Is Live, Unamplified Music the Correct Reference for the Sound of our Audio Systems?
- Thread starter Ron Resnick
- Start date
Over the years I setup a lot of systems for audiophiles and while many agree on some type of live music experience as “the” goal it remains a foggy concept to them and not the clear concrete set of values as some of us see it as. There’s the notion of live and then there’s live, I believe people are confusing the two and a lot the discussion here about people hearing differently or it’s all subjective comes from. IME there’s no more debate when they’re shown the difference between a real live sounding system and merely suggestions of live. Let’s face it not many systems can approach “Live” even with proper setup and room but you can easily add fake “live” cues to almost every system with a combination of wires and tweaks, unfortunately many stop there or go even further down the rabbit hole by compiling even more tweaks getting further away from “Live” while chasing the attainable false “live”; we’re all guilty of having done that at some point.
david
As per Jack’s suggestion everyone please insert Like or like where I have “Live” or “live” in relation to systems, he’s right!
david
morricab said:
Bummer. I always write in another text edit programme or Gmail so my drafts don’t get lost.
With all due respect to Hiraga and Cheever (whose work I think is interesting), there is no where near enough corresponding research to suggest with any measure of statistical significance their work can be extrapolated to the general populace. You cannot use a small sample group to represent an entire population. Again, individual data points can be valuable, but simply insufficient for any conclusions beyond the study itself. To believe it to be sufficient is another form of hasty generalisation. (1)
morricab said:
Perhaps that may be true of individual systems, but I personally would not be willing to state that must therefore be true of all systems (again, generalising from the particular). And while I completely agree there are lots of musically relevant parameters layers of square waves will not tell us about a system’s ability to reproduce acoustic music, I cannot say that therefore there are lots of musically relevant parameters acoustic music will tell us about a system’s ability to reproduce layers of square waves.
Again, each artist or piece of music is perhaps best evaluated on its own merits, relative to that specific system. A case by case basis allows us to make observations of some validity. Extrapolation from individual data points has none. I dropped the word “accurately” for all the above reasons in my previous post.
morricab said:
Again, I’m not trying to get “reality”, or “accuracy”, or “live” or “truth to the original recording”. I understand many might be, but again, the sheer fact that those who claim all those things end up “achieving” it in divergent ways suggest we are perhaps less good at assembling systems that achieve some sort of Platonic absolute ideal in reality, but very good at devising ways for justifying why we think we’ve done so. Those who claim such things tells us much more about individual perception, preferences and biases than anything about reality.
Nevertheless, that you and I would perhaps be likely to end up with very similar systems in an ideal world suggests that despite our divergent ideological frameworks for why, there must be something in common that we are both looking for relative to our perception and preferences. That we might give that thing a different name, and for different reasons is in itself interesting (2). But I would never extrapolate that to suggest that a thousand, or even a hundred other people would share that preference. Heck, it may not be anymore than a handful.
Best!
853guy
(1) There are numerous studies that show low statistical power is rife among studies that get made into headlines. What's more "statistically significant" only means it can be detected to a level of certainty. Significant is something completely different.
(2) Again, I think the brain’s neurobiological response to music has the best chance of giving further insight into this. Me and you and everyone else arguing about word definitions and appealing to studies of limited sample sizes via the internet certainly won’t.
morricab said:
No worries. Nothing several years of expensive counselling won't fix.
+1. Cheever used a whopping 5 people for his thesis. He also talked a lot about the Cary 300SEI and 805 have all the hallmarks of bad SET to these ears, but I digress.
While his work is an interesting read, its just that.
David, while at this point I'm not sure I have any clue towards exactly what kind of sound you like for sure...
One thing I'm certain about is I agree that almost no stereos actually sound like live music to me - and when they do it may be very limited. But I'm also about equally as sure different people think different attributes make something sound live. For example neither you or I are into grounding boxes, but we know for others some of their attributes do make it sound more live - but neither of us reach this conclusion.
To me the most important factors (off the top of my head atm) for live are texture (weight), harmonics, and scaling volume. Those are what make instruments sound real or not. But the recording studio and mastering can absolutely obliterate any of them, so no matter how "live" a stereo can sound, it is always recording dependent for me. And even so I enjoy many albums that don't really sound realistic for the instruments because they've deployed such strong sound stage attributes etc. With all of that in mind I know for certain that while maybe important, basically none of that is what determines a "live" or realistic sound for others. For others it seems to often be soundstage related and removing signs of the recording process.
