SPACE: THE FINAL FRONTIER

[Elliot G.]

While I have not heard as many systems as you I agree that the vast majority of audiophiles are stuck on the merry-go-round. Why? I think there are a few reasons.

One is that dealers are trying to make money selling boxes. They do this by telling their unsuspecting clients that the next latest, greatest thing is going to move their sound in a positive direction and get them closer to audio nirvana.

Another is that the vast majority of audiophiles don't know how to take what they have and set it up to give convincing results in dynamics, tone & timing. This goes for most dealers whose idea of setup is (maybe) delivering the speakers, unboxing them and maybe getting a centered vocalist.

For some, it may be that they are just playing around like buying the newest golf club.

I love Karen's essay's. I agree 100% that we need convincing tone. The timing needs to be precise. The sound should be dynamic. There hasn't been much discussion on how to achieve that other than careful selection of equipment that is not overly emphasizing the upper mid/treble. As you stated, I believe this is achieved by listening position, speaker position and room acoustics. Where is the manual on that?

On the side topic of pace. I don't know exactly what the ear is picking up on but the perceived pace of a piece of music is adjustable. I know the song will still end at exactly the same marker but it's perception can be changed. Musicians do this. They can play the same piece of music and make it seem slow or fast depending on their dynamic expression and very subtle timing adjustments between notes.

There is no manual on that although there have been many things written about set up. I think expertise is something not well respected in Audio probably because of some or all of the reasons you state. I am not making excuses for anyone but just buying a product today doesn't get you expert set up.
There are a lot of reasons for that but just to name a few.
Learning a room and spending the time to dial in a system takes time and talent.
There are a few people out in the market that do a very good job and I believe they would also tell you that the gear needs to be broken in fully and then they can come and do their thing. These talented guys charge for this service and I think for many this would be a very wise investment, certainly more important than some 2-3000 cable or gizmo. There are people that can do it themselves however this takes lot of time and effort. Speaking for myself I can't do this in a micro second it takes days and weeks when I change things to get it right. I believe reading some of the things written by Jim Smith or some manufacturers should help however not every company is good at the set up either. SHOCKING but true!! I would suggest that Jim Smith or Stirling Trayle's services would benefit many and I am sure their are others I just don't know them.
I would be happy to try to help anyone and give them some things I have learned but I have no desire to write a book or do that solely to make a living, its freeking hard and tedious and can be boring. I have also found that many clients just really aren't interested in you spending time they want the thing hooked up and you out of the house.
Learning and gaining these skills and also learning to listen not just hear are imperative to getting to the point at which your system sounds "right" Right has no price tag it really matters more about how the chosen products work together and their relationship to the room and the listening position.

 

[marty]

I can't help but think that this discussion comes dangerously close to trying to understand how many angels can fit on the head of a pin. Live music and reproduced music are two completely different entities. Reproduced music captures one thing and one thing only which is the sound captured by microphones. Real music is the sound of music reproduced in a physical place. I understand discussing comparative live vs recorded differences of tone, frequency response, and dynamics etc., but respectfully submit that the reproduction of "space" is largely a contrivance that makes such comparisons moot and thus it is a property whose importance has taken on largely mythical importance. Let's use a concrete example.

Let’s discuss Channel’s Classics superb recordings of Ivan Fischer’s Mahler symphonies with the Budapest Festival Orchestra as an example These excellent recordings were made by the superb recording engineer Jared Sacks. However, most people do not know there was another set of recordings made by Grammy award winning engineer Tom Caulfield who worked with Jared on these recordings simultaneously. I am fortunate to have a hi-rez version of Caulfield’s M3 and the sound between the two versions is very different, despite using the same microphones! Why?

In Tom’s own words, listen to what he says about how microphone choice and placement are key determinants for the resultant recorded sound. This is an excerpt from our email exchange:

“…As we discussed before, the degree of the DPA 4041's high frequency rise is dependent on the axis. At 60 degrees off axis the microphone response is essentially flat, and at 90 degrees off axis, the response is ~ -2dB above 5KHz. So positioning the front three mics close to the orchestra front has the high frequency abundant close instruments in the mics very off axis response field, while the more distant instruments (percussion, horns and brass and basses) more on axis, but distant.

