Natural Sound

[andromedaaudio]

Music can be innocently enjoyed, but music analysis can contribute to our understanding and appreciation. There is no contradiction here.

I think music / sounds gets over analyzed on WBF .
I m not so sure it brings further enjoyment ..... heated discussions absolutely

 

[PeterA]

Peter’s right on this one. It isn’t about imaging just that each hand often plays a different thing so it is like hearing two streams with different weight and speed and attack.

however, I don’t get what is special about Lamm saying this as this to me is obvious and will come with any decent resolution, though it will improve obviously with better resolution. Whether one hears it or not Is dependent on the listener. No different then say, if two guitarists were playing but one was supporting the other

And yes it very different to the concept of pinpoint imaging etc being discussed

I was mistaken that it was Vladimir Lamm who discussed this with David Karmeli. It was a pianist talking with David who attended the recording session.

The point is that the pianist was describing each of his fingers as having a purpose and he wanted the recording to capture that. David was the system to reproduce it and present it naturally to the listener. This then goes to the two hands and the need for a high resolution system to reproduce it.

I spoke to David Karmeli about this. The goal to reproduce this quality from piano playing convincingly and naturally lead David to the use of Ching Cheng power cords and Lamm electronics. This is about a system being resolving enough for the listener to understand the musician’s intent and his interpretation of the music and to present that naturally.

 

[bonzo75]

I was mistaken that it was Vladimir Lamm who discussed this with David Karmeli. It was a pianist talking with David who was present for the recording.

The point is that the pianist was describing each of his fingers as having a purpose and he wanted the recording to capture that. David was the system to reproduce it and present it naturally to the listener. This then goes to the two hands and the need for a high resolution system to reproduce it.

I spoke to David Karmeli about this. The goal to reproduce this quality from piano playing convincingly and naturally lead David to the use of Ching Cheng power cords and Lamm electronics. This is about a system being resolving enough for the listener to understand the musician’s intent and his interpretation of the music and to present that naturally.

Peter, as someone who goes to live shows and is an audiophile this should be obvious to you too. It requires special mention to one who is at least not one of the above

 

[PeterA]

Peter, as someone who goes to live shows and is an audiophile this should be obvious to you too. It requires special mention to one who is at least not one of the above

Clearly, Ron did not understand what I wrote and juxtaposed two unrelated concepts in his post.

Sometimes discussing these things with others, as I did with ddk and also Tim, allows me to understand the obvious in a new light, or to have a greater understanding of what is right in front of me.

I knew immediately that what I was hearing in Utah was completely different from what I was living with at home. Now, after living for two years with a completely different system, I continue to learn and understand what I have and how it is changing how I appreciate my recordings. The new system is simply more capable.

I am sure others have had similar experiences as their exposure has increased and they have learned more about the hobby.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Clearly, Ron did not understand what I wrote and juxtaposed to unrelated concepts in his post.

You believe they are unrelated concepts. I am not convinced.

I'm skeptical that you can hear the two discrete hands of the pianist in a concert hall at a distance of 30 feet or 50 feet or more. If people cannot hear two discrete hands in a concert hall at a distance, but you're hearing two discrete hands in your living room, then they are the same concept (i.e., artificial pinpoint imaging).

 

[pjwd]

You believe they are unrelated concepts. I am not yet convinced.

I'm skeptical that you can hear the two discrete hands of the pianist in a concert hall at a distance of 30 feet or 50 feet or more. If people cannot hear two discrete hands in a concert hall at a distance, but you're hearing two discrete hands in your living room, then they are the same concept (i.e., artificial pinpoint imaging).

Ron
The recording microphone is possibly only 12 - 15 ft away from piano up in an area that has very delayed first reflections so it will be much "cleaner" sound than you hear in seating .. what with all those reflecting noggins . You can get quite clear imaging from some recordings which may result in... gasp... a pinpointish outcome ( I am not really sure what the difference between a clear phantom image and pinpoint is)
So much depends on recording philosophy and venue and of course playback system

Phil

 

[bonzo75]

Clearly, Ron did not understand what I wrote and juxtaposed two unrelated concepts in his post.

