Clearly it is the tonearm of his TT as shown below. Only his is green.
Now I am only joking so don't take offense.
How real does it sound?
- Thread starter PeterA
- Start date
Clearly it is the tonearm of his TT as shown below. Only his is green.
Now I am only joking so don't take offense.
How do you figure I’m now seeing the light?
Really? Why would you think I’d waste my time or yours with such old news statements as you allude? Assuming nothing more was left to be discovered in the past 30 years, I’d probably agree wholeheartedly with you.
Facts? But facts are only facts if they can be proven, right? Otherwise it’s just speculation.
You say 2-channel stereo can never (sufficiently) replicate an original unamplified live venue performance of any normal way but you have no proof of that. I say it can and I can demonstrate it and already have (though not on paper).
Are you implying that we’re only here to talk about your interpretations?
My avatar? Oh, that’s just a little something I designed a few years ago that essentially transforms the music from most any well-thought-out 2-channel system into a more of a half-sphere of sound almost as though the music is flowing off a soundstage. Almost like there are no speakers at all.
Clearly it is the tonearm of his TT as shown below. Only his is green.
View attachment 21857
Now I am only joking so don't take offense.
You turkey.
That was cute. They obviously stole my design.
No, I have not heard the Turtle Creek Chorale. The recording to which I referred was on one of his IsoMike demo disks, though he did not tell me which one and I don't recall the disk, sadly.
Amir - I am of two minds here. I understand and agree with what you are saying in many ways. There are a host of problems with "it sounds like live". There is a whole chain which reproduced sound must traverse in order to get to our ears in a home listening session. There is considerable art to the recording process - mike selection, mike placement, recording equipment, monitoring equipment, mixing, EQing and mastering, etc., etc., etc. before it even gets to our home playback systems. All of this is beyond our control, except perhaps in our selection of specific recordings that "sound better". And, of course, we have no way of knowing what the recording itself sounds like exactly, since we only hear it through what is likely an entirely different playback system. Even the recording engineers only know approximately what it sounds like through their imperfect monitoring systems.
Before I go on and as an aside, I disagree somewhat with one of your earlier positions. At least with classical music recording and mastering, the amount of hall ambience included in the final final recording is usually merely the the relative mix of near field vs. far field mike tracks that are included in the final master. But, that specific mix is an artistic creation, which might also include EQ or edits.
I also understand that there is little ambience in the acoustically relatively dead studios predominately used for pop and other music genres, and that much so called ambience is artificially synthesized reverb, etc. for purposes of creating a more pleasing artistic product. A minor point, perhaps. But, yes, most any recording contains many artful, judgmental steps that alter the information that the mikes actually picked up live in creating what is hopefully a reasonable replica of music performed with a plausible sense of "liveness".
So, in that sense, I see your point clearly. "Live" sound has usually always been extensively manipulated by ear by the recording/mixing/mastering engineers on the final recorded product we hear in our homes.
Meanwhile, if we go to live concerts, the sound differs based on our hall vs. the hall where the recording was made, as well as where we are sitting in the hall. So, there are many barriers between the original live event and what we are able to hear at home, even if we happen to be at the very same venue used when the recording was made. I do have some commercial SACD's recorded at live classical concerts I attended. But, even there, the recordings were released many months after those concerts, further making exact comparisons impossible.
But, I will say this. In spite of all the above obstacles to recreating perfect live sound, I believe that one learns certain sonic characteristics from live concert attendance. I was never a big fan of HP at TAS, but he referred to a "Gestalt" of live music, a set of complex, internalized characteristics of live sound that we get to know consciously or unconsciously that define it. We might not be able to verbally articulate them, but we know many of these characteristics when we hear them via a recording through our systems. Who was the Supreme Court Justice who famously said he could not define pornography, but he knew it when he saw it?
Agreed, acoustic memory in detail is very faulty. I do think that stored in our brains, though, is some approximate sense of what live music sounds like and a sense of how closely a recording and playback system sounds relative to that Gestalt. That inner sense is learned, reinforced and improved by increased attendance at live concerts, I believe.