An additional factor in all the BFO recordings is the significant reduction of early reflections in the Place of Arts hall, particularly with all the stage extensions deployed. This doesn't aid either the musicians, or concert audience at all, but aids significantly recording with relatively simple main micing. The sound stage is much cleaner and spacious. The more recent Beethoven 1 and 5 I recorded there had the smaller orchestra more coved into the rear and side stage walls, to facilitate replacing the front fifteen foot stage extension with paying seats. Like all BFO recordings, they're recorded on some of the same days of the evening concerts, so reconfiguring the orchestra and hall becomes very expensive.

The upshot of that compressing the orchestra upstage was my recording is nowhere near as spacious as the Mahler's (M3 and das Lied), and frankly sounds closer to a Boston Symphony Hall recording. All due to the increased early reflections content.

I'm hoping this longish detail is providing some insight for you Marty about the variables and decisions in making a recording. There are an almost endless array of possibilities of just hall selection, orchestra positioning, microphone selection, microphone technique, and microphone positioning, even before the recording technique, process, format, and hardware are even considered.”

Learning this, here’s my take away as far as the relevance of the sound one hears in the hall venue versus the recording of that event. There is often none!!! You can stand on your head and talk about space all you want but you are only hearing what the mics allow, and that entails enormous set-up variances which effect the resultant sound. Yet ironically, none of these variances are relevant to the sound of the music you hear in the hall. As far as what you hear in the hall, the location of your individual seat has a far greater influence on what you hear whereas with a recording, as Tom says, it’s the microphone and set-up considerations that are key. What does that tell you about the sense of space captured on a recording versus the real thing?

Is the sound you hear in the hall different when different mic heights or locations are used? Of course not. But the sound, especially the sound of “space” is dramatically affected depending on where you sit! Over the past weekend I was at Carnegie to hear the Vienna Philharmonic. One night I was in Box 33 (dead center, front row), the second night it was box 37, front row, about 12 feet to the left of center. The sound was clearly different. The sense of space in particular was different. Hence the only conclusion I can draw is that the space one hears in the recording has microphone choice and placement as the key determinants rather than the sound you hear in the hall which is primarily seat dependent. That’s why I think the discussion of “space” we hear on a recording is largely contrived in many ways. That said, many recordings do capture the hall with some versimultude of the real thing. It’s why the recordings of Cozart/Fine, Lewis Layton, Ken Wilkerson and others are as treasured as they are. But even then, you have to realize that the mics are often 10+feet higher than the stage and often much further forward than the front row of the orchestra. And there are no real seats in those locations! I hope this puts our discussion of recorded “space” into a more realistic perspective. Our sense of space on recordings is mainly attributed to the recording engineer’s skill and preferences and is hardly the same thing as what we hear in the hall in an actual seat, although sometimes we get lucky and are rewarded with a fine listening experience of the recorded event in our home systems.

 

[tima]

Live music and reproduced music are two completely different entities. Reproduced music captures one thing and one thing only which is the sound captured by microphones. Real music is the sound of music reproduced in a physical place. I understand discussing comparative live vs recorded differences of tone, frequency response, and dynamics etc., but respectfully submit that the reproduction of "space" is largely a contrivance that makes such comparisons moot and thus it is a property whose importance has taken on largely mythical importance.

But the sound, especially the sound of “space” is dramatically affected depending on where you sit!

That's an interesting post, Marty that advances the discussion. I read it twice. Thanks for sharing the comments from engineer Caulfield. Allow me to offer a few comments on it.

The basic notions I get from your post are:

1) in a concert hall what we hear depends on where we sit;
2) microphone setup has many variables;
3) microphones are typically not positioned where people sit and listen;
4) what microphones capture for a recording, partly because of their positioning, is not what a person would hear during the same performance the microphones captured.

