The language of Reproduction and the language of Music.

[Tango]

I admit I am one of those who bastardizes musical language because of my ignorance in music. This is no sarcasm. Me using filet mignon or wagyu describing midrange definitely butcher the musical language. I will appreciate someone make up glossary, more proper musical adjective that is more related to live sound and I will just follow. In the meantime, I will seek different way conveying message I want to get across.

 

[PeterA]

In the Well Tempered Clavier Book I, JS Bach in bar 20 goes to a G major 7#5 chord out of the melodic minor scale. Can anyone name when, in any composer's work, we next hear this sound?

My guess is in something composed by Jon Lord, organist for Deep Purple.

 

[bonzo75]

I think this is getting to be a pretense thread. You will have people wikipediang and googling and writing musical notes when they don't understand any of it.

Let's face it there are 3 categories. Those who learn/play music. Those who listen to live music. Those who reproduce using gear. There are some overlaps in the 3.

You cannot get even audiophiles living in a city like London to get to classical concerts within 30 minutes from their place at low priced tickets if they are not in the habit of doing that. Those who go to concerts will continue to do so irrespective of gear.

Audio has developed a language over the last 50 years or so. No need to change that as long as you understand what it means. Those who know live music will integrate it and write it automatically to the extent they know both languages. Those who don't, won't. Some can try changing by training themselves on live, music and gear.

Use the language you know to communicate what you hear. You try to write what you don't hear or don't understand you will confuse yourself and us. You want to improve go to live your language will improve automatically. You want to learn to interpret scores join a music class and a music forum.

This is an international forum. Some are good at writing, some are not.

The big problem in forums is people listen to one thing, often convince themselves with their bias, write another thing, and buy a fourth thing based on impulse. It is the disconnect between these activities that causes more communication problems. If people stay consistent with what they know and understand, what they listen, and what they write, that will be a win. Tang's writings are good not because he knows music, but because he communicates what he hears. (Well - 90% of the time)

The video that G linked has trained violinists comparing violinists. Please don't try to be them. If you want to, teach yourself violin, then go to a music forum. Btw, the Henryk Szeryng Bach played on the WE in 2019 at Munich (that was probably the best WE). I have seen both Rachel Podger and Janine Jansen live more than once. You can compare the intensity you feel as a listener between those performances but I cannot, and will not pretend to analyze their vibrato etc. If your gear is transparent to recordings, some parts of the ambience differences will stand out automatically to the listener. If your gear can show nuance and subtlety, it will show the subtle shifts of hand of the performer.

 

[bazelio]

I don't know but will guess in a jazz work.

So, you think not until the 20th century? Keith Jarrett did use it, by the way.

 

[Scott Naylor]

If your gear is transparent to recordings, some parts of the performance differences will stand out automatically to the listener.

“If your gear is transparent to recordings”? Respected sir, are you on the right forum?

With love and good humor intended

 

[bonzo75]

“If your gear is transparent to recordings”? Respected sir, are you on the right forum?

With love and good humor intended

I edited my statement slightly. If your gear is transparent to recordings, some parts of the ambience differences will stand out automatically to the listener. If your gear can show nuance and subtlety, it will show the subtle shifts of hand of the performer.

 

[bazelio]

My guess is in something composed by Jon Lord, organist for Deep Purple.

Earlier.

 

[tima]

So, you think not until the 20th century? Keith Jarrett did use it, by the way.

I did not mean not used again until the 20th C. Not the sort of thing I keep track of, I just know jazz uses lots of 7ths and that was the basis of my guess. G-B-D#-F . So what is the relevance here or why do you ask?

 

[tima]

I think this is getting to be a pretense thread. You will have people wikipediang and googling and writing musical notes when they don't understand any of it.

Let's face it there are 3 categories. Those who learn/play music. Those who listen to live music. Those who reproduce using gear. There are some overlaps in the 3.

