Peter, how is the word "natural" better or different than the word "realism" Amir has used above?
Do Members use Live Music as a Reference
- Thread starter PeterA
- Start date
Peter, how is the word "natural" better or different than the word "realism" Amir has used above?
Curiously I do not think we come SO SHORT. Considering the objectives of sound reproduction - that are not the real itself but recreating the perception we have of the real, using some features of the real and some "add-ons" - I find we can be proud of what has been achieved by the best systems. Where I am not so pleased it that we are not able to get it systematically in a straightforward and predictable way - as F. Toole once wrote "From this perspective, stereo seems less like a system and more like a foundation for individual experimentation".
Hi Micro,
I like the way you’ve described it: “not real itself but recreating (a) perception of the real”. I consider a stereo system to be “Other” to the music. That is, it exists separately from the music, because music is a neurophysiological phenomena that occurs inside (a very specific and dedicated part of) our head. Because music originates in the mind (indeed, research has shown simply thinking about music triggers the same neural clusters*), and can only ever be processed in the mind - it’s a perceptual phenomena - the necessity of the mechanism is Other. It’s not a requirement. If the estimates are true that the earliest musical instruments are 40,000 years-old, then it’s clear the part of our brain that’s developed to process music exclusively wasn’t waiting for the geniuses at Bell Labs to get it together. Had the phonograph never been invented we would still see the same neural clusters firing when processing music - even when there's no music playing.
Live music, whether it be Gergiev conducting the RCO in Amsterdam, or an EDM set at Glastonbury, is sound until it’s deciphered by a human being. There is no system, and likely never will be, that will capture or reproduce that sound in our homes. But “the objectives of sound reproduction” fails to articulate the reason it was invented in the first place - to record and playback ‘music’. Sonically, all systems come short, that’s something perhaps we could all agree on. How short is something that I believe is best articulated not by reporting from individuals trained to listen for specific anomalies, nor by comparison based on anecdotal examples - though both are helpful for the larger cultural pursuit (like we do here). The most scientifically robust way - the most “systematically straightforward and predictable way” as you put it - is not to measure the mechanism, but the neuro-physiological originator of the phenomenon itself which also happens to be the only device in the world that can separate ‘music’ from ‘sound’.
Thankfully, as research is indicating, our brains do this incredibly well, and do not need sonic fidelity in order to figure out whether the airwaves are music or not. Like you say, perception is reality because we are never not perceiving. It’s an indelible part of consciousness that’s always being modulated by a brain hardwired to create new synaptic links. It’s why we’re able to be deceived as much as we are enlightened.
That we derive so much enjoyment from the audio reproduction mechanism, as flawed as it is, tells me much more about human nature and our brain’s incredible capacity for discerning meaning in non-sentient phenomena than it does our systems. It’s not hard to measure a component, and not hard to compare the waveforms of the format with the waveforms produced at the speaker/room interface - but they’re mostly telling us about the measurements. Should FMRI scanning become the standard by which the ‘fidelity’ of the reproduction mechanism is adjudged, we may be able to move beyond the ‘sound’ of our systems and figure out how well they reproduce ‘music’.
But alas, I’m repeating myself here (and in less than 400 posts - how do you guys get to 1,000 and avoid… oh, wait), so I shall continue to occupy myself with servitude toward a large multinational corporation that's attempting to convince you its products are essential to your wellbeing.**
*“Measuring the representational space of music with fMRI: a case study with Sting”, Daniel J. Levitin & Scott T. Grafton, 12 August 2016, Neurocase
** (They’re not.)
Hi 853,
I love your writing style, and agree with a lot of it!
The problem I am having with Peter's claims is practicality. So these guys go hear live music and they then futz around with their system. they may try new fuses, grounding, outlets, positioning, room treatments, sources, filters on digital and cartridges on analog. And everyone selects a different combination because of physical and economic realities and because of their imagination and preferences.
I still don't understand why people don't just admit that high end audio is a wonderful experience but is different than live, and upgrading/ tweaking the stereo is just a hobby.
I never had a problem admitting that high end audio is different than live. And even though the sound will never be as good as live, in some ways the home experience can even be better than live because it can give you the best possible seat in the house, and an immediate experience as it is not often obtainable live. For example, when can you hear a solo instrument in a concerto with orchestra, played in a large hall, as immediate as at home, in a way you could otherwise do only when you actually sat on stage next to the instrument?
