Is Live, Unamplified Music the Correct Reference for the Sound of our Audio Systems?

[morricab]

KeithR invited me to join him to his first chamber music performance at Walt Disney Concert Hall. It was visually
discordant to see merely three or four instrument players huddled together in the center of a large stage in the middle of a giant concert hall.




View attachment 51262



We liked musically the violin + cello + piano performance the best. It sounded more interesting to us than an all-string trio or all-string quartet.

The tone of the string instruments was warm and lush and burnished and golden and sweet. I heard nothing whatsoever bright or thin or fatiguing or irritating. This was not (to me or to Keith) the sound of Lyra Atlas on Soulution electronics driving Magico Q7.

Although I like hearing chamber music about anywhere, the best such concerts I have heard of this type were home concerts...some my ex played (solo, duo and quartets) and some by other artists. Even up close these instruments still sound rich tonally but immediate and super dynamic. In a big hall you lose some of that impact.

Recordings of this type of music should also sound tonally rich with a lot of immediacy and dynamics because the microphones are often “up close”. I encourage you to try to hear such music in its intended environment (the home).

 

[microstrip]

IMHO chamber music sounds the way performers, instruments and room want it to be. If people focus mainly in the classical and romantic chamber music we can expect them to find it mainly warm and lush. However as soon as we move in the 19th century nationalist schools and the 20th century we depart from this tranquility - even more in the contemporary forms of of chamber music.

 

[cjfrbw]

KeithR invited me to join him to his first chamber music performance at Walt Disney Concert Hall. It was visually
discordant to see merely three or four instrument players huddled together in the center of a large stage in the middle of a giant concert hall.




View attachment 51262



We liked musically the violin + cello + piano performance the best. It sounded more interesting to us than an all-string trio or all-string quartet.

The tone of the string instruments was warm and lush and burnished and golden and sweet. I heard nothing whatsoever bright or thin or fatiguing or irritating. This was not (to me or to Keith) the sound of Lyra Atlas on Soulution electronics driving Magico Q7.

What is KeithR's instrument? "warm and lush and burnished and golden and sweet" certainly sound like the signatory of a tubed amplifier. Wavac comes to mind.

 

[Al M.]

What is KeithR's instrument? "warm and lush and burnished and golden and sweet" certainly sound like the signatory of a tubed amplifier. Wavac comes to mind.

Depends. Not all tube amps sound like you suggest.

 

[KeithR]

IMHO chamber music sounds the way performers, instruments and room want it to be. If people focus mainly in the classical and romantic chamber music we can expect them to find it mainly warm and lush. However as soon as we move in the 19th century nationalist schools and the 20th century we depart from this tranquility - even more in the contemporary forms of of chamber music.

since the main piece was Schoenberg, we definitely got a handle on 20th century chamber music as well as more traditional Haydn.

 

[mopa5002]

since the main piece was Schoenberg, we definitely got a handle on 20th century chamber music as well as more traditional Haydn.

Live 'unamplified' music is my reference. Everybody should be trying to hear this, it really is pretty easy to hear the difference between 'live/ unamplified' music and reproduced.
In my case, this may be a little easier to do, as I very often play the 'live' instrument in a band setting...so as they say--'getting close and personal' is fairly
easy for me to do. OTOH, even attending any 'live' symphonic work or large band will also give you a great reference.
I hate to say this, but people who believe that we are even close to achieving what the sound of 'live' sounds like in our listening room, really don't have much experience with the 'live' event if they can say such a thing, IMHO.

Morricab's post earlier about his ex-wife's violin playing and my example of the guitar are truly what it is that we should be listening to- and ...again IMHO, trying to recreate.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Welcome to WBF, mopa!

What instrument do you play?

 

[bonzo75]

What instrument do you play?

People join an audio forum to play their own instrument

 

[tima]

Do people use live amplified music as a reference?

On recordings of amplified music - say a rock band - is there imaging, or a soundstage and depth?

 

[kach22i]

By what do we judge our audio systems?

Do we compare our audio systems to the sound of live, unamplified music?

Do we compare our audio systems to some composite of the sound of live music and of the sound of our friends' stereo systems we have in our heads?

If someone nevers listens to live music then what does that mean for what they are trying to achieve with their stereo systems?

Is our own internal mental impression of what live music sounds like a valid reference? If yes, why? If not, why not?

What is your reference, and why?

I'm going to reply without reading anyone else's post, it's just a short story about my first audio system purchase.

