendition are increased, these phenomena can fall under the ‘black background’ term.

or Michael Fremer

https://www.stereophile.com/content...phono-preamp-triangle-art-apollo-mc-cartridge

The soundstage is deep and the images within it, precise and solid. The music arises out of a still, black background revealing all the low level information that is critical to the meaning and emotional impact of the music. Dynamics are startling. The sound is detailed but natural and harmonically true."