Is Live, Unamplified Music the Correct Reference for the Sound of our Audio Systems?

Ron Resnick · Feb 23, 2018

By what do we judge our audio systems?

Do we compare our audio systems to the sound of live, unamplified music?

Do we compare our audio systems to some composite of the sound of live music and of the sound of our friends' stereo systems we have in our heads?

If someone nevers listens to live music then what does that mean for what they are trying to achieve with their stereo systems?

Is our own internal mental impression of what live music sounds like a valid reference? If yes, why? If not, why not?

What is your reference, and why?

Ron Resnick · Feb 23, 2018

I) OBJECTIVES
I am confident that the most efficient and productive discussion would start by each of us declaring our audio objective from the list of four, and, if a member considers himself to subscribe to more than one of the four objectives, to attempt to approximate for us the relative importance of those multiple objectives.

1) recreate the sound of an original musical event,

2) reproduce exactly what is on the master tape,

3) create a sound subjectively pleasing to the audiophile, and

4) create a sound that seems live.

II) MUSICAL PREFERENCES
Once objectives are declared, and only after objectives are declared, then I think the next logical step is to declare the type of music in which we primarily are interested (if, and only if, there is a preference for one or more types of music over other types of music).

III) SONIC PRIORITIES
As a third step in this analytical framework I think your list makes perfect sense.

I think this analytical framework -- which I am happy to keep re-proposing -- would avoid a large amount of unnecessary confusion and needless posts and endless "talking past" each other.

Ron Resnick · Feb 23, 2018

morricab said:
The live, unamplified, music is really the only reference...it might not be a practical one to use but it is the only one, nonetheless. I guess, if you were only listening to amplified rock music you could argue that hearing someone playing live through a guitar amp etc. could also be a reference...but it is still with another layer on top (speakers, amps, mixer, engineer etc.) to muddy the waters.

I don't know what you mean by "our own references". This is pure relativism. This changes as per your whim and is not a reference at all...by definition. Reference means something you "refer to"...a constant if you will. It needs to be somewhat outside yourself. Sure it is observed and interpreted by you but for normal hearing people it won't be so different how we hear the real event.

There are recordings that have done an admirable job of capturing a performance accurately...use of these to establish the quality of a system as a practical reference. If your system captures these close to a live experience of something that is very similar (this relies on a good aural memory of course...or frequent repetition) then one can be reasonably certain that it captures what is on other recordings accurately as well...for better or worse.

The Audio Note UK guy, Peter Q. has a pretty good, but incomplete point in that a system should capture maximum contrast between recordings and this is because the range of recording quality is so diverse from attrocious to sublimely accurate. What is incomplete about this is that what he is advocating is that a system has a high precision and so small changes are readily discerned but that approach says nothing about the accuracy of that system. A system can show the tiniest differences but still be way off the mark in terms of tonality, dynamics, resolution (transparency), imaging, soundstaging etc. Discrimination alone is does not make a system accurate. A lot of people fall into this trap...they have über resolution, attack, soundstage etc. and every recording sounds different...but the sound of every recording is far from realistic, even with the best recordings, and therefore wrong.

Do you really know what it is in your system you are striving for? Or, having reached it (so you thought) , you realized that it wasn't what you thought it would be? I have long ago decided that there is not a system on this earth that will give me a true live experience for large orchestral works...I have never heard it and I doubt it exists...so I have focused on getting a system that is as realistic as possible for smaller ensembles (jazz, classical). This doesn't mean it won't do big classical well...it does but not realisitically well. Rock and electronic music sounds good and (right?) through it if the recording is good or harsh and compressed if that is how the recording is made...I don't want to change that because that means introducing deliberate bias to "soften" bad recordings.

I know a guy who changes whole systems on nearly a monthly basis...he has no idea about what is correct sounding but just likes changing the aural flavor for the experience of it and for his unabashed love of the gear. Knowing this, it is pointless to talk seriously with him about sound quality because he just wants to play and that's fine and that is his defined goal of the whole thing. I suspect that the guys with 4 of this and 5 of that are similar despite their protestations to the contrary. Now, I have three systems at home but they have well defined purposes. 1 is for "serious" listening, 1 is for late night listening and 1 is for TV and background listening...they are all in different parts of the house. Each has only 1 source of a given type and one pre/amp or integrated amp. Only the "serious" rig is striving for what I have posted above. The background rig is decent enough for me and my wife likes the looks. The late night rig is in our attic room where I can listen at night with disturbing and it is efficient (96db single driver) so it works really well at low volumes. it is limited in both highs and low but still sounds rather nice...great for working while listening because the big rig always commands my attention.

