,I do think that your perception of the reproduction of the 'live' event is different to mine and perhaps most if not all of the other posters. Nothing wrong in that, so long as we all realize
that that is what is occurring here.
My original post was to see if we could comment on the areas that need to be improved in our systems in order to bring them closer to the 'live' event...
Fair enough, DaveyF, and my response was to suggest addressing areas of weakness in your system, as I have done over and over again on this forum. The trouble is, at a distance, I can't tell what the vulnerabilities of a specific system are, so my suggestions would be close to meaningless. To be more specific, as regards the mod's Mark is curious about, these are totally specific to the particular device; I would have to have access to the component, go through a process of taking measurements to work out the optimum values for the parts and then apply in exactly the right place. Doing anything else is like recommending a person should wear a certain brand and size of shoes with absolutely no knowledge of what their foot looked like ...
I'm certainly aware that my perception of what's possible is very different from most people, only a few others like Vince and Roger have tuned into it. What I am trying to convey is, that a lot more people could enjoy this experience also if they were prepared to be more flexible in their thinking, and willing to experiment to some degree ...
Tim-You need to elaborate on what those widely accepted audiophile beliefs are that can come close to rivaling what Frank has said. If you take all of the power cord stories, speaker cable stories, cable elevator stories and multiply them by a factor of 1000, I don't think they would come close to the stories that Frank has told here.
Nah...we've been down that road and it goes nowhere. It's just a matter of degrees, Mark. It looks like a huge leap from the standard audiophile myths to Frank's beliefs to you. It looks a few steps to me. Calling those myths, which are lovingly held by a few here, out by name will accomplish nothing good. Sorry I brought it up.
I thought this thread was closed last night but I see that Steve reopened it. Frank-never mind worrying about picking out a shoe size for someone whom you haven't seen their feet yet. I want to know exactly what parts you added to your power supply in order to improve the performance and where you put them in the circuit. There is no IP to worry about here because no one is in the business of modifying Phillips HTIB for other people. We realize that what you have done is specific to your Phillips HTIB and can't be applied to another application which is all the more reason to spill the beans once and for all and tell us exactly what you have done. I think this is a very reasonable request that a reasonable person would answer. Most people would be proud to tell you what they had done to improve their power supply. You keep telling us you are holding 4 Aces, but you won't show us your hand. It's time to show your cards or cash in your chips. If you put on your tap shoes and give me anymore mumbo-jumbo, I'm hitting the ignore button on you. How’s that for equanimity?
How about taking another angle at this whole thing. Recreating the actual live event from anywhere in the hall is a impossibility,but how about what the microphone picks up. This of course is the correct discription of what is actually taking place isn't it??
How about taking another angle at this whole thing. Recreating the actual live event from anywhere in the hall is a impossibility,but how about what the microphone picks up. This of course is the correct discription of what is actually taking place isn't it??
In my limited live recording experience, 2 channels is quite good to recreate actual live event, I think the place of the microphone is the same speaker's place can reproduce better live effect because image stage form by the time's difference of microphone's picking, this is good for simple instrument recording, in multi tracks and multi mic recording will go through a mixer down to 2 channel and most of the mic is close to instrument, in playback I don't think this way will have sound stage as good as 2 mic recording because speaker sound not from the position of they picked up, maybe sound quality can be better because they use special suitable microphone for each instrument
tony ma
In my limited live recording experience, 2 channels is quite good to recreate actual live event, I think the place of the microphone is the same speaker's place can reproduce better live effect because image stage form by the time's difference of microphone's picking, this is good for simple instrument recording, in multi tracks and multi mic recording will go through a mixer down to 2 channel and most of the mic is close to instrument, in playback I don't think this way will have sound stage as good as 2 mic recording because speaker sound not from the position of they picked up, maybe sound quality can be better because they use special suitable microphone for each instrument
tony ma
I didn't bring this point up to continue this thread,but is is actually the input that a microphone picks up that we are hearing and that is a big difference than the way people hear a live concert. Just listen to Mahler's first symphony by Liensdorf on London phase 4 vs. say Judd and the Florida symphony.
Can a system reproduce that faithfully? I think a lot better chance of that,then what you expierience "live". Just my 3 cents. I'm done,great topic.
