Natural Sound

[PeterA]

Wow, lots of posts since I checked in, been super busy so no chance to reply in time.

On recordings, I'd just say that unless you're familiar with recording music and playing it back on your own system you're just guessing on what sounds right. Even then, as @microstrip correctly pointed out, mic choice and setup can make a really large difference, but you should still get the overall "vibe" and space of the venue.

So I'd just put out there that these live vs system comparisons are confounded by the fact the listener has no point of reference whatsoever.

Well, we must rely on memory because we can not simultaneously listen to both an original live event and a recording of that event. As far as references go, how would we even know what a piano sounds like if we have not heard a live piano? And for recordings, can we not listen to that same recording in a number of different systems, familiar or not, and get some sense of its quality? People demonstrate systems and judge their quality by playing reference recordings.

IME, there are other points of reference that are actually objective and can lead one to the traditional definition of "high fidelity" TO THE RECORDING. And if that fidelity is realized it will also make live recordings sound more real. In other words, you can absolutely disregard any live music references, as they are going to be very subjective and honestly, not based in reality. People complain that it's difficult to hear differences in A/B testing separated by mere minutes, yet we're supposed to buy into the idea that someone can judge what sound realistic and natural based on their individual subjective experience of live sound separated by hours, days or weeks? Even when the person was not present during the recording, and has no idea what the recording setup looks like or what the intent of the folks doing the recording is?! Really? Sorry but this seems absurd.

I fail to see how a live music reference is not based in reality. I hold that listening to live music is reality. Yes, it is often difficult to hear differences in A/B testing. Sometimes that is because the differences are extremely subtle. It is much easier to tell the difference between live and reproduced music, even if separated by time. I recording of a piano does not sound exactly like a real piano, but we have a sense of what a piano should sound like if we have heard a few in a variety of settings. If we are A/B testing two speaker cables or power boxes, how could we possibly know which sounds more realistic (if that is one's goal) if we did not have our memories of what real music sounds like. Of course real music is a reference, though it seems not for everyone.

A better way to judge system performance is how unique it can make each recording sound, or put another way, how little it adds of it's own character overall. We can easily judge resolution by how well it presents spatial attributes and how realistic and distinct the timbre of complex instruments like strings and vocals are. Vocals are especially hardwired into our brain because we hear it live everyday and it's not difficult to tell how well a system recreates vocals. How different does a violin sound vs a viola? All these things can be measured in comparison, while not as satisfying as a measurement, it's still possible to objectively determine how neutral a system is to the recording. And by objectively improving our system's performance, it will allow live recordings to sound more live, and for the system to more accurately portray the intent of the recording.

Again, how can we judge any of that without referring back to our memory of the timbre of complex instruments like strings and vocals? How do we know that a violin sounds different from a viola unless we have heard them live and can remember their differences?

How do we know what the recording should sound like, or how neutral a system is to the recording? What do we use as a basis for judgement if not the sound of actual instruments? We can listen to sounds and have a preference based on their effect on us.

I agree with you that a good system will clearly distinguish one recording from another and that it will allow a live recording to sound more live. But again, we can't know what live means unless we have heard live. It is our reference and we rely on our memory. Are you suggesting we rely on something else, like our imaginations?

What we need overall is a balance between preference and objective performance. Personal preferences are totally valid but can be informed by making sure the system works well on an objective level. An example: Many people ask me for a warm cable, they tell me their personal preferences are for a warm tone. I send some cables to demo, one of which will absolutely not be warm, it will be as neutral and resolving as possible. A vast majority of the time, maybe 80-90%, I'll hear back that the person prefers the neutral cable. We need some amount of warmth to smooth out noise and artifacts, maybe hide flaws in a poor recording, but the better the system the less warmth required. When people hear a neutral cable that improves spatial performance and timbre, and understand the difference between the two, almost everyone without exception prefers the sound of a neutral and highly resolving cable. Their desire for improvement is real but they don't necessarily understand what will satisfy that desire until they experience it.

I agree that neutral is good. A truly revealing system will present much of the rich tone of instruments if captured on a good recording. Neutrality, transparency, lack of coloration are some of the important qualities of a good system.

So sounding "natural", or like your own subjective experience of live music sounds good in theory, who wouldn't want that? But it's not achievable using the metrics espoused in this now 336 page thread because 1. The recordings don't exist or are very rare, and 2. You have no point of reference to judge what you're listening to unless you were there yourself.