MIKE LAVIGNE

my response to you was relative to there being a singular reference for all. and one view of and consequence of that. which was the idea you seemed to be inferring.

"Do you really know what it is in your system you are striving for?"

much of my personal posting about my system development over the last few years is exactly referring to my own reference in my head guiding my room tuning. but that reference is not any particular experience, but a combination of different things I picked up over a period of time. there were a few 'ah-ha' moments where I saw in my mind where my system was not achieving this or that attribute. and i'm open to that next 'ah-ha' moment when it comes to me.

so for me personally; i reject the idea of one reference. it's just not so simple as that. but maybe this is more semantics between us than a clear difference. maybe you too find other references in places different than live acoustic music.

and i would also say that practically speaking; having a recording as a reference, by that i mean hearing a particular thing from a recording that you are striving for, is our real world situation that we have to work with. when i'm doing room tuning i'm trying things and then listening over and over again looking for that specific result from that recording. how can that be practically done with live music. which is why i said my references are the recording, and not live music.

so relating hifi to a music reference is not so simple a process. I do feel that separating nuances of different recordings is one of my guiding goals. I do want to hear the uniqueness of each recording. i will admit that so far the Lamm ML3 goes in the opposite direction as it certainly does add an enhanced viewpoint on the music that makes what i hear from each recording and even each format more similar than the dart 458 experience which exposed all the differences so clearly. but it's too soon to really know where that goes. i'm still learning about this. it's just a first impression and an interesting one for me who has put so much into having optimal levels of performance to hear the very best of various formats.

the ML3's are more about a different experience that is enjoyable, a different flavor of ice cream, and it does not need to do all the things that the big darts can do. i'm good with that and what i wanted from them.

Ron Resnick · Feb 23, 2018

JackD201 said:
morricab said:

"We listen to a lot of amplified music and I personally listen to a lot of music with synthesized sound. Believe it or not, these are just as difficult to get sounding "real"

How would you ever know unless you were right there in the studio or withe headphones on as the electronic "musician" composed his track on the computer? These are not sounds you can hear everyday, unless you are a musician or have one in the house of course. If you live with someone who rocks out with a guitar and a guitar amp then that could be considered a real reference...except that all recorded electric guitars can sound literally like anything! A classical guitar will always sound more or less the same within a fairly limited band by comparison.

Click to expand...

853 GUY:

Why are you stuck on situations? What I'm saying is that we all have our personal concepts of what things "should" sound like and that is what makes up what sounds real. Our own paradigms so to speak built over time through our experiences. I've never heard Frank Sinatra live. I know it's him when I hear him. It is the same thing as that live unamplified music mantra which I think is being put on too high a pedestal. It should sound "like" a live set while it is a given that you should have actually lived a little and gone to see more than a few. You were not at the concert in the recording either, you've been to concerts but not that one. You know simply because you know what sounds realistic and that has nothing to do with having been there. Synthesized music today are made with layered samples of real sounds for the most part. The same thing applies here. The thing with synthesized music is that you have to accept that you get what you get because these are layers of imagined timbres and textures. Music that make use of a lot of synthesis is usually played in public events so there too are "life" references. Places you can be brought back too whether it is going nuts in a club or lazing in front of a beach sunset. Sorry I'm just in a bad mood but since we're nitpicking, the musicians and every other person present on the floor or behind the desk heard that session differently too so I don't know where you pulled that one from. Synthesized, amplified, unamplified, all the above, or just one, other than a few occasions, none of us were there.

Hi morricab, hi Jack,

I think I understand and appreciate what you're both saying.

For me, trying to reproduce the sound of live unamplified instruments is perhaps a worthy goal in theory, but impossible in practice. Our systems cannot ever reproduce the sound of live unamplified instruments because that sound is fundamentally ephemeral - an event that starts and stops in time and must be perceived by a perceiver. If one is not present, one cannot perceive it.

