You certainly have a point. There were three occasions where music really struck me deep at the core and I burst into tears. Two were at a concert and one was at home. There were many other similar experiences, but they did not hit that much home.
Do Members use Live Music as a Reference
- Thread starter PeterA
- Start date
You certainly have a point. There were three occasions where music really struck me deep at the core and I burst into tears. Two were at a concert and one was at home. There were many other similar experiences, but they did not hit that much home.
I think I know what you mean. I used to have the speakers you listen to , but basically I do not share your experience.
Interesting....I think sometimes the music takes on a intimate quality. I know on my system it does.
The acoustics of Davies Symphony Hall leave something to be desired. While the acoustics at the War Memorial Opera House are excellent, the singers are always more distant. The sound at the Jazz Center is excellent, but always amplified. The seating in my home is much more comfortable, the refreshments are vastly superior. There is no the need to sit motionless and silent among a crowd. I can move around at will (the sweet seat is extremely wide with Sound Lab electrostatics,) visit the WC whenever, and refill my glass at will. The wonderful range of $0.50 thrift shop LP's compared to the $100+ ticket price at the opera adds to my pleasure, and I have access to the truly great voices of the last 65 years. My system has evolved over the last many years to the point that the sound is often superior.
The Holy Grail is indeed that moment when the music brings tears to my eyes, but that more often happens at home without the hassle.
Not to mention 'infinite repeat' and 'pause'! (though perhaps that's more for movies and dance tracks than listening to a symphony.
IMHO they are not comparable at all. A live performance has a specific preparation, friends and many people, a real space and mostly a visual component. Although I also like my SoundLab's, I must say I prefer the life by a wide margin ...
You forgot to mention that I do Dr. Toole's laundry on Sundays and his grocery shopping on Mondays!
That aside, you are very much mistaken. If you ever have the fortune to meet Dr. Toole, you will find the myth we are discussing as probably his top two or three complaints. He will go to fair amount of depth on why it is such a misconception to confuse Live with any sense of sound reproduction. And he is not alone. Dr. Olive also starts many of his presentations with the same topic, discussing the "con" that started with Edison saying you couldn't tell the sound of live from his player.
You don't have to take my word for it. Here is Dr. Toole himself in his book, Sound Reproduction: : The Acoustics and Psychoacoustics of Loudspeakers and Rooms (Audio Engineering Society Presents)
He goes on providing references from other luminaries in addition to his own reasoning. I can't fathom how you could have read his work but not learned his point of view here.
As he explains there is no way, no how you can capture the 3-dimensional aspects of sound in a performance hall with a single microphone. Two ears and a brain hear much more than that in that seat. And that forgetting the common system of using multiple microphones and mixing, equalizing, adding effects, steering sounds to stereo channels, etc.
Instead of talking about how much live music helps with one's analysis of a system, we need to spend time learning how music is produced. That is what we have: reproduction systems. Not live transportation. To wit, Chris post this delightful track and its production on ASR Forum:
You see all the microphones? All the headphones being worn? Look at where the listeners are (middle of the track some place). You think they are hearing what each one of those microphones are hearing?
It is high time that we put aside this illusionary assumption and come down to reality that we are hearing artificial presentations of music.
And please forgive my directness but damn anyone who puts down fellow audiophiles because they don't go to concert hall and listen to live music as less of an individual when it comes to evaluating system performance. You want to learn how to evaluate a system technically? Learn what makes reproduction systems create sound that is not on the recorded media. Compress a song into high bit rate MP3/AAC and if you can't in a blind test tell it from original, don't waste your time bragging about importance of listening to live music.
OK, I feel better now.
You forgot to mention that I do Dr. Toole's laundry on Sundays and his grocery shopping on Mondays!
That aside, you are very much mistaken. If you ever have the fortune to meet Dr. Toole, you will find the myth we are discussing as probably his top two or three complaints. He will go to fair amount of depth on why it is such a misconception to confuse Live with any sense of sound reproduction. And he is not alone. Dr. Olive also starts many of his presentations with the same topic, discussing the "con" that started with Edison saying you couldn't tell the sound of live from his player.