I agree he didn't. But he himself does not claim to be a regular piano concert goer nor does his audition list use much piano for evaluation.

 

[morricab]

Ron
The recording microphone is possibly only 12 - 15 ft away from piano up in an area that has very delayed first reflections so it will be much "cleaner" sound than you hear in seating .. what with all those reflecting noggins . You can get quite clear imaging from some recordings which may result in... gasp... a pinpointish outcome ( I am not really sure what the difference between a clear phantom image and pinpoint is)
So much depends on recording philosophy and venue and of course playback system

Phil

Recording sessions I have seen put the microphone much closer than that…even inside the piano sometimes. I tell people if they want live and recordings to have similarities you probably need to sit quite close to the performers when listening live. Mid/back of the venue will give a different sound…still live but missing some of the sharp imaging cues.

 

[pjwd]

Recording sessions I have seen put the microphone much closer than that…even inside the piano sometimes. I tell people if they want live and recordings to have similarities you probably need to sit quite close to the performers when listening live. Mid/back of the venue will give a different sound…still live but missing some of the sharp imaging cues.

Correct .. I was talking about the overall recording .. perhaps 2 pairs of omnis .. some ambience mics and then as you say, lots and lots quite close to specific instruments . There is a great article https://audiophilestyle.com/ca/bits...ng-session-an-audiophile’s-perspective-r1201/ descrbing a BIS session ( who I believe do great recordings) .. 62 mics as I recall !

 

[tima]

It does not take "a level of analytical processing in the brain" to hear two hands playing the piano. I'll speculate that many people can tell when only one hand is playing and they can tell when one hand lifts off the keyboard and when it rejoins playing. The change in sound is obvious.

Maybe for some it takes careful listening -- there is something of a trend away from careful listening on WBF with its primary focus on gear and not on music, or listening. That's okay -- people enjoy the hobby for different reasons. I enjoy having some rudimentary knowledge of the instruments I'm hearing. I don't consider knowing a little about instruments as analysis. But cheeky gotcha questions (where this started) belie genuine interest.

Perhaps more folks than imagined do not understand the graduated frequency keyboard of a piano where (for the most part) lower frequency notes are played with the left hand and higher frequency notes are played with the right hand and are thus unable to make a distinction between two hands. Free your mind from visual listening. Perhaps you don't recognize you hear two hands or grasp that one is playing bass notes and the other is playing treble. Can you distinquish bass from treble? And for the blissfully-clueless-style of listener maybe it doesn't matter and its all so laid back that knowing about instruments is unimportant for enjoyment. But you do hear it. Left hand and right hand. It is obvious and of course better recordings reveal more tonal and dynamic differentiation.

"From the Bach-Busoni, Horowitz proceeded to Schuman’s Fantasy in C Major, where his hand-over-hand technique ranged across the octaves with amazing dexterity, sounding at times as if he had three hands. " -- Horowitz at Carnegie Hall: An Historic Return

 

[PeterA]

Why do people keep asking about imaging. It has nothing to do with imaging.

 

[morricab]

Why do people keep asking about imaging. It has nothing to do with imaging.

You mean imaging has nothing to do with natural sound?

 

[PeterA]

You mean imaging has nothing to do with natural sound?

No Brad. I’m referring to my comment in the listening impressions of the LP1 phonostage and hearing the two hands of the pianist on that recording. It is about my understanding of what I perceive to be his intent where each finger hits a note and what ddk told me about each finger having a purpose. One can distinguish between his left and right hands by the sound presented by the system. This has nothing to do with imaging.

 

[tima]

You mean imaging has nothing to do with natural sound?

Not exactly nothing ...

For me, part of understanding what we mean when we talk about the concept 'natural sound' involves thinking about how it ties to live acoustic music, the reference from which the notion derives. Natural sound is a goal for stereo listening.