Our systems attempt to reproduce a recording of an event in time, which is completely dependent on the presence of a recording mechanism. That is, we’re never ever listening to the sound of live unamplified instruments via prerecorded music - only live unamplified instruments as “perceived” by an interdependent chain of mic, mic-pre, recording device and recording medium. Once the music hits the mic diaphragm, it is no longer live, nor unamplified - it is transformed into electrical energy, and then stored, and I cannot percieve that electrical energy save for a mechanism to convert it back to sound.

So we are always listening to a mechanism stored in a medium replayed via another mechanism, not an event (since the event itself no longer exists in time).

The recording mechanism is itself always subject to the preferences of the one who is tasked with recording, not only in terms of gear selection, but also mic placement, all of which are done relative to subjectivized choices on behalf of the recording engineer.

Therefore, I do not need a system that references the sound of live unamplified instruments since I cannot be everywhere where live unamplified music happens, particularly if it happened before my existence - it is its own entity that lives and dies in time. I need a system that can convey the intention of the recording engineer, and much more importantly, the intention of the musicians as slaved to the recording mechanism. It’s musical intention that differentiates Cortot from Rubinstein, Page from Iommi, Nine Inch Nails from KMFDM, Ella from Aretha - even in as much as there are sonic differences.

How can I know what is more real, especially if there is no precedent for what Nine Inch Nails should sound like? By understanding what it is about each musician’s intention that makes them unique, and sound more like themselves, and less like a clone of themselves.

To me the best systems are not ones that attempt to imitate a sound that can only ever be perceived by the individual subjectively in time - for just as the event is perceived subjectively, so too the recording mechanism is subjectivized, as is the playback mechanism. To me the best systems are the ones that most differentiate why Cortot sounds nothing like Rubinstein and vice versa. That the ML3 may convey as aspect of what makes each musician's intention unique in a way that is different to say, the way the 458 conveys it, providing additional insight into the how and why of musical artistry, sounds like a great way of appreciating what each musician brings to a piece of music, even when playing the exact same piece of music.

Best,

853guy

Ron Resnick · Feb 23, 2018

morricab said:
I also go to concerts for enjoyment...that doesn't stop those experiences from being references...in fact there is nothing mutually exclusive about the dual purpose as it just comes naturally.

You have to look at the endeavors of the scientists (of which I am one) as an attempt to understanding why a majority of people would have a particular preference. The assumption is that distortions, of whatever kind, are the root cause for a negative impact on sound quality. The further assumption is that a majority of people will prefer distortions of some patterns over distortions of other patterns and that all distortion patterns are NOT equally accepted...given of course that no system is distortion free. So, they are attempting to generate a set of rules about the measured data that allows some degree of prediction about human evaluation of sound quality.

Whether Mike's system is truly SOTA sounging or not I have to reserve judgement since I haven't heard it myself. He has certainly invested a SOTA amount of money in it. I disagree also that one doesn't need a good experience with the real deal to come up with a SOTA system...they might get something impressive and even quite interesting but probably not all that realistic...of course exceptions do exist...

The most realistic system I have heard is the Living Voice Vox Olympian with Kondo and battery power from a couple years ago in Munich...and Kevin Scott knows live unamplified music very well and it expresses amazingly in his systems...nothing else really touched it.

As is always the case with human psychology, there will always be those that don't fit with the majority, so there is of course room to manuever. He may not need Cheever and Geddes to explain his preference but it could be that Cheever and Geddes to some degree explain his new interest in a "distortion generator" as objective measurement guys would like to call SETs.

A complete understanding would be nice but it is not really necessary. What is useful for designers and for consumers is a good correlation between design and what most would consider their preferred sound quality.

SOUND OF TAO:

I do very much get and appreciate your approach and the way you validate your experiences, I’ve said it before that I figure I would probably very likely love your choices of gear as I also share appreciation of the types of gear that you champion. I just have softened through time on my aims and see latitude in a range of approaches being valid and being all able to end in the notion of connecting to the music rather than any one held judgement on sound. I do find that when you stop looking at the sound the music just comes through easier and that identification with sound may be an impediment to music.

I do very much respect everyone’s right to create and validate their experiences in the framework they need as in the end an experience is ultimately singular even when it’s shared so it’s just for me these notions of only one way to get there that I just can’t agree with.