You cannot get even audiophiles living in a city like London to get to classical concerts within 30 minutes from their place at low priced tickets if they are not in the habit of doing that. Those who go to concerts will continue to do so irrespective of gear.

Audio has developed a language over the last 50 years or so. No need to change that as long as you understand what it means. Those who know live music will integrate it and write it automatically to the extent they know both languages. Those who don't, won't. Some can try changing by training themselves on live, music and gear.

Use the language you know to communicate what you hear. You try to write what you don't hear or don't understand you will confuse yourself and us. You want to improve go to live your language will improve automatically. You want to learn to interpret scores join a music class and a music forum.

I think one of the issues that leads to the discussion here comes from the experience of a reproduced performance being different than the experience of a live performance. Some people, not all, want a system that sounds closer to a live performance than not. And yes, if you are not interested in live performance, then you are probably not one of the people who wants their system to sound like one. And yes, just because you enjoy live performance does not mean you want your stereo to sound like one. And yes, there are all sorts of reasons for people go with the status quo and accept the state of reproduced audio just as it is.

Let's stipulate that reproduction will never be reality and that home stereo will not be mistaken for live performance. Nonetheless some people are dissatisfied with the direction of reproduced audio today because, to them, it seems to be moving further away from, not closer to, the live music experience. That is not enitrely different in your own interest in transparency to the recording although there is more to it than that. I have no problem in seeing a goal or a direction in the notion of the 'absolute sound', defined as the sound of live acoustic music. Don't get that notion confused with the magazine.
The language of audio you say has developed over the last 50 years - probably more like 60 years - that language has changed. I"ll reference the following interview with Paul Klipsch, - @ddk gets credit for bringing this to our attentionin in his brief thread It's Either Fidelity Or It's Infidelity.

People who are not interested in building stereo systems that bring them closer to the live experiernce are probably not interested in the topic of this thread. And that's fine. Audio can be entertaining whatever approach you take. But since this is a forum where we talk far more than we listen, I thought the topic worth exploring. I wish there was some big reveal at the end that resolved the two languages - maybe there will be - but I don't have it ... yet, though I do have some ideas. Maybe someone does, or maybe discussion will help us move closer to the sonic goal by talking about it.

For clarilty: When I talk about the language of music I mean the language of describing acoustic music when we hear it. (Just as the language of reproduction - the audiophile language - can describe hearing a stereo system or component.) I do not mean the technical underpinnings of reading music or playing music although those may provide background or impetus to understanding.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Component to component to live acoustic music, with the latter being the value against which the two are assessed relative to each other - that is where my own thinking is at ... for now.

+1

I try to think not in terms of the typical audiophile vocabulary of blacker background and delineated instrumental imaging and lower noise and tight bass and extended highs, etc., but to feel in terms of easier suspension of disbelief and which sounds in totality more like what I hear at Walt Disney Concert Hall?

 

[zerostargeneral]

Giant steps unfortunately for Tommy on that occasion.

I posted the clip of Sir Thomas to highlight the passage of time and the affect on the message of music.

My personal favourite composers of the 20th century are Monk,Ellington and COLTRANE.

My personal favourite reviewers are Al M, Bazelio, Tima, Tango, Audioquatro, Sound of Tao, DDK, Jeffery T, Peter A, Ovenmitt,
SoCal, MadFloyd, RockitMan, Syntax, AudiophileBill and LL21.

I may have misspelt one or more ad hoc sorry.

Kindest regards,G.

 

[Kingrex]

Being one of the people at Mike's shootout, what I found interesting was how I absorbed the event. I got there early and had about an hour to just chill and listen in the best chair. Never did my thoughts go to, how deep is the bass. How powerful. How extended the highs. Are they fatiquing. What struck me was how close I felt to sitting on a bar stool in a pub, pint in hand and a 4 piece playing in the corner.

I also noticed I had to control my body as I did not want to appear a fool flailing around in the chair air drumming.

