I don't know about violin vs viola but many certainly 'think' they know a violin, and you should then listen to them play electronic classical. Many don't know the difference between a flute, clarinet, and oboe, and don't know a french horn. They wouldn't know a right piano from a wrong one. I generally don't follow recommendations of people who don't go to live concerts and who don't use orchestral for auditions. Sure there are a couple of non-classical people whose ears I can calibrate to because of having sat in the same room with them and had discussions, but they are more of an exception.
Do Members use Live Music as a Reference
- Thread starter PeterA
- Start date
I don't know about violin vs viola but many certainly 'think' they know a violin, and you should then listen to them play electronic classical. Many don't know the difference between a flute, clarinet, and oboe, and don't know a french horn. They wouldn't know a right piano from a wrong one. I generally don't follow recommendations of people who don't go to live concerts and who don't use orchestral for auditions. Sure there are a couple of non-classical people whose ears I can calibrate to because of having sat in the same room with them and had discussions, but they are more of an exception.
It is just me, too, Andrew. BTW, The Boston Boys will be comparing the Nadac via DSD to less-than-modest analog this weekend, and we will listen specifically to violin, the human voice, and piano. We may even have one or two recordings on both formats for a more direct comparison. Our host may even play one of his guitars for us for a live reference. We have lots of recordings of solo guitar. It should be interesting.
I voted NO as I consider the two completely separate events.
Concerts for me are "events" that I choose to partake in. Generally a concert involves a social interaction such as dinner or drinks and an audience which I react and respond to. Music at home for the most part is about enjoying something I love in the comfort of home. I am far more experimental at home with my musical selections, I can decide to do other things while enjoying the music in the background if I choose.
The bottom line is that for me (a non player) music is something I enjoy no matter the venue. I do not make a distinction between my enjoyment of an LP sitting in the sweet spot vs listening to a Roon playlist while I am cooking dinner.
Beau
PS A side question. Where do people listen to live unamplified music these days? There's few if any normal venues without some kind of "sound reinforcement" being used. I have generally found that one needs to go to non standard venues, i.e. a school stage, church etc to hear non amplified music.
Concerts for me are "events" that I choose to partake in. Generally a concert involves a social interaction such as dinner or drinks and an audience which I react and respond to. Music at home for the most part is about enjoying something I love in the comfort of home. I am far more experimental at home with my musical selections, I can decide to do other things while enjoying the music in the background if I choose.
The bottom line is that for me (a non player) music is something I enjoy no matter the venue. I do not make a distinction between my enjoyment of an LP sitting in the sweet spot vs listening to a Roon playlist while I am cooking dinner.
Beau
PS A side question. Where do people listen to live unamplified music these days? There's few if any normal venues without some kind of "sound reinforcement" being used. I have generally found that one needs to go to non standard venues, i.e. a school stage, church etc to hear non amplified music.
I live in London. I can go to Barbican, Festival Hall, and for smaller ensembles to Wigmore Hall, King's Place and St. Martin's quite easily - on the way home from work or a small detour. Why is church non-standard? So much of baroque got performed in churches back in the 1600s
Churches are non standard in that for most of their time they are put to other uses besides concerts. Non standard was used in this purpose to describe a venue whose main purpose is not to hols a concert.
I agree completely about the acoustic memory issue and most of your other points. Nonetheless, I use live concert performances as my reference. It was mentioned before, but Harry Pearson cited the concept of Gestalt in making his own comparisons. Yes, most of the details of live are lost, but an essential summary impression remains in our minds of the live listening experience. It is therefore indirect and generalized, and it is not great as a standard. Via that filtering and selective summarization by our memory, it therefore becomes highly subjective from individual to individual. But, it is what it is. I know of no better standard upon which to base my own subjective evaluations of audio gear and recordings. What other standard is there?