Then, what I think might be your conclusion, though (because of wording) I'm not certain:

5) Talk of audio Space (this thread) is a contrivance that makes either (here's my uncertainty):

a) comparing what one hears wrt to spatial characteristics during a live performance to what one hears of spatial characteristics on a recording is ... a moot (meaningless) exercise?
-- OR --
b) comparing what one hears in a live performance to what one hears on a recording is a moot exercise.

I kinda think you're after (a) but not certain.

I have no experience with recording music, and I don't see any real issue with items 1-4. If there is some primary point I missed, please advise.

Consider Karen's comment:

If we get tonal balance, instrumental timbres, and dynamics as close to right as possible in a home music system, a more realistic portrayal of the performance space is naturally a part of the listening package.

A realistic portrayal does not mean what an individual attending the performance will hear. One mark of better systems is their ability to differentiate not only different instruments (eg violins) but reveal sonic differences between halls or different venues. Constant context is homogenization.

I think most all will agree that microphones are not people and they position for recording, not concert hall listening. Nonetheless, a microphone will capture both direct sound and those reflected sounds that become cues in reproduction about contextual boundaries of the performance space. Differences in time between direct and reflected sound are an objective reality. Karen's point is that if a system does a good job with tone and dynamics it stands a chance of doing a good job portraying those cues.

For those of us advocating the use of live acoustic music as a guide for assessing reproduced sound, I'm pretty sure none are claiming an exact equivalence between live and recorded performance is what we're after. A sense of space/ambiance/context is neither a contrivance in the concert hall nor in a well done reproduction. That sense makes the reproduction more believable.

We understand that reproduction is not reality, but a performance reproduced in the absence of its ambiant context is unnatural.

Angels? The angels wanna wear my red shoes.

 

[pjwd]

absence of its ambiant context

Is there a filter that does this ? How is this even remotely possible
Phil

 

[marty]

5) Talk of audio Space (this thread) is a contrivance that makes either (here's my uncertainty):

a) comparing what one hears wrt to spatial characteristics during a live performance to what one hears of spatial characteristics on a recording is ... a moot (meaningless) exercise?
-- OR --
b) comparing what one hears in a live performance to what one hears on a recording is a moot exercise.

I kinda think you're after (a) but not certain.

To begin, thanks for the concise summary of points 1-4. You're more efficient at capturing my content than I was explaining it!

Re pt.5- I think my response would be "both". It's an exercise in frustration to compare recorded vs real since it's a comparison of apples and oranges even though they both have a common denominator which is the music itself. It has been said somewhere on this forum that for the first time in history, we now have the tools to listen to recorded music with a reasonable facsimile of the real thing. But no matter how close you (and your system) try as you might to get closer to and through the doorway of the real event, it just isn't possible to get there now. If audio holograms become common place in the future, that's another story. In the interim, such aspirations are an exercise of futility and this is what make the comparisons moot. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try. In fact, we all do! But let's recognize it for what it is and is not. Seems to me is that our extravagant well executed systems that provide a sense of spatial cues are frankly no more necessary to enjoy music reproduction than binocular vision is necessary to enjoy the beauty of the world as rendered in comparison to those who may only be able to appreciate their surroundings by viewing the world monocularly.

Karen's point is that if a system does a good job with tone and dynamics it stands a chance of doing a good job portraying those cues.

I couldn't disagree more. Some of us have incredibly expensive rigs that a specifically designed to play mono recordings. These do a fine job of reproducing tone and dynamics but have essentially zero capability to convey conventional spatial or ambient cues. Same for table top radios, car radios, or music coming from ground speakers walking through Disneyland.

We understand that reproduction is not reality, but a performance reproduced in the absence of its ambient context is unnatural.

For the above reasons, I would respectfully disagree. It's just an apple, not an orange.

 

[PeterA]

I couldn't disagree more. Some of us have incredibly expensive rigs that a specifically designed to play mono recordings. These do a fine job of reproducing tone and dynamics but have essentially zero capability to convey conventional spatial or ambient cues. Same for table top radios, car radios, or music coming from ground speakers walking through Disneyland.

Marty, do you think that table top radios, car radios, or music coming from ground speakers walking through Disneyland "do a find job of reproducing tone and dynamics...."? I agree that they don't do a great job at reproducing the spatial character of the recording venue, but they don't do the rest either, IMO.

