Does Everything Make a Difference?
- Thread starter Ron Resnick
- Start date
I don't think it works like this. There is no objective performance independent of the context of each unique individual performance. However, over time we learn how live music sounds across its instances. Reproduction is never indistinguishable from reality, but some systems sound more realistic than others.
While acoustic instruments sound better unamplified, I don't see why someone who mainly listened to electric guitar (yes inc amp/effects) couldn't use a live performance of that as their reference at home.
How often do you ever get to compare live acoustic music with stereo playback directly without knowing which is which?
It will be impossible to ever be fooled into thinking a stereo sounds perfectly realistic so long as one knows they are listening to a stereo and believes realism is impossible to achieve
They are totally different experiences and can’t be reasonably compared.
I think it’s kind of a shame that so many audiophiles that on the rare occasions they do go to a live acoustic concert go there with the futile objective of forming a mythical objective aural memory of sound rather than just taking the concert in for the wonderful and unique experience that it is.
Weren't you saying earlier it's possible to fool folks into believing they're hearing live music, when in fact they're hearing a recording?
Clearly it’s possible. It was actually done back in the 60s with the AR demos using a string quartet and a recording of the same string quartet in an anechoic chamber. It fooled just about everyone. But it was more or less as much of a parlor trick as it was a demo of accuracy.
And maybe those characteristics are different for different groups of people. So, perhaps a certain group that listens for the same characteristic chose similar topologies in gear/speakers.
This is why I've posited that people hear differently. What I meant (and, of course, this is only a theory) is that we key in on different components of live sound. When our gear presents these, we think the gear is the best choice. It is, for us and the group of people who hear it the way we do. If we find a designer who also hears it that way, the chances are increased that the designer's gear will match our preferences.
Nelson Pass experimented with a prototype amp that had could add distortion. https://www.stereophile.com/content/gramophone-dreams-26-nelson-pass-harmonic-distortion
"Having previously designed with SIT (VFET) single-ended amplifiers and also the Korg Nutubes, I have worked up some performance targets which deliver an effect that is usually well-liked. This effect is described as having negative phase 2nd harmonic at approximately 1% of the amplitude of the original signal . . . but after you invert the output (to get absolute phase correct) you will find that it is now a negative phase 2nd harmonic. I know this might be confusing—I have occasionally awakened in the middle of the night and thought 'That can't be right.'"
"So why is the phase important? Well, it's a subtle thing. I don't suppose everyone can hear it, and fewer particularly care, but from listening tests we learn that there is a tendency to interpret negative phase 2nd [harmonic] as giving a deeper soundstage and improved localization [of images] than otherwise. Positive phase seems to put the instruments and vocals closer and a little more in-your-face with enhanced detail."
"Your results may vary, but when I first explored this with the SIT-1 amplifier at First Watt, I had a knob on the front of the amplifier which varied the amount and phase of the 2nd harmonic. It was easy enough to lend the amplifiers to listeners who didn't know what the knob did and gather their comments. Roughly speaking, they tended to prefer about 1% negative phase 2nd harmonic, so it became my standard setting for that knob."
Also see https://positive-feedback.com/audio-discourse/the-pass-h2-harmonic-generator/
Last edited:
It would be helpful if you listed your own equipment choices. This provides a context. That is why I list mine.
context. Your setup is your daily reference. These are the choices you have made, for now. It also provides a view into the variety of approaches people have taken.
I don’t want to come off as just being contrarian but I’m not sure a laundry list of my system components would tell you all that much about the content of my posts.
OTOH I am generally quite happy to have fellow audiophiles over to hear what my current approach to audio has wrought.
And let’s be honest. Eventually everyone comes to Las Vegas. ;- )
Actually I do think a description of my previous system would provide some context.
Forsell Air Reference TT with the flywheel. Koetsu Rosewood Signature cartridge. Audio Research SP 10 mk II preamp. Audio Research D-115 mk II power amp (both 100% tube) Oppo 105D optical disc player. Sound Lab A3 speakers, Vandersteen 2W subwoofer. Audioquest Music Hose speaker cable. MIT Shotgun interconnects
I have since replaced everything except to Forsell
Frankly I give words more credence from people who list their systems. Makes them seem less anonymous, less virtual.
Exactly , but that also excludes phrases in so called member " signature systems " like...
one day to own / hope to own, ...
These don t count as well , first put your money where your mouth is and we go from there
.PS. If people post anonymous their whole stereo system might not exist at all
Last edited:
I have been to many Jazz and even some Classical concerts where the sound was reinforced with a good PA system (In Switzerland there is nearly only good PA systems in clubs) and it still indeed sounds live. A lot of that had to do with the sheer energy being projected into the room (SPLs were pretty high on the Jazz especially...louder than I like at home). I have also been with some friends who play electric guitar and hearing them play through a guitar amp is very present and live sounding. So, I guess at least from the dynamics and energy perspective it would be possible to use that. Tonality? Not so sure...once you start doing really weird stuff with an electrified instrument all bets are off. With acoustic instruments we have a mental data file of sorts on what the variety of sound tonalities still classify an instrument as a trumpet or violin or piano etc. (Timbre). That is why you can still distinguish a clarinet from an oboe or soprano sax even when they are playing the same note. I have heard many systems that can blur these kinds of instruments together, indicating the timbre is not true in that system due to colorations of the system...or the recording.
Similar threads