I agree that instrument tonality and other specific attributes of instrument sound are not reliable indicators of reproduction quality. I have heard too many instruments of the same type sound rather different in different halls, at different seats and because of specific differences from one instrument to another, one player to another. All violins do not sound exactly alike, etc. So, how am I to know whether this recording on this system is better reproduction of that specific instrument or not? But, the Gestalt concept still applies. We know it is a violin rather than a viola because of that, although we might be fooled in certain circumstances. But, I sure know a violin when I hear it, even over my $80 alarm radio in the bedroom.
I disagree about concert hall sound. Yes, it varies from seat to seat around the hall. So, there is no one, singular concert hall sound. Again, though, there are essential qualities in our remembered Gestalt of live sound regardless of the seat or even the hall. I think few of us would have difficulty distinguishing live vs. reproduced music. And, most recordings do not attempt to recreate the sound at a specific point in the hall. (Yes, certain minimalist, coincident pair mike techniques do, but try building an extensive library of those recordings. They are comparatively rare and a commercial flop.) No, most recordings attempt to capture and recreate a more generalized Gestalt of concert hall sound, rather than the sound at a specific point.
I think one of the absolutely most key distinctions between live and reproduced sound is the sense of space, ambiance and envelopment. Back to Harry: his credo was the sound of live acoustic instruments in real space. He almost always spoke about the sense of space in his reviews. Later, he even said he felt that was one of the key attributes, perhaps the most important, he listened for in evaluating equipment and recordings. Robert Harley cited that point and agreed in a TAS editorial within the past year or so.
It is not well known, but Harry in his late years became very enthusiastic about discretely recorded multichannel sound as the best reproduction so far of live concert sound. I know this from close friends who are TAS staff writers and who visited him often. He wrote about it with high praise a few times in TAS.
I agree with this, and I discovered hi rez Mch sound independently over 8 years ago, long before I heard these Harry stories. Many of my concert-going friends went through a similar discovery. I have listed in stereo very little since then. An essential sense of aliveness is just missing for us in stereo, no matter how prestigious or exalted the stereo recording and playback system.
If one is heavily vested in Classical music I can appreciate a desire to want to compare to live. I'd also say that for small ensemble Jazz. I have noticed that many members here who are Classical and/or Jazz fans are also our most avid concert go'ers. I think the combined love of the genre(s), plus their interest in a high level of system performance drives a need to get as close to live as possible. I don't think those who are more into rock or other genres have that same view or desire, perhaps even need as that is rarely accomplished. There are some live rock recordings, especially in the acoustic vein, that come close, but for me I still don't use it as a reference.
I also think that the less one is focused on the music (rhythm, pace, vocal interpretation, lyrics, ect.), the more one is deprived of the art. If there is no art in your listening experience then the sounds are just noise. And for many ....really expensive noise too! So, forget about the comparisons and just enjoy the music!
I also think that the less one is focused on the music (rhythm, pace, vocal interpretation, lyrics, ect.), the more one is deprived of the art. If there is no art in your listening experience then the sounds are just noise. And for many ....really expensive noise too! So, forget about the comparisons and just enjoy the music!
Live music should be the reference, so far I do agree with those who are in favour of this approach. But, for the reasons outlined above, recordings do not capture the live event faithfully, and at that point for me that story comes to an immediate end.
Another approach would be to use as reference what the mixing/mastering folks hear in the control room. Quite obviously there is no way of knowing that, and even if, you would have substantial differences between control rooms and homes because of the different systems used, the differences in acoustics, the sound pressure level used when mixing/mastering which might not be known. So you would be comparing apples to oranges from the outset.
Just another approach is the good old garbage in – garbage out. Meaning that the system should add to or subtract from as little as possible of what’s on the sound carrier. It’s the electro-acoustic transducers where in my opinion most mistakes can be made, i.e. phono cartridges and loudspeakers, so the specs of those components should be impeccable. Ideal specs are known, so look how close the actual specs compare to those. This is what I (try to) do and that’s basically my reference. No listening before buying, once I’m convinced that a component fits my bill, I purchase, close that file and don’t care any longer.