You don't have to take my word for it. Here is Dr. Toole himself in his book, Sound Reproduction: : The Acoustics and Psychoacoustics of Loudspeakers and Rooms (Audio Engineering Society Presents)
He goes on providing references from other luminaries in addition to his own reasoning. I can't fathom how you could have read his work but not learned his point of view here.
As he explains there is no way, no how you can capture the 3-dimensional aspects of sound in a performance hall with a single microphone. Two ears and a brain hear much more than that in that seat. And that forgetting the common system of using multiple microphones and mixing, equalizing, adding effects, steering sounds to stereo channels, etc.
Instead of talking about how much live music helps with one's analysis of a system, we need to spend time learning how music is produced. That is what we have: reproduction systems. Not live transportation. To wit, Chris post this delightful track and its production on ASR Forum:
You see all the microphones? All the headphones being worn? Look at where the listeners are (middle of the track some place). You think they are hearing what each one of those microphones are hearing?
It is high time that we put aside this illusionary assumption and come down to reality that we are hearing artificial presentations of music.
And please forgive my directness but damn anyone who puts down fellow audiophiles because they don't go to concert hall and listen to live music as less of an individual when it comes to evaluating system performance. You want to learn how to evaluate a system technically? Learn what makes reproduction systems create sound that is not on the recorded media. Compress a song into high bit rate MP3/AAC and if you can't in a blind test tell it from original, don't waste your time bragging about importance of listening to live music.
OK, I feel better now.
Most of that is hog wash....not only is a greater part of the performance captured by the microphone,it can be reproduced. Were the reproduction fails in the playback chain. I think 2 channel stereo as we know it will be obsolete in 10 years or less. Replaced by a enhanced version that delivers a 2 channel system where the brain can decipher it in a more natural or efficient way..no offense Amir,but I think things are changing and the old paradigms will be replaced.
I do because apart from my own system and live sound here, it's probably the only way to properly calibrate my ears for live sound and to evaluate my music reproduction SQ.
But I don't go out of my way to calibrate with symphonic and orchestral music. Although it does have its utility, like large dynamics, it forms a very small portion of what I listen to.
For most of my listening, listening 'live' is a lost cause: since it's mostly electronic, it goes through various digital and analogue equipment and amplification + speaker setups, one for live amplified, and studio amplified, making it impossible in the end to emulate exactly as that would entail having the exact amplification and speaker chain for each production.
But I don't go out of my way to calibrate with symphonic and orchestral music. Although it does have its utility, like large dynamics, it forms a very small portion of what I listen to.
For most of my listening, listening 'live' is a lost cause: since it's mostly electronic, it goes through various digital and analogue equipment and amplification + speaker setups, one for live amplified, and studio amplified, making it impossible in the end to emulate exactly as that would entail having the exact amplification and speaker chain for each production.
Yeah, they were talking about quadrophonic sound back in 1973 too -- wasn't that 43 years ago, if my math is correct? We are still at 2-channel stereo.
They also were talking about hi-rez audio replacing the 44/16 standard. Didn't happen either (as I predicted by the way, which is why I never wasted any time, money and effort on even a single SACD).
Some things don't change. Deal with it, and make the best out of it.
We judge TV picture by how realistic is the illusion we perceive. Why do people consider that sound should be any different? Our experience in the world both visual & auditory are the reference most use to evaluate the illusion from these systems. They are illusions & not an attempt to recereate the stampede of an elephant herd in our front room or the sound of an orchestra in full flight.
In regards to 2 channel audio, David greissinger has done binaural recordings at the eardrum & stated that when such recordings are played back binaurally they sound remarkably realistic to him - why wouldn't they (if accurately reproduced)?
In regards to 2 channel audio, David greissinger has done binaural recordings at the eardrum & stated that when such recordings are played back binaurally they sound remarkably realistic to him - why wouldn't they (if accurately reproduced)?
Last edited:
Audiophiles are a funny lot. Once this new technology hits and it will in 2017,watch what happens. You can be sure that What's best will be a driving force to make it more available.
My bad Roger. You are right. As a matter of fact I heard of this technology back in 2014. Searched and found a youtube video of it:
Shame that is based on the CD or I would for sure adopt this blended version. It will sound a lot more smooth and analog like, enabling the brain to digest it well as you say.