Nothing I am saying helps someone understand how Mike's system voices. And I don't know I would want to try. More than half the people I know would find my technical description a lashing of his gear and room.

A large contingent of people I meet tune their systems in a way that is easily described by audiophile terms. Many people's focus is bass. Throw all the terms you want at it. They actively build as much bass as they possibly can. Every minute increase in bass is a plus. When Mike changed the digital back, one of the first thoughts I had was, where did the music go. The second was, I am noticing the bass.

Part of what I am saying is, the group of people that want to feel like they are experiencing a live show may be a very small percentage of listeners. It could be most people gravitate to prodigious amounts of bass with extended highs that are not fatiguing. They want Hifi, not musical reproduction. Ergo, the language surounding hifi equipment is fairly accurate to what you get.

 

[Cellcbern]

T

+1

I try to think not in terms of the typical audiophile vocabulary of blacker background and delineated instrumental imaging and lower noise and tight bass and extended highs, etc., but to feel in terms of easier suspension of disbelief and which sounds in totality more like what I hear at Walt Disney Concert Hall?

There is nothing wrong with the "typical audiophile vocabulary", and it is not at odds with having live music as your ultimate standard of comparison. The audiophile vocabulary evolved to describe aspects of electronic components/systems that made them sound more or less like live music.

 

[PeterA]

T

There is nothing wrong with the "typical audiophile vocabulary", and it is not at odds with having live music as your ultimate standard of comparison. The audiophile vocabulary evolved to describe aspects of electronic components/systems that made them sound more or less like live music.

I find that there are quite a few terms in the glossary that have nothing to do with what I hear in a concert hall and the natural sound of instruments in a hall. I have only heard those terms as attributes in some audio systems which sound hifi to me and have no relation to what I hear live. Whether there is something wrong with them or not depends on what you are trying to communicate.

 

[microstrip]

(...) The question I'll toss to this group is this: Can we describe components and systems with the language of music or in some other way using the language of music that does justice to the holistic organic character of listening to music? Can we compare and contrast components and systems not with each other but to live acoustic music?

Is it possible?

IMHO unfortunately no. I read music magazines (mainly Gramophone, Diapason) and the language of music is not able to be applied to sound reproduction.

The idea that systems are "almost" able to reproduce reality is not new - since the Edison cylinder it was part of the marketing of sound reproduction equipment. But unless you listen mostly in the same place the sound of real music is very different in different spaces or with different performers. But , as we are immersed in a true vector sound field with visual stimulus, we easily adapt and focus on what motivates us.

During stereo reproduction we create an illusionary sound field, helped by our experience of the real. The success of a sound reproduction system is being able to recreate great experiences and we all aim to create such system. The purpose of writing about audio is sharing our methods and recipes, aiming at helping other to improve their success rate. IMHO we can't do it comparing illusions.

 

[rando]

Let's stipulate that reproduction will never be reality and that home stereo will not be mistaken for live performance.

Actually, the two draw closer. In coming years entertainment industry will have no better reason to exist than expanding upon, synthesizing, the live event. I think Mike L's recent comment on preferring to watch the video of a "Flower Song" duet instead of listening to the RBCD or high-res audio releases was compelling in this direction. Gravitation of interests towards undeniably witnessing the live event. Frisson, no matter how many viewings. 10 years ago delivery of this highly stylized French naissance would've been nigh on undiscoverable! Now every arts institution is fighting to survive on it. The 9' speakers are staying. It is what he and numerous others will add that impels new vocabulary. Some of us are more readily greeting this and some will enjoyably pass the time in ways relevant to their listening.

Mind we in the US, engorged by a largesse on both screens, live in an increasingly artless society where there just aren't many live events like Opera and Orchestral performances left. Pop music is so far gone from reality the masses need only be told what they are experiencing is reality. At some point all(most all) new music fits this mold in the popular complex. Musicians construct their commercially viable music to fit their audience. As ever, this will be at odds with the high end delivery expectation.