I didn't bring this point up to continue this thread,but is is actually the input that a microphone picks up that we are hearing and that is a big difference than the way people hear a live concert. Just listen to Mahler's first symphony by Liensdorf on London phase 4 vs. say Judd and the Florida symphony.
Can a system reproduce that faithfully? I think a lot better chance of that,then what you expierience "live". Just my 3 cents. I'm done,great topic.
I've been trying to get this point through to a few people around here for months. There are so few recordings available that would allow you to take a good shot at "re-creation of the live event' in your home that it is not worth discussing. And the few that exist were recorded binaurally, will only re-create the event from whatever seat the microphones were in, and will not play back properly on a stereo speaker system. Everything else is a false construct that makes no attempt to capture the sound in any way similar to how human ears would from a seat in a concert hall. What we can "re-produce" is the recording. No more, no less. Unless you believe in magic.
I've been trying to get this point through to a few people around here for months. There are so few recordings available that would allow you to take a good shot at "re-creation of the live event' in your home that it is not worth discussing. And the few that exist were recorded binaurally, will only re-create the event from whatever seat the microphones were in, and will not play back properly on a stereo speaker system. Everything else is a false construct that makes no attempt to capture the sound in any way similar to how human ears would from a seat in a concert hall. What we can "re-produce" is the recording. No more, no less. Unless you believe in magic.
Sometimes the light goes on albeit slowly...... If you start from that premise,your observation makes perfect sense and I don't see how anybody objectively can argue otherwise. I think Frank would even agree to the point of fact. Now I think that stregthens the core point being made,because it lowers the bar substantially.
It is a point that has been raised more than once in the preceding 400 posts by numerous members - we are trying to reproduce a mastering/recording engineer's version of what they think is "live". Some recordings do better at creating this illusion, others do not do it so well, but we do not forget that it is always some one else's idea of "live".
Nevertheless, that some of us live in the illusion that our systems re-creates the live event in our home is a valid point to this hobby, and I won't want to do anything to take away that joy he feels.
I have to say that I enjoy the version of "live" that many engineers have given us over the years. Jazz comes out very well in most live recordings. I love the live version of Pete Townsend playing "Pinball Wizard" on acoustic guitar from the Secret Policeman's Ball LP. Neil Young, "Live at Massey Hall" is another great recording. I don't get hung up trying to dissect recordings and figure out how it differs from what I would have heard if I had been in the audience. But I'm always aware that I'm listening to a recording, and it doesn't matter if it's LP, CD/digital files, or R2R tapes.
I didn't bring this point up to continue this thread,but is is actually the input that a microphone picks up that we are hearing and that is a big difference than the way people hear a live concert. Just listen to Mahler's first symphony by Liensdorf on London phase 4 vs. say Judd and the Florida symphony.
Can a system reproduce that faithfully? I think a lot better chance of that,then what you expierience "live". Just my 3 cents. I'm done,great topic.
I know quite clear of the sound live and repro, they never being same sound, all we can do just a little bit getting closer is a very good system, after improved the recording system many times (mods with tube and silver transformer) the words got from a CBC recording engineer (who was in the live concert and listened to the repro tape after) is like a real piano playing behind the speaker without saying same as the concert but I was so happy with that too because that is what we can do to have a solid sound stage and images to create another small scale live event in the listening room is not asking as the same as the original
tony ma
Mark, what are the key things that make you aware it's a recording, in other words what are the essential qualitative differences that always give the game away? The classic example usually given is that there's a piano in the listening room, you come around the corner with a piano recording playing, can you be fooled? In that sense, what lets the side down?
I would re-phrase it as saying the system can recreate the impact of the live event and allow you to experience the same sense of involvement you would have had with the real event. With a string quartet you most certainly can feel the sense of sharing the same space as the music makers at the time of the recording, with pop recordings it is typically much better than live, because in the latter case it usually has been badly mangled by the PA system.
The Best System I’ve Ever Heard in a Studio (or perhaps anywhere!)
I think that this post at avguide.com can be interesting for the discussion of Live vs. Reproduced.
Iff my memory is not misleading me, our administrator Steve Williams had a similar reaction listening to the same 1" master tape in the same room, but with a different playback system.
