Live music, Tone and Presence: What most systems get wrong

[PeterA]

Al M. and I attended a live jazz quartet last night. We heard the Stan Strickland Band. They played in a small black box theater. The performance was great but we were ultimately disappointed by the event. The singer/horn player, keyboardist and acoustic bassist were all amplified. The feed came out of two tiny monitors hidden amongst the theater lights in the blacked out ceiling. The voice and bass sounded strange. The sax sounded its best when Strickland walked away from the mic and into the center of the stage. Dynamics were constrained and I think this was from the timing and sound coming from two sources: the actual instrument and the monitors.

The experience reinforced for me the importance or influence that visual cues have. When I listened with my eyes open I had the perception that the sound was coming from the guy twenty feet in front of me who was moving his mouth. But when I closed my eyes, I could hear that the sound was clearly coming from the ceiling. Same with the bass. The drums were played mostly softly and were not amplified. They sounded great. When Al took out his digital SPL meter and it recorded 103 db during vocal peaks, we each put foam ear plugs in our ears. That, of course, made the sound even worse.

It was a fun evening, and the performance was great, but the sonics were disappointing. At least we left without our ears ringing. This event stands in stark contrast to the last live performance Al and I attended with MadFloyd. That was of a violinist and cellist playing in a private house in Boston for about twenty five people. No amplification needed and the shear energy of those two instruments filled the room with glorious sound. The music was intoxicating. It was much better than anything I've heard from an audio system. The amplified jazz quartet, on the other hand, sounded annoying after a while.

I am beginning to understand why a few people have given up attending live shows all together. The sonics are often only mediocre, and you are lucky if your ears don't bleed on the way out. I am becoming less and less interested in amplified concerts, even though the performances can be excellent and the whole vibe a lot of fun. Last night also confirmed that as a reference for how live instruments actually sound, un-amplified is best.

View attachment 30654

 

[PeterA]

deleted. Copy of above.

 

[morricab]

Al M. and I attended a live jazz quartet last night. We heard the Stan Strickland Band. They played in a small black box theater. The performance was great but we were ultimately disappointed by the event. The singer/horn player, keyboardist and acoustic bassist were all amplified. The feed came out of two tiny monitors hidden amongst the theater lights in the blacked out ceiling. The voice and bass sounded strange. The sax sounded its best when Strickland walked away from the mic and into the center of the stage. Dynamics were constrained and I think this was from the timing and sound coming from two sources: the actual instrument and the monitors.

The experience reinforced for me the importance or influence that visual cues have. When I listened with my eyes open I had the perception that the sound was coming from the guy twenty feet in front of me who was moving his mouth. But when I closed my eyes, I could hear that the sound was clearly coming from the ceiling. Same with the bass. The drums were played mostly softly and were not amplified. They sounded great. When Al took out his digital SPL meter and it recorded 103 db during vocal peaks, we each put foam ear plugs in our ears. That, of course, made the sound even worse.

It was a fun evening, and the performance was great, but the sonics were disappointing. At least we left without our ears ringing. This event stands in stark contrast to the last live performance Al and I attended with MadFloyd. That was of a violinist and cellist playing in a private house in Boston for about twenty five people. No amplification needed and the shear energy of those two instruments filled the room with glorious sound. The music was intoxicating. It was much better than anything I've heard from an audio system. The amplified jazz quartet, on the other hand, sounded annoying after a while.

I am beginning to understand why a few people have given up attending live shows all together. The sonics are often only mediocre, and you are lucky if your ears don't bleed on the way out. I am becoming less and less interested in amplified concerts, even though the performances can be excellent and the whole vibe a lot of fun. Last night also confirmed that as a reference for how live instruments actually sound, un-amplified is best.

View attachment 30654

Exactly, live unamplified is the only real reference we have in this hobby.