I would say that removing signs of the recording process hampers the ultimate capability, but you get a benefit many are looking for across all of their music instead of having to be very selective if they want a real "live" -ish experience.
As per Jack’s suggestion everyone please insert Like or like where I have “Live” or “live” in relation to systems, he’s right!
david
Thank you David. I would just like to add that I am in agreement with you that "Like Live" is doable particularly with certain respects. They aren't hard to discern either. In typical reproduction I find we experience the sound coming out of the speakers as more aural. The sustained visceral aspect is typically diminished or handicapped. In the systems I have experienced that are most "live like" the experience is most easily described as a good balance between hearing and feeling. The energy comes in pressure fronts just as one would actually experience live. To take that a step further in the "like live" direction there is also what I can only feebly analogize as the panorama of the pressure waves. In the most natural or realistic forms there is a balance of pressure across a wide area. We are not simply talking about bass that creeps along the lower third or half of the room. IME it is most "live like" when there is coherence throughout the pressure wave launches.
This is what makes very large panels, horns with wider throw and tall wide dispersion speakers very appealing to those that seek this kind of presentation. The flip side is that with loudspeakers like these all noise and signal correlated artifice becomes much more intrusive and thus must be dealt with with care. Should the listening space be such that it might overload and ring, that should be dealt with too albeit it is also my experience as an acoustician that every space is unique and sometimes by blind luck, some rooms might need only very light alterations depending on the shell's geometry and construction, while others may require large amounts of work. Is it the holy grail all must aspire to? In my view no. That can be left to only the most ambitious (I call myself simply greedy LOL). Enjoyment will always be my primary motivation and should one enjoy almost surgical, hyper graphic detail or simply the soothing sweetness and warmth presentations, I find that just as valid.
Lastly, I have found that those that do seek "live like" are music collectors first and foremost. The big exotic systems are tools to unlock the potentials of the music we love so much we have invested in them. We simply want to be in situations where we can most enjoy these objects d art be they vinyl, tape or any digital format under the sun.
So while it has become the mantra that those who have greater lengths than most are simply gear heads and audio fashionistas, I would disagree. The equipment are simply tools that hopefully will display the beauty of the music the way one might choose the right lighting for his paintings and sculptures or even downlights in their garages.
The bottom line is that there are many ways to skin the proverbial cat and each of us due to a plethora of real world limitations can do only what we can within those limitations. I have no room for Bionors or very large planars, so I went with tall and slim. In my mind, the end result is what natters and we must all simply choose what deficiencies we can work with, accept the set of limitations imposed by our choices and hopefully enjoy WHILE we go through the processes.
As I said many pages ago in this thread, I believe that "like live" is my baseline and not the ultimate goal. I say this because I also believe that it is my right to configure my system in a ways in which I can simply best enjoy my collection. That to me is what is subjective. I feel that with the investments I've made it is my right to use the myriad tools to personalize my pleasure.
At the end of the day, at Live there is a communal sense of enjoyment. At home, there is the enjoyment of ONE. If others enjoy what I enjoy, that is simply gravy.
My. ext big upgrade is a really good coffee machine and grinder
No one said it was conclusive. It is, however, quite consistent with findings, anecdotal and controlled, by audio writers and researchers from the last 50 years or so. They all point the same direction...including Pass (thus his FirstWatt projects). Also, he never mentioned the 805 in his thesis...did you actually read it? In your vehemence to reject at least get your facts straight. He used the 300SEI as an example of an amp that got praise subjectively but measured poorly, contrasted with the Bryston 3BST, which measured great and sounds...well, like crap.
What is interesting about the Hyperion is that it measures a lot like a very high power SET with somewhat better measurements up to clipping than most SETs. This is clearly by design and not a "flaw".
Theres a lot of music I listen to and hardly any are from audiophile labels which I find unlistenable, I find average records perfectly acceptable so I’m not limited to the finest for pleasure, the same goes for systems. Everything you named harmonics, scaling texture, tone, timbre, etc. are important but there’s also the ability of the system to play and keep the small and the soft parts rich and tuneful is very important. The intonations and subtleties that exist in voice or instruments are often homogenized and destroyed in playback to the point that people don’t know they even exist. I need that for a lifelike experience, that’s the heart and where the soul of the musician communicates, without that the emotional content of live experience is missing. I find grounding boxes you mentioned The biggest killers of the small and exactly what I was referring to as false live like. I do t want the system to to homogenize, add, edit or impress itself over the content. Yes everything has color but good systems retrieve all that’s in the medium allow the original content to play through unharmed or grossly edited.