 

[Elliot G.]

I do understand what you are saying however your thoughts really apply to certain types of music. One reason your home doesn't sound like a concert hall is simply the fact that IT IS NOT a concert hall. It might be fun to have a huge audio system set up in a concert hall and see what happens. I digress. I listen to more than classical and in fact most of what I listen to is not classical.
Smaller venues with soloist or small groups of musicians playing all forms of music is where I try to make my system sound like. I find that there is the area where I can come the closest and its also what I really like. MY commute is not a Formula one race course and my room is not Carnegie so my expectations of bringing that to me are non existent. My time machine has always about bring me to it rather than it to me.
I can raise goosebumps with the right performances in the right places in my room. To be honest I can never do that with a full orchestra ....YET . To quote a scene from Jaws- "were going to need a bigger boat" IMHO to get a orchestra right you're going to need a much bigger room.

 

[Karen Sumner]

I couldn't disagree more. Some of us have incredibly expensive rigs that a specifically designed to play mono recordings. These do a fine job of reproducing tone and dynamics but have essentially zero capability to convey conventional spatial or ambient cues.

In my experience, most mono recordings are richly endowed with tonal balance, dynamic nuance, and ambience. Mono ambience isn't expressed in the same way that stereo system ambience is, but there are some who prefer a mono ambient presentation to a stereo presentation. Whenever I listen to a good archival jazz performance captured on a mono recording through our dedicated mono front end, I understand why many also prefer and admire the musically denser tonal balance that mono recordings provide compared to many stereo recordings. You're right. It doesn't require stereo to enjoy listening to music at home, but many prefer going that route.

 

[Karen Sumner]

It's an exercise in frustration to compare recorded vs real since it's a comparison of apples and oranges even though they both have a common denominator which is the music itself. It has been said somewhere on this forum that for the first time in history, we now have the tools to listen to recorded music with a reasonable facsimile of the real thing. But no matter how close you (and your system) try as you might to get closer to and through the doorway of the real event, it just isn't possible to get there now.

We can't replicate the live music listening experience at home, but we can do our best to put together a system of components for the purpose of achieving a musical result that triggers much of the same emotional and psychological engagement we have when we listen to live music.

The music listening criteria ddk, tima, JS, and I have been discussing on separate, but parallel, paths provide a framework upon which to build a musically satisfying home audio system. What we ultimately settle for in terms of musically representative sound at home depends upon a lot of things such as interest, the quality of the advice we seek, past music experiences, budget, available component choices, and the size and characteristics of the listening environment. The path we take to get there is different for each of us, and it's not easy. Consequently, more than a few high-end audio stereo systems don't come close to a believable level of tonality and dynamics — qualities that one expects to hear on a baseline level from a typical music delivery system, even a Tivoli radio. These basic qualities are easy to achieve from an engineering perspective with typical components because they have relatively limited power capability, bandwidth, and simple transducers.

It is not technically easy to achieve tonal and dynamic balance with more powerful, wider bandwidth separate components, and multi driver speakers. It's not about choosing a magic speaker, amplifier, or source as some members of the press and some manufacturers would lead us to believe. It’s how the entire system works together that counts. The extra power, greater bandwidth, and lower noise floor delivered by many of today’s SOTA components become problematical when combined al la carte in a system. The act of combining components, regardless of how well each is engineered, can lead to artifacts, noise, and intermodulation distortions that do not exist in the individual components themselves. Artifacts, noise, and intermodulation distortion if present in sufficient quantity in a system have a dramatic impact on tonality and dynamics because these types of interference are additive or subtractive to the original music signal. Perhaps this is a subject to explore in a subsequent thread.

I think part of what we are getting to in this discussion is what actually differentiates a high- end audio stereo system from lesser music delivery systems which can provide perfectly enjoyable music listening experiences. What does a high-end audio stereo system have to offer from a musical standpoint that more typical music delivery systems do not provide, and why are these qualities important to our musical engagement?

 

[Gregadd]

Many of my favorite recordings became so over systems that today would make me cringe.