 

[morricab]

Al M. and I attended a live jazz quartet last night. We heard the Stan Strickland Band. They played in a small black box theater. The performance was great but we were ultimately disappointed by the event. The singer/horn player, keyboardist and acoustic bassist were all amplified. The feed came out of two tiny monitors hidden amongst the theater lights in the blacked out ceiling. The voice and bass sounded strange. The sax sounded its best when Strickland walked away from the mic and into the center of the stage. Dynamics were constrained and I think this was from the timing and sound coming from two sources: the actual instrument and the monitors.

The experience reinforced for me the importance or influence that visual cues have. When I listened with my eyes open I had the perception that the sound was coming from the guy twenty feet in front of me who was moving his mouth. But when I closed my eyes, I could hear that the sound was clearly coming from the ceiling. Same with the bass. The drums were played mostly softly and were not amplified. They sounded great. When Al took out his digital SPL meter and it recorded 103 db during vocal peaks, we each put foam ear plugs in our ears. That, of course, made the sound even worse.

It was a fun evening, and the performance was great, but the sonics were disappointing. At least we left without our ears ringing. This event stands in stark contrast to the last live performance Al and I attended with MadFloyd. That was of a violinist and cellist playing in a private house in Boston for about twenty five people. No amplification needed and the shear energy of those two instruments filled the room with glorious sound. The music was intoxicating. It was much better than anything I've heard from an audio system. The amplified jazz quartet, on the other hand, sounded annoying after a while.

I am beginning to understand why a few people have given up attending live shows all together. The sonics are often only mediocre, and you are lucky if your ears don't bleed on the way out. I am becoming less and less interested in amplified concerts, even though the performances can be excellent and the whole vibe a lot of fun. Last night also confirmed that as a reference for how live instruments actually sound, un-amplified is best.

View attachment 30654

Exactly, live unamplified is the only real reference we have in this hobby.

 

[853guy]

Exactly, live unamplified is the only real reference we have in this hobby.

Hi morricab,

You'd exclude any music involving electric guitars, bass or synths?

 

[morricab]

Hi morricab,

You'd exclude any music involving electric guitars, bass or synths?

Exclude from what? A reference? Probably although an electric guitar direct through a guitar amp without a PA gives a pretty visceral sound I have to say but it can sound like anything depending on what you run the signal through.

 

[microstrip]

(...) The experience reinforced for me the importance or influence that visual cues have. When I listened with my eyes open I had the perception that the sound was coming from the guy twenty feet in front of me who was moving his mouth. But when I closed my eyes, I could hear that the sound was clearly coming from the ceiling. Same with the bass. The drums were played mostly softly and were not amplified. They sounded great. When Al took out his digital SPL meter and it recorded 103 db during vocal peaks, we each put foam ear plugs in our ears. That, of course, made the sound even worse. (...)

In classical music the visual cues are inseparable from sound reproduction. Once we miss them we look elsewhere to rebuilt the performance.

Probably because in real events I keep my eyes open, I find difficult to listen with shut eyes. Even listening in the dark with open eyes is quite different from closing the eyes. I always listen in the light and find that a proper lighting of the scene around and between the speakers is a great help for full immersion in the playback.

 

[bonzo75]

In classical music the visual cues are inseparable from sound reproduction. Once we miss them we look elsewhere to rebuilt the performance.

Probably because in real events I keep my eyes open, I find difficult to listen with shut eyes. Even listening in the dark with open eyes is quite different from closing the eyes. I always listen in the light and find that a proper lighting of the scene around and between the speakers is a great help for full immersion in the playback.

I do both, open and shut. Open eyes make the sound seem more from a point source than shut eyes. It is easier to keep eyes shut with soloists than with orchestra

 

[PeterA]

In classical music the visual cues are inseparable from sound reproduction. Once we miss them we look elsewhere to rebuilt the performance.

Probably because in real events I keep my eyes open, I find difficult to listen with shut eyes. Even listening in the dark with open eyes is quite different from closing the eyes. I always listen in the light and find that a proper lighting of the scene around and between the speakers is a great help for full immersion in the playback.

