The Sound of Live Music

[DaveyF]

Hello

Don't you guys use ear protection when you go to a show. I never go without it just in case. You never know who's running the board. I have had great nights and bad nights in the same venue all dependent on who was running the board that night.

Rob

Rob,
I usually do include ear protection...unfortunately on the occasion I was asked to stand in...I didn't have it. ( wasn't really expecting to be playing).

 

[theophile]

What we possess with our recordings is a simulacrum of Live Sound. At the point in time that we are at, reproduction of that simulacrum can be excellent. We are however faced with the fact that the imperfections of the various recordings whether due to equipment hardware(mikes/mike preamps/mixers/storage medium) and production decisions, consumer recorded media and playback hardware do not equate to Live Sound. One(LiveSound) does not equate to the other(recorded sound).

The most that we can expect our playback systems to achieve is the best possible reproduction of the captured, fixed, sound of the media that we have selected. With all of its deficits, limitations and imperfections. It can be tempting to compensate for the limitations in the recorded media via complimentary complementary colourations in our playback systems. Thus making that recording which lacks a smidgeon of bass/treble/whatever, sound more like our recollection of the real thing(which it does not). That renders the playback euphonic but inaccurate.

Listening should be pleasurable. 'Pleasurable' is in the ear of the beholder. I'm sure that we have all come across the listener who likes to 'spice-up' the bass or increase the sizzle of cymbals etc via loudness controls/tone controls/ EQ. On recordings we know it can sound exaggerated, overblown and false, but that resulting sound is what gives that listener pleasure even if we'd prefer to hear a more natural(ie less processed) effect.

Given that the end sound that we hear in a system is the meld of the individual elements that comprise our systems(with all their imperfections and colourations), it is as I said tempting to compensate the resulting sound to suit our tastes. The recorded sound is fixed. It cannot be changed. It was determined by the various decisions made by those involved at every step in the recordings' production. The most faithful thing that our systems can do is present that recording as it is. Not how we like it. As it is.

I never expect a recording to sound exactly like Live Music. At the present time that is not possible. It can sound hair-raisingly like Live Music, but it remains a recording. A fixed somewhat imperfect simulacrum.

Given that the original source for most recordings was people singing/playing instruments in a real space in real time, most recordings have to a greater or lesser degree captured in a limited way what they could of that original sonic source. When we experience a sonic capture of great degree with fewest limitations our brain immediately grasps that this sounds more real. The converse is true also. When we experience a sonic capture of lesser degree which has huge limitations our brain immediately grasps that this sounds less real. We know what real sound sounds like because we are immersed in it. Recordings are not real sound. They are an interpretive capture. A fixed entity. The nature of which was decided upon by the individuals involved in its production and release. The most accurate playback will be that which presents the recording as it is.

Those of us who love sonic captures of great degree with fewer limitations know that we need to discriminate in the recordings that we select due to the variability that we are faced with when we are selecting recorded media. In reality, if the meld of sound reproduced by the separate elements of our playback system preserves without modifying the sound of those great recordings that we find, we get a very satisfying response to the overall lack of limitation and modification of the fixed sound of the media. The recording needs therefore to be great. The media needs to be great. The playback needs to be great. No matter what the media is. No matter what the playback system is. If the recording is severely compromised, the result for those who love well reproduced sound/music will be proportionately compromised.

Recorded sound is not live sound. The best that we can aim for is faithfulness to the recording. The best that we can hope for is better recordings. Without them amazing systems just do an amazing job of reproducing the limitations of the recording, as wonderful or as dire as those recordings might be.

 

[Ron Party]

So, IMHO....we have a VERY long way to go before we can truly say that the 'live' sound really is indistinguishable from the 'reproduced'. To my ears, even the best sounding rooms and the best gear is nothing but a 'photograph' of the 'live' event. Easily distinguishable.

What he said. Or, maybe, I'd substitute an impressionistic painting for photograph.