Your approach of having the system involve you in the music is absolutely correct, simply because this is what it’s all about: listen to the music, not to the system. Having made my choices many years ago, this is exactly what I’m doing ever since: enjoy the music.
Klaus
Gosh that will be interesting, especially after your recent dCS experiences. I thought (think) the Nadac an exceptional DSD player - neutral of course - but very expressive. I got the same sense of ease - or space - with it I usually associate with vinyl. I thought it very convincing. PCM performance was to me some way off the DSD.
Then again, there is something magical about receiving an LP in the post, handling the cover, reading the liner and playing the physical media. Nothing to do with SQ of course. But part of the experience...speaking of which, I have some early morning Nancy Wilson to cue up... and a balcony garden to tend to - it is going to be 105'F here today and around 75% humidity, so best I give the pot plants a drink. Beach weather this.
There is an interesting thread at diyAudio discussing the possibility that, perhaps, what many people most miss about vinyl is the out of phase low frequency groove noise. The hypothesis being that the ear interprets this noise as venue ambiance, greatly supporting the illusion of naturalness of the reproduction. Since digital lacks this noise mechanism, it is suggested as a reason for the often dry and ersatz character of much digital playback. Here's a sample thread comment:
"That might be. One of the things about vinyl that I notice is now gone with CD is the kind of thrilling anticipation that I used to feel when the stylus was first set down onto a disk, playing nothing yet except LF noise. It had a feeling of life to it, definitely artificial, but seeming real none the less. Of course, if this was added to CD on purpose, I'd probably find it annoying, knowing that it needn't be there!"
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/anal...hesis-why-some-prefer-vinyl-douglas-self.html
Last edited:
I will happily dismiss this hypothesis as nonsense. And I am a digital-only guy who, however, has become quite critical of typical digital playback lately given my exposure to great analog.
1) I don't experience my digital playback as dry at all, and it is very, very good at reproducing real hall ambience. It has other problems.
2) Peter A., who only listens to analog at home, and myself have recently heard the dCS Rossini DAC that sounds very much like the best analog, i.e. more like live music. Obviously that DAC does not reproduce out of phase low frequency groove noise, yet we both missed little if anything compared to great analog. See this thread:
http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showt...le-Redbook-CD-afternoon-at-Goodwin-s-High-End
You dismiss without understanding. The point is not that vinyl is capable of capturing hall ambience while digital is not, of course digital is capable, all the way down to D.C. No, the point is that vinyl groove noise may be unintentionally simulating hall ambience, even when little is actually present on the recording, such as in a studio session. With digital, if no hall ambience was recorded then none will be unintentionally simulated by the medium, leaving such a recording appearing to sound drier than if via vinyl. That's the hypothesis.
You were talking about vinyl vs. digital in general, not about specific recordings that may sound drier on digital. It's that generality which I was responding to.
There are few recordings that really sound dry on digital to me, but perhaps I don't listen to enough crappily produced pop/rock
It's not a question of specific recordings. Out-of-phase LF vinyl groove noise is ever present, regardless of recording. A vinyl album with absolutely no program content would still produce it. Such noise will be added to an already ambient sounding recording as well as to a dry sounding one. It simply is a practical imperfection of vinyl playback technology, which is being hypothesized as adding to the illusion of natural or live sounding reproduction.
I perfectly understood this. It seems we are talking past each other, but that's ok.
In any case, I simply don't perceive that vinyl has more 'ambience'. I prefer the sound of great vinyl to most digital that I have heard for other reasons. And I liked the dCS Rossini DAC as much as great analog, even though it obviously does not produce this out-of-phase LF vinyl groove noise.
