Do Members use Live Music as a Reference

[Steve williams]

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.

I totally agree micro

It's called life experiences and interacting with people who share life's experiences. 853 guy described it eloquently as well

I still believe that some people listen but don't hear

 

[amirm]

Sorry Amir but you might listen to music but you don't hear it, certainly not in the way that I and so many others here do. So in all honesty what you think and what you want to prove is all irrelevant here at WBF. There is another forum on the internet that likes to dispute, dispel and disprove. Happily this ain't the place

Steve, remember Frank Berryman? The guy who started UltraHighEnd Forum and made the two of us moderators? A week before you and he had your blow up leading to disintegration of that forum, I had lunch with Frank at CES. He had post about a great workshop stone throw from where you used to live at Berkeley where "Prof" Keith Johnson was creating a recording. I really wanted to be there but could not. I knew Frank had attended so I asked him about it.

To my surprise, Frank's mood became somber. He said that they listened to the live orchestra and then the recording that Keith created from it. To Frank's dismay, they did not sound anything like each other. So he went and asked Keith about it. Keith's answer was brilliant and was something to the effect of, "I know what sound to create the listeners like and the raw recording is not it."

It is clear that it took an actual experience like this to completely change Frank's outlook on this topic. He didn't like what he saw and heard but knew of its reality especially coming from someone like the celebrated Keith Johnson.

As with Frank, we may be going to this truth kicking and screaming but we must get there. We are not speaking of my opinion or anything that is really subject to any kind of reasonable debate. Recoding is a highly lossy process, and combined with massive transformation in recording, no system can possible put the genie back in the bottle. Cry if you must but let's not put all logic aside and keep believing in the non-believable.

 

[NorthStar]

Three hours ago plus, I replied to a a post I enjoyed reading. Just few minutes ago I added up to my reply:
• http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showt...as-a-Reference&p=423386&viewfull=1#post423386

 

[Al M.]

Steve, remember Frank Berryman? The guy who started UltraHighEnd Forum and made the two of us moderators? A week before you and he had your blow up leading to disintegration of that forum, I had lunch with Frank at CES. He had post about a great workshop stone throw from where you used to live at Berkeley where "Prof" Keith Johnson was creating a recording. I really wanted to be there but could not. I knew Frank had attended so I asked him about it.

To my surprise, Frank's mood became somber. He said that they listened to the live orchestra and then the recording that Keith created from it. To Frank's dismay, they did not sound anything like each other. So he went and asked Keith about it. Keith's answer was brilliant and was something to the effect of, "I know what sound to create the listeners like and the raw recording is not it."

It is clear that it took an actual experience like this to completely change Frank's outlook on this topic. He didn't like what he saw and heard but knew of its reality especially coming from someone like the celebrated Keith Johnson.

As with Frank, we may be going to this truth kicking and screaming but we must get there. We are not speaking of my opinion or anything that is really subject to any kind of reasonable debate. Recoding is a highly lossy process, and combined with massive transformation in recording, no system can possible put the genie back in the bottle. Cry if you must but let's not put all logic aside and keep believing in the non-believable.

There is indeed no way, even if the recording engineer wanted to, to recreate the original sound event through the recording. As you pointed out, Amir, microphones 'hear' differently that human ears. This fact alone, affecting the very source with which the recording starts, throws any notion of absolute accuracy to the original event out the window, regardless of anything that comes after in the entire recording chain.

However, even though accuracy to the original event -- a duplication of its sound -- is not possible, I would still hold that we should not let go of the concept of believability. Unamplified live instruments and singing voices create diverse kinds of sounds, depending on acoustic of the venue and distance of listener from the instrument or voice. The sounds that we hear in reproduction should all fall into that wide range, which I would call a range of believability (and only someone experienced in the sounds of unamplified live instruments will know what that range approximately is). Yet what many systems reproduce from even good recordings of unamplified live music has characteristics that are outside that range of believability, and this destroys the illusion of listening to real instruments. That illusion should be obtainable, at least to a considerable, reasonable extent as it is on good systems/recordings, but an illusion it will always be.

 

[Steve williams]

Just a reminder to all that this thread's topic is Do Members use Live Music as a Reference?

A quick look at the poll showed this....


HomeForum Our Favorite Technology and Audio ForumsGeneral Audio Forum Do Members use Live Music as a Reference
View Poll Results: Do Members use Live Music as a Reference?

I use live music as a reference. 45............ 76.27%

I do not use live music as a reference. 14........23.73%

 

[NorthStar]

______

The first two clips; if I was seeing live it would be grandiose. The third one is great, without the eyes.