I explained that I closed my eyes for portions of the performance to confirm what I was hearing. The sound was coming both from the instrument itself but also from the PA monitors on the ceiling. With eyes closed, it was trivial to hear that the amplified sound was louder than the direct sound. This effected the timing, dynamics and overall timbre of the instruments and of the performance. It was all kind of weird. It was a real shame and ruined the quality of the sound for me.

At home, I listen in the dark in the evenings and sometimes with the lights low. During the daytime, the natural light flows in the room through the blinds. I agree that it effects the experience, but I am not sure to what extent it effects my perception of the sound. At the BSO, I usually listen with my eyes open.

 

[Jim Smith]

Exactly, live unamplified is the only real reference we have in this hobby.

Don't disagree with the concept, but this assumes great mics, great mic placement (including optimization for those particular mics and their pick-up patterns), great recording gear, etc. And it's often made on Canare or Mogami mic cable, certainly not Transparent or other high-end cables.

For these reasons and more, I have been somewhat uncomfortable with the live-unamplified-music-is-the-only-real-reference concept.

 

[PeterA]

Don't disagree with the concept, but this assumes great mics, great mic placement (including optimization for those particular mics and their pick-up patterns), great recording gear, etc. And it's often made on Canare or Mogami mic cable, certainly not Transparent or other high-end cables.

For these reasons and more, I have been somewhat uncomfortable with the live-unamplified-music-is-the-only-real-reference concept.

Jim, how do you judge the quality of an audio system if not by comparing it to your memory of the sound of instruments that you have heard? Is it by the emotional impact the music being played has on you as a listener, ie your listener involvement or by some other means? Do you simply try to optimize the qualities of Tone, Dynamics and Presence because when you go to voice a system to its room, you really only have the equipment in the room and recordings you bring?

 

[Jim Smith]

Jim, how do you judge the quality of an audio system if not by comparing it to your memory of the sound of instruments that you have heard? Is it by the emotional impact the music being played has on you as a listener, ie your listener involvement or by some other means? Do you simply try to optimize the qualities of Tone, Dynamics and Presence because when you go to voice a system to its room, you really only have the equipment in the room and recordings you bring?

Since every room and each component will - to some extent - alter the sound, for me it is carrying in my head, and hopefully in my heart, the impact achieved from listening to my playlist that - when reproduced as best as possible, results in a deep emotional engagement in the music.

Also, since even the recording engineers do not agree on the best mics or their placement, I don't see how live un-amplified music can be a reliable reference if we are trying to evaluate components and comparing their reproduction to live music. Are we evaluating the component or the taste/ability of the recording engineer?

I think that live un-amplified music as a reference is a great concept from an idealistic standpoint, but - when considered as the main evaluative benchmark - it is fraught with peril due to the reasons above and some other issues I haven't mentioned.

IMO, of course...

 

[bonzo75]

Since every room and each component will - to some extent - alter the sound, for me it is carrying in my head, and hopefully in my heart, the impact achieved from listening to my playlist that - when reproduced as best as possible, results in a deep emotional engagement in the music.

Also, since even the recording engineers do not agree on the best mics or their placement, I don't see how live un-amplified music can be a reliable reference if we are trying to evaluate components and comparing their reproduction to live music. Are we evaluating the component or the taste/ability of the recording engineer?

I think that live un-amplified music as a reference is a great concept from an idealistic standpoint, but - when considered as the main evaluative benchmark - it is fraught with peril due to the reasons above and some other issues I haven't mentioned.

IMO, of course...

What we are evaluating is how close is the real feeling you get to the concert halls you visit. That day I compared the Dynavector XV-1T to the AN IO J - did not like the latter at all - too rolled off, not real for me. This had nothing to do with reproduction, mike placement, etc - the timbre is just not what I am used to, based on my experience and my mental calibrations - in which case, what I am interested in knowing is the background/experience of the person and what he calibrates his ear to - both in terms of live concerts and gear knowledge.