You forgot to mention that I do Dr. Toole's laundry on Sundays and his grocery shopping on Mondays!
That aside, you are very much mistaken. If you ever have the fortune to meet Dr. Toole, you will find the myth we are discussing as probably his top two or three complaints. He will go to fair amount of depth on why it is such a misconception to confuse Live with any sense of sound reproduction. And he is not alone. Dr. Olive also starts many of his presentations with the same topic, discussing the "con" that started with Edison saying you couldn't tell the sound of live from his player.
You don't have to take my word for it. Here is Dr. Toole himself in his book, Sound Reproduction: : The Acoustics and Psychoacoustics of Loudspeakers and Rooms (Audio Engineering Society Presents)
He goes on providing references from other luminaries in addition to his own reasoning. I can't fathom how you could have read his work but not learned his point of view here.
As he explains there is no way, no how you can capture the 3-dimensional aspects of sound in a performance hall with a single microphone. Two ears and a brain hear much more than that in that seat. And that forgetting the common system of using multiple microphones and mixing, equalizing, adding effects, steering sounds to stereo channels, etc.
(...)
And please forgive my directness but damn anyone who puts down fellow audiophiles because they don't go to concert hall and listen to live music as less of an individual when it comes to evaluating system performance. You want to learn how to evaluate a system technically? Learn what makes reproduction systems create sound that is not on the recorded media. Compress a song into high bit rate MP3/AAC and if you can't in a blind test tell it from original, don't waste your time bragging about importance of listening to live music.
OK, I feel better now.
IMHO these words help to explain why a reference of life is important to those who listen mostly to acoustical non amplified music in high-end systems - the process of sound reproduction needs a great help of human assistance and this assistance looks for the very small clues (and other macro entities) of life that people who go to live performances can more easily identify, as education makes them more sensitive to them.
Sound reproduction is a preference. Why should a group of people who enjoy a more elaborate and gratifying way of enjoying their music be obliged to follow a statistically determined preference of a brilliant scientist and the manufacturers that follow his findings?
Most of the time WBF members present their individual preferences, and supply as many details as possible in an internet post to support their opinions. Comparison with life experience is a very interesting subject and many manufacturers of equipment I appreciate claim they use it in their development. Surely all IMHO and YMMV.
You nailed some good points; @ home we're in our own free zone of comfort, @ the music concert hall we're @ the mercy of our seat, and with all the people around, without freedom of movement, without sitting in the best seat of the house, not a comfortable seat either, with all the restricted body movements, like being trapped to a straitjacket in an hospital bed with a bunch of penguins and iguanas, and getting aches all over...physically and physiologically. Of course I am exaggerating with humor, just a little tiny bit.
So yes I can relate to what you just answered above. It's not just the sound, it's the entire comfort zone...total freedom physically and emotionally.
There are exceptions though; when a singer touch your soul (female soprano, or male...a piano, cello, violin...), and no matter where you are you fall apart and melt in tears, and the room no matter where it is, totally disappeared leaving you with only your emotional level totally transported to a brand new world where time and space cease to exist. Everything around you becomes pulverized, including the audience. I experienced this more live than reproduced @ home, in absolute honesty. If some people experience it more @ home than live I want to congratulate them for a very special affinity to get as close to the real thing as it can get.
_____
I'll give you an example. It won't make you cry; it's just to show the two sides between live and reproduced...use your imagination, like if you were truly there when it is happening in front of you, with not many people in the audience and with your own eyes and ears...the first clip. The second clip is @ home, not seeing, not being there like in the first, but from a music reproduction playing on your turntable, @ 45rpm. ...Or an SACD if you want, even an open-reel tape of premium quality recording/mastering.
This is not the best example, but it still conveys what I'm trying to communicate.
* I'll do some serious research for one of the very best examples...
Last edited:
Good post. These experiences are certainly different, and nothing will ever make them the same. They can each be great and bring emotional joy, and each can be disappointing. We should enjoy each on its own terms. One should not be confused with the other, and each of us is free to enjoy what we want and how we want it.
Last edited:
Similar threads