Nonetheless some people are dissatisfied with the direction of reproduced audio today because, to them, it seems to be moving further away from, not closer to, the live music experience.

We are some ways off from reproducing the world of the late 30's through late 70's. If I missed the target for prime vinyl years, correct for that timeframe. We deal with air and there is just no arguing that ours is equatable in any manner other than we can still see distance through it most days. ddk can't augment his speaker repairs with modern materials because the soil and climate changes have nurtured softer less natural wood on a granular level. Oddly enough the younger generations are rapidly involved in relearning lost arts through physical interactions that modern convenience pushed consecutive ones away from experiencing. Virtualosic reproduction focused through musical language. Through sound. Through air they design.

I've seen little tolerance for the languages they are reinventing from many members including yourself. This is correct in it's segregation of bias and formative intellect. You could not create what lack of a weighty erudite persona to uphold allows them freedom to mumble around. 17-going-on-70 farcical behaviors (nobody should willingly dye their hair grey and dress like that before it becomes unavoidable!) make their, rebuffed, attempts to bridge this gap prone towards arrogant responses. Make no mistake they are moving closer to what years of sound degradation and reliance on drugs to make it sound good lost.



None of this should be viewed as singling you or any other member out for enjoyably getting lost inside a hobby for hours a day. WBF is currently a bastion of conduct and personable handling the broad range of interests comprising high end pursuits. Within the last month I went to lengths explaining to someone the wealth of impeccably preserved knowledge and access to resources this site claims. The sticking point is not age per se. Lacking severe amounts of knowledge on some worthy element of audio or drive propelled upwards by means, stigmatizes. Quite correctly in many cases.

If asked to put one mark on what makes this group remarkable. It would far and above be your reproductive abilities in the written form. A large number of you have been reiterating and reimagining high end audio for over a decade. With administration keeping a laudably high amount still accessible. There were a few tough years calving off large tracts of interior grasp on highly technical facets.

Returning to being asked, what will redefine the language of musical reproduction on WBF? It would far and above be how an increasingly technical lingua franca reestablishes itself in earnest productive long term members as they appear. Especially where that means encountering nonsensical phrases in search of mature meaning. Reconnecting with a less volatile mindset present in youthful interests seeking outlets diverting away from terror leaping out in every moment! I think mentoring a silent group into competence beyond this small contingent is what we all know will have the largest impact. Casual shorthand by individuals who think faster than they can speak about topics few approach at nearly as high a level can eventually form into cogent traces understood by the majority of others.

 

[microstrip]

+1

I try to think not in terms of the typical audiophile vocabulary of blacker background and delineated instrumental imaging and lower noise and tight bass and extended highs, etc., but to feel in terms of easier suspension of disbelief and which sounds in totality more like what I hear at Walt Disney Concert Hall?

Ron,

The question is how do you carry diagnostics and improvements in your system in the absence of any analysis? And how do you debate and share it?

 

[Cellcbern]

I find that there are quite a few terms in the glossary that have nothing to do with what I hear in a concert hall and the natural sound of instruments in a hall. I have only heard those terms as attributes in some audio systems which sound hifi to me and have no relation to what I hear live. Whether there is something wrong with them or not depends on what you are trying to communicate.

You've lost me. Are you saying that in selecting components to build a system that does the best job of creating an at home illusion of what you hear in a concert hall, relative blackness of background, imaging precision, noise level, bass quality, and high frequency extension (which we all know from experience with super tweeters affects the frequencies below) aren't important, and wouldn't factor into your component selection decision?

 

[ddk]

I think one of the issues that leads to the discussion here comes from the experience of a reproduced performance being different than the experience of a live performance. Some people, not all, want a system that sounds closer to a live performance than not. And yes, if you are not interested in live performance, then you are probably not one of the people who wants their system to sound like one. And yes, just because you enjoy live performance does not mean you want your stereo to sound like one. And yes, there are all sorts of reasons for people go with the status quo and accept the state of reproduced audio just as it is.

