The Nature of Sound

[tima]

I did the eyes close/open comparison and the difference was not huge because I had their location in my minds eye. Maybe they spread a bit more with closed eyes but I could still localize.

I read that the reduction or loss of one sense can lead to enhancement of other senses. For example, if you go blind your hearing can become more acute. It would be an interesting experiment to be led into a concert hall with blinders on. Of course part of the fun of the live event can be the visuals - watching the conductor and musicians, and generally the event as it unfolds.

I wonder if we were not predominantly sighted creatures if we'd use a similar vocabulary as we do now to talk about this stuff - which is largely a visual vocabularly. Then again, ostensive localization - there, over there, pointing - doesn't seem dependent on sight. Localization seems such an 'ancient skill', a survival skill born across centuries. When, in the dead of night, the twig snaps behind you...

I cannot imagine not being able to localize based on the pitch and timbre of orchestral instruments alone.

Before going to a performance it's fun to check the composer's orchestration even if you can't read a score. That'll tell you how many of each instrument the composer intended. (Though the local may not always follow that.)

 

[tima]

You ask: "What other characteristics of a stereo system or stereo sound make it more artificial or less?" That's an excellent question and a huge area for further discussion. Others are surely more qualified to discuss this than I am. Do you mean specifically two channel sound or are you asking more about reproduced sound versus live sound?

I didn't have either specifically in mind when I posed the question, but am happy to entertain thoughts on either. My usual orientation is to stereo. I suspect the qualification you mention is largely from experience - exposure to live and reproduced music. And then the ability to describe what we hear from each what is similar and different from the other. Some of which we'e doing here.

 

[DaveC]

...have to unravel this intended mess and liberate the music from it's coffin also known as a recording.

I thought HiFi is all about high fidelity to the recording, but realize some have other objectives. I find it interesting that the manufacturers of our gear are generally building us gear that satisfies the traditional definition of high fidelity, but then we take that gear and try to do other things with it. It somewhat boggles my mind that one would take what are intended to be the most accurate transducers on the market and them put them in a room with massively long decay times, and other tweaks that completely alter their intended purpose in order for it to sound more subjectively live. Live music is live music, a stereo is not an never will be live music, although if the recording's intent is to deliver a live sound, it can often do so accurately, but most recordings are simply NOT that.

IMO, this is a massive insult to those who record the music we listen to. The ones I have met are are generally very educated wrt to sound, how it's perceived and how to best record it. They have a love for music, doing their best to present us with excellent recordings.

It seems you're saying a system needs to do a lot more than simply reproduce what's on the recording, and that gets down to what we're talking about here. Do you want to manipulate recordings to sound unlike what the recording engineer intended? How is this beneficial, when the system can't be adjusted to optimize EVERY recording to how you'd like to hear it? How exactly would you suggest the system differ from an accurate reproduction of the recording? How is it possible to "liberate the music from it's coffin also known as the recording"? This seems like a very odd point of view to me.

 

[wil]

I thought HiFi is all about high fidelity to the recording, but realize some have other objectives. I find it interesting that the manufacturers of our gear are generally building us gear that satisfies the traditional definition of high fidelity, but then we take that gear and try to do other things with it. It somewhat boggles my mind that one would take what are intended to be the most accurate transducers on the market and them put them in a room with massively long decay times, and other tweaks that completely alter their intended purpose in order for it to sound more subjectively live. Live music is live music, a stereo is not an never will be live music, although if the recording's intent is to deliver a live sound, it can often do so accurately, but most recordings are simply NOT that.

IMO, this is a massive insult to those who record the music we listen to. The ones I have met are are generally very educated wrt to sound, how it's perceived and how to best record it. They have a love for music, doing their best to present us with excellent recordings.

It seems you're saying a system needs to do a lot more than simply reproduce what's on the recording, and that gets down to what we're talking about here. Do you want to manipulate recordings to sound unlike what the recording engineer intended? How is this beneficial, when the system can't be adjusted to optimize EVERY recording to how you'd like to hear it? How exactly would you suggest the system differ from an accurate reproduction of the recording? How is it possible to "liberate the music from it's coffin also known as the recording"? This seems like a very odd point of view to me.

I agree that the idea is to reproduce the recording, whether studio or live.

But I think audiophiles may start looking for ways to resurrect music from it's recorded coffin because so much of the recorded music out there is in a pitiful state. I choose to just leave that music, buried and forgotten, and focus on the (at least) competently recorded music.

 

[Folsom]

I think all the matters in the end is if you enjoy listening to it.

 

[PeterA]

I think all the matters in the end is if you enjoy listening to it.

Same should be said about one's system.

