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

[Ron Resnick]

Hi Ron,

A different perspective for you: Recorded music played on a high end stereo system is different that live music…attending a live concert and listening to a reference system are completely different experiences...so live unamplified music just serves as a conceptual model of how stereo works.

This simplification is no different than saying that when you plug in your toaster into an electrical outlet, electrons just flow into it like water…

And if one compares his stereo to live music, he will fall short of that ideal, as every gear presents its sonic signature slightly differently, but not like live music ...

I wrote this before, but ancient Greek philosophy is timeless :

....I don't want to get in trouble with the mods discussing religion and philosophy, but this approach of using live music as a reference is Platonic. And for those of us who are not Platonists, it’s not rooted in the way things really work.

I remember talking with the very nice lady who runs and voices VTL a number of years ago. She told me she goes to classical concerts and then comes home and compares what she has just heard with recordings of the same performance on her reference system. Ditto for David Wilson who travels to Vienna to do the same. So both VTL and Wilson claim to actually design their gear based on their perception of real music.

But comes along a guy like "Sterile" Jon Valin, plops in the chair that Ms. VTL and David Wilson just sat in and listens to the same recordings on the same system that VTL and Wilson have put together based on their reference for live music. Instead of calling it “real”, he calls that VTL- Wilson system too dark, rich, and colored - "as you like it", using his term. Since “Sterile” Jon is the self-proclaimed authority, he instead prefers soulution and magico q5, which emphasizes upper midrange and treble. To him, it is the most real there is, yet other guys working in his magazine do not agree... Wilson guys will go ahead and call Valin an f*ing moron, since they are right, based on their perception and preference, and all the hard work they have done.... good thing these guys don't carry guns! ...

Look, everyone who is serious in this hobby listens or has listened to live music. Even the guys who design by measurements validate by listening…

All gear presents slightly different elements of realism, and fans can pick and choose which elements of realism they prefer. Once you choose a brand or sound that you like, spend roughly double the money on a piece of gear you have or like, and you get more of those elements that trigger your imagination of realism of live music. Or choose different gear, and it will highlight different aspects of live music...

So to those of us who are not Platonists, using “live music as a reference" is all about imagining. No different than kids playing and imagining superheroes using plastic dolls. But hey, it's hobby and if people find it fun, than that’s great. For me, I accept the limitation of playing recordings on my stereo and enjoy high end audio as it’s own experience.

....

Now since then, we have had the famous fight between Great Peter Breuninger and Sterile Jon Valin about which turntable they imagine as real in their mind is best. I think Sterile Jon got really lucky that Great Peter didn't connect with a big hook to the liver, followed by an uppercut to the point of the chin... It would be sayonara to TAS as we know it .... And thank God those guys didn't carry guns!

Maybe this year we can see Sterile Jon and Snooty Peter McGrath fight about whether Magico or Wilson sounds "more real" with live unamplified music . The winner of the fight will definitely determine which speaker is better

I read your first three paragraphs, and then I stopped reading and lost interest when you devolved into the ad hominem attacks in the rest of your post.

 

[bonzo75]

I went to a concert with fellow WBF members yesterday featuring Brahms violin sonatas played in a large living room. With eyes closed I could precisely locate both violin and piano. And the image of the violin wasn't large either, in fact it was quite small.

I love his violin sonatas. I heard Kavakos do those with Yuja Wang, then Richard Tognetti, some others, scheduled to hear Vengerov do later this year. I think we will need to define small and large now. It certainly is larger than it looks, and gets bigger the v further you step away.

 

[thedudeabides]

I don't think you can generalize like that. It totally depends on the music, the hall and where you are sitting.

Then, there is the recording... the intent is NOT to always sound like you're in the middle to back of the hall, the perspective is most often intentionally front row with close-miked parts added to capture more detail. Is this natural? Well, it's not the way you hear it sitting in the middle of the hall, but it's not meant to be, it's meant to be played back at home on a stereo system.

If you're going to compare live to recorded it needs to be an attempt by the recording artist to actually capture the live sound you'd hear at a certain place in the hall. Some simple 2-mic recordings do, imo, achieve this to one level or another, and with simpler music it can actually come out sounding very realistic.

The dynamics from trumpets can be reproduced very realistically as well, if you don't think so you haven't heard the right horn system.

Totally agree. Some of the most realistic (to my ears) classical CD recordings I have are produced by Water Lily. And yes, they are "live" recordings with a very "laid back" perspective.

 

[spiritofmusic]

I’m sure I saw banners at Arsenal that said “Vengerov Out!”.

 

[Al M.]