I have never, ever, not even once, been close to being able to say *indistiguishable*, *natural* (LOL!), *real*, or any other such term. Maybe it's because I play a lot of instruments or, like Davey, performed a bunch, to state nothing of how many concerts I've attended.

Whatever is the reason, though, it all boils down to one's own ability to suspend disbelief. I, for one, have never been able to do so.

 

[theophile]

What he said. Or, maybe, I'd substitute an impressionistic painting for photograph.

I have never, ever, not even once, been close to being able to say *indistiguishable*, *natural* (LOL!), *real*, or any other such term. Maybe it's because I play a lot of instruments or, like Davey, performed a bunch, to state nothing of how many concerts I've attended.

Whatever is the reason, though, it all boils down to one's own ability to suspend disbelief. I, for one, have never been able to do so.

The 'ability to suspend belief' is determined by one's frame of reference. If one's reference for the reproduced sound of the human voice is two tin cans and a piece of string, then the sound of a human voice via a telephone hand set will sound shockingly real. Yet no experienced judge of quality reproduced sound would say that a telephone was the pinnacle of sound reproduction. It all depends upon one's frame of reference. If one's frame of reference is live sound, as of now nothing comes remotely close. Therefore expectation has to remain for the here and now commensurate with the real world limitations.

 

[Audiophile Bill]

Hi Theophile and all,

Some interesting points, much of which I agree with. Just an observation - listening to music is about pleasure as you say, and many great musicians, bands, and orchestras playing/singing some of the most mesmeric performances ever known have alas been captured on poor recordings.

Therefore the quote below does not resonate with me as foremost a musicophile.

"Those of us who love sonic captures of great degree with fewer limitations know that we need to discriminate in the recordings that we select due to the variability that we are faced with when we are selecting recorded media. In reality, if the meld of sound reproduced by the separate elements of our playback system preserves without modifying the sound of those great recordings that we find, we get a very satisfying response to the overall lack of limitation and modification of the fixed sound of the media. The recording needs therefore to be great. The media needs to be great."

As audiophiles, I think we all know those systems that have this uncanny ability to strike gold even when the recording is merely average. We also know systems that will not tolerate anything less than a 24/192 Reference Recordings track to appear okay. Therefore, what is our goal here - to maximise our ability to enjoy as many recordings as possible or live on a diet of Diana Krall and Dire Straits?



Bill

 

[GaryProtein]

Hello

Don't you guys use ear protection when you go to a show. I never go without it just in case. You never know who's running the board. I have had great nights and bad nights in the same venue all dependent on who was running the board that night.

Rob

What's the point of going to a show when you need to wear ear protection?

I will not attend those events. Those very loud concerts also have "an energy about the crowd" that I can definitely do without. I wish they would just sit down, shut up and listen to the people they paid to hear.

If I like the performer's music I will buy their recordings.

Recordings sound better than live music muffled by ear protection.

 

[Robh3606]

What's the point of going to a show when you need to wear ear protection?

I will not attend those events. Those very loud concerts also have "an energy about the crowd" that I can definitely do without. I wish they would just sit down, shut up and listen to the people they paid to hear.

If I like the performer's music I will buy their recordings.

Recordings sound better than live music muffled by ear protection.

Well then I guess you miss out then?? If the concerts are done in any venue they are universally to loud by definition although the modern line arrays do a really good job compared to the old stacks where if you were up from you would catch fire. I do lots of shows, over 50 this year so far. Even with shows that are not overly loud I sometimes still use my ear plugs to limit my exposure times at higher than normal SPL's. Depending on what you use they are not at all difficult to listen through. They are basically linear and just attenuate. I cherish my hearing and have always taken good care of my ears. I can still pass a hearing test with normal hearing as in no HF loss over the normal testing range. It's not for everyone so stay home if you prefer. I would rather enjoy the energy that you can only get from the real event. Way too much fun to stay home.

