Do Members use Live Music as a Reference

[fas42]

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.

Exactly. I was a lucky one, I fluked getting PCM "right" 30 years ago - and have spent the time in between wondering, wondering, wondering when the penny would drop ...

Good to see the level of progress over the last year or so, plenty more to be done to get the price of entry down to sensible levels ...

 

[Rodney Gold]

I can understand the LF thing as when I switch out my 4 subs (which are used to bust nodes and play at low deep bass levels) the sense of ambience also collapses

 

[PeterA]

Fellow members Al M. and MadFloyd joined me this evening for a concert in a private home in Boston. Bach Suite No. 5 in C minor for Cello, Bach Sonata No. 3 in C major for Violin, and Ravel Sonata in Four Parts for Violin and Cello. It was a superb performance by two BSO musicians, Jonathan Miller and Lucia Lin. The sheer energy exploding out of these two instruments from fifteen feet away was something to remember, and a great reference against which to assess the performance of our systems. As happy as I am with my sound at home, there is nothing like hearing the real thing, especially in such a setting.

 

[NorthStar]

Peter, what I love most about it ? is 'acoustic' music, 'unamplified'.

Last Friday evening I was the sound mixer of a live music event, with sixty people in the audience. The music; vocals, acoustic steel string guitar and flute were amplified...with mics, monitor speakers and mixing console sound board/amplifier/effect/equalizer. It was fine but not the natural sounding of acoustic instruments "in the nude".
I prefer the natural echo/reverb of the venue than the one processed by a mixing sound board. Sure most of my settings; bass, mid, treble, ten-band EQ, gain control, effect level (echo, reverb, hall), master volume, were pretty much @ their neutral positions (zero), but the music performer complained to me after the recital that he would have preferred a little echo effect on the flute. Well, I'm sorry but I did my best.

I would never use live amplified music as a reference to set my own music sound system. Acoustic music yes, with some reservations of course; because we all know that reproduced music cannot sound like real life musical instruments playing unamplified exactly the same. ...A simile yes, but not a perfect replication.
Or can we be fooled by our own ears and brain in a blind test? ...Like music playing from an ultra high end sound system (R2R tape) and music playing live with real performers and instruments, behind a large black satin veil*, acoustically transparent.
Anyone ever attended such a test?

* Or no black veil in front of the system and performers but blindfolded, and making sure that the black blindfold doesn't interfere with any part of our ear's orifices.

We don't want this:

But we want this:

:b

 

[PeterA]

Yes, Bob, it was quite a performance. The sound really energized the room and it was quite loud, much louder than I listen to solo violin or cello through my system. Al and I were talking about that because his volume setting was much closer to what we actually heard last night. My guess is that the room is about 25 X 30 X 14. Pretty big but the 25-30 people were tightly packed. Even at twice the size with 60 people, I am surprised that your live event needed to be amplified. I would love to one day attend a small jazz concert that is not amplified, just to hear the instruments nude, as you say. Too often, the bass is much too loud and the singer's voice is coming out of a monitor eight feet above her head or, worse, two speakers twenty feet apart. I don't get the obsession to amplify acoustic instruments, including voice, when performed in small spaces.

I used to think that small speakers could approach the sound of an instrument like a cello. I no longer think so. After hearing last night's performance, I really wonder what something like Bach's Cello Suite would sound like on a large four tower speaker system like MikeL's. There is just no way small speakers can reproduce the incredible low frequency vibrational energy of that live instrument. It was incredible hearing these two instruments being played so well at such a close distance in a small space.

 

[PeterA]

Here is another photograph taken by Ian's wife of Jonathan Miller practicing in the main stair hall of this house. The sound was quite different, given all of the hard, reflective surfaces. What an image.

Sorry, I have tried to rotate the image, but failed.

 

[NorthStar]

Test, & short essay (musical point of reference)


____

Peter, the venue from last Friday...the room dimensions roughly: 20 feet high, 60 feet long, 40 feet wide. It's a complex venue with a foyer in the center and opening to adjacent room/corridors.
The music that was playing was traditional smooth Irish music, and only one musician/singer. I was simply giving my free time in helping.

It wasn't a setting like where the audience is sitting close together, just the contrary; people were sitting and standing all around a 360° circle. With the main area comprising a roughly 90° angle (one quarter). So it was impossible to have a good sound everywhere. The monitors I set @ around 5-foot height, so in line with the singer's voice. And those monitors were separated by only eight feet. I took pictures, but with my friend musician's own camera, so he has them and it's up to him to see if they are good enough (without using the flash) to share.