When 4 of us compared Kronos Sparta/Shelter 2k cart/Lux phono to Metronome Kalista and the CD player (a 85k Euro combo), I (and the other 3) could make out that the Kronos was real on classical. When we played amplified, both sounded equally good and pleasing.

 

[Jim Smith]

What we are evaluating is how close is the real feeling you get to the concert halls you visit. That day I compared the Dynavector XV-1T to the AN IO J - did not like the latter at all - too rolled off, not real for me. This had nothing to do with reproduction, mike placement, etc - the timbre is just not what I am used to, based on my experience and my mental calibrations - in which case, what I am interested in knowing is the background/experience of the person and what he calibrates his ear to - both in terms of live concerts and gear knowledge.

When 4 of us compared Kronos Sparta/Shelter 2k cart/Lux phono to Metronome Kalista and the CD player (a 85k Euro combo), I (and the other 3) could make out that the Kronos was real on classical. When we played amplified, both sounded equally good and pleasing.

OK.

Since concert halls you visit are vastly different, including where you sit from time-to-time in any given hall, which concert hall sound do you use as your reference?

Having made countless live recordings in various concert halls in the '80s (a number of which were used by Apogee & Magnepan at CES demos to great effect), I can say that - in my experience , the timbre of the overall recording is vastly influenced by mic choice and placement.

Even when a simple pair of very high quality mics is suspended in front of the stage, when the rig is adjusted even slightly, it can and will result in a different presentation, affecting Tone, Presence, and sometimes even Dynamics.

Again, IMO, and IME.

 

[DaveC]

I think reference tracks should include a wide variety of music from acoustic instruments and vocals to electronics with challenging basslines. For example check out Infected Mushroom's "Never Mind" from the Album Army of Mushrooms. There are no acoustic instruments that'll challenge your system in the same way, and if you have full range panels don't even bother to try it at higher volumes as damage may result! Or Boards of Canada "Chromakey Dreamcoat" from The Campfire Headphase. At one point new parts will emerge from the soundstage and line up in front of you one by one. Can your system soundstage well enough to make this obvious? Or Bela Fleck "A Moment So Close" from the album Live at the Quick... an amplified concert with lots of musicians, is this a muddy mess or are the parts clearly delineated? I've heard all extremes from horrible to unbelievable. Most systems cannot play this track cleanly, I've only heard two systems do it extremely well out of dozens.

But if you had to choose one thing as a reference it should be female vocals imo, it makes issues very obvious.

 

[microstrip]

What we are evaluating is how close is the real feeling you get to the concert halls you visit. That day I compared the Dynavector XV-1T to the AN IO J - did not like the latter at all - too rolled off, not real for me. This had nothing to do with reproduction, mike placement, etc - the timbre is just not what I am used to, based on my experience and my mental calibrations - in which case, what I am interested in knowing is the background/experience of the person and what he calibrates his ear to - both in terms of live concerts and gear knowledge.

When 4 of us compared Kronos Sparta/Shelter 2k cart/Lux phono to Metronome Kalista and the CD player (a 85k Euro combo), I (and the other 3) could make out that the Kronos was real on classical. When we played amplified, both sounded equally good and pleasing.

Just to please my curiosity can you tell us what was the digital recordings being used in this comparison and the LPs?

In similar comparisons with the top Metronome's I have found that we can always pick recordings that can change the preferred.

BTW, I have a few CD's that sounded better in the Metronome than in the DCS - probably I will have to accept it.

 

[bonzo75]

OK.

Since concert halls you visit are vastly different, including where you sit from time-to-time in any given hall, which concert hall sound do you use as your reference?

Having made countless live recordings in various concert halls in the '80s (a number of which were used by Apogee & Magnepan at CES demos to great effect), I can say that - in my experience , the timbre of the overall recording is vastly influenced by mic choice and placement.

