Live vs. Reproduced?

[RUR]

Some amount of early reflection is a desirable thing. It creates that ambient space that is much more natural to us than an anechoic chamber. It also masks detail.

You seem to be defining the ideal soundfield in very narrow terms i.e. detail über alles. Surely there are other desirable characteristics, particularly within the context of the OP?

....but the loss of the tactile feel of bass (and the aforementioned ambient space) takes nothing away from the superior resolution of detail.

As you say, it's all trade-offs and we're all making them. Giving up that tactile feel is simply a different trade-off.

 

[mep]

Some of us seem to be at extremes here while I like to strike a happy medium which of course could be construed as extreme by someone else. I do not enjoy headphone listening because I don’t feel it sounds natural or normal in the way we hear music live. I don’t like listening in the near field because I don’t find that to sound natural either.

I do want that tactile feel that you get from well-recorded music. I want to feel the bass wash over me as the big waves come at you. However, unlike one member here, I don’t want my bass to cause structural damage to my house, scare small children and large animals, and make people physically sick while watching a DVD of fireworks going off. That’s not natural either-or at least it’s not natural to me.

Some people have space constraints and some people have wife constraints. Some people have space and wife constraints. Some people don’t like stereo and fiddle around with imaging jigger-pookey devices in order to enhance their listening experience.

At least one person here lives in an alternate universe where the laws of physics don’t exist and he tries to convince us the impossible is really possible if only we would have “well sorted out” systems. You just have to open up the lids and peer under the hoods and find all those distortion gremlins and chase them out. Not to mention some ritual DAC hammerings and tweeter beatings before the real listening can start. Another extreme…

Somewhere else are people who have fairly decent size rooms that they control instead of their wives. Given that space and the money we have to work with, we try to assemble the best sounding system we can which includes how we treat the room. And of course some would consider this extreme as well.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

You seem to be defining the ideal soundfield in very narrow terms i.e. detail über alles. Surely there are other desirable characteristics, particularly within the context of the OP?

I'm not attempting to define any ideals at all, RUR. What works for me, in the near field, and even closer with my headphone system, doesn't work at all for other people. I love that deep view into the recording, the intimacy of the revelation of the smallest detail. But I completely understand what it sacrifices and that while that trade-off works for me, it would take the joy of listening away from others.

As you say, it's all trade-offs and we're all making them. Giving up that tactile feel is simply a different trade-off.

Yep. It often occurs to me that I shouldn't even argue with the guy who thinks he has all the detail of a reference headphone system in a big room with big speakers from 10 - 15 feet away. I should leave him to enjoy his illusions. But if we all did that, what would we discuss on discussion boards?

Tim

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Some of us seem to be at extremes here while I like to strike a happy medium which of course could be construed as extreme by someone else. I do not enjoy headphone listening because I don’t feel it sounds natural or normal in the way we hear music live. I don’t like listening in the near field because I don’t find that to sound natural either.

I do want that tactile feel that you get from well-recorded music. I want to feel the bass wash over me as the big waves come at you. However, unlike one member here, I don’t want my bass to cause structural damage to my house, scare small children and large animals, and make people physically sick while watching a DVD of fireworks going off. That’s not natural either-or at least it’s not natural to me.

Some people have space constraints and some people have wife constraints. Some people have space and wife constraints. Some people don’t like stereo and fiddle around with imaging jigger-pookey devices in order to enhance their listening experience.

At least one person here lives in an alternate universe where the laws of physics don’t exist and he tries to convince us the impossible is really possible if only we would have “well sorted out” systems. You just have to open up the lids and peer under the hoods and find all those distortion gremlins and chase them out. Not to mention some ritual DAC hammerings and tweeter beatings before the real listening can start. Another extreme…

Somewhere else are people who have fairly decent size rooms that they control instead of their wives. Given that space and the money we have to work with, we try to assemble the best sounding system we can which includes how we treat the room. And of course some would consider this extreme as well.

I don't think you're at all extreme in context, Mark. You are a mainstream audiophile. Outside of a community like WB, that is, of course, more than extreme enough. The guy who sits with 325 watts per channel, running at a very small fraction of its potential, aimed directly at his head from just 4 feet away, grinning like an idiot because the hi hat is...right...THERE!!!? That's extreme. I won't even attempt to deny it.

