Introduction and Listening Biases

[bonzo75]

you need a pilots licence not more hifi tweeks

any fav venues in london for acoustics?

London apparently doesn't have the best acoustics by international standards, but I haven't been to halls in other countries yet. Want to go Vienna and concertgebouw one day.

I can't stand the Albert hall for acoustic music, though I live close to it. It is fine for amplified music like Eric Clapton.

Barbican in a good seat is my favorite. Great concerts, and the ALSO has a beautiful tone. The BBC symphony orchestra whom I heard their once on Mahler 3 has a great tone as well, in fact the best trombone I have heard, and they have a lady who plays it (most orchestras have males in the trombone trumpet tuba section).

Southbank has nice concerts but I don't enjoy the sound and tone as much as Barbican. I have also been disappointed by quite a few there.

The wigmore hall is great for smaller ensembles. All are centrally located and easy access. The Purcell room at Southbank is also nice for small ensembles

 

[Detlof]

you need a pilots licence not more hifi tweeks

True Spaz, but too old, too broke too blind and too close to Alzheimers

 

[Detlof]

thanks bonzo
yes the royal albert hall sucks for sound.
been to concertgebouw it was in bruges so not sure its the one your on about. the walls were concret and shaped like a diffussor. it was a bit dead tbh but its was a small ensemble.
i will make a mental not regarding the barbican thanks for that.

I quite liked the Barbican. The Concertgebouw ( meaning actually concert hall, gebouw= building in Dutch ) Bonzo is talking about is in Amsterdam. About my plane, YOU SURE ABOUT THIS? Bruge is beautiful, also from the air.....ha, there you are, you might be right.....but that was when WE were there and I was flying those snub nosed Focke Wulffs or Hurricanes, don"t remember, only that were off topic

 

[Detlof]

you can never trust the intelligance that come with these dam european arrest warrants. oh well up side is your not a flight frisk that will bring some christmas cheer to the office.

To "frisk" me, they have to get me first.......

 

[Ron Resnick]

View attachment 24184

I just received this CD. While I think "Send in the Clowns" is amazing, I did not like anything else on the rest of the album.

 

[Ron Resnick]

A question for people whose philosophical objective is to "2) reproduce exactly what is on the master tape":

There seems to be a fair consensus that an audio system which reproduces a solo vocalist with a crisply delineated and clear image is creating that image in an artificial way. The consensus seems to be that, in real life, solo vocalists are a bit diffuse and are not crisply and solidly outlined. (I like the clearly defined solo vocalist image. I never thought of it as being artificially and inaccurately clear delineated.)

LL21 suggests that the clearly delineated solo vocalist image may be an artifact of the way the microphone picks up the sound. Let's assume that this is the case -- that the microphone artificially and inaccurately creates an overly clearly delineated solo vocalist image which does not occur in real life.

For proponents of objective 2) a proper audio system would faithfully re-create this artificial and inaccurately delineated and outlined solo vocalist image. Would it not be better to have a system which re-creates more accurately the more diffuse image of a real life solo vocalist performance?

Let's assume that a proponent of objective 1) -- recreate the sound of an original musical event -- can achieve the more diffuse and realistic solo vocalist image by putting Shun Mooks under his amplifier. Should he accept the master tape objective of 1) or should he modify it to recreate the extra-tape realism of 2)?

 

[bonzo75]

Lol, shun mooks are not put under something to make it more diffuse. To provide more tone, organic sound, fuller sound, separation, 3d...yes.

I think the end result, due to a mix of imaging, soundstage, dynamics, Tone, etc, should be more real (or natural). Some people will have more visual cues than others.

The imaging will differ for acoustic and amplified music, and with distance from stage.

Room treatment will also affect where things are pinpoint and diffuse

 

[Groucho]

Let's assume that a proponent of objective 1) -- recreate the sound of an original musical event -- can achieve the more diffuse and realistic solo vocalist image by putting Shun Mooks under his amplifier. Should he accept the master tape objective of 1) or should he modify it to recreate the extra-tape realism of 2)?