Rob

 

[theophile]

Hi Theophile and all,

Some interesting points, much of which I agree with. Just an observation - listening to music is about pleasure as you say, and many great musicians, bands, and orchestras playing/singing some of the most mesmeric performances ever known have alas been captured on poor recordings.

Therefore the quote below does not resonate with me as foremost a musicophile.

"Those of us who love sonic captures of great degree with fewer limitations know that we need to discriminate in the recordings that we select due to the variability that we are faced with when we are selecting recorded media. In reality, if the meld of sound reproduced by the separate elements of our playback system preserves without modifying the sound of those great recordings that we find, we get a very satisfying response to the overall lack of limitation and modification of the fixed sound of the media. The recording needs therefore to be great. The media needs to be great."

As audiophiles, I think we all know those systems that have this uncanny ability to strike gold even when the recording is merely average. We also know systems that will not tolerate anything less than a 24/192 Reference Recordings track to appear okay. Therefore, what is our goal here - to maximise our ability to enjoy as many recordings as possible or live on a diet of Diana Krall and Dire Straits?



Bill

Bill. I understand your point and in response I will say this, that a superior sound system will maximise the resolution of even flawed recordings. Revealing more about the recorded timbre, rhythmic counterpoint, vocal inflection and so on. This can be very gratifying when the music is beloved even if the recording has flaws. A superior system is not about papering over cracks. It is about cleaning windows to enjoy the vista even if that reveals that the glass is less than perfect and contains a few ripples. Better to see more of the view than to say if I'm aware of the defects, I'd rather brick up the window.

If we take the conclusion to its logical conclusion that the performance should be the only consideration as opposed to the sound quality of the media, I'm sure that there were some great performers who made recordings to wax cylinders. Do you really think that it would be satisfying having the frame of reference that we have now, to listen to what was an astonishing aria(when heard live that is) via its capture on a wax cylinder over one hundred years ago? I doubt that you'd even be able to discern that it was an astonishing aria via the wax cylinder. Live you would be in no doubt. An extreme example I'll admit, but it has to be acknowledged that the frame of reference is what causes the trouble. We have heard vastly incomparably better quality and that reference diminshes to our ears what was once a state of the art recording.

The same frame of reference relativity occurs when one has a high achieving system. The insight into every recording improves even if the recording doesn't. The added insight is a two sided coin. The limitations as well as the virtues are more exposed. Should one abandon high fidelity because it tells the truth? Should one abandon lesser recordings because one has seen the truth about them? That question can only be assessed by each individual according to their preferences. There is no one correct answer.

In my opinion a great system maximises what can be discerned from a recording. The recording is what it is. Remains what it is. The bonus of a great system is that it reveals hitherto unknown greatness in a truly great recording, that a good but not great system cannot access. A good but not great system somewhat lets compromised recordings off the hook. It doesn't look too closely therefore one remains unaware of the flaws. Ignorance in that instance being bliss. One can be in more bliss with a great system because more of the music comes through even if the flaws are now revealed. The bonus being that the great recordings finally get their chance to show just what it is that separates them quality-wise.

What we need are both better recordings and better systems. That way the archiving of great performances will stand up to any examination at any time. The beautiful aria captured will be able to be appreciated as a beautiful aria and not sold short by the capture and playback.

 

[Detlof]

Whenver I return from a live concert and sit down to listen to the system, what I generally have missed most was, simply put, sufficient air and bloom around the instruments. Not only systems fall short here, often enough it is also the recording. On the other hand, the general voicing of our stereos has become really very good. Adding the AFO to my system however, has brought back quite a lot of bloom and air, about 50% of what I would consider real in a good hall, if it is already on the software. Never thought it would be possible, to be honest.

 

[esldude]

Whenver I return from a live concert and sit down to listen to the system, what I generally have missed most was, simply put, sufficient air and bloom around the instruments. Not only systems fall short here, often enough it is also the recording. On the other hand, the general voicing of our stereos has become really very good. Adding the AFO to my system however, has brought back quite a lot of bloom and air, about 50% of what I would consider real in a good hall, if it is already on the software. Never thought it would be possible, to be honest.