I take solace in the fact that at least my extremism is focused on what is actually...right...there...as opposed to what I imagine is there, way outside of scientific probability.

Tim

 

[RBFC]

Gentlemen, can we please refrain from pointing barbed comments at each other? It's sufficient to say that you enjoy something. It's overboard to say that others who value different aspects of reproduction are enjoying illusions, etc. Let's just keep it cleaned up, OK?

Lee

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Gentlemen, can we please refrain from pointing barbed comments at each other? It's sufficient to say that you enjoy something. It's overboard to say that others who value different aspects of reproduction are enjoying illusions, etc. Let's just keep it cleaned up, OK?

Lee

Sorry, Lee. I didn't mean to point to anyone in particular, just to point out that believing you have chosen no compromise to enjoy is a bit unrealistic. It's all compromise, but if someone believes they've achieved perfection, I wish them well, enjoy.

Tim

 

[steve williams]

achieving perfection is almost like a moving target.Today's perfection is tomorrow's memory.

At some point everyone needs to just chill and enjoy the music. Tim approaches things from a different perspective but doesn't make his method wrong because for him, near field and headphones rocks his sonic boat. He accepts some of the shortcomings of this listening method. No biggie

 

[garylkoh]

This is my understanding of the matter.

Jack, that was an excellent post. The only proviso I would point out is the definition of a "large space" vs a "small room". To my understanding, in order to qualify as a large space, the smallest dimension has to be greater than the longest wavelength reproduced. This means that for a bookshelf monitor loudspeaker with 50Hz f3, it's about 20ft, and for a full-range with 20Hz, it's about 60ft. Hence, no matter how large we all think that our generously-proportioned listening rooms are, we are all in "small" room acoustics.

Hence, to get "sense" of live you only need to have a room that is larger than the longest wavelength of the frequencies that give you imaging. To get "sense of live" you need a room that is larger than the longest wavelength of the frequencies of the sense of space.

Just as an illustration, take a small bookshelf loudspeaker out into your garden. Make sure the nearest wall is at least 20ft away. Place them 6.5ft apart, sit 10-ft away and have a listen. Now, just listen to one of them. It can be quite a revelation. I find that I learn far more about acoustics with simple empirical experiments. Math and physics can explain to me someone else's understanding of acoustics. The empirical experiments show to me what the real world is like.

 

[garylkoh]

Not at all. We're talking about extremely subtle stuff here, but the tiny nuances that are clearly resolved when I put on my headphones and invite Shelby Lynne to whisper into my ear are lost in the ambience of room reflections.

Tim

I like it when I can imagine smelling her perfume when she whispers behind my ear - but then I'm sitting in my PJ's unshaven and unwashed because it's Saturday morning.

We love our illusions, and make no mistake, it is all an illusion, but it's MY illusion.

 

[garylkoh]

Gentlemen, can we please refrain from pointing barbed comments at each other? It's sufficient to say that you enjoy something. It's overboard to say that others who value different aspects of reproduction are enjoying illusions, etc. Let's just keep it cleaned up, OK?

Lee

Oops. Sorry, Lee. I hadn't scrolled down so far yet. But I did say that it's my illusion....

 

[RBFC]

The intent is to keep discussions cordial. You are all good guys, we just get passionate about this pursuit, that's all. It tends to get blown up and misinterpreted a bit.

Lee

 

[fas42]

Trouble is, I'm not really sure who Mark or Tim are referring to ...

Not to worry, it's all good, clean fun, it's only a hobby after all, or mostly, in the case of some who are trying to make a buck or two out of the whole exercise!

Of course Steve is correct about enjoying the music. My unfortunate problem is that when the music doesn't come out right, it irritates intensely, and I have the further misfortune of liking music that has been "badly" recorded. So I do have a dilemma ...

For something like over 10 years I just didn't bother trying, let everything just gather dust, and listened to normal stuff -- old Sony integrated, bottom of the range Marantz CD player, no fuss listening. Of course then you're in a mood just to enjoy the music and ooze with the moment. Trouble was, there was quite a bit of music which was a hopeless mess listening this way, so I was finally inspired to get back into the game again, so see if I could make the dud recordings play ball.