 

[Folsom]

Same should be said about one's system.

Peter, that is what's being said

 

[PeterA]

Glad to see that people more than not seem to agree with Peter's observations. As Peter said, I was there too and heard the same thing. I should also mention that we sat quite close to the stage, third or fourth row.

Here is what I recently wrote on my system thread:

I have always been at the forefront of defending precise location. Some have falsely argued that live is always one big mono, but this is only true further back in a hall. As long as you sit in the acoustic field where direct sound makes a greater contribution than reflected sound, you CAN in fact locate performers with quite good precision.

However, precision location and precision outline of images are two very different things. I have never heard precision outline of images in live events, and I have attended quite a number of them. Yes, when you keep your eyes open, your overall sensory input may fool you into believing precise outlines. Yet when you close your eyes, and just go by your ears, you will not find precision outlines.


I think Peter's observations at our recent concert experience agree with that.

***

There is the argument that if precisely outlined imaging is on the recording, a system should reproduce that. I don't buy that argument.

First, if pinpoint imaging is a stereo artifact -- and I think it is --, who says that it is expressed more on the recording itself rather than through the reproduction by a system? Who can give the correct answer? I certainly don't know it. If it is the case that pinpoint imaging is more a function of the system presentation than of the recording, then the argument falls flat that what should be reproduced is the imaging that is on the recording.

Second, who knows what is the intention of the recording engineer? If they listen nearfield at a mixing desk they may not even hear the precise pinpoint imaging that is expressed by systems in a 3D space. And if that is the case, how can you claim that pinpoint imaging is intended on the recording?

***

If you enjoy palpable 3D imaging with precise outlines in your system, by all means, go for it. And if you feel that is a nice substitute for the lack of visual clues that you would have in a live concert, no argument from me. But the claim that this is closer to what is on the recording, and how a system should reproduce music just because it can, is tenuous, in my view.

Nice post, Al. By criticizing the idea of a more "diffuse" sound, it seems people are defending the notion that real music is not diffuse. I think the problem stems from a misunderstanding of the term as you and I are using it, or that there are different degrees of focus and diffusion. This varies, as we discussed, and people's references are different.

I should have simply said in my OP, that spoken voices in my living room and instruments on stage from twenty feet away, are not in clear focus. The "image" of the sound originating from the voice or instrument on stage is not as precise and as clear as one might suspect from seeing the person or cello with his eyes. Even a close mic does not capture the exact dimensions of the cello or voice. What we hear is an approximation of the size and a close impression of its location. Some of my close mic'd recordings can make the piano or drum set seem larger than life, and they are also a bit diffuse.

I like palpable images, but again, I don't think they are very precise. They are dimensional and have scale and presence in the room. They can make the sound more convincing.

 

[PeterA]

Peter, that is what's being said

Really, I missed that. I had thought it was a comment about bad recordings, not systems.

 

[PeterA]

what i hear in my room is how it should be. never 'cookie-cutter' count the nose hairs type of imaging, but real energy and weight and coherent full frequency bass where it should be and wall to wall, top to bottom, filled in sound-stage. speakers and room completely disappear.

images are diffuse, but lines of music are never confused. OTOH expressiveness is rendered clearly, and a sense of chest, or string, or wooden body comes through. it's vivid and live sounding, but not harsh and strident. i push the volume and things scale with ease and authority. the music is involving and dis-belief is suspended.

This seems like the way music sounds in real life. Congratulations Mike.

 

[andromedaaudio]

A friend of mine gave me a couple of boxes full of old broadcast mastertapes 70 - 80 s
They would record live radioshows its not about imaging on those tapes but the voices oh boy they sound extremely convincing , its like having a small timemachine at home .

 

[microstrip]

I thought HiFi is all about high fidelity to the recording, but realize some have other objectives. I find it interesting that the manufacturers of our gear are generally building us gear that satisfies the traditional definition of high fidelity, but then we take that gear and try to do other things with it. It somewhat boggles my mind that one would take what are intended to be the most accurate transducers on the market and them put them in a room with massively long decay times, and other tweaks that completely alter their intended purpose in order for it to sound more subjectively live. Live music is live music, a stereo is not an never will be live music, although if the recording's intent is to deliver a live sound, it can often do so accurately, but most recordings are simply NOT that.

IMO, this is a massive insult to those who record the music we listen to. The ones I have met are are generally very educated wrt to sound, how it's perceived and how to best record it. They have a love for music, doing their best to present us with excellent recordings.