You know that I am all for audio science and your excellent articulation of it. So, call this heresy. What I have said is very loosey goosey, entirely subjective and unmeasurable. I do not think it is a worthwhile scientific investigation. But, there are some recordings heard on many different systems where many audiophiles seem to agree that they have an especially "lifelike" quality compared to others.
I think assessing "closeness to live" is something that many listeners - good recording engineers especially - tend to do subjectively. I do it, too, and it is a useful consideration, although there may never be any scientific metrics to back it up or universal standards to quantify how "live" something sounds. Getting back to your post, I think we can "know" some qualitative things, at least approximately, even when they are scientifically unprovable or unmeasurable.
Thank you for the well articulated message. There is little for me to disagree with so let me close the gap that you note between us. I agree and I am glad you pointed this out that there are recordings that give us the impression of hearing a "live" presentation. I too have them and when I hear them thinking "oh, that sounds like the real thing." In this context, I think the right term is "realism" not "live." Clearly there are recordings and great reproduction systems that give us amazing sense of realism. We just have to keep in mind that the realism may very well be artificial and that it is not what we would have heard "live." After all, we can never know what live sounded like unless we were there.
Even if we don't agree on this point, I think we are close enough that I am very much OK with discourse at this level
. Thanks again.I have done this comparison with friends and visitors many times. First, most all of the best Mch classical recordings contain only hall ambience in the surround channels. The surround channels disappear as separate sound sources with those recordings in a properly set up system. It becomes obvious as Mch playback only when you revert to stereo playback and the sound field collapses. I have even fooled many a listener by lying to them about the surround speakers in my room, saying I only use them for movies. They then listen to Mch classical music thinking it is stereo and are unable to identify that it is in fact Mch, until I play the surround brass choirs in the Berlioz Requiem or switch back to plain stereo. As a stereo, my system is no slouch, by the way. Many would be happy to have the 2 channel segments of it just for stereo.
Further comparison in this very unscientific, anecdotal way in switching between the Mch and the stereo invariably leads to a clear listener preference for the Mch. They all think it "sounds more like a live concert", as do I strongly. That is why virtually all my listening ever since has been in Mch. I doubt that I would prefer Mch, however, if my musical preferences were for rock and pops, since there are few Mch recordings in those genres and they do not gain as much from Mch as does classical, which hugely dominates available music releases in Mch. Many of the pop/rock releases use Mch only for gimmicks, like artificially panning instruments or sounds into the surround channels.
It is a matter of personal preference. But, hypothetical arguments can be put to rest after performing yourself a similar Mch vs. stereo audition on a good, well set up system with classical music. These might be somewhat rare, though, even among dealerships, who are generally clueless about Mch for music and classical music in particular. Their Mch HT systems are generally not optimized for music.
As to your musings about in ear headphones, you should check into the Smyth Realizer R8 headphone system. Using DSP and on the head mike calibrations, it is able to capture much of your personal Head Transfer Function as well as the signature of a particular room for playback. Actually, it can store multiple rooms as if you were there, switchably. Playback is in up to 7.1 channels via normal stereo headphones. Many a listener has been fooled into thinking he is hearing the speakers in the room by not remembering he still has the headphones on. There is also an IR head tracker, which keeps the sonic image fixed frontally in space rather than rotating as you physically move your head, as normal phones do. The DSP is actually rotating the image in complete synch with the head tracker.
Stax electrostats are standard with the device, but others can be used optionally, including at least one in the ear headphone, which supports the mike calibration inside the ear canal. Except for the usual caveats relating to the comfort and convenience of headphone use, the Realizer is highly regarded sonically. My understanding is that mastering pros are a big market for them, particularly in Hollywood for preliminary mastering without tying up the expensive mastering stage, which the system has been calibrated to simulate.
The technology is mind-boggling. Widescreen Review magazine has done quite a number of feature articles on it. I find that to be a top notch and very credible magazine, partly because Amir publishes there regularly and excellently. Some friends and I will likely be making a trip to one of the few Smyth dealers to audition it.