If we were betting people, surely we would have to conclude that the chances of being able to repair such deficiencies in the master tape using 'distortion' (all we have available with vinyl, amplifiers and speakers) are remote. Still less that a successful 'repair' to one track would be applicable to other tracks. Still less likely that we could do it with 'magic' products.

An underlying theme seems to be that an audiophile's opinion of a recording or audio system (their "preference") is sacrosanct. Everything must be done to satisfy that preference. Wouldn't a more productive strategy be to educate themselves to 'live with it', whatever 'it' might be? There are millions of musical recordings out there. Does it really matter if on one of them the vocal doesn't quite meet with the audiophile's idea of what sounds completely natural? How long is the audiophile expected to dwell on this one supposed deficiency? There has to be more to life than this?!! A proponent of (2) will just 'let it go'.

 

[RayDunzl]

I just received this CD. While I think "Send in the Clowns" is amazing, I did not like anything else on the rest of the album.

You're quoting me from another thread.

It wasn't a recommendation, it was an "Is this it?" reply to someone unable to find it.

--

Wait a minute, you said in the first post of this thread "I listen only to analog."

 

[Detlof]

If we were betting people, surely we would have to conclude that the chances of being able to repair such deficiencies in the master tape using 'distortion' (all we have available with vinyl, amplifiers and speakers) are remote. Still less that a successful 'repair' to one track would be applicable to other tracks. Still less likely that we could do it with 'magic' products.

An underlying theme seems to be that an audiophile's opinion of a recording or audio system (their "preference") is sacrosanct. Everything must be done to satisfy that preference. Wouldn't a more productive strategy be to educate themselves to 'live with it', whatever 'it' might be? There are millions of musical recordings out there. Does it really matter if on one of them the vocal doesn't quite meet with the audiophile's idea of what sounds completely natural? How long is the audiophile expected to dwell on this one supposed deficiency? There has to be more to life than this?!! A proponent of (2) will just 'let it go'.

Good point! Concert goers also have ” to live with it " , as you say, with bad accoustic, bad seats etc. I suppose. But if , as an audiophile you are more fascinated by music in the home and the whole process that leads to it, often more than by music itself, this is a very difficult thing, I think. For me it took a very long learning curve to let go... somewhat and only because of my love of music.

 

[Detlof]

You're quoting me from another thread.

It wasn't a recommendation, it was an "Is this it?" reply to someone unable to find it.

--

Wait a minute, you said in the first post of this thread "I listen only to analog."

Oh come on, he probably listened at a friend's house.

 

[bonzo75]

Good point! Concert goers also have ” to live with it " , as you say, with bad accoustic, bad seats etc. I suppose. But if , as an audiophile you are more fascinated by music in the home and the whole process that leads to it, often more than by music itself, this is a very difficult thing, I think. For me it took a very long learning curve to let go... somewhat

I just bifurcate the two hobbies. Music from concerts is one thing, being geeky about audio gear is another. Some overlap between the two

 

[Detlof]

I just bifurcate the two hobbies. Music from concerts is one thing, being geeky about audio gear is another. Some overlap between the two

Yea, at a concert there is nothing you can do, you 're stuck with it, at home you can at least try.

 

[bonzo75]

Yea, at a concert there is nothing you can do, you 're stuck with it, at home you can at least try.

I usually get a good seat. If I can't book one I shamelessly transfer myself over to one midway, as some people who have booked good seats always fail to turn up.

 

[Groucho]

Good point! Concert goers also have ” to live with it " , as you say, with bad accoustic, bad seats etc. I suppose. But if , as an audiophile you are more fascinated by music in the home and the whole process that leads to it, often more than by music itself, this is a very difficult thing, I think. For me it took a very long learning curve to let go... somewhat and only because of my love of music.

Maybe years ago I could have seen myself loading a track into Audacity (or whatever audio editor was available) and fiddling about with it. But that would seem like a great way to ruin one's love for a track! And really, you have to look at yourself at that moment, and think "is this healthy"? At least it wouldn't cost any money, though. Audiophiles with an aversion to digital trickery are trying to do it indirectly by churning boutique equipment costing thousands of dollars. It's just not going to work!