I agree with the loss of bloom and space. Having done some recording it is possible to get much of that. Yet most musicians and other people don't like that spacious sound. They perceive it as noise in the way of the music. Myself, I love when I start a recording and this large airy space has bloomed into the end of my listening room before the music starts. Real music in a real space is it for me.

 

[Rodney Gold]

My hifi generally sounds better than live , most live I attend is amplified with cheap Peavy type stuff and the ballets I go to (wife is a ballet teacher etc) the orchestra is in the pits.. venues here for orchestral and unamped music performance are compromised..
At any rate , with live there is a potent visual context , unlike reproduced where there is no visual and only aural.
The room , system vagaries , speaker design etc can never exactly replicate the venue and its sound.
Im not interested in "live" at home , all I require is a sound that stirs emotion in me and allows me to "pretend" I am at the performance or the performance is in my room.
Finally , this is really only of interest to those that listen to classical , just about every genre is studio mixed...

 

[Audiophile Bill]

Whenver I return from a live concert and sit down to listen to the system, what I generally have missed most was, simply put, sufficient air and bloom around the instruments. Not only systems fall short here, often enough it is also the recording. On the other hand, the general voicing of our stereos has become really very good. Adding the AFO to my system however, has brought back quite a lot of bloom and air, about 50% of what I would consider real in a good hall, if it is already on the software. Never thought it would be possible, to be honest.

Hi Detlof,

Really interesting observation about the AFO and bloom/air - it was one of the consistent dimensions that I noticed in all the AFO systems that I have heard and one that I desperately envy!

 

[dallasjustice]

I agree about orchestra in the pit. I'm not an Opera fan. BUT I love it when my local symphony orchestra performs Opera. I heard a movement from Palestrina last week and I was almost brought to tears. For my money, the highest level of music is live and mostly unamplified symphony orchestra. I go to clubs and to attend rock concerts and the sound is almost never even close to good. Having said that, I recently saw Aaron Bruno's Awolnation in Dallas and it sounded great! That was a mega show! His band was the prefect mix of punk, metal and pop dance music. One the best amplified shows I've attended.

My hifi generally sounds better than live , most live I attend is amplified with cheap Peavy type stuff and the ballets I go to (wife is a ballet teacher etc) the orchestra is in the pits.. venues here for orchestral and unamped music performance are compromised..
At any rate , with live there is a potent visual context , unlike reproduced where there is no visual and only aural.
The room , system vagaries , speaker design etc can never exactly replicate the venue and its sound.
Im not interested in "live" at home , all I require is a sound that stirs emotion in me and allows me to "pretend" I am at the performance or the performance is in my room.
Finally , this is really only of interest to those that listen to classical , just about every genre is studio mixed...

 

[PeterA]

That was a mega show! His band was the prefect mix of punk, metal and pop dance music. One the best amplified shows I've attended.
View attachment 23659

Referring to it as a "show" is quite revealing of this kind of performance. It is rare that they ever sound good. After hearing my ears blasted one too many times, I rarely attend amplified performances, especially rock/pop, any more.

 

[PeterA]

My daughter is home for Thanksgiving and she brought a friend with her who plays the violin. They are both sixteen and I asked the friend to play her violin for me in our living room. I've always wanted to know how loud a solo violin is in such a small room and how close my system could actually sound to this real thing.

She played from 60-75dB about nine feet in front of me. She is good, but far from having the skill of a professional musician. I was pleasantly surprised with the comparison to my system, especially in terms of dynamics and timbre. It's great to every now and then have a reality check by listening to real instruments.

This experience reminded me of an interesting question that an audiophile friend asked me and our mutual buddy, MadFloyd. He asked us if we thought that our systems influenced the kinds of music we tend to listen to. In other words, do we choose to listen to certain types of music because they sound better on our particular systems with their particular strengths than other types of music might? I may start an thread on this topic.