1. I agree that great recordings are rare, but there certainly are many, many wonderful sounding recordings that one can collect and that provide much enjoyment. The recording is one aspect, the system is the other for natural sound. Certain recordings are acknowledged as references specifically because of how they can sound on systems. Reviewers describe the very qualities of various recordings that make them special and worthy of attention. Whole labels have certain reputations, as do engineers. There is some standard by which they are judged. And that standard is often the sound of actual music.
2. Of course we have a reference to judge what we are listening to. We have our experience based on living in the real world and listening to real voices and instruments in real rooms. Together, these form a basis by which we can judge performance. I heard a live performance of a string trio the other night. I have recordings of string trios. I can certainly judge how convincing they sound, in my system and in other systems. And I am sure that I am not alone. We do not listen to music on our systems in isolation, devoid of past experiences.

As I had suggested, a discussion about "separation of instruments" might well be controversial. These last few pages show that. I hear more separation of instruments from some playback systems, often much more, than I hear this quality from live music. Many of the recent posts do not really address that point but rather attempt to explain why recordings or systems might enhance this effect. Some of us do indeed compare live music to reproduced music as I did here with my recent experience listening to a live string trio in a nice hall. It seems others do not value such comparisons and seem to prefer enjoying each experience for its own merits and qualities. That is fine too. They are different experiences. Some of us attempt to make them more similar than different.

 

[the sound of Tao]

Graham, That is a very interesting question. I do not know if we have passed completely away from that era, but it seems that recording and reproduction efforts are evolving and changing. What I hear typically now are more effects meant to grab attention and stimulate rather than reproduction that resembles what I hear from live acoustic music. Some might argue that reproduced music and live music are sounding more similar, and that may be the case with electronic music, but I would argue that today's recordings and the modern gear that I have heard are sounding less like live acoustic music. It is all still fun and enjoyable, but I think aesthetics and values are shifting.

I do think a part of it is the way music is made. There is much more electronic and amplified music. Musicians often do not play together during the recording process. Gear has gone from efficient and analog to inefficient and digital. What is a reference any more? How is electronic music supposed to sound? I do not think this is necessarily a bad thing, it is just different, and the way it is. Fortunately, we still have a lot of choices in music, recordings, and playback gear.

I suppose that for the hifi addicted who happen to be into classical and jazz music we live in a relatively enchanted realm where there is less imposition of artifice in recording generally and more regularly better approaches to recording for authenticity in approach.

It’s not news that for those of us who maybe are into alternative music or EDM or those that are into pop or country or any of the other genres that the recording engineering has often been in ways more artificially synthesised and that highly variable (and at times quite poor) recording has often just been a burden carried along in these genre.

I did look into data on recent music preferences a while back and while the way that music genre is variously classified and clumped together is the challenge in reading meaningfulness out of the results the trends generally for the last few decades sees pop music regularly in play for around 50 per cent of the music listening public and that alternative music or classical or jazz each featuring in regular play for around 20 to 30 per cent of music punters out there… on average most people that listen to music regularly are likely to tune into 2 to 3 choices of genres of music mostly.

So while jazz isn’t at a level that it was mid twentieth century or classical was even before that there is still continuance… these genres aren’t dying off so the tradition of recorded music reflecting live acoustic performance will carry through with these genres atleast. So there is a market for systems that render acoustic live music well if it can be adapted to the needs for future generations… maybe open baffle has an affordability, practicality, authenticity, efficiency and accessibility to carry through with relevance for the music lovers who are into dominantly acoustic genre music and also then offers a platform for a continuing interest for high quality low powered amplifiers.

For that next gen then add in a turntable and a vinyl library and also the capacity to stream and the audiophile spirit lives on in an iterative transition to the future that includes the continuing renaissance of tubes and high efficiency speakers. Musicality experienced well in the live music tradition is perhaps one of the few reasons going forwards for next gen to step away from typical contemporary lifestyle audio devices.

 

[PeterA]

I suppose that for the hifi addicted who happen to be into classical and jazz music we live in a relatively enchanted realm where there is less imposition of artifice in recording generally and more regularly better approaches to recording for authenticity in approach.

One might ask why re-issues sound different from originals and wonder why many prefer the latter.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

One might ask why re-issues sound different from originals and wonder why many prefer the latter.

a few possible reasons.

1-if we are talking about originals from 1955---1980 the tapes are now 40-60 years old. in the late 90's when many of the best reissues were mastered the tapes were 15-25 years old.
2--original pressings were better than still early but later pressings. so there is a degree of excellence in first pressings for all sorts of logistical and QC reasons.
3---different EQ's......variations of noise reduction used for reissues. the processors are now aged and not pristine. lots of late 60's and 70's pop/rock was done using EQ.
4---golden age jazz and classical had some very dialed in mastering going on. hard to capture the same processes.
5---the art of mastering and pressing was optimized in 1955--1980......the talent and experience depth of the record making business was at an all time high. are some now as good? i don't know. technology might be advanced, but the gear to do it might not be as good.
6---a digital step might be part of the picture.