david
Thank you David. I would just like to add that I am in agreement with you that "Like Live" is doable particularly with certain respects. They aren't hard to discern either. In typical reproduction I find we experience the sound coming out of the speakers as more aural. The sustained visceral aspect is typically diminished or handicapped. In the systems I have experienced that are most "live like" the experience is most easily described as a good balance between hearing and feeling. The energy comes in pressure fronts just as one would actually experience live. To take that a step further in the "like live" direction there is also what I can only feebly analogize as the panorama of the pressure waves. In the most natural or realistic forms there is a balance of pressure across a wide area. We are not simply talking about bass that creeps along the lower third or half of the room. IME it is most "live like" when there is coherence throughout the pressure wave launches.
This is what makes very large panels, horns with wider throw and tall wide dispersion speakers very appealing to those that seek this kind of presentation. The flip side is that with loudspeakers like these all noise and signal correlated artifice becomes much more intrusive and thus must be dealt with with care. Should the listening space be such that it might overload and ring, that should be dealt with too albeit it is also my experience as an acoustician that every space is unique and sometimes by blind luck, some rooms might need only very light alterations depending on the shell's geometry and construction, while others may require large amounts of work. Is it the holy grail all must aspire to? In my view no. That can be left to only the most ambitious (I call myself simply greedy LOL). Enjoyment will always be my primary motivation and should one enjoy almost surgical, hyper graphic detail or simply the soothing sweetness and warmth presentations, I find that just as valid.
Lastly, I have found that those that do seek "live like" are music collectors first and foremost. The big exotic systems are tools to unlock the potentials of the music we love so much we have invested in them. We simply want to be in situations where we can most enjoy these objects d art be they vinyl, tape or any digital format under the sun.
So while it has become the mantra that those who have greater lengths than most are simply gear heads and audio fashionistas, I would disagree. The equipment are simply tools that hopefully will display the beauty of the music the way one might choose the right lighting for his paintings and sculptures or even downlights in their garages.
The bottom line is that there are many ways to skin the proverbial cat and each of us due to a plethora of real world limitations can do only what we can within those limitations. I have no room for Bionors or very large planars, so I went with tall and slim. In my mind, the end result is what natters and we must all simply choose what deficiencies we can work with, accept the set of limitations imposed by our choices and hopefully enjoy WHILE we go through the processes.
As I said many pages ago in this thread, I believe that "like live" is my baseline and not the ultimate goal. I say this because I also believe that it is my right to configure my system in a ways in which I can simply best enjoy my collection. That to me is what is subjective. I feel that with the investments I've made it is my right to use the myriad tools to personalize my pleasure.
At the end of the day, at Live there is a communal sense of enjoyment. At home, there is the enjoyment of ONE. If others enjoy what I enjoy, that is simply gravy.
My. ext big upgrade is a really good coffee machine and grinder
I agree with everything you said specially the hunt for a new coffee system which I’m also researching, bought a couple of well reviewed machines recently and they suck, so now I’m traveling to actually taste the brew from the machine before I purchase anything else.
With efficient speakers noise of any kind can be problematic but the process of eliminating(not masking)those artifacts can be as educational as it is frustrating.
david
My friend, the late Allen Wright from Vacuumstate, called the ability to clear render low level information in the presence of loud information downward dynamic range. I agree that this ability to hear "into" things is a key to lifelike experience.
I have not really played too much with grounding boxes but I have found passive power filters do this often as well. Power regenerators seem to benefit.
Hi 853,
Great post! Outstanding writing - I think you are consistently, from post to post, the best writer on the site. And I know it's a real bitch to condense your writing, that's why most never bother with that hard work.
Yet let me be a jerk and summarize everything you say in a one-line Shakespeare quote from As You Like It: "O, how bitter a thing it is to look into happiness through another man's eyes!"
P.S. With Canelo vs. Golovkin being cancelled, and constant arguments between audio "experts" about which gear sounds "more real" with acoustic instruments in their imagination, who would you pick in a fight between "Sterile" Jon Valin and "Great" Peter Breuninger whether Kronos turntable vs Acoustic Signature turntable sounds more real with acoustic instruments? Or "Sterile" Jon Valin vs. "Snooty" Peter McGrath on whether Wilson vs. Magico sounds more real in their imagination? Maybe this can be settled once and for all at Axpona or in Munich
That is an interesting point. I used to lament that my listening room is not very large (24 x 12 x 8.5 ft), which detracts from large scale realism (even though that is to a certain extent helped by the depth of spatial presentation that I have). Yet I found that it also has a distinct advantage: a not very large room like this is more easily energized by the music.