Imaging is a function of listening to a stereo and one of its effects on listeners is our minds supplying or translating what we hear into something visual or quasi-visual. I say 'something' as I don't know how that varies across people. Maybe it is a picture in our mind of performers on a stage. Maybe it is a sense of the location of sonic origins. Maybe it is a thought picture of instruments in our heads -- hear a timpani, imagine a timpani. Whatever you wish to call the experience.

I find little discussion of imaging tied to listening to a live acoustic orchestra. I believe such talk is largely derivative from talk about stereo listening and largely the province of audiophiles, that is applying what we think we understand about imaging in stereo listening to a live event. So, in a way, live acoustic listening imaging is the reverse of natural sound listening. I never hear concert-goers talk about it.

There is a psycho-acoustic aspect to concert hall listening. The ambience of the hall when musicians play and when they are not playing -- how sound exists in the hall and how the hall impacts that sound. There I believe we have a sense of energy in a space. For me the extent to which stereo listening represents that psycho-acoustic is definitely one aspect of natural sound.

I don't believe we exert or intend control of what images occur in our heads while we listen. As a non-audiophile listener in the concert hall I don't think about imaging there. If I have a different imaging experience when listening to reproduction than I do when listening in the concert hall, then no, imaging at best is neither necessary nor sufficient to gauge a stereo as sounding natural.

A question that came to me as I wrote this: is directionality an image?

 

[Ron Resnick]

It has nothing to do with imaging.

What, to you, is "imaging"?

 

[morricab]

Not exactly nothing ...

For me, part of understanding what we mean when we talk about the concept 'natural sound' involves thinking about how it ties to live acoustic music, the reference from which the notion derives. Natural sound is a goal for stereo listening.

Imaging is a function of listening to a stereo and one of its effects on listeners is our minds supplying or translating what we hear into something visual or quasi-visual. I say 'something' as I don't know how that varies across people. Maybe it is a picture in our mind of performers on a stage. Maybe it is a sense of the location of sonic origins. Maybe it is a thought picture of instruments in our heads -- hear a timpani, imagine a timpani. Whatever you wish to call the experience.

I find little discussion of imaging tied to listening to a live acoustic orchestra. I believe such talk is largely derivative from talk about stereo listening and largely the province of audiophiles, that is applying what we think we understand about imaging in stereo listening to a live event. So, in a way, live acoustic listening imaging is the reverse of natural sound listening. I never hear concert-goers talk about it.

There is a psycho-acoustic aspect to concert hall listening. The ambience of the hall when musicians play and when they are not playing -- how sound exists in the hall and how the hall impacts that sound. There I believe we have a sense of energy in a space. For me the extent to which stereo listening represents that psycho-acoustic is definitely one aspect of natural sound.

I don't believe we exert or intend control of what images occur in our heads while we listen. As a non-audiophile listener in the concert hall I don't think about imaging there. If I have a different imaging experience when listening to reproduction than I do when listening in the concert hall, then no, imaging at best is neither necessary nor sufficient to gauge a stereo as sounding natural.

A question that came to me as I wrote this: is directionality an image?

You have to think in context to how the recording was made. They vast majority are recorded up close and then ambient info added in either with other mic feeds or artificially. This means when you think about imaging live you have to think about how does it sound when I sit close to the musicians? Then you will realize that localization is not only possible it’s easy. Yes, directionality is a part of imaging and localization within a (hopefully 3D) soundstage. Never confuse what you hear mid/rear hall with whats on most recordings…unless you know it was made in a more natural perspective.

 

[pjwd]

You have to think in context to how the recording was made. They vast majority are recorded up close and then ambient info added in either with other mic feeds or artificially. This means when you think about imaging live you have to think about how does it sound when I sit close to the musicians? Then you will realize that localization is not only possible it’s easy. Yes, directionality is a part of imaging and localization within a (hopefully 3D) soundstage. Never confuse what you hear mid/rear hall with whats on most recordings…unless you know it was made in a more natural perspective.