Yet if you want to improve your system, you should have a -- relatively -- objective reference. And the memory of the sound of live unamplified music is a good reference.
Peter, I think it's pointless to continue arguing on a point that to a lot of us is quite obvious: if one does not have live unamplified music and speech as points of reference, how the heck can one tell and judge the virtues of the instruments that he's hearing from his audio system. To draw an analogy, you can describe nature to a blind person all you want, but does he really know what it's like without actually seeing it? You can describe sounds to a deaf person, but does he really know what that's like, what a violin really sounds like, what it means to have fundamentals and harmonics together at the same, what a complex waveform is?
I don't think it's worth continuing this discussion... I've read probably the most outrageous comments by some contrarians, but then again, why am I surprised.
Hi Ack,
Unless someone is born deaf, everyone has heard live music and if they are not currently deaf, hears the human voice on a daily basis. My parents, who are not audiophiles, are half-deaf, one due to being in too many manufacturing plants and one due to a tumor, and they are emotionally moved by my system. So, yes, everyone who engages with or participates in this hobby uses "real" or "live" as their reference.
Yet you talk to music teachers, band leaders, musicians, etc., and they all have very different systems...
Good question, Caesar. My short, curt, answer is that the former word is an adjective and the latter word is a noun.
More seriously, in these contexts, I think that "natural" and "realistic" can be interchanged, as in my above sentence, "The non audiophile who attends acoustic concerts, or has a child taking piano lessons, knows what a piano sounds like and he will know how to answer the question of whether or not a stereo sounds natural (or realistic)". I do not think one term is better or worse than the other, but they do have slightly different meanings to me.
To me "natural" implies in this audio descriptor context, that something sounds believable, convincing and reminds one of the way the real thing or instrument sounds. It does not sound mechanical, or artificial, but rather of nature, organic, like in life. There are degrees, and some systems sound more natural than others. Some don't sound natural at all and utterly fail and creating a believable or convincing illusion or music being played in front of us. I do not mean to imply that an audio system sounds "real", that is, indistinguishable from the real thing, instrument, or reality. Our audio systems produce a man made sound, so we know it is not a real piano playing in the room in front of us, but to me, if it sounds natural, the system has the ability to suspend my disbelief just enough to sound similar to the way I remember a piano sounding while being played in a room.
I think the word "realism", that Amir used above, can indeed be the way one describes his goal in this hobby, as in "My goal is to assemble a system which can convey a sense of "realism" to the listener. I find that perfectly acceptable, but realize that some audiophiles do not have that goal and have other ways to describe what they are trying to do. I don't really know what Amir means when he uses the term.
Isn't the problem that we use "sound" and "music" interchangeably, when in fact, it's clear our brains make a very definite distinction between the two?
Personally, I blame Rodgers and Hammerstein.
Caesar, I agree with that. The hobby is very impractical. Just look at how different the members' systems are here at WBF and the wide range of sounds and approaches. I differ from you in that I would rather use the term "memory" than "imagination" when selecting gear, because I rely on my memory as one of my references, and my imagination can lead to all sorts of distracting places, but "preferences" is fine. We all have them.
I am happy to admit that listening to high end audio can be a wonderful experience, and it is surely very different from hearing live acoustic music. And, yes, upgrading components and tweaking the room and the system is just a hobby. Yes, that is right.
Hi Caesar (it's so tempting to write "Hail, Caesar" but I shall refrain),
I think it's a hobby too, but for many with a direction they're pursuing along a continuum. That continuum is defined by many of the things in your previous paragraph. I think what we're trying to discuss is what part does non-prerecorded music play in shaping that continuum, and with it, our expectations of what can, or conversely, can't be achieved.
To me everyday life is a reference. It doesn't even require one to be more than just a little bit mindful. We are visual by nature but just paying attention once in a while builds up an aural map (yes there is such a thing and is the subject of ongoing neuro science) that is formed in all people. Animals too for that matter. Successful reproduction for me is a presentation that hews closely to my own collective experiences. Call it sounding natural if the sounds are sounds of nature, call it realistic if it fits in with what I've come to expect the versions of the real thing sounds like.