 

[microstrip]

(...) This experience reminded me of an interesting question that an audiophile friend asked me and our mutual buddy, MadFloyd. He asked us if we thought that our systems influenced the kinds of music we tend to listen to. In other words, do we choose to listen to certain types of music because they sound better on our particular systems with their particular strengths than other types of music might? I may start an thread on this topic.

In my case it is the opposite - I recognize I optimize my system for the type of music I enjoy. My system is not specialized in solo drum recordings, although some friends are astonished with the richness and air it can get in cymbals and snare drums - perhaps a consequence of my appreciation of ancient music.

 

[PeterA]

In my case it is the opposite - I recognize I optimize my system for the type of music I enjoy. My system is not specialized in solo drum recordings, although some friends are astonished with the richness and air it can get in cymbals and snare drums - perhaps a consequence of my appreciation of ancient music.

Interesting. I did just start another thread on this topic, and I raised your point as an alternative. Here is a link to the new thread:

http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?19079-Do-our-systems-influence-the-types-of-music-we-listen-to

 

[Fitzcaraldo215]

I agree with the loss of bloom and space. Having done some recording it is possible to get much of that. Yet most musicians and other people don't like that spacious sound. They perceive it as noise in the way of the music. Myself, I love when I start a recording and this large airy space has bloomed into the end of my listening room before the music starts. Real music in a real space is it for me.

I generally agree. Live classical concerts are my ultimate reference and I go frequently. I am fortunate to be able hear the Philadelphia Orchestra in a very good hall as well as many world class chamber ensembles and soloists under very good acoustic conditions.

For me, multichannel audio has been a revelation. Once I heard it, it was the biggest musical breakthrough epiphany I had ever encountered. It surpasses any stereo I have heard in recapturing a truer essence of live performance. Yes, stereo can suggest a spacious sound, but, as you say, it is in the front of the room, not a surrounding, enveloping sound as one hears live due to the interaction of direct and reflected sound around you in the hall. There is by comparison a missing dimension in stereo, though we can accustom ourselves to that limitation and still derive some considerable, though lesser, musical enjoyment, nonetheless. But, my home listening has moved on for 8 years now to be almost exclusively in Mch. The advantage of Mch plays out, by the way, even with solo performers.

Once you have heard a quality Mch system properly set up, it is hard to go back to plain stereo. Fortunately, most classical Mch recordings use the capability without gimmickry and seek to create that live sense of enveloping space in a natural sounding way as the audience hears it. My Mch library now numbers over 3,000 hi rez discs.

In many ways, Blu-Ray videos of concerts, operas and ballets are even more addictive, enveloping and engrossing, grabbing our visual attention while using the advantages of Mch sound. Some initially have difficulty adjusting to the shifting camera angles during the performance, and there is an art to using video to complement the music and performance. I generally have no such problem, myself.

With opera, for example, there is no better way to experience it at home. I no longer feel it necessary to make the expensive trek to New York for live opera at The Met. And, on my system, it easily surpasses the Live in HD Met simulcasts in area theaters.

 

[dallasjustice]

My daughter is home for Thanksgiving and she brought a friend with her who plays the violin. They are both sixteen and I asked the friend to play her violin for me in our living room. I've always wanted to know how loud a solo violin is in such a small room and how close my system could actually sound to this real thing.

She played from 60-75dB about nine feet in front of me. She is good, but far from having the skill of a professional musician. I was pleasantly surprised with the comparison to my system, especially in terms of dynamics and timbre. It's great to every now and then have a reality check by listening to real instruments.

This experience reminded me of an interesting question that an audiophile friend asked me and our mutual buddy, MadFloyd. He asked us if we thought that our systems influenced the kinds of music we tend to listen to. In other words, do we choose to listen to certain types of music because they sound better on our particular systems with their particular strengths than other types of music might? I may start an thread on this topic.