I don't think you can generalize like that. It totally depends on the music, the hall and where you are sitting.

Then, there is the recording... the intent is NOT to always sound like you're in the middle to back of the hall, the perspective is most often intentionally front row with close-miked parts added to capture more detail. Is this natural? Well, it's not the way you hear it sitting in the middle of the hall, but it's not meant to be, it's meant to be played back at home on a stereo system.

Yes, and in fact I like to sit upfront in a concert hall, not just in small ones, but also in large ones. In Boston Symphony Hall that means in the best case row 9 or 10 (close to the stage the sound washes over your head), in other large halls I prefer closer.

 

[Al M.]

I love his violin sonatas.

Yes, I was fascinated not just by the range of emotions, but also by the intricate polyphony between violin and piano. A master composer.

 

[DaveC]

We might actually agree more than disagree, it depends on our definition of "pinpoint". Our perceptions do depend on many things... SPL in general, SPL of the sound in question vs SPL of other noises, frequencies involved (we are most sensitive to certain frequencies and bass is perceived as omnidirectional), etc... so there is going to be some variance in how we spatially perceive sound. A solo violinist without accompaniment may have a "pinpoint image" while a stand up bass towards the back of the stage may never, even if they are soloing.

 

[bonzo75]

Yes, I was fascinated not just by the range of emotions, but also by the intricate polyphony between violin and piano. A master composer.

I didn't like his 2nd symphony and piano concerto though. The violin scherzo is also good. The Kavakos Yuja Wang sonatas we attended was recorded by Decca and CD is available on Amazon though not sure how quality is

 

[PeterA]

I went to a concert with fellow WBF members yesterday featuring Brahms violin sonatas played in a large living room. With eyes closed I could precisely locate both violin and piano. And the image of the violin wasn't large either, in fact it was quite small.

3/4 of the Boston Audio Group - Al, Madfloyd, and I - attended this concert together last night. It was in a large living room in a former private residence. We were sitting about 10-15 feet from the performers, second row, up close. The violinist explained that this music was composed for, and meant to be heard in, settings very much like the one in which we were. The performance was spectacular and the music was really enjoyable. Three sonatas for Violin and Piano, Op. 78 No. 1 in G Major, Op. 100 No.2 in A Major, and Op. 108 No. 3 in D minor. I particularly liked 100 and 108.

I agree with DaveC and with Al. Imaging was very precise, especially for the violin. We could hear the fine, detailed texture of the bow vibrating the strings and the breathing of the violinist, just like the details in a close mic'd good recording. Those details were a part of the performance and if captured on the recording, I want to hear them. The music was extremely dynamic and some of the notes were piercing, but unlike some of the hyper "accurate" systems I've heard which excel at presenting details and high frequencies, this sound was utterly natural and not at all fatiguing. And it was loud. I've heard systems described by owners as "accurate". My ears hurt after twenty minutes even at moderate volumes with some of these systems. The sound last night was hyper detailed, loud and clean, but with no fatigue. The best systems manage to get this right and can be listened to for long periods at pretty high volume.

And this may be shocking, but I actually think that the better audio systems that I've heard sound fairly close to what we heard last night. Not quite the same explosive dynamics, but close, and the tone is also not far off. Scale is also not far off. The challenges are less than with other types of music, especially symphonic and jazz, but for chamber music, heard up close, a closely mic'd recording on a really good system can be pretty darn convincing. Madfloyd's system can do it. So can some others I've heard. Perhaps in my opinion only.

 

[NorthStar]

 

[audioguy]

And this may be shocking, but I actually think that the better audio systems that I've heard sound fairly close to what we heard last night. Not quite the same explosive dynamics, but close, and the tone is also not far off. Scale is also not far off. The challenges are less than with other types of music, especially symphonic and jazz, but for chamber music, heard up close, a closely mic'd recording on a really good system can be pretty darn convincing. Madfloyd's system can do it. So can some others I've heard. Perhaps in my opinion only.

Interesting. My only experience of an in-home "concert" was when my wife hired a 3 piece jazz combo for a previous birthday. That musical performance is what convinced me to stop chasing two channel high end audio. Another audio buddy was there that night (with a much nicer 2 channel system than mine) and he, too agreed after hearing that performance, that reproduced audio was not even close. Given your view and conclusion, my guess would be the dynamics of real instruments (in my case, a piano, sax and drum set - particularly the drum and sax) are simply too much to capture on CDs or vinyl. There were other differences (scale being another huge difference) as well but those MAY have been the biggest differentiators.