 

[microstrip]

I just received this CD. While I think "Send in the Clowns" is amazing, I did not like anything else on the rest of the album.

Then you should now get (if you do not have it already) the "Send in the Clowns" sang by Judy Collins. Most songs of the LP are fabulous. "Song for Duke" was for longtime one of my favorites. BTW, it is one case where I found the original LP to sound much better than the CD.

 

[Rodney Gold]

ron, you obviously are having a lot of fun with this..

You want it all and there is a system out there that will do it for you or at least involve the least comromises.

It's really only you you got to please.. and however you write about your experiences is good..

You have exhaustively explained your philosophy and taste..so we know where you come from.

You are living an audiophiles wet dream.. researching the "ultimate" system , listening and writing about esoterica most never see let alone hear and the best of all , you have a bit of boodle to spend .. enjoy!!!!

 

[microstrip]

A question for people whose philosophical objective is to "2) reproduce exactly what is on the master tape":

There seems to be a fair consensus that an audio system which reproduces a solo vocalist with a crisply delineated and clear image is creating that image in an artificial way. The consensus seems to be that, in real life, solo vocalists are a bit diffuse and are not crisply and solidly outlined. (I like the clearly defined solo vocalist image. I never thought of it as being artificially and inaccurately clear delineated.)

LL21 suggests that the clearly delineated solo vocalist image may be an artifact of the way the microphone picks up the sound. Let's assume that this is the case -- that the microphone artificially and inaccurately creates an overly clearly delineated solo vocalist image which does not occur in real life.

For proponents of objective 2) a proper audio system would faithfully re-create this artificial and inaccurately delineated and outlined solo vocalist image. Would it not be better to have a system which re-creates more accurately the more diffuse image of a real life solo vocalist performance?

Let's assume that a proponent of objective 1) -- recreate the sound of an original musical event -- can achieve the more diffuse and realistic solo vocalist image by putting Shun Mooks under his amplifier. Should he accept the master tape objective of 1) or should he modify it to recreate the extra-tape realism of 2)?

IMHO the situation is not being clearly defined. Most of the time the "crispy delineated and clear image" is the result of omitting the natural bloom and decay of voices, including room acoustics. IMHO, if tweaking the system can enhance our perception this information, this means that the tweak is either absorbing some nasty interference that masks the original information or enhancing some information existing in the recording.

I think we must separate two situations - systems that systematically broaden images, giving a diffuse soundstage independently of recording, and those who are able to give a natural image and soundstage, not a pin point type, when the recording has this information, and precise and sharp when the recording has been made in such way. At the other extreme we have systems that systematically sound crispy and sharp.

Please note that, as usually, I am addressing non amplified music.

 

[Detlof]

IMHO I think we must separate two situations - systems that systematically broaden images, giving a diffuse soundstage independently of recording, and those who are able to give a natural image and soundstage, not a pin point type, when the recording has this information, and precise and sharp when the recording has been made in such way. At the other extreme we have systems that systematically sound crispy and sharp.
Please note that, as usually, I am addressing non amplified music.

Thank you for that!
I could never have put it so clearly, but this is what I am continually harping about, mainly to myself though. I now begin to realise, that my ears have been far more educated by live music than I would have thought. This site is doing much for my education. Never too late to learn.

 

[bonzo75]

IMHO the situation is not being clearly defined. Most of the time the "crispy delineated and clear image" is the result of omitting the natural bloom and decay of voices, including room acoustics. IMHO, if tweaking the system can enhance our perception this information, this means that the tweak is either absorbing some nasty interference that masks the original information or enhancing some information existing in the recording.

I think we must separate two situations - systems that systematically broaden images, giving a diffuse soundstage independently of recording, and those who are able to give a natural image and soundstage, not a pin point type, when the recording has this information, and precise and sharp when the recording has been made in such way. At the other extreme we have systems that systematically sound crispy and sharp.

Please note that, as usually, I am addressing non amplified music.

Nicely put