Correct .. very few, if any, recordings would be made mid hall ... the microphone does not record what your brain interprets.. its a sea of reflections.
Personally I generally prefer the 8 to say 15th row in a shoebox hall. To me its more engaging.
Although many famous halls have a 2 sec reverb time (Boston, Concertabow etc. ) studies show that people are about 50/50 with preferences for shorter reverb times. I believe this plays into our preferences for our systems as well. And so it goes.....

 

[tima]

You have to think in context to how the recording was made. They vast majority are recorded up close and then ambient info added in either with other mic feeds or artificially. This means when you think about imaging live you have to think about how does it sound when I sit close to the musicians? Then you will realize that localization is not only possible it’s easy.
Yes, directionality is a part of imaging and localization within a (hopefully 3D) soundstage. Never confuse what you hear mid/rear hall with whats on most recordings…unless you know it was made in a more natural perspective.

"You have to think in context to how the recording was made." To do what? I don't need think in context of how a recording was made to gauge if my stereo sounds natural.

Sorry, I don't see how this is relevant to understanding natural sound or what I wrote. No one said localization was not possible or difficult. Where did you get that? Does anyone confuse live with reproduction? Who thinks a microphone records what our brain adds?

Imaging is visual, optical; a likeness or representation of a thing or a person. To picture or represent in the mind. Imaging is neither necessary nor sufficient to gauge a stereo as sounding natural. To avoid confusion in my second paragraph I need to retract my sentence "Maybe it is a sense of the location of sonic origins." Hopefully your comments don't turn on that. Localization or directionality may be part of the psycho-acoustic listening experience, but it is not a visual or an image.

When I listen to live music in a hall, I know what I hear. I don't need to think about how a recording is made. I don't think about imaging listening to live music, few do; maybe some audiophiles bring it to the experience from listening to their stereos. We intuitively (or apriori as a condition for the possibility of experience) have an understanding of up-down, left-right -- a blind person understands directionality. Images are not required to grasp direction -- you can do it with your eyes closed.

 

[pjwd]

"You have to think in context to how the recording was made." To do what? I don't need think in context of how a recording was made to gauge if my stereo sounds natural.

Sorry, I don't see how this is relevant to understanding natural sound or what I wrote. No one said localization was not possible or difficult. Where did you get that? Does anyone confuse live with reproduction? Who thinks a microphone records what our brain adds?

Imaging is visual, optical; a likeness or representation of a thing or a person. To picture or represent in the mind. Imaging is neither necessary nor sufficient to gauge a stereo as sounding natural. To avoid confusion in my second paragraph I need to retract my sentence "Maybe it is a sense of the location of sonic origins." Hopefully your comments don't turn on that. Localization or directionality may be part of the psycho-acoustic listening experience, but it is not a visual or an image.

When I listen to live music in a hall, I know what I hear. I don't need to think about how a recording is made. I don't think about imaging listening to live music, few do; maybe some audiophiles bring it to the experience from listening to their stereos. We intuitively (or apriori as a condition for the possibility of experience) have an understanding of up-down, left-right -- a blind person understands directionality. Images are not required to grasp direction -- you can do it with your eyes closed.

Nice work refuting what no one said !

 

[RCanelas]

I hope I can relate to what @PeterA alluded to. When I listen to a cello trio where one instrument is set up with gut strings instead of steel, if a system fails to surface that difference (a most common occurrence) it is an immediate turn off for me.

The Horowitz interpretation of Schumann @tima linked above is as good as any high level examples of that, one can simply enjoy in the piece and still be completely swept away by the contrast between the two hands. The differences in attack, intensity and timing cues between the bass and tremble hand are part of the virtuoso improvisational roots of the fantasie pieces and failing to pass that along is IMO, a limit to your unbounded reception of it, placed by a system.

It is not at all about the imaging of the instruments, but about a certain tonal correctness and delicate eagerness of the reproduction chain responding to a good recording. I can almost feel it when I walk into a new room, with a new system, when that is likely to happen. Some people refer to the needle drop, I tend to hear the system just cruising but with controlled confidence, the kind of stuff you feel from someone who knows they have so much quality headroom hid under the hood that he can blow your mind and still not show effort while going at it.