Thank you for the well articulated message. There is little for me to disagree with so let me close the gap that you note between us. I agree and I am glad you pointed this out that there are recordings that give us the impression of hearing a "live" presentation. I too have them and when I hear them thinking "oh, that sounds like the real thing." In this context, I think the right term is "realism" not "live." Clearly there are recordings and great reproduction systems that give us amazing sense of realism. We just have to keep in mind that the realism may very well be artificial and that it is not what we would have heard "live." After all, we can never know what live sounded like unless we were there.
Even if we don't agree on this point, I think we are close enough that I am very much OK with discourse at this level
I agree. "Sounds more real" is a somewhat better descriptive term than "sounds more like live". We will never get to "live" in our rooms, most likely. Thank you, Amir.
Fitzcaraldo, they say proof is in the eye of the beholder.
You assert that time and again with each demo, all participants claim multi-channel (MC) is more realistic sounding than the 2-channel version. Therefore, you conclude that MC is superior to 2-channel. Given these circumstances, there’s probably nobody who upon hearing your demo between 2-ch and MC would disagree, including me.
You claim that demonstration repeatedly proves that MC is more musically realistic than 2-channel. But could it be your demo only proves how deficient our playback systems really are?
I’m straining for an appropriate analogy here but here goes:
You had a library designed in your new home dedicated for reading in your favorite chair. A professional lighting designer determined that for most natural lighting and maximum reading enjoyment and least amount of eye strain, designed your reading area to include about 15 feet out in front of your chair two ceiling socket lamps that point toward your lap in the chair intended for each socket to house a 100-watt Halogen flood lights.
But the designer was unaware that nobody makes 100-watt Halogen wide-angle beamed floodlights and the closest available lights are two 50-watt Halogen narrow-angle beam spotlights are installed instead. Hoping of course you wouldn’t notice this deficiency.
Between the contrasts of dark shadows around you and the slight intensity of the spotlights you have difficulty reading and your enjoyment and relaxation are severely compromised. So you install a couple of 10-watt ambient lights at a distance pointing to either side of your reading chair. You now find that your reading pleasure has improved and you’re able to better enjoy your reading with less fatigue, but nothing like if you had the two 100-watt wide-angle floodlights installed as originally intended.
So you invite your book club friends to sit in your chair and read while you switch back and forth between two 50-watt ceiling lights only and then the two 50-watt ceiling lights plus the little ambient lights pointed at either side of the chair. Sure enough, all agree that the lighting seems more natural and less fatiguing with the addition of the 2 ambient lights.
Using this poor lighting analogy, all your demo’s for your book club friends really proves is that when sufficient lighting as originally intended is unattainable, most any type of ambient lighting is better than nothing and all your friends agree with you. Moreover, since you never had the pleasure of reading with the two originally intended 100-watt Halogen wide-angle floodlights, have become convinced that all reading libraries designed for two 100-watt wide-angle floodlights but using two 50-watt narrow-angle spotlights require ambient lights to go with their main lights for superior lighting.
Given the lack of music information remaining audible at your (and everybody else’s) 2-channel speaker output in contrast to a 2-channel system where far more information remains audible at the speakers, I would attest this is exactly what you have proved with your MC vs 2-channel demonstration.
Nothing more.
I did not say I was attempting to "prove" anything. In fact I called this unscientific and anecdotal. Use it or don't use it, as you wish.
But, now you can "attest" - a word indicating very strong certainty on your part - that my system, which you have never heard in Mch or stereo, must be lackluster in its stereo capabilities? The fact is that similar comparisons have been done by a number of other audiophiles in my circle, and they in their systems agree completely. Are all of our systems second rate in stereo playback, even though you have no idea what my system or their systems consist of or what they actually do sound like in our listening rooms?
I also said it came down to individual preference as to the choice between Mch and stereo. So, when did you make a similar comparison to actually hear the difference yourself so that you could actually know what you were talking about?