Last edited:
Interesting comments, Ken. I sometimes hear the groove noise to which you refer, though I was not previously aware that it is out of phase LF vinyl groove noise, per se, or that it is ever present. On my most quiet LPs, I don't hear anything at my seat during the lead out grooves at the end of the LP. I experienced this last night while listening to Starker's performance of Bach's 3rd Cello Sonata. As it finished, there was No noise, nothing, but the stylus was still in the groove. And at the beginning of the LP, there was almost no noise, and then the startling dynamics of the instrument as he started to play the piece.
It is an interesting hypothesis. I'll be more interested if it is ever proven with verifiable data. This weekend Al and I will be comparing the same recording of a string trio on on both vinyl and DSD digital. We will try to pay particular attention to hall ambience and whether or not it sounds "enhanced" on the analog version.
If my recollection is correct, the old Hafler circuit of the early 70's, hayday of the LP era, claimed to do something that might in some ways be similar. It was an electrically simple device that reproduced any difference between the two stereo channels, including any out of phase bass information, from the rear channel(s). It was interesting in its day, and it did add bass warmth, as I recall from my experiments with it. The out of phase bass issues on LP were more likely artifacts of skating, tracking and azimuth issues with the phono cartridges, arm and table setups common in the day, since most deep bass on LP then, if not also now, was mixed down to mono. But, it is not in any way an accurate reproduction of what one actually hears a in the hall.
So, the stretch to artificial LP groove noise in the bass is not something I want, unless it is there in reality in the hall. I forgive those seduced by things like this via vinyl. It evolved to being a very euphonic medium in many ways, adding pleasant, to some, additive artifacts such as this. Many people just seem to like certain types of noise added to their music. Been, there, done that.
But, imagine this, as described, going on in the outer "silent grooves" per the quote before the music even starts on the LP, then throughout the entire music side, whether that artificial, sexy bass warmth was there in the hall when the recording was made or not. This hardly takes us in the direction of reproducing greater realism vs. live. It takes us instead into euphonic preferences - the artificial reproduction of pleasing things that are not there live. Sorry, but count me out. And, BTW, methinks possibly a the quote might reveal setup issues, possibly including incorrect cartridge/tone arm resonance matching which excites bass fundamentals and harmonics.
But, I love ya, vinyl guys. Knock yourselves out. I was once one of you. But, never again. I think there is better and truer to live music.
Hi, Peter,
As I understand it, the type of groove noise being discussed in that thread is very low in frequency and out-of-phase phase between channels. It is not the audible constant 'groove rush' sound we normally directly perceive of as vinyl noise. Being low in frequency of random phase, we tend to not be directly aware of this noise. It's being hypothesized that the noise, although entirely artificial and unintentional, is subconsciously perceived as adding naturalness or psychological ease (for lack of better words) to musical program content.
Yes, the old Hafler Matrix approach simply extracted the difference (out-of-phase) content between channels and added that to the sound field via an extra pair of speakers.
Physically, vinyl will have naturally occuring random vertical groove undulations. These are built in to the vinyl surface due to the natural imperfections of disc manufacture. These random undulations will be transcribed by a stereo cartridge as out-of-phase noise. The hypothesis is not that the effect is accurate to the recording, it decidedly is not. The hypothesis is that the LF groove noise is a serendipitously beneficial, although completely artificial, psychoacoustic effect.
Yes, that is the CD criticism of vinyl. To be fair to the vinyl adherents, I think they might ask, what hath a man profit to gain technically perfect sound forever, yet lose human enjoyment of the music? For whatever the technical reasons.
Some would argue that digital has not clearly taken us in the direction of greater realism. I would disagree with that notion now, but I've only come to that opinion over the last several years. My conclusion is that while PCM sampling is indeed angelic perfection in theory, it is the devil in execution.
+ 1000 !!!
Only recently have I heard the theory convincingly translated into practice, initially with the dCS Vivaldi stack, then in a more focused listening session with the dCS Rossini DAC. Took 30+ years after introduction of the CD to get there.
Similar threads