As part of this stage of the journey, I joined the city's audiophile society, to see whether people had advanced the cause or not. Nope, quite disappointing, same old problems: expensive gear, very impressive on "correct" recordings, pretty disasterous on everything else. So, for me it was back to drawing board, trying to sort out how to guarantee always to be able to get good sound, which is where I still am.

So I'm not after perfection, I'm after getting maximum musical pleasure out of all the recordings I have. If I could walk into a store and for a reasonable amount buy a complete setup that did the job I would be very happy, Tim's is about the closest here in that category, that is on the way to doing the job but from what he's saying it's still not there. I'm excluding that of Vince's because it's too pricey, and it had to be significantly modified.

I know what is possible from the recordings I have, and so my goal is to always enjoy the potential that is embedded in the tracks. I am just not interested in a Ferrari that you can't take beyond second gear because it'll shake itself to bits ...

Frank

 

[JackD201]

We should start a thread

Horribly Recorded Music We Love Unconditionally

I've got quite some tracks to add to THAT list

 

[fas42]

Horribly Recorded Music We Love Unconditionally

I've got quite some tracks to add to THAT list

C'mon, Jack, give us your worst! I'm busting to know ...!!

Frank

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

We should start a thread

Horribly Recorded Music We Love Unconditionally

I've got quite some tracks to add to THAT list

I'd put most of the early Beatles records on that list. It gets worse, for sure, but they're not what I'd call good. The re-masters are an improvement. Then there is Layla...

Tim

 

[DaveyF]

Many years ago, my a'phile society held a 'bring your worst sounding CD or LP to the meet" meet.
I won... with an LP titled Faust 'the Faust tapes'..which, although quite a rare LP, amazed the
group with how bad the music was. There were some real "loosers" that night. Some of the then current pop was among them...my personal favorite was the 'Britney Spears' album...cannot remember the title.

Getting back to my thoughts on 'Live vs Reproduced'; I personally do not like the headphone experience, although 'phones can give an impression of spaciousness, they always sound to me to be far less 'relaxed', if you will, than a good in-room system or 'live' experience. Therefore,IMO, compared to a 'live' hall, they are the least realistic of all transducers in regards to making me think that I am in a 'live' hall. YMMV.

 

[fas42]

I don't think I would have a problem winning the worst transfer award. I've got a one dollar from a street stall CD effort, of Gene Pitney hits, from AMCOS if that means anything. A bootleg sort of thing, obviously taken from someone's LP, some complete idiot has applied the most appalling example of a hiss reduction algorithm or whatever to it. When the signal drops to a certain level an instantaneous 20 to 30dB cut is applied, listening to it, just imagine the most extreme example of volume pumping you can think of! Of course the needle used must have been in terrible shape or coated with fluff, staggering levels of distortion are perfectly captured!

Just the sort of thing to try on Jack's system ...

Frank

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

I don't think I would have a problem winning the worst transfer award. I've got a one dollar from a street stall CD effort, of Gene Pitney hits, from AMCOS if that means anything. A bootleg sort of thing, obviously taken from someone's LP, some complete idiot has applied the most appalling example of a hiss reduction algorithm or whatever to it. When the signal drops to a certain level an instantaneous 20 to 30dB cut is applied, listening to it, just imagine the most extreme example of volume pumping you can think of! Of course the needle used must have been in terrible shape or coated with fluff, staggering levels of distortion are perfectly captured!

Just the sort of thing to try on Jack's system ...

Frank

I assume if your system is properly sorted that Gene Pitney record sounds absolutely transparent?

 

[mep]

I'd put most of the early Beatles records on that list. It gets worse, for sure, but they're not what I'd call good. The re-masters are an improvement. Then there is Layla...

Tim

Hey now! Them thars fighting words! The early Beatle "stereo" records were mixed horribly, but they weren't recorded horribly. The bass is rolled off, but otherwise, they sound real good other than the pan-potting of vocals in one channel and the instruments in the other.

 

[microstrip]

We should start a thread

Horribly Recorded Music We Love Unconditionally

I've got quite some tracks to add to THAT list

I would be very cautious nominating any record for this thread. Currently, most of the recordings that some years ago I would have nominated for this list are in my list of enjoyable and decently recorded performances.

There are surely horrible recording, but most times the quality of the recording is system dependent and a recording that sounds very poor in a system sounds good in others. Some rock music of the 70's belongs to this category - in the wrong system it sounds boring and distant.