This was completely different than what you attended. A completely different style and music genre and room and audience setting.
Again, I was simply assisting a friend who asked me for assistance.
The main area in that room contains several windows, and the floor is all wood. It was a mix of painting exhibition, local products (various things), and live music accompaniment.
Two bars are in that main area, one for the drinks and the other for the food.
____

The scale of live music depends of so many things. The scale of people's home sound systems depends of so many things.
The scale of the human brain with its natural surroundings determine each one of us our own comfort zone.
Making the best of each life's circumstances, each venue, each music genre, each person's own characteristic, each moment in time and in space; is our challenge.
As we grow up we explore the fields of gained experience...the old and the new. We pick the music we feel best about, the music we listen to as a direct communion with our soul.
And each moment is the ultimate "in the now". We are free to plunge with full weight in it, or to run away fast or slow from it. :b
____

Human nature is very powerful; we are the ones creating the music, we are the ones listening to it, we are the ones choosing the venues and the instruments and the gear.
We judge easily what doesn't strike our chords comfortably. We are receptive. We are sensitive. We are who we are, us.
Nothing defines us but what we like. ...And a billion more things that are from our memories and dreams...

So, what do we use as a reference? It all depends of what we like.
____

Some systems must cost few dollars, and the sound quality from them must deliver something special, a feeling of warm emotion inside.
The artist contributes 90% of it, in my relaxed estimation. The rest is our own playground @ home when trying to replicate the live experience.
The artist performing live or in a studio recording doesn't feel the same, and he/she doesn't convey the same either, and the music recording is also different.
The music we truly love listening to and performed by the artists we love is our reference. It is as intimate as making love to someone we love with all our heart and soul.

Sharing is the way to happiness; respect, appreciation, balance, equilibrium on a physical and spiritual plane.
...Being in harmony in the now with the universe and everything inside and outside of it. That, could also be used as a reference. It's a way of speech of course, to show our appreciation in other's music journey that strikes our own chords of comfortably numb emotions, the ecstasy, the zone.
____

Some of my best live memories . . . are from the piano and sax and trumpet and cello and drum and guitar and organ and violin and flute and acoustic bass players. ...Like mental points of reference. ...In search of lost emotions...and new created ones.

Each day is a new reference, because each day we have evolved one more day. Our reference should improve tomorrow, and yesterday's reference is simply fading away into memory lane.

 

[caesar]

Hi Peter,

Please help me intellectually understand what you are asking…Doesn’t everyone who cares about high end audio listen or has many past experiences listening to live music?

Now some will say they only want to know what’s on the recording. However, their listening perception will also be informed by what they have heard as “live” music during their life…

Yet recorded music played on a stereo system is completely different that live music…so live music just serves as a conceptual model of how stereo works. This simplification is no different than saying that when you plug in your toaster into the electrical, electrons just flow into it like water…

And if one compares his stereo to live music, he will fall short of that ideal, as every gear presents its sonic signature slightly differently, but not like live music ...

So live music is a reference for every human being, but only serves as a mental or conceptual model for them to enjoy their music as they like it.

 

[PeterA]

Hi Peter,

Please help me intellectually understand what you are asking…Doesn’t everyone who cares about high end audio listen or has many past experiences listening to live music?

Now some will say they only want to know what’s on the recording. However, their listening perception will also be informed by what they have heard as “live” music during their life…

Yet recorded music played on a stereo system is completely different that live music…so live music just serves as a conceptual model of how stereo works. This simplification is no different than saying that when you plug in your toaster into the electrical, electrons just flow into it like water…

And if one compares his stereo to live music, he will fall short of that ideal, as every gear presents its sonic signature slightly differently, but not like live music ...

So live music is a reference for every human being, but only serves as a mental or conceptual model for them to enjoy their music as they like it.

Caesar, when I started this thread, I asked what I thought was a pretty straight forward question. There is a poll attached, and as of today, 25% of respondents indicate that they don't use live music as a reference. I did not mean to imply that I, or anyone else for that matter, actually think our stereos can sound exactly like the real thing.

Interestingly, perhaps the system that sounded most like live music was one I heard at a NYC audio show in 2012. A dealer was demoing a pair of small KEF speakers. He played very loud amplified music from a CD. Later that night, a band played live, heavily amplified in a very lively space, through what I think were KEF speakers. The two sounded very similar. They each sounded terrible, and nothing like acoustic instruments, but the reproduced recording was highly distorted, and so was the sound of the "live" performance. I left both demonstrations after a few minutes because they were both painful. Some might argue that that performance was not live because it was processed/amplified, and then pushed through inappropriate speakers in a bad space way too loud to really appreciate anything.