 

[microstrip]

One might ask why re-issues sound different from originals and wonder why many prefer the latter.

The Circle of Confusion, as addressed by F. Toole can help understanding it - current sound engineers use different studios and different speakers to master the recordings.

In Europe, "original" pressings coming from different countries sometimes sound very different - there are large sound differences coming from different facilities getting the same master tape versions.

You refer to many - I prefer considering relative terms. As far as I read from magazines reviews and internet audio forums, in general the opinions of people are favorable to modern reissues. The fact is that in this hobby, one negative opinion usually makes much more noise than five praising it!

 

[tima]

a few possible reasons.

1-if we are talking about originals from 1955---1980 the tapes are now 40-60 years old. in the late 90's when many of the best reissues were mastered the tapes were 15-25 years old.
2--original pressings were better than still early but later pressings. so there is a degree of excellence in first pressings for all sorts of logistical and QC reasons.
3---different EQ's......variations of noise reduction used for reissues. the processors are now aged and not pristine. lots of late 60's and 70's pop/rock was done using EQ.
4---golden age jazz and classical had some very dialed in mastering going on. hard to capture the same processes.
5---the art of mastering and pressing was optimized in 1955--1980......the talent and experience depth of the record making business was at an all time high. are some now as good? i don't know. technology might be advanced, but the gear to do it might not be as good.
6---a digital step might be part of the picture.

7-- different vinyl formulations. Some materials in earlier vinyl, such as cadmium or dibasic lead stearate used as mould release agents are no longer allowed.

 

[PeterA]

The Circle of Confusion, as addressed by F. Toole can help understanding it - current sound engineers use different studios and different speakers to master the recordings.

In Europe, "original" pressings coming from different countries sometimes sound very different - there are large sound differences coming from different facilities getting the same master tape versions.

You refer to many - I prefer considering relative terms. As far as I read from magazines reviews and internet audio forums, in general the opinions of people are favorable to modern reissues. The fact is that in this hobby, one negative opinion usually makes much more noise than five praising it!

People can read reviews and magazines for other people’s opinions. I prefer to compare the two myself and each time I have, original pressings sound better than reissues. And even early pressings sound better than re-issues.

A friend told me one of the reasons is that the new vinyl formulations combined with being thicker sound damped. The music has to be remastered to overcome this damn sound, so attributes are enhanced. Another reason is that modern equipment sounds different so new records are designed to compensate for that. I don’t know enough about it, but that seems to make sense to me.

The most plausible reason I think is that people making recordings now simply have different aesthetics and values than the people who made them before.

 

[microstrip]

(...) As I had suggested, a discussion about "separation of instruments" might well be controversial. These last few pages show that. I hear more separation of instruments from some playback systems, often much more, than I hear this quality from live music. Many of the recent posts do not really address that point but rather attempt to explain why recordings or systems might enhance this effect. Some of us do indeed compare live music to reproduced music as I did here with my recent experience listening to a live string trio in a nice hall. It seems others do not value such comparisons and seem to prefer enjoying each experience for its own merits and qualities. That is fine too. They are different experiences. Some of us attempt to make them more similar than different.

Well, I do not consider preferences to be a controversial subject.

Considering separation, I see you prefer what I consider the "blindfolded" listener perspective, I prefer the experience that recreates what remembers me of the audio and visual experience - that curiously seems to be the objective of most of the recording industry.

IMO "comparing" live music with sound reproduction is poor wording. They are not comparable. IMO listening to live music helps us enjoying our systems, but will not drive us in a convergent process.

 

[microstrip]

People can read reviews and magazines for other people’s opinions. I prefer to compare the two myself and each time I have, original pressings sound better than reissues. And even early pressings sound better than re-issues.

When you refer to many in your posts, I suppose that you are addressing others opinions ...

A friend told me one of the reasons is that the new vinyl formulations combined with being thicker sound damped. The music has to be remastered to overcome this damn sound, so attributes are enhanced. Another reason is that modern equipment sounds different so new records are designed to compensate for that. I don’t know enough about it, but that seems to make sense to me.

Surely. But because you love vinyl resonance does not mean that thicker vinyl is damned! You should try the Oracle mat ...

The most plausible reason I think is that people making recordings now simply have different aesthetics and values than the people who made them before.

Yes. IMO this makes this hobby much more interesting for old people as us ...

 

[PeterA]

Well, I do not consider preferences to be a controversial subject.

I am sharing my observation of what I hear. It’s not a preference. I don’t follow the point you’re trying to make.

Considering separation, I see you prefer what I consider the "blindfolded" listener perspective, I prefer the experience that recreates what remembers me of the audio and visual experience - that curiously seems to be the objective of most of the recording industry.

When I’m listening to music in a concert hall, large scale or small scale, when I close my eyes, my ears confirm what I am seeing in terms of spatial relationships. I do not prefer to listen blindfolded.