For example, when I was recently listening to music for soprano sax and electric jazz guitar (more of a plucking sound) I was marveling how, at no excessive loudness, the sound from just these two instruments fully energized the room at the listening position (distance tweeter to ear of 9 feet), greatly adding to a visceral 'live feel'. There was no bass pressure involved in this energizing of the room obviously; yet on drum-driven music my system also energizes the room effortlessly.
In large rooms, it may take much larger speakers, driven by much larger amps, to achieve an equally energized room and 'live' feel. This can get very expensive very quickly, especially if you want to have comparable precision and resolution of sound.
David, most of voice intonation is volume change, so I actually distinctly listen for just that! I care very much about how the voice sounds, and do find when the subtleties are gone it's too far removed from "real" for me. But I can compromise at some point. Here's an example, MarkAudio drivers can detail a voice far beyond anything else, but they have pretty big limitations I haven't been able to commit to - and I have yet to hear them be able to anything but small in scale.
Yes, grounding boxes gain in one area, and lose in another. We have similar findings in that regard.
I don't doubt for one minute what you are describing Al. As I think I've said many times over the years here at WBF, there is scale but scale is also relative. Just like a commercial tablet would be relatively equivalent in field of view while held at a comfortable distance to a 40+ inch screen from 7 or 8 feet, the same can be said for one's distance from one's speakers. The distance itself, as we know how sound pressure decreases by about 6dB with every doubling of distance, gives great advantages to the near or near-midfield in terms of articulation and detail. There is just less air in between. This extends throughout the range and not just the highs.
Big rooms and big systems as I mentioned earlier while offering potential, comes with its own set of heavy challenges. So much so that at one point, I actually regretted building a room so large because I thought what I had then could pressurize my room. I tried manipulating the power to weight ratio by force-feeding my then speakers with stupid amounts of headroom but in the end, while I got the peaks, the strain at low levels was just not tenable for me. I sold the same speakers to a friend wit a room about 60% of my room size and with half the power, the speakers sounded better than here at home.
At shows, I've gone with monitor and sub combos that flipped peoples minds, so I certainly see where you are coming from. That said, for the addicted, the question remains, can we do more? I say, you betcha. Problem is.....man, it's gonna cost ya! Time, money, effort. To some it just will never bye worth it. For those that tried and failed, burn out awaits. For those that are fortunate enough to actually get results despite diminishing returns, the reward for the effort is priceless.
It is physics and biology after all. While relative scale will always be there, the question of usable energy will be there as well. Is bigger always better? I say only if it is done right. If not, it can certainly be A LOT worse! I know first hand. It takes me about a month to dial in a big rig. "Why the )&^)*^ do I do this?" pops up quite often in the duration of that month. LOL
Jack, I think we are in complete agreement. While you can get fantastic sound from a smaller system in a medium sized room, for world-class reproduction of large scale you need large speakers in a large room, but yes, it's gonna cost ya, it's challenging, and it takes a lot of effort to dial in properly (dialing in my system is not such a big deal, but I have spent years on the acoustics of my room, which is yet another matter).
I would even go further: If I had unlimited resources I would want at least two systems, one with large speakers in a large room, and one with smaller speakers in a smaller room, for intimacy of small scale. Best would be a third system in between ...
Just a question on one comment in your post:
"I tried manipulating the power to weight ratio by force-feeding my then speakers with stupid amounts of headroom but in the end, while I got the peaks, the strain at low levels was just not tenable for me."
What do you mean by "strain at low levels"?
Basically that at low levels, I was still using a lot of power. In my instance then, I was drifting out of class A a lot. When I went with speakers twice the size I was using a lot less power for the same SPL. I could have simply moved my chair closer to the speakers as well as have the speakers closer together with the older speakers but first the room would have looked really weird. More importantly, the room was built from the get go to have the big brothers when the day came that I could afford them. The force feeding was really more of a stop gap measure, wattage being relatively cheap and all. I wish I had the M1s back then so I could have taken notes of wattage usage. In any case I simply felt that the force fed system had to be played to loud to come to life. It just lacked the sense of ease.
Similar threads