Your argument is naive, insulting and specious, consisting of pure bias for your point of view and nothing else. You might actually gain some credibility were you to actually listen to what you are only prejudiciously speculating about.
I realize you were not attempting to “prove” anything. But in the process of demo’ing time and again and producing similar results each time, you have repeatedly demonstrated (proven?) to some extent that your position may indeed be valid. I’m only agreeing with you here without trying go down some "science" rabbit hole. FWIW, I don’t believe ANY of the so-called “audio science” talked about here or anywhere else. I don’t know what “audio science” really means and I’m unconvinced anybody else does either.
Actually, I could have guaranteed it, but I was trying to soft-shoe my stance. And no I do not need to “hear” your system to do so. You said “second rate”, I didn’t. I would never call a relatively well-thought-out system second rate. Just like a recent and not-so-pleasant exchange I had with John Curl who eventually admitted that every last one of his designs (and everybody else’s designs) included at least one serious unknown flaw, I said no such thing. I simply called his designs incomplete (perhaps like a fabulously designed engine without a car is incomplete). I call it incomplete but you can call it whatever you want.
How about asking yourself this. If your playback system was more complete (far more musical), would you have even been experimenting with multi-channels attempting to make your system more musical in the first place?
I haven’t ever seriously played around with multi-channel because I have no reason to. But if it helps any, occasionally a visitor will look around the room for extra speakers.
Naïve? Untrue.
Insulting? I apologize if that’s how I came across. But I prefer being honest over dishonest. Just as you’re being here.
Specious? My life would be easier if I was.
Pure bias and nothing else? I hope you’re not trying to be the very things you accuse me of here.
I think I’ve already sufficiently demonstrated elsewhere in this and other forums that the performance claims about the new MQA format are impossible and I’ve never heard an MQA formatted demo. Does that sound naïve or specious or like pure bias to you? And I doubt Bob Stuart would be insulted about my comments of MQA, but hopefully he might gulp once or twice.
It depends on how one looks at it I suppose. With your well-thought-out playback system, have you introduced anything that differentiates it from any other well-thought-out playback system? Any very unique product, technology, and/or concept?
If so, I apologize as I must have overlooked that. If not, why should I think your well-thought-out playback system sounds much different from the other 1000+ well-thought-out playback systems I’ve heard in recent years? Wouldn't I actually be more naive to think that for some unknown reason your well-thought-out system stood head and shoulders over all other well-thought-out systems knowing that you've most likely not done anything different?
X
Your quasi-logic and rationalizations continue to amaze me.
My stereo was quite satisfying before I embarked into Mch. But, it was not perfectly so against standards of realism I came to know from attendance at many live concerts. Is yours perfect in that regard?
I had also frequently heard many other top notch stereos, including some reviewer systems that got rave front cover billings in a top magazine. You would instantly recognize the name of at least one of my reviewer friends and the gear involved. Other systems heard have included some set up personally by some top manufacturers in the industry, not at shows, by the way. You might be impressed by some of the names I might drop. Many of these systems ranged in price well into multi hundreds of $thousands. So, I think I have a fair awareness of what state of the art stereo is capable of, even at obscene cost. My own stereo stood up quite well to those comparisons, by the way. Is it uniquely better than the others? No, I do not claim that, but apparently you do about yours. But, then, I have never heard your system, which is apparently better than all of what I have heard put together.
So, then, an entirely new Mch technology comes along. I listen to it carefully over an extended period of time in my room on a carefully set up system that is built on my existing front stereo channels. I am convinced beyond doubt from actual listening that it provides much musical information that is simply missing in all the other stereos I have heard. Is it perfectly realistic relative to live? No. But, it is plainly and obviously far, yes far, beyond any stereo I have head in terms of recreating a sense of the concert hall realism that I seek, based on very frequent attendance at live concerts.
So, unlike you, I did not put my head in the sand and dismiss, unheard, a newer technology, smugly believing and rationalizing there could be nothing better than what I had. I actually listened to it, and I realized that this was not just something new, but it was actually something much better. My system still plays in stereo, by the way, quite excellently, if that is what I choose to listen to.