Pursuing understanding with science or philosophy or through art and music are all wonderfully valid systems but also they are discretely separate dimensions of being. If we set up our systems just to play music that is all we need to evaluate the quality of our efforts and this is only ever a purely individual evaluation. If our aim is to reproduce sound that is a different matter again. The meaning or purpose of a thing sets up the only true rules of assessment and these may be different for each of us and even different for any of us at different times. I’m not sure that being conscious of any of it is even essential to any full and real experience. Being conscious of a thing can be something of a double edged sword. It may prove to be a limit in our appreciation.

One thing that I am sure of is that there is a remarkable amount of effort put in by many in trying to get a hang on how experience relates to reality and this music and audio journey is certainly a rich experience whether we come to any conclusions or not.

Ron Resnick · Feb 23, 2018

LL21:

Ron,

Given our collective discussion on ice cream last nite, how about this?

Given that there is no perfect audio system, what are your personal priorities in sound when you select a system/component? (you can select your own):

- Detail Retrieval
- Full-range Extension
- Midrange magic
- Effortless all out dynamic range
- Absolutely ruler-flat technical performance
- Absolutely extended, filigreed highs...but not one iota of harshness
- Deep propulsive bass

Ron Resnick · Feb 23, 2018

I) OBJECTIVES
1) recreate the sound of an original musical event,

2) reproduce exactly what is on the master tape,

3) create a sound subjectively pleasing to the audiophile, and

4) create a sound that seems live.

These objectives are not mutually exclusive, and an audiophile might seek a combination of them.

II) MUSICAL PREFERENCES
Once objectives are declared, and only after objectives are declared, then I think the next logical step is to declare the type of music in which we primarily are interested (if, and only if, there is a preference for one or more types of music over other types of music).

III) SONIC PRIORITIES
As a third step in this analytical framework I LL21's list makes perfect sense to start with.

- Detail Retrieval
- Full-range Extension
- Midrange magic
- Effortless all out dynamic range
- Absolutely ruler-flat technical performance
- Absolutely extended, filigreed highs...but not one iota of harshness
- Deep propulsive bass

I think this analytical framework -- which I am happy to keep re-proposing -- would avoid a large amount of unnecessary confusion and needless posts and endless "talking past" each other.

I will start!

OBJECTIVES
My personal high-end audio objectives are a mix of:

3) "create a sound subjectively pleasing to the audiophile," and

4) "create a sound that seems live."

MUSICAL PREFERENCES:
Some classical and some jazz, but mostly vocals and poorly-recorded regular rock and pop.

SONIC PRIORITIES:
-- "midrange magic"
-- naturalness
-- live levels of dynamics and dynamic range
-- nothing artificially bright sounding or electronically harsh sounding

LL21 · Feb 23, 2018

Ron Resnick said:
I) OBJECTIVES
I am confident that the most efficient and productive discussion would start by each of us declaring our audio objective from the list of four...:

1) recreate the sound of an original musical event,

2) reproduce exactly what is on the master tape,

3) create a sound subjectively pleasing to the audiophile, and

4) create a sound that seems live.

...

The challenge Ron is how do any of us know what is 'exactly on the tape' or 'exactly' how the tape is supposed to sound? Take a brand new recorded tape that was completed 5 minutes ago...walk it into the next room and push play. How does anyone know in that new room what that tape was supposed to sound like? Maybe it was not supposed to even sound like the actual live event it was recording? Maybe the sound engineer played around to soften certain elements, etc.

My only personal reference is to use 'memory' of live instruments...and continually strive to find certain recordings that (if they come closer and closer to that aural memory or live) somehow start to result in most of my other recordings ALSO starting to sound more and more like live. This is again an assumption that recording engineers are in fact trying to reproduce a good facsimile of the original live event.

In my own experience, with certain recordings, the more i have honed the system to bring more details, more attack, etc out of those recordings, the more I have enjoyed my other recordings...and generally, i have attempted to 'reference back' to what I think are natural, real instruments. I know of no other reference on which I can personally rely.

Ron Resnick · Feb 23, 2018

I agree, LL21!

That is why "reproduce exactly what is on the master tape" is not one of my personal audio objectives. But I think many people articulate their personal audio objective in this way (whatever it means in theory or in practice).

What is your personal audio objective or objectives from this list?

Ron Resnick · Feb 23, 2018

PeterA said:
I agree with Morricab also. However, there are plenty members here who rarely speak of live music. Perhaps for them there reference is a more vague, a distant memory, and what really matters is "how they like it", that is, whatever flavor floats their boat at a particular moment. I see nothing wrong with this approach. There are many ways to enjoy this hobby. Trying to reproduce the sound of live unamplified instruments is only one.