I'd like to make one little distinction here that is rarely brought up. Recorded music is an art form in itself. In the majority of cases, recorded music and its subsequent playback is not meant to be an exact replica of a particular event in time. Rather it is about creating virtual event behind which is a vision of a final product meant to bring pleasure by eliciting various emotional responses. A composer writes a story, the artists interpret that story and engineers deliver that story. An analogy would be the a screenwriter writing a story, a director and his actors bringing the story from page to action and the cinematographer and editor giving the best color and pace. The best recordings are collaborative processes made up of a string of human decisions. The big question is, can we relate to it all? What would entail that? I posit that to do this the whole package must do two basic things, first is that it must inspire enough interest for us to actually pay attention and the second is that for the story to comes across there needs to be a sonic correlation with what one might expect to hear in everyday life. It doesn't need to be a replica, it just needs to be identifiable in both sonics and in message content. The only exception I can think of is experimental music the purpose of which is more to push paradigms outwards as opposed to music meant to fit within a preexisting one.
So yes, while I do use live music as one of my references particularly in terms of dynamics and harmonics, my goal is never to try simulate a live event but rather to be able to put myself within an event. Curiously enough, this works for me in two curious ways. First this mental approach allows me more time to enjoy because it puts me in a more relaxed, receptive state. The second is that when in this state of mind, the question between live and contrived becomes moot and academic. Life like, realistic, natural, whatever adjective one would like to use, is easier to do than live and for me lifelike immersion is definitely enough.
I'd like to make one little distinction here that is rarely brought up. Recorded music is an art form in itself. In the majority of cases, recorded music and its subsequent playback is not meant to be an exact replica of a particular event in time. Rather it is about creating virtual event behind which is a vision of a final product meant to bring pleasure by eliciting various emotional responses. A composer writes a story, the artists interpret that story and engineers deliver that story. An analogy would be the a screenwriter writing a story, a director and his actors bringing the story from page to action and the cinematographer and editor giving the best color and pace. The best recordings are collaborative processes made up of a string of human decisions. The big question is, can we relate to it all? What would entail that? I posit that to do this the whole package must do two basic things, first is that it must inspire enough interest for us to actually pay attention and the second is that for the story to comes across there needs to be a sonic correlation with what one might expect to hear in everyday life. It doesn't need to be a replica, it just needs to be identifiable in both sonics and in message content. The only exception I can think of is experimental music the purpose of which is more to push paradigms outwards as opposed to music meant to fit within a preexisting one.
So yes, while I do use live music as one of my references particularly in terms of dynamics and harmonics, my goal is never to try simulate a live event but rather to be able to put myself within an event. Curiously enough, this works for me in two curious ways. First this mental approach allows me more time to enjoy because it puts me in a more relaxed, receptive state. The second is that when in this state of mind, the question between live and contrived becomes moot and academic. Life like, realistic, natural, whatever adjective one would like to use, is easier to do than live and for me lifelike immersion is definitely enough.
Apparently not everyone. That is precisely why I think the poll results are so interesting. We have been told in this thread that using live music as a reference to asses the fidelity of our systems is fundamentally flawed.
There is a high end audio dealership in the Boston area called "Natural Sound". It's a good name.
Although we obviously come from different fields, my background were once the humanities, what I wrote in a post here some time ago, certainly touches upon the essence of what you point out to us.
At the same time, I am glad that you put the term music in your second last paragraph in invered commas. Because at that point where quantitative data come in contact with qualitative value systems, things start to get annoyingly but also more often not refreshingly complicated: I know quite a number of people for whom Sting is not music but noise, whereas I also know of a mall here in Europe, were loitering youths were driven off by Mozart. To them Mozart was noise. If pressed, I would think, that both parties at the end would agree, that it was music of some sort, but that they did not like it. So I am wondering, if your basically excellent idea to use FMRI scanning to adjudge the fidelity of our systems would really be a solution to our problems. I have not read the paper you have based your thoughts on, but I would suspect, that education into, immersion into whatever kind of music from early years on, would not only leave traces in our brains functionality as to how we experience music, but also how we differentiate between what we percieve as music or as noise. Wonder if any research has been done here already concerning this quantitative/qualitative nexus.
Peter, I don't mean above in the sense that someone is constantly comparing the 2 experiences. But I mean it in the sense that everyone has experience with "real" and "live", and when they judge one system to be more "realistic" or "better", they are tapping into that knowledge.
Similar threads