I went to a live, acoustic performance of a violin and a cello last night. I use live performances like this and those at the BSO and elsewhere as a reference to what acoustic instruments sound like in real rooms. I then refer to my memories of those experiences when assessing the performance of my system or individual components. I started this thread to see if other members do the same.

I understand that some have the goal of reproducing exactly what is on the recording. You wrote that they want to "know" what's on the recording. I just don't understand how someone could possibly know if his system is reproducing what is on the recording if he was not there during the recording session. How could one verify it?

 

[amirm]

I understand that some have the goal of reproducing exactly what is on the recording. You wrote that they want to "know" what's on the recording. I just don't understand how someone could possibly know if his system is reproducing what is on the recording if he was not there during the recording session. How could one verify it?

We can objectively do that. By the same token, we can objectively show that there is nohow, noway, anything you hear in your home is what was heard by the talent in the live performance. That many people think they can continue to evaluate stereo equipment using the live performance as reference, is a fallacy and clear misconception on their part, not anything to do with the reality of the situation.

 

[NorthStar]

Can I change my vote? I guess it's too late now; I'll have to live with it. :b

 

[bonzo75]

Ken Kessler clearly said he does not, and he does not attend live classical

 

[Detlof]

Here are my two cents: I go to live concerts as much as possible. Have done so all my life and my ears, brain -so at least I tend to believe - are tuned to the sound of live instruments. Since, especially in classical music, bad recordings abound, I do not want to be at the mercy of the recording staff and I have set up my system to be able to do as much knob fiddling as possible, to attune the sound to what I believe approaches somewhat the sound of live events as I feel that I remember it. I do not want to emulate the sound of the recording event. Why should I, if I find it more often than not terribly lacking. Also, I do not want to restrict my listening to those few classical recordings, many audiophiles find to be perfect. All this led me to the conclusion that I am not really an audiophile. I simply love music. Passionately I suppose. And hence with the same passion I tried to build up a system which I can tune like an instrument in order that I can forget about the system and just listen to the music. This music of course, especially if classical, does not even come close to what happened at the live event, but with my fiddling, it allows me to think, that in fact it had come somewhat closer to what actually happened there and had previously been spoiled by an uninspired recording team or whatever came later in the chain.

 

[caesar]

Ken Kessler clearly said he does not, and he does not attend live classical

Hi Bonzo, do you happen to know what Peter McGrath's perspective is?

 

[caesar]

Caesar, when I started this thread, I asked what I thought was a pretty straight forward question. There is a poll attached, and as of today, 25% of respondents indicate that they don't use live music as a reference. I did not mean to imply that I, or anyone else for that matter, actually think our stereos can sound exactly like the real thing.

Interestingly, perhaps the system that sounded most like live music was one I heard at a NYC audio show in 2012. A dealer was demoing a pair of small KEF speakers. He played very loud amplified music from a CD. Later that night, a band played live, heavily amplified in a very lively space, through what I think were KEF speakers. The two sounded very similar. They each sounded terrible, and nothing like acoustic instruments, but the reproduced recording was highly distorted, and so was the sound of the "live" performance. I left both demonstrations after a few minutes because they were both painful. Some might argue that that performance was not live because it was processed/amplified, and then pushed through inappropriate speakers in a bad space way too loud to really appreciate anything.

I went to a live, acoustic performance of a violin and a cello last night. I use live performances like this and those at the BSO and elsewhere as a reference to what acoustic instruments sound like in real rooms. I then refer to my memories of those experiences when assessing the performance of my system or individual components. I started this thread to see if other members do the same.

I understand that some have the goal of reproducing exactly what is on the recording. You wrote that they want to "know" what's on the recording. I just don't understand how someone could possibly know if his system is reproducing what is on the recording if he was not there during the recording session. How could one verify it?

Hi Peter,

I don't want to get in trouble with the mods discussing religion and philosophy , but this approach of using live music as a reference is Platonic. And for those of us who are not Platonists, it’s not rooted in the way things really work.

I remember talking with the very nice lady who runs and voices VTL a number of years ago. She told me she goes to classical concerts and then comes home and compares what she has just heard with recordings of the same performance on her reference system. Ditto for David Wilson who travels to Vienna to do the same. So both VTL and Wilson claim to actually design their gear based on their perception of real music.