 

[tima]

Is there a filter that does this ? How is this even remotely possible
Phil

One way is to record in an anechoic chamber or booth. That may not yield zero ambiance but it can be very little. I don't know how feasible that is for orchestral, probably not though some use of acoustic panels is possible for small groups. Would not surprise me if some filtering is possible. The point I was making was a lack of context information is a negative.

Listen to Paul Simon and Linda Ronstadt sing 'Under African Skies' on his Graceland album. Do you hear a slight difference in ambiance, even though sonically they position next to each? That tells me they were recorded separately, probably each in their own booth

 

[microstrip]

We can't replicate the live music listening experience at home, but we can do our best to put together a system of components for the purpose of achieving a musical result that triggers much of the same emotional and psychological engagement we have when we listen to live music.

Yes, it is the objective of sound reproduction since long. But we can't forget that for many of us assembling and tuning a system is an hobby, and this hobby is indisputably part of the emotion.

The music listening criteria ddk, tima, JS, and I have been discussing on separate, but parallel, paths provide a framework upon which to build a musically satisfying home audio system. What we ultimately settle for in terms of musically representative sound at home depends upon a lot of things such as interest, the quality of the advice we seek, past music experiences, budget, available component choices, and the size and characteristics of the listening environment. The path we take to get there is different for each of us, and it's not easy. Consequently, more than a few high-end audio stereo systems don't come close to a believable level of tonality and dynamics — qualities that one expects to hear on a baseline level from a typical music delivery system, even a Tivoli radio. These basic qualities are easy to achieve from an engineering perspective with typical components because they have relatively limited power capability, bandwidth, and simple transducers.

Although this path is very interesting to read, IMHO it does not provide a general framework. IMHO the reference is excessively subjective and multifaceted. Tonality and dynamics have precise meanings and many systems with good tonality and dynamics are a real disaster.
BTW, audiophiles should learn how to read reviews and about their limitations.

It is not technically easy to achieve tonal and dynamic balance with more powerful, wider bandwidth separate components, and multi driver speakers. It's not about choosing a magic speaker, amplifier, or source as some members of the press and some manufacturers would lead us to believe. It’s how the entire system works together that counts. The extra power, greater bandwidth, and lower noise floor delivered by many of today’s SOTA components become problematical when combined al la carte in a system.

I think we must add the room in your list. Stereo creates a believable feeling of space just because it is aided by room reflections.

The act of combining components, regardless of how well each is engineered, can lead to artifacts, noise, and intermodulation distortions that do not exist in the individual components themselves. Artifacts, noise, and intermodulation distortion if present in sufficient quantity in a system have a dramatic impact on tonality and dynamics because these types of interference are additive or subtractive to the original music signal. Perhaps this is a subject to explore in a subsequent thread.

Again, we should look at the room. IMHO it is more than just combining components. The unique interaction between room and system can create artifacts that as far as I have seen can not be predicted.

I think part of what we are getting to in this discussion is what actually differentiates a high- end audio stereo system from lesser music delivery systems which can provide perfectly enjoyable music listening experiences. What does a high-end audio stereo system have to offer from a musical standpoint that more typical music delivery systems do not provide, and why are these qualities important to our musical engagement?

Yes, the real challenge starts here.

 

[pjwd]

One way is to record in an anechoic chamber or booth. That may not yield zero ambiance but it can be very little. I don't know how feasible that is for orchestral, probably not though some use of acoustic panels is possible for small groups. Would not surprise me if some filtering is possible. The point I was making was a lack of context information is a negative.

Listen to Paul Simon and Linda Ronstadt sing 'Under African Skies' on his Graceland album. Do you hear a slight difference in ambiance, even though sonically they position next to each? That tells me they were recorded separately, probably each in their own booth

I have heard a choir that was recorded in an anechoic chamber for scientific purposes ... it was unnervingly weird... vocal booths are mostly highly damped but have some vestige of life and reverb would usually be added in when mixed.
The point I was making is if ambient noise ... real or artificial ...is present on the recording a system with full range will reproduce that to an equivalent level of accuracy as it does with the rest of the material .. I dont see how a system can filter out the ambience component
I will have a listen to that track

 

[tima]

It has been said somewhere on this forum that for the first time in history, we now have the tools to listen to recorded music with a reasonable facsimile of the real thing. But no matter how close you (and your system) try as you might to get closer to and through the doorway of the real event, it just isn't possible to get there now. If audio holograms become common place in the future, that's another story. In the interim, such aspirations are an exercise of futility and this is what make the comparisons moot. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try. In fact, we all do!