When one speaks of "wanting different flavors", then I tend to think of the ice-cream analogy. One turntable, amp, cartridge today for this mood, another combination tomorrow for another mood. When one writes about recent concerts and the joy of hearing live music and trying to assemble a system which can do "all of that", then he/she seems to have a different approach. No "right or wrong" as people are fond of writing. Just different approaches and priorities and ways to enjoy the hobby.

DDK:

The “Live” as reference not only pertains to tone, tonal depth & timbre, volume and comparative levels of unamplified instruments etc. which I call “tangibles” but the other elements that exist during a performance, the “intangibles” which include emotional content, virtuosity, the sense of presence of a person/people playing there’s pressure and energy and very importantly the ambience of the venue which is it own presence. There are a lot of elements that need to be and often is captured in analog recordings which must reproduced honestly without addition or subtraction of vital cues for a natural listening experience. The intangibles are crucial IMO and what many systems and/or setups fail to reproduce, intangibles are also what’s lost in a digital chain.

You can use the ice cream analogy if you want but don’t think of it chocolate one day then orange and pistachio on other days, pick one favorite flavor and then sampling that same flavor in different favorite spots. People often use the term plain vanilla, maybe true to some degree comparing large tubs of commercial iceream but in the high end artisanal world plain vanilla is no longer bland. Using the same ingredients each master will infuse something of himself making their plain vanilla ice cream a unique tasting experience, this is what is meant when talking about different flavors.

david

LL21 · Feb 23, 2018

Ron Resnick said:
I agree, LL21!

That is why "reproduce exactly what is on the master tape" is not one of my personal audio objectives. But I think many people articulate their personal audio objective in this way (whatever it means in theory or in practice).

What is your personal audio objective or objectives from this list?

Interestingly...I use about a dozen reference recordings...i attempt to make them sound as much like live music as possible (ie, real instruments)...and then after that, i recalibrate my ears on all other recordings...anything else is a ridiculous exercise in frustration for me where i am trying to blindly tweak the system for every different recording.

Interestingly, i have found with those albums, i tend to prefer most of the other albums anyway so it works out well. I suppose that goes back to my assumption that most engineers do in fact try to make a good facsimile of live. Hence the correlation between my attempts to get the system closer to what i perceive as live on those albums...and the resulting improvement in other albums as well. (at least to my ears.)

Ron Resnick · Feb 23, 2018

Who here uses live, unamplified music as a reference?

How valid is it to use live music as a reference if it is hard to remember all of the constituent components of what that live music actually sounds like?

Who here uses something else as a reference? Is one’s own memory of other peoples’ stereo systems a valid reference?

cjfrbw · Feb 23, 2018

"1) recreate the sound of an original musical event,

2) reproduce exactly what is on the master tape,

3) create a sound subjectively pleasing to the audiophile, and

4) create a sound that seems live."

1: Impossible if not delusional given the mediation of microphones, amplification equipment, and/or mastering venues.

2: Only possible playing tape back in the master suite where the sound was created and mixed down using the same equipment used to create it.

3: Yowsa. The only thing I really expect is a reasonable facsimile of impressionism of the event played back in a way that I can connect to on my home system.

4: Sometimes, but not exclusively. Very source and music dependant

Ron Resnick · Feb 23, 2018

cjfrbw said:
"1) recreate the sound of an original musical event,

2) reproduce exactly what is on the master tape,

3) create a sound subjectively pleasing to the audiophile, and

4) create a sound that seems live."

1: Impossible if not delusional given the mediation of microphones, amplification equipment, and/or mastering venues.

2: Only possible playing tape back in the master suite where the sound was created and mixed down using the same equipment used to create it.

3: Yowsa. The only thing I really expect is a reasonable facsimile of impressionism of the event played back in a way that I can connect to on my home system.

4: Sometimes, but not exclusively. Very source and music dependant

If you consider 4) “create a sound that seems live” to be your primary audio objective, how do you go about achieving it?

cjfrbw · Feb 23, 2018

Ron Resnick said:
If you consider 4) “create a sound that seems live” to be your primary audio objective, how do you go about achieving it?

I think you are already doing it with your live concert attendance. Listen to a lot of live music, and build a system that emulates the characteristics that you can store in your aural memory that you value i.e. ambience, tone, imagery, expansiveness, dynamics, air, perhaps the special blat of horns or sax, the whisping mouthing of reeds etc.