But comes along a guy like "Sterile" Jon Valin, plops in the chair that Ms. VTL and David Wilson just sat in and listens to the same recordings on the same system that VTL and Wilson have put together based on their reference for live music. Instead of calling it “real”, he calls that VTL- Wilson system too dark, rich, and colored - "as you like it", using his term. Since “Sterile” Jon is the self-proclaimed authority, he instead prefers soulution and magico q5, which emphasizes upper midrange and treble. To him, it is the most real there is, yet other guys working in his magazine do not agree... Wilson guys will go ahead and call Valin an f*ing moron, since they are right, based on their perception and preference, and all the hard work they have done.... good thing these guys don't carry guns! ...

Look, everyone who is serious in this hobby listens or has listened to live music. Even the guys who design by measurements validate by listening…

All gear presents slightly different elements of realism, and fans can pick and choose which elements of realism they prefer. Once you choose a brand or sound that you like, spend roughly double the money on a piece of gear you have or like, and you get more of those elements that trigger your imagination of realism of live music. Or choose different gear, and it will highlight different aspects of live music...

So to those of us who are not Platonists, using “live music as a reference" is all about imagining. No different than kids playing and imagining superheroes using plastic dolls. But hey, it's hobby and if people find it fun, than that’s great. For me, I accept the limitation of playing recordings on my stereo and enjoy high end audio as it’s own experience.

P.S. I’m not trying to be disparaging, but just presenting a different perspective

 

[Detlof]

Hi Peter,

I don't want to get in trouble with the mods discussing religion and philosophy , but this approach of using live music as a reference is Platonic. And for those of us who are not Platonists, it’s not rooted in the way things really work.

I remember talking with the very nice lady who runs and voices VTL a number of years ago. She told me she goes to classical concerts and then comes home and compares what she has just heard with recordings of the same performance on her reference system. Ditto for David Wilson who travels to Vienna to do the same. So both VTL and Wilson claim to actually design their gear based on their perception of real music.

But comes along a guy like "Sterile" Jon Valin, plops in the chair that Ms. VTL and David Wilson just sat in and listens to the same recordings on the same system that VTL and Wilson have put together based on their reference for live music. Instead of calling it “real”, he calls that VTL- Wilson system too dark, rich, and colored - "as you like it", using his term. Since “Sterile” Jon is the self-proclaimed authority, he instead prefers soulution and magico q5, which emphasizes upper midrange and treble. To him, it is the most real there is, yet other guys working in his magazine do not agree... Wilson guys will go ahead and call Valin an f*ing moron, since they are right, based on their perception and preference, and all the hard work they have done.... good thing these guys don't carry guns! ...

Look, everyone who is serious in this hobby listens or has listened to live music. Even the guys who design by measurements validate by listening…

All gear presents slightly different elements of realism, and fans can pick and choose which elements of realism they prefer. Once you choose a brand or sound that you like, spend roughly double the money on a piece of gear you have or like, and you get more of those elements that trigger your imagination of realism of live music. Or choose different gear, and it will highlight different aspects of live music...

So to those of us who are not Platonists, using “live music as a reference" is all about imagining. No different than kids playing and imagining superheroes using plastic dolls. But hey, it's hobby and if people find it fun, than that’s great. For me, I accept the limitation of playing recordings on my stereo and enjoy high end audio as it’s own experience.

P.S. I’m not trying to be disparaging, but just presenting a different perspective

Salve Caesar,

In spite of what I wrote, I must say that I like your perspective. But then at the same time, being a Platonist, I think my approach is more Aristotelian than Platonic if on a recording where massed strings resemble the sound of massed chain saws or cellos and bases more the sound of a troupe of love
struck rhinos that I will twiddle knobs to soothe my offended ears to something closer to what really happened at the recording venue.
Do not we all wear two hats in this game?

Oh and by the way, being a Platonist, I also know about his story of those prisoners chained in a cave, who took the shadows of people passing by outside for the real thing. Every time that I happen on this story it makes me think of us audiophiles.

 

[morricab]

I've always found that notion illogical. How could we, as consumers, possibly know what the original recording session sounded like unless we were present? Someone might argue that their system is technically accurate to the recording, but that leaves out the question of whether the recording is accurate to the original live event. However, I will go even further and risk suggesting that accuracy to the recording should not really be a primary objective of a home hifi system. Read farther below for what I feel should be the primary objectives.