But, you can "attest" from the circumstantial evidence that I merely sought a greater level of realism, that I was not "satisfied" with the "musicality" (whatever that is) of my stereo, that therefore my system in stereo was obviously not up to the level of your own exalted system, which obviously needs no further improvement. Yours is clearly the correct path to continued sonic improvement for all of us.
If you are happy with your system and you think it needs no improvement, that's just great by me. But, I happen to think that in the process, you reveal yourself to be closed off, uninquisitive, narrow minded, anti-technology, ego centric and, yes, naive. With that mindset, I do not see how you could ever put together a system that would be as good as it could be, except in your own arrogant opinion.
Your quasi-logic and rationalizations continue to amaze me.
My stereo was quite satisfying before I embarked into Mch. But, it was not perfectly so against standards of realism I came to know from attendance at many live concerts. Is yours perfect in that regard?
I had also frequently heard many other top notch stereos, including some reviewer systems that got rave front cover billings in a top magazine. You would instantly recognize the name of at least one of my reviewer friends and the gear involved. Other systems heard have included some set up personally by some top manufacturers in the industry, not at shows, by the way. You might be impressed by some of the names I might drop. Many of these systems ranged in price well into multi hundreds of $thousands. So, I think I have a fair awareness of what state of the art stereo is capable of, even at obscene cost. My own stereo stood up quite well to those comparisons, by the way. Is it uniquely better than the others? No, I do not claim that, but apparently you do about yours. But, then, I have never heard your system, which is apparently better than all of what I have heard put together.
So, then, an entirely new Mch technology comes along. I listen to it carefully over an extended period of time in my room on a carefully set up system that is built on my existing front stereo channels. I am convinced beyond doubt from actual listening that it provides much musical information that is simply missing in all the other stereos I have heard. Is it perfectly realistic relative to live? No. But, it is plainly and obviously far, yes far, beyond any stereo I have head in terms of recreating a sense of the concert hall realism that I seek, based on very frequent attendance at live concerts.
So, unlike you, I did not put my head in the sand and dismiss, unheard, a newer technology, smugly believing and rationalizing there could be nothing better than what I had. I actually listened to it, and I realized that this was not just something new, but it was actually something much better. My system still plays in stereo, by the way, quite excellently, if that is what I choose to listen to.
But, you can "attest" from the circumstantial evidence that I merely sought a greater level of realism, that I was not "satisfied" with the "musicality" (whatever that is) of my stereo, that therefore my system in stereo was obviously not up to the level of your own exalted system, which obviously needs no further improvement. Yours is clearly the correct path to continued sonic improvement for all of us.
If you are happy with your system and you think it needs no improvement, that's just great by me. But, I happen to think that in the process, you reveal yourself to be closed off, uninquisitive, narrow minded, anti-technology, ego centric and, yes, naive. With that mindset, I do not see how you could ever put together a system that would be as good as it could be, except in your own arrogant opinion.
I think AI M nailed it in the third post on this thread. I've got a system very much like the one described in the OP, though my active monitors are designed for home listening, not studio, and have none of the over-bright/"false detail" thing that bad studio monitors often have. They are really good at reproducing simpler things, and I can easily convince myself that an acoustic ensemble/voice sounds "real" enough. But it's not the same as that ensemble in my room. It's not really all that close. And I know this because I've heard small acoustic/voice ensembles have been in my room, and many other rooms. I know exactly what that sounds like.
So I try not to think about it too much, and with sufficient suspension of disbelief, the listening is quite believable. Everybody, whether they realize it or not, goes through exactly the same thing. They filter stereo reproduction through their audio perception and "hear" the music as they imagine they would hear it live. I've listened to some large, very expensive systems. They go deeper than my monitors, of course. They present the music in a larger scale, though that is not necessary for the kind of music we're talking about. The perception filters, the suspension of disbelief are still required, though. Regardless of how much money you have spent, no system will sit that string quartet or Americana trio down in your room sounding like live musicians.