Let's stipulate that reproduction will never be reality and that home stereo will not be mistaken for live performance. Nonetheless some people are dissatisfied with the direction of reproduced audio today because, to them, it seems to be moving further away from, not closer to, the live music experience. That is not enitrely different in your own interest in transparency to the recording although there is more to it than that. I have no problem in seeing a goal or a direction in the notion of the 'absolute sound', defined as the sound of live acoustic music. Don't get that notion confused with the magazine.
The language of audio you say has developed over the last 50 years - probably more like 60 years - that language has changed. I"ll reference the following interview with Paul Klipsch, - @ddk gets credit for bringing this to our attentionin in his brief thread It's Either Fidelity Or It's Infidelity.

People who are not interested in building stereo systems that bring them closer to the live experiernce are probably not interested in the topic of this thread. And that's fine. Audio can be entertaining whatever approach you take. But since this is a forum where we talk far more than we listen, I thought the topic worth exploring. I wish there was some big reveal at the end that resolved the two languages - maybe there will be - but I don't have it ... yet, though I do have some ideas. Maybe someone does, or maybe discussion will help us move closer to the sonic goal by talking about it.

For clarilty: When I talk about the language of music I mean the language of describing acoustic music when we hear it. (Just as the language of reproduction - the audiophile language - can describe hearing a stereo system or component.) I do not mean the technical underpinnings of reading music or playing music although those may provide background or impetus to understanding.

I believe the issue is one of Values and conceptualization not vocabulary.

HP & Holt claimed live acoustic music as their reference and used a completely different set of values when it came to reproduction. A lot of the so called “audio” glossary and writing style to support what they made up as they went along. This is very different from the Values Klipsch and Vladimir use describing reproduction hence the simpler more direct format. IMO the latter two have a clear vision of what they value and are able to conceptualize it in reproduction vs the former couple who lacked vision and IMO any serious understanding of high end but they were more influential on forming the current audiophile trends as can be seen clearly in this thread and all over the net.

Understanding and/or interpretation is also part of conceptualization in the other thread we briefly discussed speaker setup and placement a number of the people who chimed in said that they see it as a coupling process with/to the room. This notion is diametrically opposed to my understanding of the physics of speaker setup and conceptualizing the final sound. This might be the bridge too far to cross when communicating verbally, specially in layman terms.

I don’t know what your goal here is Tim, consider that you’re always communicating to highly conflicted and opinionated groups with their values and understanding.

david

 

[PeterA]

You've lost me. Are you saying that in selecting components to build a system that does the best job of creating an at home illusion of what you hear in a concert hall, relative blackness of background, imaging precision, noise level, bass quality, and high frequency extension (which we all know from experience with super tweeters affects the frequencies below) aren't important, and wouldn't factor into your component selection decision?

Those sonic attributes would indeed factor into my component selection process and are vitally important, just in the opposite way you seem to infer. The first question I ask myself when auditioning a system or a specific component in a comparison, is "Does it sound natural?" This is relative to my memory of live music, not to some other system or component. If comparing two components, I ask myself which sounds more like real music, not so much how one sounds different from the other. If I hear a cable that creates an impression of enhanced frequency extension which is not natural, I avoid it. Same with a component or system from which I hear black backgrounds, pinpoint imaging, image outlines, "air" between instruments, fast/tight bass, etc. Those are sonic attributes I avoid.

I don't hear them when listening to live music, and since my goal is to approach the experience of listening to live music in my living room, those components would fail the test. Low noise levels are good, all else being equal. So is extension, if it is natural, and not an enhancement. Some of these things are the opposite of not being important. They are critical as an indication of what I don't want to hear. It all depends on whether or not I experience these attributes in the concert hall or not.