It seems you're saying a system needs to do a lot more than simply reproduce what's on the recording, and that gets down to what we're talking about here. Do you want to manipulate recordings to sound unlike what the recording engineer intended? How is this beneficial, when the system can't be adjusted to optimize EVERY recording to how you'd like to hear it? How exactly would you suggest the system differ from an accurate reproduction of the recording? How is it possible to "liberate the music from it's coffin also known as the recording"? This seems like a very odd point of view to me.

DaveC,

Although I do not understand what you exactly mean by HIFI - the word has several connotations, I feel your post fails to see the main problem of the "HIFI" school and most professionals - they have little ambition concerning the capabilities of stereo sound reproduction and do not understand that with some collaboration of the designer/manufacturer and the listener we can have a more enjoyable and rewarding experience. This is the essence of the high-end and It is in this sense I could read "liberate the music from it's coffin also known as the recording".

It is true as you say that it is impossible to optimize a system for every recording, but faced with the alternative of downgrading it to the point in shows no preference for anyone I prefer to optimize it according my preferences and the music I enjoy mostly. And no, I do not consider my experiences an insult to those who record the music I listen, on the contrary.

 

[PeterA]

I don't think anyone is suggesting that. ^ However to recognize that the process of recording isn't perfect means we know that it tends to add the element that isn't portrayed in real life.

Mike's stereo, I would not call diffuse, as it has everything in a very distinct place in the soundstage. It's unparalleled for soundstage and placement in it - and it's very 3D in placement. If you've got that kind of placement it's not totally diffused. But what it doesn't have is etching, none. It doesn't have an etched outline at all.

This illustrates how people may think differently about the term "diffuse". You would not call Mike's stereo "diffuse". And yet, he clearly wrote that in his system, he thinks "Images are diffuse". Seems you both agree that it does not have etched outlines. That's a good thing. I would not want that either.

 

[PeterA]

That's nice. I think it belittles the difference between his stereo and say Peter's.

There must be a vast chasm between Mike's system and mine. I have no delusions about my system. Based on all reports, his is one of the best, and mine is but mediocre. I don't think there is any belittling of the differences being expressed here. I started this thread about my perception that sound is less focused and more diffuse that I had once thought, and my system was moving in a new direction to reflect that. That's all.

 

[PeterA]

Of course, precise location and lack of etched image outline do not contradict one another. I hear both of these things live, as I pointed out earlier. The lack of etching of outlines though is what I, and others apparently as well, call 'diffuse'.

Thank you Al for stating this more clearly than I have been able to in this thread.

 

[DaveC]

DaveC,

Although I do not understand what you exactly mean by HIFI - the word has several connotations, I feel your post fails to see the main problem of the "HIFI" school and most professionals - they have little ambition concerning the capabilities of stereo sound reproduction and do not understand that with some collaboration of the designer/manufacturer and the listener we can have a more enjoyable and rewarding experience. This is the essence of the high-end and It is in this sense I could read "liberate the music from it's coffin also known as the recording".

It is true as you say that it is impossible to optimize a system for every recording, but faced with the alternative of downgrading it to the point in shows no preference for anyone I prefer to optimize it according my preferences and the music I enjoy mostly. And no, I do not consider my experiences an insult to those who record the music I listen, on the contrary.

That's not what I meant.

High fidelity means exactly what is stated, and I didn't mean it to be interpreted in any other way. Literally, high fidelity, as in getting the most information out of the recording and presenting it in the way the recording artists intended. Reducing distortion, going to extreme lengths in cabinet construction and driver engineering, etc. A good example is the folks who build the speakers you own, Wilson, and he's also a recording engineer as I'm sure you know. So your whole thing about ""HIFI" school and most professionals" or "downgrading" makes no sense to me unless you'd consider that to be said of your own system and everyone who build high fidelity gear, like YG, Magico, etc, etc...

Also, you misinterpreted what I said about the statement I quoted being an insult. As I've stated many times I think people should do whatever pleases them. What I think is an insult to the recording industry is referring to recordings as having to be "liberated from it's coffin" to paraphrase, I don't think this is the case and think it's an odd point of view to hold. In my post, the main thing I asked is, exactly how does this "liberation" take place if the goal is not simply to reproduce what's on the recording?

Not sure if I can't communicate clearly, but you misinterpret everything I wrote. Seems strange, but I hope the above clarification makes more sense.

 

[Folsom]

Based on all reports, his is one of the best, and mine is but mediocre.

Oh, I'm not saying that. For all I know I might like your stereo better. But no stereo in a room less than Mike's room can possibly compete with the soundstaging and placement within it. Even if you had AMAZING room treatment, the visual disconnect alone would make it impossible to read it the same way. I've heard good soundstaging and imaging in less rooms, but there just isn't anything like Mike's to date. That doesn't mean his stereo is a complete cup of tea for everyone, I've blatantly said I don't really care about soundstaging myself, but I wouldn't deny when I hear the best.