I agree with your contention. Live music listening instills the gestalt (a great German term that Harry Pearson liked to use) of the sound of live instruments in to our memory. This allows us to readily recognize the quality of instruments sounding 'live'. An audio reproduction system having that 'live' sound is more important to me than whether that system is accurate to the recorded event - whatever that exactly means. I have no way of knowing what the recorded event should sound like anyhow. What I want from a music reproduction system is 1) emotional communication and 2) the quality of sounding 'live'. Accuracy is a secondary concern, especially if the system cannot communicate emotion or sound live.

It's true enough that our auditory memories of unfamiliar sounds are poor, however, my experience is that our auditory recognition memory is quite good. We readily recognize familiar sounds, peoples voices, and in particular, readily recognize the difference when those sounds seem live versus reproduced.

Yes, I would agree that the "liveness" of the sound from a system is one of the paramount requirements for a system for me.

Instrument tone is another main requirement for me.

 

[DaveC]

If you're pursuing high fidelity then it's a requirement to compare reproduction with the real thing... if you're pursuing what sounds good to you then it doesn't matter much. Also, while it's nice to have recordings where you were present for the performance, I think it's possible to judge without the benefit of being there, which is a somewhat dubious benefit as aural memory isn't so great anyways. One thing we can do is compare one system relative to another, many times it's the only thing you can do and I believe this is very valuable. If one system reproduces subtle nuances and fine detail better than another, it says something. If one system's timbre sounds more realistic than another, it says something. In this way we can work towards improving reproduction without comparing live to reproduced directly.

It's been mentioned that this is all BS because the sound is different in different places, but that's not true at all... our brain is VERY capable of separating the sound from the effect the location has on the sound. This is mentioned in a recent Toole video as well.

I'd argue that the one thing we hear live, unamplified every day is the best measure... vocals... specifically female vocals.

 

[Detlof]

If you're pursuing high fidelity then it's a requirement to compare reproduction with the real thing... if you're pursuing what sounds good to you then it doesn't matter much. Also, while it's nice to have recordings where you were present for the performance, I think it's possible to judge without the benefit of being there, which is a somewhat dubious benefit as aural memory isn't so great anyways. One thing we can do is compare one system relative to another, many times it's the only thing you can do and I believe this is very valuable. If one system reproduces subtle nuances and fine detail better than another, it says something. If one system's timbre sounds more realistic than another, it says something. In this way we can work towards improving reproduction without comparing live to reproduced directly.

It's been mentioned that this is all BS because the sound is different in different places, but that's not true at all... our brain is VERY capable of separating the sound from the effect the location has on the sound. This is mentioned in a recent Toole video as well.

I'd argue that the one thing we hear live, unamplified every day is the best measure... vocals... specifically female vocals.

Are you suggesting, that I should listen more to my better half? Just kidding Dave, because I think that your approach is sound. (Pun definitely intended! ) I use female voices, solo violin and solo classical piano. Directly comparing to big orchestral classical music might work of you have the right room for it. I don't.

 

[amirm]

If you're pursuing high fidelity then it's a requirement to compare reproduction with the real thing...

That would only be possible if you were also in charge of the recording and then could AB the reproduced with what was heard live. With a touch of a mouse the recording artist/engineer can radically change the sound of what lands on the recording medium. How on earth can we say anything about relationship with what was there then? Which was more true? Before he changed the EQ, Reverb, Compression or after?

There is fear I think that if we give up on this "live" thing we have lost all that is in our religion. But that need not be the case. The verb we need to use is "realism." Not "real." With superb recordings, which may have nothing to do with live sound, and good reproduction, that realism jumps out at us, putting in a smile on our face. This is cool. It is a virtual concept that is valid. The one that reaches in the past, imparts imaginary memories of what it was is just wrong. It is and no amount of words will make it true.

For some like Peter, this argument is around "if you don't listen to live music as much as I do, you can't possibly know what a good system is." That is just wrong. Listening tests show that everyone is born with the ability to hear frequency response anomalies in reproduction systems. Same listening tests show that by training, one can be become far better than it. That training has nothing whatsoever with listening to live music. I am trained in hearing certain artifacts. I don't listen to a fraction of live music that Peter does. Yet, at the risk of appearing immodest, I can hear distortions in replay systems at far, far lower levels than Peter can. So listening to live music did not impart the benefit Peter likes to demonstrate.

I can show you data that demonstrates all of this. I can show you how every recording/mastering venue sounds different. Bruce has Revel Salon 2s. If you don't have those speakers, room, positioning, etc., how can you ever hear what he heard let alone what is on that 1960s master tape?

So sit back and enjoy the great experience that we can recreate. Don't celebrate that more people think like you than the other way around. That only shows how confused we are as a population about what is real, pun intended.