Even when a simple pair of very high quality mics is suspended in front of the stage, when the rig is adjusted even slightly, it can and will result in a different presentation, affecting Tone, Presence, and sometimes even Dynamics.

Again, IMO, and IME.

I think I am making a different point - I frequent 5 concert halls - Barbican, Royal Festival Hall, King's Place, Wigmore Hall, with Royal Opera House for operas...and while different halls have a different sound, there are many sounds on hifi gear that do not belong to any of these halls. Plastic timbre, rolled off sounds, etc. One of the reasons I like restored Apogees so much is that the bass exists in space - not in one or two woofers.

I am not talking of the mic and the recording at all. If I choose a variety of recordings, listen to a system, and don't feel close to one of those halls, the system is out. If I enjoy it, it means it is playing to my ears calibrated at that hall (at least that is my interpretation and the way I go about it). If the recording engineer has screwed up on one of the recordings, it should sound bad everywhere and will probably not form part of the audition set.

As for the rig being adjusted slightly, this can be accounted for by multiple demos. I have heard many bad sounding Apogees. If a Koetsu has consistently sounded rolled off to me, best for me to avoid.

One can also have a range of preferences - stats with valves sound more like Royal Opera House. Horns sound more like brass. Apogees + SS sound more like a full symphony at the barbican, and give me the baritone's chest more than stats.

 

[bonzo75]

Just to please my curiosity can you tell us what was the digital recordings being used in this comparison and the LPs?

In similar comparisons with the top Metronome's I have found that we can always pick recordings that can change the preferred.

BTW, I have a few CD's that sounded better in the Metronome than in the DCS - probably I will have to accept it.

Actually, you will have to ask Gian60 this

 

[Jim Smith]

I think I am making a different point - I frequent 5 concert halls - Barbican, Royal Festival Hall, King's Place, Wigmore Hall, with Royal Opera House for operas...and while different halls have a different sound, there are many sounds on hifi gear that do not belong to any of these halls. Plastic timbre, rolled off sounds, etc. One of the reasons I like restored Apogees so much is that the bass exists in space - not in one or two woofers.

I am not talking of the mic and the recording at all. If I choose a variety of recordings, listen to a system, and don't feel close to one of those halls, the system is out. If I enjoy it, it means it is playing to my ears calibrated at that hall (at least that is my interpretation and the way I go about it). If the recording engineer has screwed up on one of the recordings, it should sound bad everywhere and will probably not form part of the audition set.

As for the rig being adjusted slightly, this can be accounted for by multiple demos. I have heard many bad sounding Apogees. If a Koetsu has consistently sounded rolled off to me, best for me to avoid.

One can also have a range of preferences - stats with valves sound more like Royal Opera House. Horns sound more like brass. Apogees + SS sound more like a full symphony at the barbican, and give me the baritone's chest more than stats.

Thanks!

 

[Folsom]

I think reference tracks should include a wide variety of music from acoustic instruments and vocals to electronics with challenging basslines. For example check out Infected Mushroom's "Never Mind" from the Album Army of Mushrooms. There are no acoustic instruments that'll challenge your system in the same way, and if you have full range panels don't even bother to try it at higher volumes as damage may result! Or Boards of Canada "Chromakey Dreamcoat" from The Campfire Headphase. At one point new parts will emerge from the soundstage and line up in front of you one by one. Can your system soundstage well enough to make this obvious? Or Bela Fleck "A Moment So Close" from the album Live at the Quick... an amplified concert with lots of musicians, is this a muddy mess or are the parts clearly delineated? I've heard all extremes from horrible to unbelievable. Most systems cannot play this track cleanly, I've only heard two systems do it extremely well out of dozens.

But if you had to choose one thing as a reference it should be female vocals imo, it makes issues very obvious.

The vinyl for Infected Mushroom is insanely expensive now. I went to look to see if I could grab one...