I expect these things only at times with particular recordings and equipment settings, but it is cool when you get them. However, it is usually not as predictable as I would like.

My system's presentation of symphonics and big band can sound quite real at times, but not at all times. I am surprised I have gotten it even that far. Close miked stuff can sound "hyper real" but still pleasing and educational as to nuances. A lot of pop and synth can be very enjoyable, but are more along the lines of psychoacoustic stimulation as opposed to reality creation.

DaveyF · Feb 23, 2018

Ron Resnick said:
Who here uses live, unamplified music as a reference?

How valid is it to use live music as a reference if it is hard to remember all of the constituent components of what that live music actually sounds like?

Who here uses something else as a reference? Is one’s own memory of other peoples’ stereo systems a valid reference?

Live 'unamplified' music is my reference. Everybody should be trying to hear this, it really is pretty easy to hear the difference between 'live/ unamplified' music and reproduced.
In my case, this may be a little easier to do, as I very often play the 'live' instrument in a band setting...so as they say--'getting close and personal' is fairly
easy for me to do. OTOH, even attending any 'live' symphonic work or large band will also give you a great reference.
I hate to say this, but people who believe that we are even close to achieving what the sound of 'live' sounds like in our listening room, really don't have much experience with the 'live' event if they can say such a thing, IMHO.

Morricab's post earlier about his ex-wife's violin playing and my example of the guitar are truly what it is that we should be listening to- and ...again IMHO, trying to recreate.

rsorren1 · Feb 23, 2018

Hi Ron. Hi All.
I definetly use live, unamplified music as a reference for my audio system, but believe the true test is how well your system connects you with the music. I definetly use live, unamplified music as a reference for classical music and small jazz ensemble. As I write this, I’m listening to Martha Argerich play Schumann’s Piano Sonata #2. Streamed over Tidal, I must pause from writing often because of the sheer beauty and artistry of her playing. Sounds like a real piano to me but it’s her magic that is distracting me. My system is recreating that. Just before listening to Argerich, I was listening to “Alabama”, from John Coltrane’s Live at Birdland. Coltrane wrote this after the KKK exploded a bomb in a church killing four children. I heard the sorrow, the despair, in his playing and given what just occurred in Parkland, FL, the connection was even deeper for me. Again, my system is recreating that emotion. That is what counts for me. I sometimes get emotional when listening to vocals - musical message again. I listen to rock and big band music often, amplified music when heard live. Ellington, Basie, Clapton, and Santana - does the system connect me? That’s what counts for me.

KeithR · Feb 23, 2018

It's one of many things I think about, personally. However, I love electronica - which quite frankly sounds like crap on many high end systems including many that Brad prefers (and I have producer friends of that genre, so they have listened to my system over the years). So go figure.

But my conclusion is there is no "absolute sound" and so relating it to a single criteria (live, unamplified music) is silly - we all hear differently as Nelson Pass articulated well in his distortion white paper.

Also, if live unamplified music was the sole reference, professional musicians would be natural experts - and from what I've heard, many of them own less than suitable playback mediums.

JackD201 · Feb 23, 2018

Hi Ron

I think LUM (lazy to type) is something everybody should experience not just once. If I got my way I'd experience it every day. Some time back I was studying in Karlstad, Sweden during that gloomy period between winter and spring. Then one Saturday morning, the sun finally came out and everybody was out. People were celebrating by roaming the streets as the locals came out to play. There were people playing guitars with children dancing the flamenco on one corner, elders playing Kornets in another, a violin trio in yet another, it was totally wonderful. The warm sun, the smell of green in the air, the enveloping sound, the color on people's clothes it was just total joy. The ice cream wasn't bad either! It was a total sensory experience yes but more than that I was most struck by the communal appreciation for all things good and right. I saw a small city with a whole lot of people with a whole lot of musical and sound experience to draw on. Something I believe everybody should have not because it makes them better listeners but simply because music is a life enriching gift.

I bring this particular experience up because that to me is live music in its purest form, the everyday kind. While the neuroscientists confirm the physical location and existence of actual auditory maps in brains of more highly evolved organisms, we continue to build those maps up consciously and unconsciously. There's this cool thing on youtube where 3 people of differing musical experience are asked to blindly choose which recordings are of a violin and which is of violins sampled on a synthesizer. Even the teenager could tell which was fake given the recording which had many bow transitions. The shifts in the notes were the giveaway.As someone else so rightfully said, context matters. Was that David?