I also agree with AI M regarding amplified performances. I'll get much more detail, and sometimes even more accurate tonality from recordings at home. There are exceptions to this, of course, but they're almost always outdoor events with very good, permanently installed sound systems.
Tim
The performers would be part of it, as would the venue.
It may have been missed in the other thread, but I posted a link regarding the spatial sampling/reconstruction portion of "realism", outside the basics of tone, timbre, non-compression, etc.
I have the paper but it's been a while since I read it, to give actual percentages. It always make me chuckle over audiophiles obsession with "more resolution" of 2 channels.
cheers,
AJ
I would certainly hope your stereo sounds better than most PA systems, sans the visceral impact/dynamics of course.
But how would one judge "accurate tonality" of amplified music? Accurate to what reference?
cheers,
AJ
Tim, if you are referring to my Magico Mini IIs in the original post (OP), I was not aware that they are active monitors "designed for studio listening and have over-bright/"false detail" thing that bad studio monitors often have." You must be thinking of some other monitor speakers, or I am wrong about the intended market and sonic qualities of my Mini IIs?
That's a good question, AJ. I think this point has been made before in this thread, but it bears repeating. I mentioned that Jimi Hendrix famously said that he plays amps not guitars.
There are also a few posters, though only a vocal minority, who I think are advocating that even live acoustic music can not be used as a reference when attempting to judge how accurate a system's tonality is. I think the argument is that too much is lost by the mics in the recording process and then too much is manipulated, err art is added, in the mixing/mastering process. Therefore any attempt to reproduce accurately the original acoustic musical event is hopeless and doomed to failure.
I happen to think that we can listen to live acoustic music, get a sense of what these instruments actually sound like, and then use that as a reference to judge the quality of our systems. Great recordings do help in this process. As far as amplified music goes? There is no reference standard. I do know when Grant Green's guitar sounds "good" to me though. I just don't know how accurate it sounds.
Sorry, Peter, you just said "mini monitors," and a reference to recording in that post caused me to jump to the conclusion that you were talking about recording monitors. I don't know the Magicos, but I imagine they're excellent with appropriate amplification. And FWIW, I don't think most studio monitors have that over-bright characteristic that they always get dismissed for. That typically occurs in semi-pro/hobby recordist monitors that are much less expensive than good pro monitors. My "monitors" are made for home use, with silk dome tweeters and active amplification and crossovers crossed low enough to prevent the 6" mid-bass drivers from trying to reproduce frequencies they can't handle well. They are pretty smooth and clean in the upper registers. This combination of amplification/crossover technology and driver size is pretty close to ideal, IMO, but really good passive monitors also do very well with the right amplification, it's just significantly more expensive to get them there.
Tim
I'm one of that vocal minority, but I think the reason why live performance is an unrealistic reference for reproduction is because it is very rarely recorded to capture what an audience member hears from a seat in the hall (and doesn't do all that well when it is), and because even if you had an excellent example of such a recording, you add a second ambient environment as soon as you play it in your listening room. Proximity, room acoustics, the type, quality and placement of microphones all impact the recording dramatically. The original ambient space is all but lost. The tonality is changed. I think what most of use are actually referencing is a combination of live experiences and other recordings that have given us our impression of what a violin or guitar sounds like. It's all blended together into our perception, and when we listen to a new recording/component/system, that's our reference. But of all those elements blended into our concept of "violin," probably the weakest reference is a live performance in a concert venue; you don't get the detail, and you do get lots of ambient information you won't hear anywhere else. If I want to really hear what a violin sounds like, the first reference would be a live violin in a small room, the second would be an excellent recording of the same, with no post-production processing.
Or at least that's the way I hear it. I had a violin live in this room not long ago. It had a presence that I've not heard in any recording, on any system, in any room.
Oh, and Jimi was right, he played the amp as much as the guitar. Many electric guitars players do. That doesn't put distance between the listener and the instrument, it is the instrument. And it's very easy to distinguish a Telecaster through a Twin Reverb from a Les Paul through a Marshall stack, even on mediocre studio recordings. That, is like night and day.
Tim
Similar threads