As for what is the reference for a 2 channel system, I think the best one can achieve is what is the microphones hear. When I sit in the Atlanta Symphony, I really don't here precise imaging (10th row, center) but a mic placed above and near a piano most certainly can.

 

[PeterA]

Interesting. My only experience of an in-home "concert" was when my wife hired a 3 piece jazz combo for a previous birthday. That musical performance is what convinced me to stop chasing two channel high end audio. Another audio buddy was there that night (with a much nicer 2 channel system than mine) and he, too agreed after hearing that performance, that reproduced audio was not even close. Given your view and conclusion, my guess would be the dynamics of real instruments (in my case, a piano, sax and drum set - particularly the drum and sax) are simply too much to capture on CDs or vinyl. There were other differences (scale being another huge difference) as well but those MAY have been the biggest differentiators.

As for what is the reference for a 2 channel system, I think the best one can achieve is what is the microphones hear. When I sit in the Atlanta Symphony, I really don't here precise imaging (10th row, center) but a mic placed above and near a piano most certainly can.

I think it has a lot to do with the type of music, the room, and the distance. There is still a gap, but I was surprised at how close they can sound. Some people say that audio "doesn't come close.". My only point is, that in some circumstances, the distance is not as great as some would have you believe. I have heard piano reproduced more convincingly than a drum set or saxophone. A jazz trio in a house would be quite something in terms of volume and dynamics.

 

[PeterA]

Live, but not unamplified, music. I went to a rare live rock concert the other night in Boston at a small venue. Heard the Zombies. "She's Not There", "Time of the Season", Hold Your Head Up, Woman". Time warp and classic. Two of these guys have been playing together for FIFTY (50) years. Amazing. The warm up band played one song off mic, unamplified. Just voice and acoustic guitar. It was wild how much cleaner and intelligible the sound was.

 

[Brystoner cwr]

The sound of live, unamplified music is at least a known reference factor. It cannot lead you in the wrong direction, and it carries the potential benefit of bringing the emotion of the original event with it if you approach 'perfection'.

 

[DaveyF]

The sound of live, unamplified music is at least a known reference factor. It cannot lead you in the wrong direction, and it carries the potential benefit of bringing the emotion of the original event with it if you approach 'perfection'.

+1

 

[Ron Resnick]

The sound of live, unamplified music is at least a known reference factor. It cannot lead you in the wrong direction, and it carries the potential benefit of bringing the emotion of the original event with it if you approach 'perfection'.

+1

 

[spiritofmusic]

After finishing up with my current setup in the last 5 years, rim drive/air arm, SETs, FR spkrs, creating the ideal acoustic and providing clean power to the system in the last 2 years, and in the last 2 weeks finally bedding in a complex analog front end reinstall, settling on the optimal subs crossover settings for my room, and ideal spkrs toe in, I really do feel my sound has come of age.
I’ve just returned from a truly amazing concert at a large local church of Ravel, Debussy and Chausson. Third row, central.
And I’m looking for the differences, where my system fails, and where it succeeds.
What I’m really proud of in what I’ve achieved is that the quality deficit is less than ever. Ignoring the cosmic dynamics and energy/volume scaling that’s always off the charts when listening live, I really feel my tone density, timbral accuracy and sheer solidity of presentation and naturally warm vibe holds up.
And indeed, one ongoing reservation I’ve been having in my sound (slight opaqueness mids to lower mids/upper bass), I actually experienced at the concert (where the layers of wind instruments vied w all the strings and percussion in a non treated space, and the sheer energy of the Ravel finale overcharged the space).
This suggests to me I ought to look at a little room treatment via GIK scattering plates especially in my descending eaves reflection points.
For me, I couldn’t be happier that what I hear live is being represented really nicely at home, I’m not driven to any wholesale changes. Just more noise floor reduction and potential further management of room acoustics.

 

[andromedaaudio]

Funny , i use churches also for some references .
In my expirience digital doesnt cut IT at all, softening digital up with tubes like zanden and ARC makes IT closer.
Tape is the real deal, IT lacks a bit in resolution and microdynamics but pretty good.
I actually think all this audiophile cable switching / tweaking is trying to make digital listenable

Come to think of IT , did the expensive cable business arose at the same time as the digital age?

 

[spiritofmusic]

Churches are great, just the aesthetics make for a great experience
Natural reverb is v attractive too
I like the fact these spaces are as close to our domestic compared to highly engineered professional venue spaces (literally in my case since we live in a chapel)

 

[andromedaaudio]

May be my statement was to absolute , i actually have some good digital recordings small studios mostly simple recordings , talking like 4 in 100