Salesmen at the discount appliance store and high end Hif-Fi store both said - go for the sound of "live music".

I went to the bar where my High School buddy was the drummer in a rock band and the sound was big, boomy with recessed vocals because the vocals were not mixed properly and probably didn't have their own amp/driver.

So I bought speaker that sounded just like what I heard at the bar. Big, warm and muddy.

Maybe this is an over simplification of the process I actually followed, but it was a factor in my decision.

Small sealed boxes with tight accurate bass were not in contention, big ported boxes were. I had never seen or heard of panel speakers at that time, it was 1978-1979.

Live orchestra music was an old memory of elementary school and maybe Jr. High, I was listening to Rock & Roll man.

Travel 40 years to today, now listen to all kinds of music, recorded in all sorts of spaces and priorities have changed.

You can have the right message but given to the wrong audience the tool can be misused or misunderstood.

Live and learn.

 

[Kefas]

KeithR invited me to join him to his first chamber music performance at Walt Disney Concert Hall. It was visually
discordant to see merely three or four instrument players huddled together in the center of a large stage in the middle of a giant concert hall.




View attachment 51262



We liked musically the violin + cello + piano performance the best. It sounded more interesting to us than an all-string trio or all-string quartet.

The tone of the string instruments was warm and lush and burnished and golden and sweet. I heard nothing whatsoever bright or thin or fatiguing or irritating. This was not (to me or to Keith) the sound of Lyra Atlas on Soulution electronics driving Magico Q7.

I can believe that no system can beat being there in person. It´s just a whole different experience.

 

[PeterA]

I heard some nice live music walking through the streets of Boston last night: One barbershop brass quartet, one solo electric guitar player, one acoustic jazz trio. The streets were alive with the sound of music. Made by real people in real space. This was a nice way to experience a walk through the city.

Can't say if this is the correct reference for our audio systems. I think frequent exposure to live music does help us understand what real instruments and voices do sound like. And I find that reference to be a useful guide as I fine tune my system. I might otherwise be a bit aimless without this guide and waste a lot of time. Is this the correct approach, who knows? It certainly is not the only approach.

 

[NorthStar]

Very nice post Peter; you touched the real essence.
Home listening in our hi-fi system is another experience, less emotionally involving, without hearing and seeing the real deal...interacting with the eyes of the musicians and singers.

 

[LenWhite]

I'm paraphrasing, but one of the best descriptions of the difference between live and recorded playback IMO was written by Sarjan Ebaen in a review of the Borresen 02:

Of course the live experience has many qualities a HiFi can't replicate fully if at all. Being a carbon copy isn't HiFi's, but a fax machine's job. Playback is an altogether different experience than going to a live gig. When setup carefully, playback in many ways is idealized. There's more raw resolution revealed from a very low noise floor. There's studio productions with spot microphones which can capture each performers most direct sound before a venue could diffuse it. There's more specific soundstage mapping with greater separation between performers. On these points really good audio systems can be undeniably superior to the real thing. Add that you get to hear music when you're in the mood; in the type you're in the mood for just then; in recordings where the musicians were in peak form.

 

[Kefas]

This is why we keep coming back to acoustic; here is Thelonious Monk prize winner Rob van Bavel playing ballads on a straight strung grand piano, recorded in a wooden church. The sound is out of this world.
Rob van Bavel Time for Ballads (The Maene Sessions)

 

[Alrainbow]

years ago i had some players come to my place , play some well known tunes to compare ,
a few take away, s
on simple acoustic guitar i could not hear each note nor as strings strung each strike . on my system yes
tone close but acrostic energy not so close . it seems even my system cant clime as fast nor have the level of speed to show the many sounds at once .
violine very close while some timbre is wrong on mine the details were there .
horns was a wipe out it was a flute and sax . the flute was close not bad . but the sax while tone and timbre were close the level of speed on rise not . a sax croaks as each note is started and at the end of each note be it fast or slow . while i had the croak it was far from the massive level in increase from micro to macro sound . I'm sure some here may claim there's can do but i think your fooling yourself . a good system does plenty right but the amount of acoustic energy needed is pale in my system and ill bet most all .
i thought long and hard on why the guitar was great but better on my system . the only reason i came up is two fold , one is its real and i don't have that kind of audio memory to instantly compare that some might . all we hear is instantly compared for us to know what it is im told . the second is my system could not give the micro details i can be confused by on live . a good example is live un amped compared to any pa venue .