Yep, that's as good a description as any I have come across, demonstrating if you throw enough high end gear together with a reasonable level of tweaking you can get there. In this case the high degree of engineering excellence carried the day, got the sound over the barrier. If you have "lesser" equipment it just means you have to tweak harder, so, for example, the monster amps aren't necessary if you put the work in debugging what you have. Purely by coincidence I have just had morning tea, and I put on some Brendel playing Schubert. The volume was pretty low and my wife commented on it still sounding like the real deal at this low level -- she's the pianist. She asked me to turn it up because she was curious how loud it needed to be to sound at the right level, in other words as if the recorded piano was in the room. Turned out to be 36, max is 40. A little louder was just a titch more loud than the real thing would have been.
I think that this post at avguide.com can be interesting for the discussion of Live vs. Reproduced.
Iff my memory is not misleading me, our administrator Steve Williams had a similar reaction listening to the same 1" master tape in the same room, but with a different playback system.
I have now about 40 some hours on my 10 ga earth gound wire upgrade(sounds funny doesn't it) my preamp gain sweet spot has dropped from 10'oclock to about 9:05 . The disc I started with is Ann Burton "Blue Burton", when I started the speakers were very closed and the soundstage was directional, Although the midrange was solid center. Now the music is well beyond the speakers with very much bloom appearent. I can tell this could push 80 to 100 hours as the micro detail has yet to fully materialise.
Frank you would love this. Great article and thanks for the link. btw the Burton disc is a Sony mastersound DSD.
I have now about 40 some hours on my 10 ga earth gound wire upgrade(sounds funny doesn't it) my preamp gain sweet spot has dropped from 10'oclock to about 9:05 . The disc I started with is Ann Burton "Blue Burton", when I started the speakers were very closed and the soundstage was directional, Although the midrange was solid center. Now the music is well beyond the speakers with very much bloom appearent. I can tell this could push 80 to 100 hours as the micro detail has yet to fully materialise.
Roger, am I understanding you in that the system is now needing this time to stabilise after only changing the ground wire? Did you switch off the gear while changing over the wire; and in general what's your approach to warming up your gear? In other words, do you leave some or all of the gear on all the time, and switch on some things only just before listening?
I mention this because the rather cheap and nasty drivers in my little fellow need a bit of a hiding after they've cooled down to bring them back to life, the electronics seem to be able to come on song fairly quickly after a shutdown ...
Roger, am I understanding you in that the system is now needing this time to stabilise after only changing the ground wire? Did you switch off the gear while changing over the wire; and in general what's your approach to warming up your gear? In other words, do you leave some or all of the gear on all the time, and switch on some things only just before listening?
I mention this because the rather cheap and nasty drivers in my little fellow need a bit of a hiding after they've cooled down to bring them back to life, the electronics seem to be able to come on song fairly quickly after a shutdown ...
In my experience for example a speaker cable change will take between 100 and 200 hours to settle in. My NBS master took 100 hours,my blackgate Accuphase preamp took atleast 400 hours. This ground circuit experiment has really surprised me. I turn all my equipment off normally, but last night I left the preamp on with signal running. Now I said 80 to 100 hours? the system could be up now. It sounds pretty darn good,but I won't know for sure until I power down and bring everything back up tomorrow because it could close down a little and then open up again.
I forgot to mention I usually let the system play about one hour before I sit down to enjoy fully.
Some years ago I talked to Walter Fields at NBS and he told me that the longer it takes for a system to settle in, the better generaly the sound will be. I have found him to be correct. I can't explain it,but it's just what I have experienced.
just a quick update, The micro detail is starting to take hold and that brings the dynamic presence, it still has further to go as Ann Burton's voice has hints of inner detail. There's plenty of energy that has moved up front. That energy should take a step back in the final process. It is like a major upgrade so far. Interesting stuff.
Some years ago I talked to Walter Fields at NBS and he told me that the longer it takes for a system to settle in, the better generaly the sound will be. I have found him to be correct. I can't explain it,but it's just what I have experienced.
In general, I would agree with Walter. My way of wording it would be that the closer the system is to doing everything right, the more critical it is to get the very last thing right; in other words when the system has the inherent capacity to reach a very high level of sound then the slightest defect is even more pronounced, is even more noticeable. Further, the settling in is allowing the second order effects to reach an equilibrium, and this is specially relevant to cables. Most cables, and this is even more so for esoteric ones with complex constructions, when they are moved in any way a lot of stresses are created in the various materials used in the construction, which need time to then settle in and adjust to their new positions. As these internal stresses of the cable naturally ease with time, so do the second order effects diminish and the sound improves ...