The next four are from the film (DVD & Blu-ray export); https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk_to_Her
and the songs, to me, are more poignant with a moving image attached to them.
But I know other people who have great moving images from their own imagination, without looking @ a film, and who even close their eyes sometimes @ live classical music concerts.
I can too and I do when very intimate with myself. But there is something live and on film that makes the music performances more intense when well executed in sync with each other, that floats harmoniously on a higher emotional level...to me.

After watching a beautiful film, if the music during the end rolling credits is nice music I will be more involved in it, much deeper.
So, the point I am making here is that images have a great impact when accompanying nice music. And images can be from film, music concerts, live theaters, jazz clubs, ballets, operas, small live classical chamber musicians like Peter showed us before...acoustic chamber music.

If we can reproduce @ home what we see and hear well, live @ some venues, with a similar emotional level, then we are already on the path to nirvana audio bliss and we should share more music than gold, diamonds, silver and oxygen free copper? It's a way of speech, a token of encouragement in one of our favorite 'sports'. Is it live or is it Memorex?

 

[amirm]

Mesmerizing even through my tinny laptop speakers!

 

[RogerD]

Anyway I must be crazy to do this...my attempt to create a live illusion...for better or worse. Pardon my Iphone6

 

[NorthStar]

_______

Can we mess up with music? Of course we can, just look @ the 80s and all the very bad recordings on CDs.
But there is something today that is still even worst; no life, no passion, no taste, no class, no nothing good. I'm talking only about this, the quick music industry with a dollar sign, not the other good stuff around and for the true connoisseurs.

We have various mediums, various cuts, different master tapes, we have analog and digital (give me Blu-ray anytime over VHS or Beta tape).
We have tons of versions from The Beatles...mono, stereo, ...from The Stones, Led Zeppelin, Bob Dylan...on CD, SACD, 180gr, 33 1/3, 45, different takes, masters, bootlegs, and even live (Stones, Dylan, Paul McCartney).

Some of you went to a Live Rolling Stones rock music concert. Now tell me that your CDs or SACDs or LPs give you a better music experience @ home.
Just no way Jose, and same for Pink Floyd and Santana and Jethro Tull and Yes and Genesis and ELP and Queen and CCR.
If you say that the music experience is emotionally higher @ home I simply don't believe you. ...And neither Bob Dylan.

* I have never seen John Coltrane playing live, neither Miles Davis and Chet Baker. ...Some of you? And how was it from your memory?

 

[NorthStar]

Anyway I must be crazy to do this...my attempt to create a live illusion...for better or worse. Pardon my Iphone6

- . - .

 

[amirm]

Anyway I must be crazy to do this...my attempt to create a live illusion...for better or worse. Pardon my Iphone6

That sounds awful Roger. Is it an iphone recording of your system?

Here is the original track and it sounds a lot more "live" to me than your recording:

Maybe I missed the point of your post?

 

[RogerD]

That sounds awful Roger. Is it an iphone recording of your system?

Here is the original track and it sounds a lot more "live" to me than your recording:

Maybe I missed the point of your post?

Well maybe it does sound awful,yes i used my Iphone and yes the your recording does sound better....but in the flesh it is closer to yours.

 

[microstrip]

Just a reminder to all that this thread's topic is Do Members use Live Music as a Reference?

A quick look at the poll showed this....


HomeForum Our Favorite Technology and Audio ForumsGeneral Audio Forum Do Members use Live Music as a Reference
View Poll Results: Do Members use Live Music as a Reference?

I use live music as a reference. 45............ 76.27%

I do not use live music as a reference. 14........23.73%

I have read many explanations how people use live music as a reference, but considering a significant number of people do not use it, I think it would be great to hear from them telling us what is their reference and how they select components and assemble systems.

 

[PeterA]

I have read many explanations how people use live music as a reference, but considering a significant number of people do not use it, I think it would be great to hear from them telling us what is their reference and how they select components and assemble systems.

I had hoped that Amir would answer this very question when about ten pages ago he told us that using live music was inherently flawed and that there are better ways to assess the quality of one's system. Perhaps he and the other 13 poll respondents will address this very point.

 

[PeterA]

That sounds awful Roger. Is it an iphone recording of your system?

Here is the original track and it sounds a lot more "live" to me than your recording:

Maybe I missed the point of your post?

Amir, did you just use live music as a reference (data) point to make that statement? I mean, how would you know if the original track of that recording sounds "a lot more 'live' to [you] than your recording" unless you compared it to your memory of what "live" is?

 

[bonzo75]

I had hoped that Amir would answer this very question when about ten pages ago he told us that using live music was inherently flawed and that there are better ways to assess the quality of one's system. Perhaps he and the other 13 poll respondents will address this very point.