I also prefer my audio system to remind me of the total experience I have when listening to live music. It seems we agree on this.

IMO "comparing" live music with sound reproduction is poor wording. They are not comparable. IMO listening to live music helps us enjoying our systems, but will not drive us in a convergent process.

Well, if I am making observations about similarities and differences between recorded music and live music, I think of that as a comparison. I think the experience of listening to reproduce music at home can be more or less similar to the experience of listening to live music in a concert hall, depending on one’s selection of gear and how it is set up. In that sense, it can be convergent, but I do agree with you that they are different and not the same.

 

[PeterA]

Surely. But because you love vinyl resonance does not mean that thicker vinyl is damned! You should try the Oracle mat ...

I prefer the sound of vinyl. I do not think thicker vinyl is damned. It sounds more damped to me. When I have compared recordings on thick versus thin vinyl, the music on thinner vinyl of early or original pressings sound more alive to me. There’s more life and energy to the sound. It sounds more natural.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Don't most people prefer original pressings of jazz and classical and rock* over re-issues? The main reason re-issues even exist is because the original pressings became too expensive or to unavailable, or both, no?

*I find that re-issues of 1970s and 1980s pop often sound better than the original. My evidence for this is every DCC Compact Classic reissue I've ever heard.

 

[bonzo75]

Don't most people prefer original pressings of jazz and classical and rock* over re-issues? The main reason re-issues even exist is because the original pressings became too expensive or to unavailable, or both, no?

*I find that re-issues of 1970s and 1980s pop often sound better than the original. My evidence for this is every DCC Compact Classic reissue I've ever heard.

I won’t say most because most people don’t know about originals. “Most” just buy any copy without even knowing how to read the label to understand which pressing it is. 1970 and 1980 pop was not part of that category. When people refer to originals they refer to select era and labels and recording engineers, not just any original copy.

 

[hopkins]

I agree that neutral is good. A truly revealing system will present much of the rich tone of instruments if captured on a good recording. Neutrality, transparency, lack of coloration are some of the important qualities of a good system.

You could have spared us all the drama about black backgrounds and instrument outlines...

 

[tima]

Recorded studio amplified rock and pop from the 50's through 80's tends to be hit or miss in terms of clarity and noise, both 45s and LPs. Consider Sun Records, early rock through Pet Sounds or A Saucerful of Secrets, even the original Sgt.Peppers. Reissues can clean them up. Acoustic classical music from the 50's - 80's has no guarantee of quality but, imo, generally more care and expense is taken with the recording.

But they still rock. The Yardbirds had Jimmy Page, Jeff Beck and Eric Clapton as guitarists, even Plant and Bonham at various times.

 

[the sound of Tao]

One might ask why re-issues sound different from originals and wonder why many prefer the latter.

I’m glad Mike covered this, and yes the golden age of analogue gifted us a crazy amount of richness.

I know it’s not analogue and digital is not your thing but I’m just happy that in terms of great performances there is still so much extraordinary classical repertoire still being performed and recorded. I also get that there is a treasure house of the benchmark performances of the classical repertoire along with jazz available from the analogue era but from a performance perspective the traditions continue and keeps it very much alive still.

 

[PeterA]

You could have spared us all the drama about black backgrounds and instrument outlines...

You are drawn to this thread for some reason, but still don’t understand it. If you want to be spared the drama, just don’t read it.

 

[hopkins]

You are drawn to this thread for some reason, but still don’t understand it. If you want to be spared the drama, just don’t read it.

I understand that you like your system for how it reminds you of live music, and that's great. You are correct, the rest is all nonsense to me.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Don't most people prefer original pressings of jazz and classical and rock* over re-issues? The main reason re-issues even exist is because the original pressings became too expensive or to unavailable, or both, no?

*I find that re-issues of 1970s and 1980s pop often sound better than the original. My evidence for this is every DCC Compact Classic reissue I've ever heard.

As I recall, Specifically DCC Compact Classics are mastered to sound ‘lush’. Which is your general preference.

I like them too, but they sometimes seem a bit too sweet. i do have a few of them. vocals on the DCC are very good. i'll need to pull a few out and revisit my bias about them.

 

[Ron Resnick]

As I recall, Specifically DCC Compact Classics are mastered to sound ‘lush’.

I did not know that.

Which is your general preference.

In my experience with every comparison they sound better than the original on poorly-recorded, multi-track pop -- and on pop in general.

I like them too, but they sometimes seem a bit too sweet.

I have not found that. But I think that's just our difference in subjective preference. I think you like a little more "neutral" than I do.

i do have a few of them. vocals on the DCC are very good. i'll need to pull a few out and revisit my bias about them.

Yes, vocals are great!