First, no one I count in the Naturalist camp believes we can replicate the concert hall experience at home. I keep saying reproduction is not that reality. Differences of time and space alone suggest an impossibility.

Your comment about audio holograms leads me to remake the following point: when we advocate for using live acoustic music as a guide we do not mean replicating a specific performance. We do want enough of a specific performance to understand it as unique from other performances of the same music. We want the reproduction to sound natural, to sound believable. We are in revolt against the more modernist. notion pushed in the press and sometimes in forums that music from a high fidelity systems needs be faithful to nothing as long as I like it, or put more gently, w want to hang to every scrap of

And if I read you correctly about trying, you are at least a covert member of our group. Welcome brother!

 

[microstrip]

(...) We are in revolt against the more modernist. notion pushed in the press and sometimes in forums that music from a high fidelity systems needs be faithful to nothing as long as I like it, or put more gently, w want to hang to every scrap of (...)

Why being in revolt against something that almost no one defends? As far as I see no one I have read from in WBF has stated clearly "that a high fidelity systems needs be faithful to nothing as long as he likes it. "

The question is far more complex than you write it. IMHO what we debate is finding criteria to establish what is subjectively "faithful" that is not too individual and can be accepted by a community larger than five.

BTW, do you consider Floyd Toole a modernist?

 

[andromedaaudio]

The modernist approach is simply realizing that there is no one size fits all .
If we talk simply about transducers alone .
A certain type is more suited to a music genre then another type .
People make their choices simply based on music preference and thats how it should be .
The conservatives are not even past that stage yet , lol .

Like House music on a horn
Sounds like crap.

Ps how magazines think about this issue i have no idea .
Never read them

 

[tima]

Why being in revolt against something that almost no one defends? As far as I see no one I have read from in WBF has stated clearly "that a high fidelity systems needs be faithful to nothing as long as he likes it. "

Strawman arguments increase the liklihood of no reply.

Some people seem to have personal emotional satisfaction as their prime directive while some reject the natural sound philosophy (look at the pushback Peter took in his 'Natural Sound' thread) while some enjoy effects they may read about in a review or that are different from what is heard in a concert hall.

There is nothing wrong with any of those perspectives nor is there in advocating for another approach.

The question is far more complex than you write it. IMHO what we debate is finding criteria to establish what is subjectively "faithful" that is not too individual and can be accepted by a community larger than five.

I suggest you become proactive and start a thread for that complex question. Bear the burden of taking an initiative and a position you regard as positive.

 

[the sound of Tao]

Great to see a certain someone randomly spewing another completely off topic compulsive bit of horn hatred again. Entertaining... uhmm not I spose it’s going to keep happening till someone him gives him the attention he so desperately craves and takes his boxy diy speaker at all seriously or anyone shows any interest in it I guess. Probably why he hates audio magazines as well… they’re also not interested. Who knows… or indeed cares. Haters it seems are just continuously destined to hate

 

[zerostargeneral]

There is no rigour in romance, convoluting across domains cannot serve as workable theory.

Toole's conclusions are accepted even when they are wrong.

 

[andromedaaudio]

Great to see a certain someone randomly spewing another completely off topic compulsive bit of horn hatred again. Entertaining... uhmm not I spose it’s going to keep happening till someone him gives him the attention he so desperately craves and takes his boxy diy speaker at all seriously or anyone shows any interest in it I guess. Probably why he hates audio magazines as well… they’re also not interested. Who knows… or indeed cares. Haters it seems are just continuously destined to hate

Come on SOT , i have to read all day how natural horns and sets are .
A little bit of a different view and i m instantly crusified , lol .