Ken Kessler mentioned at the Windsor hifi show that he goes to listen to a system, if it does not sound better than his home system, he walks out. So he uses his home system as a reference. By “better”, to paraphrase him, since he does not use live acoustic references, would be what he, or a person like him, would have defined they like. Could be better bass and tone, where the frame of reference for bass and tone are different from what the bass and tone people for live acoustic concert use. Everyone is used to pop beats due to having seen TV, advertisements, movies, visiting clubs, etc. These IMO become the standard references, and to develop classical references one has to go out of the way to live shows. I say out of the way because while growing up there is no culture to go to a concert hall to “hang out”, to pick up women, ro have a drink with the guys, or to grab a quick bite. Such everyday experiences expose us to pop beats, followed by rock, which shall remain the references unless otherwise changed.

Amir had once started a thread asking for recommendations of classical recordings because he wanted to try more classical. Many suggested to him some recordings, while I suggested he start attending live concerts, but don’t think he took that on board.

 

[PeterA]

Ken Kessler mentioned at the Windsor hifi show that he goes to listen to a system, if it does not sound better than his home system, he walks out. So he uses his home system as a reference. By “better”, to paraphrase him, since he does not use live acoustic references, would be what he, or a person like him, would have defined they like. Could be better bass and tone, where the frame of reference for bass and tone are different from what the bass and tone people for live acoustic concert use. Everyone is used to pop beats due to having seen TV, advertisements, movies, visiting clubs, etc. These IMO become the standard references, and to develop classical references one has to go out of the way to live shows. I say out of the way because while growing up there is no culture to go to a concert hall to “hang out”, to pick up women, ro have a drink with the guys, or to grab a quick bite. Such everyday experiences expose us to pop beats, followed by rock, which shall remain the references unless otherwise changed.

Amir had once started a thread asking for recommendations of classical recordings because he wanted to try more classical. Many suggested to him some recordings, while I suggested he start attending live concerts, but don’t think he took that on board.

Bonzo, this makes great sense, and I too often use friend's systems as reference points too. A most recent example is my incredible appreciation for the resolution of MadFloyd's system based around his Magico M Pros and top Pass Labs XS gear. It is the sound I like, and those specific components sound more real, and "better" to me, than my Magico and Pass Labs components. So, personal preference, what one likes, is certainly one aspect of this for me. Live music, is simply one reference point, other systems is another reference point.

I'm pleased that Ken Kessler likes my turntable. That may matter too, in some small way.

 

[bonzo75]

Bonzo, this makes great sense, and I too often use friend's systems as reference points too. A most recent example is my incredible appreciation for the resolution of MadFloyd's system based around his Magico M Pros and top Pass Labs XS gear. It is the sound I like, and those specific components sound more real, and "better" to me, than my Magico and Pass Labs components. So, personal preference, what one likes, is certainly one aspect of this for me. Live music, is simply one reference point, other systems is another reference point.

I'm pleased that Ken Kessler likes my turntable. That may matter too, in some small way.

Yes, but my point is, your “better” is different from KK’s “better”, because your frame of reference is different.

So to microstrip's question as to what reference do those who do not use live concerts as reference use, they probably do their own systems with a reference defined by non-classical tones and beats

 

[jkeny]

I have read many explanations how people use live music as a reference, but considering a significant number of people do not use it, I think it would be great to hear from them telling us what is their reference and how they select components and assemble systems.

I already stated my approach in this post
I believe that life & the exposure that it gives us to the sonic scenes, are enough to evaluate the realism or otherwise of playback at the individual instrument level. Of course this has a number of assumptions to it - first that we have been exposed to an instrument a number of times to know it's signature. But I believe that for most commonly encountered instruments this exposure happens anyway. Even if it doesn't our auditory system has general rules of engagement with sonics that seem to define how we evaluate sound. Look at the "Longest echo in the world" How do we evaluate this sound or any new sound we have never heard before? What makes this an echo & not the sound of a new type of gun shooting a bullet?

But the second element is the macro one of evaluating a performance playback & this becomes how much insight we achieve into the interplay in the performance & ultimately how we are moved by this insight. The level of insight comes from the "realism" of the instruments/voices above. I don't believe attendance at live venues is a necessary requirement for this evaluation, either.

I don't wish to be able to spot the difference between different makes of an instrument - others may wish to be able to do this & that's fine but I find that as far off the target as a focus on being able to identify a particular distortion

@Bonzo, my better is based on better "realism" but that doesn't mean I have to have been to the "live" event that was recorded & that I'm listening to in playback

 

[RogerD]

That sounds awful Roger.

Last night after I read Amir's response, I knew exactly what the problem was as I had tweaked my digital cable a few days ago. Made the highs sound strident and brittle. As soon as I got up I removed it and problem solved. Although embarrassing it was a good lesson in listener bias. No hijack of this thread intended.