I definitely think it's true. When I go to hi-fi audio shows, I like to observe the listening preferences folks have to evaluate things. IMO, the genre and types of music audiophiles most listen to tends to reflect the strengths/weaknesses of their own system at home.

 

[Al M.]

As I can listen to it for many hours at a time I do not develop fatigue at all with my digital, others do. It depends on your sensitivities I guess, and I don't mean that in a derogatory way at all.

However, listening to unamplified live music puts things in perspective. Yes, often it can sound very smooth and 'clean', but perhaps equally often it sounds hard and even 'distorted' -- all depending on venue and seating position. Just close your eyes to suppress expectation bias from seeing the musicians playing, just listen, and it becomes evident. I have heard live sounds from unamplified instruments that, if they could be properly reproduced over a stereo system (very difficult to do), would make many an audiophile run out of the room screaming "distortion!".

***

I wrote the above on another thread. Diapason, who is a musician, suggested that this observation about live music is a crucial point that is often overlooked, and encouraged me to initiate a new discussion on that:

http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showt...yth-busting-thread/page39&p=373394#post373394

However, then I remembered that to some extent the topic was already discussed in this thread.

Yet I would like to revive the subject from another angle, by expanding a little more on 'cleanness' of sound through stereo systems. On a number of orchestral recordings the reproduction especially of brass through my system sounds pretty hard, not unlike what I experience from brass in many, but certainly not all, live concerts. Yet sometimes I am not quite sure if the recorded sound really has that intrinsic character or if the sound is, at least in part, just the result of system distortions. I tend to believe that some orchestral recordings may drive my system to its limits, so the system might distort then, but on the other hand other orchestral recordings heard through my system give me pause: they really do sound rather smooth and clean even at loud volume. Does my system really distort that much then? I know that on some systems hardness is never or rarely presented in the manner as it is through my system, and there is never any hint of the 'distortion' that I hear even in some unamplified live music, a perceived distortion which appears to arise from the acoustic interaction of the sound waves from the instruments with the hall or venue in which they are playing and which does sound somewhat like common distortion from audio equipment. Are those systems indeed less distorted than mine? In some sense perhaps or even probably so, but do they sometimes make the sound smoother and 'cleaner' than it should be? After all, they never sound 'distorted' in a manner that I even hear in some instances of live music, as just described.

I have the impression that many audiophiles are obsessed with having a 'clean' sound -- the greater the perceived cleanness of sound the better, supposedly, the system is. Yet based on the above a provocative thought has entered my mind:

Could it be that in some instances the clean sound rendered through a system is in reality a form of distortion, and that a less 'clean' sounding rendition of the recording at hand would in fact be the less distorted one?

I know this sounds counterintuitive, and turns the usual perception on its head, but would that be possible? After all, distortion means not just what we commonly refer to as distorted sound, as audible harmonic or intermodulation distortion, but any alteration of the original signal to be reproduced through an audio system. In that case there might indeed exist something like a 'too clean' sound.

My thinking is lead into that direction also because of a relatively recent experience that I had in a very high-end system. I thought the sound was of incredible quality, but a bit too polite and polished compared to the real thing, unamplified live music (yes, live music can sound very smooth depending on hall and seating position, but the system sounded remarkably smooth on every recording, which I did not find realistic). A later substitution of the phono stage with an audibly superior one removed the in my view too polite and polished character of the sound and introduced a more credible hardness and bite of sound on music where you would expect it; that new realism in combination with all the other strengths of the system made the sound phenomenal in my view. In that case one could argue that the previously too polite and polished sound -- a too clean sound if you will -- might have been a weakness of the system's performance, rather than a virtue. *)

Any thoughts?

________

*) The phenomenon described for this system might have had to do something with system synergy, because I heard the phonostage that appeared to have been the culprit also as part of another system that did not sound too polite and polished at all.