 

[PeterA]

I thought HiFi is all about high fidelity to the recording, but realize some have other objectives. I find it interesting that the manufacturers of our gear are generally building us gear that satisfies the traditional definition of high fidelity, but then we take that gear and try to do other things with it. It somewhat boggles my mind that one would take what are intended to be the most accurate transducers on the market and them put them in a room with massively long decay times, and other tweaks that completely alter their intended purpose in order for it to sound more subjectively live. Live music is live music, a stereo is not an never will be live music, although if the recording's intent is to deliver a live sound, it can often do so accurately, but most recordings are simply NOT that.

IMO, this is a massive insult to those who record the music we listen to. The ones I have met are are generally very educated wrt to sound, how it's perceived and how to best record it. They have a love for music, doing their best to present us with excellent recordings.

It seems you're saying a system needs to do a lot more than simply reproduce what's on the recording, and that gets down to what we're talking about here. Do you want to manipulate recordings to sound unlike what the recording engineer intended? How is this beneficial, when the system can't be adjusted to optimize EVERY recording to how you'd like to hear it? How exactly would you suggest the system differ from an accurate reproduction of the recording? How is it possible to "liberate the music from it's coffin also known as the recording"? This seems like a very odd point of view to me.

Dave, I don't know if this post is directed at me or at the OP or something else. It is not my intent or goal to make every recording I own sound "live". I don't think I inferred that anywhere. What I do enjoy is a system that sounds "alive", one that "breathes". One that comes "alive" when playing music, regardless of genre, or whether or not the recording is of a live event or some studio recording, or some mix of musicians recorded in different locations. Making my recordings sound like "live music", as you imply, simply does not describe my intent or anything that I am trying to do. I don't know where you got that.

One can see my earlier comments about Al M's system in which I describe it as "coming alive" more than it had previously because of his recent changes. A similar change is now occuring in my system, and it has nothing to do with my wanting to change the recording engineers' intensions of what is on the recording. That would be silly. No, I am trying to identify products and set up procedures to make my system sound more convincing while at the same time bring out the differences between recordings. That is my current goal. Toward that end, I started paying attention to this specific aspect of sound: how focused or diffuse is it really? I have discussed this topic with friends, and I am learning something. One thing for sure: sound is not as clearly outlined or focused as I had previously thought, not from people speaking in the room next to me, not sitting close to instruments in a chamber sized room, and not from the fifth row in a concert hall.

Your comment about a system needing to do more than simply reproducing what's on the recording is fascinating. Can it reproduce what's on the recording in the first place? I don't know. There are lots of different systems out there, and people keep changing them, so they are after something. I think a system should be enjoyable to listen to. I also think it should represent what is on the recording, but it is hard for me to know what that is exactly. I never said that I want to manipulate the recording, but I suppose every time I use a different cartridge, something is going on. This subject is for another thread. My OP is primarily about how focused or diffuse the sound of a voice or instrument is in a real space. It is only peripherally about how the answer to that question is informing me about the direction in which I want to develop my system.

My mistake in the OP was mentioning my system and not just addressing the precision of sound in a general sense. I apologize for that mistake.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

There must be a vast chasm between Mike's system and mine. I have no delusions about my system. Based on all reports, his is one of the best, and mine is but mediocre. I don't think there is any belittling of the differences being expressed here. I started this thread about my perception that sound is less focused and more diffuse that I had once thought, and my system was moving in a new direction to reflect that. That's all.

Peter,

i certainly do not view the likely differences between my system and other serious systems here as experientally profound, and your system is one of the more serious ones. OTOH i have basically gone all in and sold out to certain aspects of system building beyond rational behavior. so at particular things, yes, mine is maybe different. but systems are not about particular performance attributes, but about the musical connection which has a human side and is not all about numbers or pieces of gear. and your always thoughtful and comprehensive approach works for you. and i would expect your system presentation reflects your expectations successfully.

system ranking and good, better, best discussions are not helpful forum topics.

and for the record; i don't recommend my degree of system/room commitment to anyone else. i'm so committed i'm stuck, gloriously stuck maybe, but stuck none-the-less. you have your system fitting into your life in a much more complimentary way and i admire that. the goal is a good life any way we can do it.

no complaints on my end, i'm a big boy and am happy.

 

[PeterA]

A friend of mine gave me a couple of boxes full of old broadcast mastertapes 70 - 80 s
They would record live radioshows its not about imaging on those tapes but the voices oh boy they sound extremely convincing , its like having a small timemachine at home .

Sounding extremely convincing would seem to be a very worthwhile goal, IMO.