In my opinion, simple live unamplified music should be one's absolute BASELINE not the end goal. One should be able to achieve that with not too much expense. I always say that Tone and Timbre are my first priorities. For me it is something to build on once you get a good enough similitude to it in that artifice is down to a degree that the system can get out of the way. It isn't that hard either right? How many shows have we been to where we just get disappointed because exhibitors would only play sweet female vocals all day? We call it cheating precisely because some things just aren't hard to make sound good. Here I think we find a fork in the road. Some might be content to just listen to the easy stuff and relegate the harder stuff to recreate on the back burner. Some might endeavor to do it all. I am a lover of the recording arts on top of simply being a music lover and thus am of the latter persuasion. What is the difference? That makes for a good discussion on its own.

Going down this other route, which I call the "musically greedy route" LOL is now tougher because we are listening to a much broader range of recorded material. It's not just genres, it is recording quality within genres, even recording quality between media of the same piece by the same artists on the same format. It is totally mental! LOL It is tougher now because suddenly you realize that you actually do have a lot of control over the final outcome and decisions need to be made. It gets to a point where you could dial in a system to a reference track but that would not necessarily translate to the rest of your collection. When doing large format playback the greater amount of air moved exposes artifice proportionately. The greater amount of vibrating air also increases the interaction of the listening environment. Increase your performance envelope and new limits come to the fore. Ultimately, one will need to make choices where less than stellar recordings are still enjoyable without dumbing down and taking the life out of the really good ones if one wishes to continue broader musical choices on a regular basis.

In a nutshell, I believe in the first watt principle. To me live unamplified music is the first watt. Get that right and you're good obviously BUT should you want to go beyond that, that is good too. Just be aware that the challenges are high and returns are diminishing as the differences become those of presentation and expression at some point. I agree with Morricab and David in that a system should be able to sound complete at low levels despite the obvious effects of lower sensitivity to lower frequencies. There should be at least enough cues that I quote "the mind can fill in the gaps".

I also think that at some point because of sheer time, our own systems become our own references. I think that is normal. That we are usually also our own harshest critics, I do not take this to mean that by "reference" we consider ours best, only that it is what we well...errrr...reference.

cjfrbw · Feb 23, 2018

"Do we compare our audio systems to the sound of live, unamplified music?"

Yes, but not exclusively

"Do we compare our audio systems to some composite of the sound of live music and of the sound of our friends' stereo systems we have in our heads?"

Yes, of course. Other People's Systems can give you an idea of what you would also like from your system. In reference to the other thread on Lamm ML3, at the time when I heard them, they gave me several reference points in terms of imaging, transparency, tonality and detail and the whole "combo pack" that I carried forward in my own experimentations. Not necessarily "live" but desirable to me nonetheless.

"If someone never listens to live music then what does that mean for what they are trying to achieve with their stereo systems?"

Does it matter if they enjoy their system with entirely artificial music? Their goals and my goals may differ without invalidating their goals.

"Is our own internal mental impression of what live music sounds like a valid reference? If yes, why? If not, why not?"

Very much, but I can only cue things up within the limitations of my aural memory. It is like sculpture, listen to live, modify system to achieve certain traits, listen live, sculpt other traits. The frustrating part that all audiophiles notice is that when you perfect one trait, you may lose valuable others, so you also become a compromise specialist. Nobody can tell you what you value in music but yourself and your own listening impressions. The only alternative which I regard as a pitfall is relying too much on self declared authority of the numerous audio narcissists, in which case you risk become a "maven Frankenstein" outlier. You need to draw the line and decide what is important to YOU.

Is Live, Unamplified Music the Correct Reference for the Sound of our Audio Systems?

Site Co-Owner, Administrator

Site Co-Owner, Administrator

Site Co-Owner, Administrator

Site Co-Owner, Administrator

Site Co-Owner, Administrator

Site Co-Owner, Administrator

Site Co-Owner, Administrator

Well-Known Member

Site Co-Owner, Administrator

Site Co-Owner, Administrator

Well-Known Member

Site Co-Owner, Administrator

Well-Known Member

Site Co-Owner, Administrator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

VIP/Donor

WBF Founding Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads