Toward a Theory To Increase Mutual Understanding and Predictability

[853guy]

Just to point that this a subjective statement, and your opinion on it is also subjective. "remarkably close" is a relative statement that can have very different meanings according to people preferences and weighting of the factors that approach reality.

Surely our perception of relatively close is evolutionary - every time we listen to a better system we come closer to the live performance. IMHO it can be an objective, but not used as an absolute scale for system comparison. The participation of the listener in the creation of the illusion in the sound reproduction process is so large that only understanding and tolerance can help towards in a healthy and interesting debate. I must say that IMHO considering other people views as myths does not help.

Increase Mutual Understanding is a desirable point in WBF, predictability is still a dream in the high-end, as the high-end is too individualist. The only way to achieve predictability is narrowing or denying the individual preferences, something that, fortunately, most audiophiles are not prepared to accept.

Nicely put, Micro.

Playback systems are not supposed to sound like live, just supposed to help you sufficiently suspend disbelief so that it appeals to the senses conditioned to live music (this is for those whom reproducing live is the goal). The more it helps you suspend the better the system

Again, agreed. Although, I’d amend the above in two ways:

Playback systems - by virtue of the nature of what a playback system is, i.e. a mechanism that plays back not the original event (which has ceased to exist), but an electro-mechanical rendering of one - cannot and will not sound like live because it always already removed from the original event.

The more the individual helps themselves to suspend disbelief - i.e., the better able they are to distinguish musically meaningful signifiers encoded in pre-recorded music (relative to their senses conditioned to live music) and not just variables intrinsic to the recording/playback process - the better able they are to engage and enjoy a system, and potentially, to increase the system’s performance relative to the suspension of disbelief.

Micro insists on the differential between people preferences which has been shown to simply not be there over and over again, as a justification for why every system component choice and combination goes. Well, that can't possibly be true as there is only one truth which is the live music. It can't possibly have unlimited variations which the owner says is truthful to live music. One or the other part of this argument must be wrong within the argument itself. Put these systems behind a curtain and no way do you get the variations that exists otherwise. People for the most part like the same things. Most of us like chocolate, steak, pizza and minestrone soup

Only one truth? Really?

Music is a perceptual art form. It is always perceived by the subject, therefore the subject subjectivizes his or her experience and based on that experience develops a sensitivity to the art form. Therefore, not only will it accrue unlimited variations across a given population of subjects, it will always possess unlimited variations due to the fact the art form itself contains a multiplicity of variables, not limited to pitch, time and amplitude. In that case, it’s possible for the subject to subjectively qualify certain variables as more or less close to a pre-existing live reference (experience) that are A) closer/farther from other subjects perceptions and/or; B) less or more sensitive to particular variables (say, time relative to pitch). That is, when evaluating a perceptual art form, the sensitivities of the subject's perception will diverge relative to the perception of others because a perceptual art form can never absolute. I don’t see what’s so hard about that to accept.

The food analogy is… almost not worth commenting on, except to say if you think “most of us” would agree on what constitutes a great chocolate, steak, pizza or minestrone soup, remind me not to go to a restaurant with you.

 

[amirm]

Only one truth? Really?

If we pick a single recording, there cannot be multitude of live sound. The live sound was singular. If many systems produce many sounds and all are said to be truthful to the live sound then one or the other bits of the argument are wrong.

Music is a perceptual art form.

Reproduction equipment is not meant to create art. Let's not confuse the two.

 

[853guy]

If we pick a single recording, there cannot be multitude of live sound. The live sound was singular. If many systems produce many sounds and all are said to be truthful to the live sound then one or the other bits of the argument are wrong.

Reproduction equipment is not meant to create art. Let's not confuse the two.

Hi Amir,

If you can’t or aren’t willing to see the role perception plays in determining whether the sound the subject is hearing is music or a non-musical sound - and more importantly, the degree to which the playback system allows suspension of disbelief relative to one’s perception (given that all art irrespective of whether it is live or an electro-mechanical rendering of live must be taken in by the senses and perceived) - then it’s best to for me to allow you to continue to hold onto your position irrespective of the fact it is clearly contradicted by thousands of years of heuristically gathered data, and more-recently gathered neurobiological research.

Have a wonderful rest of your week, Amir.

853guy

 

[cjfrbw]

I subscribe to the notion that subjectivists couldn't exist without objectivists, since objectivists lay the ground work to make the stuff operate to begin with.

When subjectivists take off on tangents by poo pooing the objectivists, I tend to think they are flying in space without a rocket ship.

I appreciate the position of objectivists like Ethan Winer, and have read some of his position papers, which are presented with thought, observation and measurements. I don't subscribe to his campaign to shame the rampant, expensive superstitions of subjectivists. I prefer the wag's position: I have no objection to expensive cables or million dollar systems. I am sure that they don't sound any worse than oxygen free copper or well thought out 20 thousand dollar systems (paraphrase, not mine). Some of them even sound good. If people want to spend their money on stuff based on bizarre belief systems or conspicuous consumption and display, so what?

I also enjoy subjectivism, because it caters to my need for a mystical and emotional connection, which is purely self indulgent. My audio system tends to be my oracle, so I obsess over it, sometimes in crazy ways, but it's usually fun.

There is a lot that is ridiculous about this wonderful hobby, but I attribute that the richness of it. We probably need a thousand measuring modalities for it, but only have a handful.

 

[microstrip]

(...) Micro insists on the differential between people preferences which has been shown to simply not be there over and over again, as a justification for why every system component choice and combination goes. Well, that can't possibly be true as there is only one truth which is the live music. It can't possibly have unlimited variations which the owner says is truthful to live music. One or the other part of this argument must be wrong within the argument itself. Put these systems behind a curtain and no way do you get the variations that exists otherwise. People for the most part like the same things. Most of us like chocolate, steak, pizza and minestrone soup.

Sorry, it was not. It was only shown to not exist under very specific conditions that do not represent SOTA listening to stereo reproduction, and with methodologies that do not apply to high end sound reproduction.

 

[PeterA]

Pretty reasonable .

At RMAF I heard a singer sing along her own music. Her voice was flat and pretty uninteresting whereas the one in the recording was full of warmth, and pleasantness. If presented behind a curtain I am sure everyone would prefer the recording to her plain voice! There is a reason we like to sing in the shower than outdoor.

To say that we are trying to replicate live experience is to nullify the tons of work that goes on in capture, post production and mastering of the music. Ask those people what they do and they will explain how they take the ordinary and make it great. We are listening to their taste.

One of the best pre-recorded sounds I hears was a couple of nights ago in the form of soundtrack of the movie Arrival. The Composer, Jóhann Jóhannsson made normal recordings that he then washed through a 16-track Reel to Reel recorder in a loop and varied its speed. Using just a bit of reverb and no other effect he created music that had superb dynamics and importantly for this topic, great sense of realism. Realism to something that does not even exist -- soundtrack of aliens and how they and the actors felt at the time. The level of fidelity was out of this world. He created an artificial sound which was so real.

As audiophiles we develop jointly a sense of clarity, dynamics, frequency response, balance, etc. that we look for. When those are present, we give the combination of the content+system a thumbs up. Ton of that is created by the music itself. That is why if I volunteer a great piece of high fidelity music, many would agree regardless of what system they use to play it on. If as micro says we all have different preferences, that should not happen yet it happens every day of the week and twice on sunday. And this affection doesn't have anything to do with creating a live sound but what bonzo says in creating a virtual sense of realism. It is what we think transparency is even though it is a painting we are looking at and not at all transparent to any live source.

We keep talking about the system sounding like live music because that is the accolade lay people use to describe our crazy systems. And is the mother of all marketing tactics for selling audio since Edison. As people in neither camp, we need to accept the reality, rally around it rather than insisting on things that cannot exist. Or are ways to sell us systems.

Micro insists on the differential between people preferences which has been shown to simply not be there over and over again, as a justification for why every system component choice and combination goes. Well, that can't possibly be true as there is only one truth which is the live music. It can't possibly have unlimited variations which the owner says is truthful to live music. One or the other part of this argument must be wrong within the argument itself. Put these systems behind a curtain and no way do you get the variations that exists otherwise. People for the most part like the same things. Most of us like chocolate, steak, pizza and minestrone soup.

Amir, Good recording engineers certainly have challenging and difficult work, and they often get great results from their efforts. But, I wonder if they would say the same thing about recording the BSO or other great symphony orchestra in a great hall. Do you really think they would say they "take the ordinary and make it great" through their recording process? The BSO sounds pretty great to me just listening in the seventh row without any of their editorializing. Many recordings actually take what was once great and make it ordinary. We are listening to their taste, and it is not always good. Perhaps your point is more applicable to mediocre pop music.

Remember, you once described some guy playing a guitar in an airport terminal as your recent experience with "live music". Then I pointed out in the picture you posted that he was actually singing into a mic and his voice was amplified and the speaker was set off to one side, making for a rather disconnected sound. We might disagree about the quality of the sound and whether or not that was "live music". We might also disagree about whether or not it should be held up as an example of a reference against which we should judge our systems.

A few years ago I attended an audio show in NYC. The system which sounded most live to me was a modest digital system played at insanely loud levels through small KEF speakers. I hated the sound. Later that evening I heard a band perform in one of the hotel conference rooms performing similar amplified pop music and played back through the same KEF speakers at insanely loud levels. I think the KEF people were attempting to demonstrate how much that system with their speakers sounded like live music. These two experiences sounded much more similar to each other than almost any other system at that show sounded to my recollection of live music, except for one system: a pair of large Italian panel speakers, 14 watt tube amps and a turntable playing one of my own LPs of Carla White singing. I know the sound of her voice very well because I heard her sing live many times just down the street from that NYC hotel.

The engineers involved with that recording started with something great and were able to retain much of it through the recording process. This latter system certainly allowed me to suspend my disbelief, as Bonzo writes, but so did that crappy digital system. I like Bonzo's thought that we are creating a virtual sense of realism with our systems. That digital system blasting mediocre pop music sounded pretty much like the real thing, but so did the analog system playing an acoustic performance.

 

[jkeny]

It strikes me that there are too many variables introduced when we use music reproduction as the reference to which we refer when talking about the objectives of our sound system. This may seem like a strange statement as music is the core of the hobby. But I think it might be more beneficial to consider the sounds of nature as the first reference by which we judge our playback systems. For instance, I believe we all recognise how realistic a replay system is in reproducing the sound of rain on a tin roof, the sound of applause, the sound of a fire crackling - I'm sure there are other examples too. The point about these sounds is that they are familiar to us & easily recognised as realistic or not. The main point though is that there are many different variations in each of these sounds & yet they remain identifiable as an example of the category of rain, fire applause, when properly reproduced. When not properly reproduced, the sound is not "convincing" & we sense something is incorrect & not consistently categorised in one of these categories - sometimes it sounds like fire crackling & sometimes like rain - it can slip in & out. In this way there's not just one "live".

This realism, I believe, is what most people mean by "recreate the sound of an original musical event". It's true to say that we don't know what the "original musical event" sounded like but we can judge how realistic is the reproduction. This, I believe, is what most people coalesce to in their preference - the realism of the sound .

Now the actual recording is a work of artistic creation & not a snapshot. I look on this like I look on paintings Vs photos. Take portraits for instance. Yes, photos can be said to be more "truthful" to the original image but paintings done by talented artists often capture a particular "essence" in the face that the painter has sensed. In this regard the painting is more "truthful" in that it expresses a certain aspect of reality & communicates this to the viewer without distorting the "reality" of facial features.

A good recording artist I believe is involved in just such a process - trying to capture the artistic essence in the piece & the better reproduction systems will convey this "essence". This is often heard stated about such systems - they allow the listener to better hear & understand the interplay between the musicians in events that were recorded as single sessions.

 

[RogerD]

It strikes me that there are too many variables introduced when we use music reproduction as the reference to which we refer when talking about the objectives of our sound system. This may seem like a strange statement as music is the core of the hobby. But I think it might be more beneficial to consider the sounds of nature as the reference by which we judge our playback systems. For instance, I believe we all recognise how realistic a replay system is in reproducing the sound of rain on a tin roof, the sound of applause, the sound of a fire crackling - I'm sure there are other examples too. The point about these sounds is that they are familiar to us & easily recognised as realistic or not. The main point though is that there are many different variations in each of these sounds & yet they remain identifiable as an example of the category of rain, fire applause, when properly reproduced. When not properly reproduced, the sound is not "convincing" & we sense something is incorrect & not consistently categorised in one of these categories - sometimes it sounds like fire crackling & sometimes like rain - it can slip in & out. In this way there's not just one "live".

This realism, I believe, is what most people mean by "recreate the sound of an original musical event". It's true to say that we don't know what the "original musical event" sounded like but we can judge how realistic is the reproduction. This, I believe, is what most people coalesce to in their preference - the realism of the sound .

Now the actual recording is a work of artistic creation & not a snapshot. I look on this like I look on paintings Vs photos. Take portraits for instance. Yes, photos can be said to be more "truthful" to the original image but paintings done by talented artists often capture a particular "essence" in the face that the painter has sensed. In this regard the painting is more "truthful" in that it expresses a certain aspect of reality & communicates this to the viewer without distorting the "reality" of facial features.

A good recording artist I believe is involved in just such a process - trying to capture the artistic essence in the piece & the better reproduction systems will convey this "essence". This is often heard stated about such systems - they allow the listener to better hear & understand the interplay between the musicians in events that were recorded as single sessions.

Exactly on both statements and I might add that there are degrees of realism,what one perceives as real one listening session can change to be more or less real during the next. This is the basis of incremental improvement and it is the reality of this hobby. As realism improves so does the message of the music. Whether it is a composer,arranger,singer.or musician(s) and that is where the artfulness can become apparent.

 

[LL21]

...I think it might be more beneficial to consider the sounds of nature as the first reference by which we judge our playback systems...rain on a tin roof, the sound of applause, the sound of a fire crackling...these sounds...are familiar to us & easily recognised as realistic or not...When not properly reproduced, the sound is not "convincing" & we sense something is incorrect & not consistently categorised in one of these categories...

Interesting point about 'natural sounds' like clapping...i actually DO keep as a reference audition segment the opening of Track 1 of Eric Clapton Unplugged which includes a long segment of audience clapping and whistling. I recall hearing one fantastically detailed system costing over $750K give me breathtaking detail which still stands as one of a few references in my personal experience to this day...BUT this 30 second track came across as bright, even shrill. Now, maybe that was how it was actually recorded...but i have made the decision NOT to tune our system to play it this way...and in fact, as we have continued to fine tune by adding emi/rfi/isolation...i have found this 30 second segment has become MORE natural, MORE spacious and MORE real. Works for me.

 

[bonzo75]

Interesting point about 'natural sounds' like clapping...i actually DO keep as a reference audition segment the opening of Track 1 of Eric Clapton Unplugged which includes a long segment of audience clapping and whistling. I recall hearing one fantastically detailed system costing over $750K give me breathtaking detail which still stands as one of a few references in my personal experience to this day...BUT this 30 second track came across as bright, even shrill. Now, maybe that was how it was actually recorded...but i have made the decision NOT to tune our system to play it this way...and in fact, as we have continued to fine tune by adding emi/rfi/isolation...i have found this 30 second segment has become MORE natural, MORE spacious and MORE real. Works for me.

I have watched Clapton live 5 times - the best was when he played at Albert Hall with Steve Winwood - probably because he was inspired to play new music. Mind blowing improv guitaring.

 

[LL21]

I have watched Clapton live 5 times - the best was when he played at Albert Hall with Steve Winwood - probably because he was inspired to play new music. Mind blowing improv guitaring.

Good stuff! Did they ever produce that concert into an album by any chance? will look it up...

 

[bonzo75]

Good stuff! Did they ever produce that concert into an album by any chance? will look it up...

There is an youtube one of another concert of the two together. It became very popular which is why they did a second tour, the one I went to. They played a 10 min Voodoo chile - very different to Hendrix's - which was fabulous. Version on youtube meh though.

 

[bonzo75]

There is an youtube one of another concert of the two together. It became very popular which is why they did a second tour, the one I went to. They played a 10 min Voodoo chile - very different to Hendrix's - which was fabulous. Version on youtube meh though.

The just one night album is my favorite album fantastic live stuff you probably have it.

 

[jkeny]

Exactly on both statements and I might add that there are degrees of realism,what one perceives as real one listening session can change to be more or less real. This is the basis of incremental improvement and it is the reality of this hobby. As realism improves so does the message of the music. Whether it is a composer,arranger,singer.or musician(s) and that is where the artfulness can become apparent.

Yes, agreed - I look on "degrees of realism" rather as "layers of realism" - in other words something may sound realistic in that there's no distortion or artefact in the sound reproduction which jars with our perception, however when more real detail is revealed/reproduced then we perceive such reproduction as more realistic, often stated as "bringing us closer to the live event". As you & I have said the more real detail that is revealed, the more we can sense the emotional content within the piece - it might be the interplay between players, it might be the emotion in a voice - just as the portrait artist might use a small, subtle detail in the face to reveal an underlying essence in the model - the essence in in these subtle details

I always find it very revealing when people make demeaning comments about someone reporting their new insight/revelations in their listening due to some change in their reproduction system. It's revealing that the people criticising such reports have never experienced these types of improvement & therefore deny it is possible for others.

So to loop back to the o/p I would suggest that an "increase in mutual understanding" should be taken on board by these people.

If you find yourself thinking this about someone's report of their improved perception "well if this gadget had such a profound effect on listening then their system must have sounded like crap before" - then there is an obvious problem in your own system & auditory perception

 

[jkeny]

Interesting point about 'natural sounds' like clapping...i actually DO keep as a reference audition segment the opening of Track 1 of Eric Clapton Unplugged which includes a long segment of audience clapping and whistling. I recall hearing one fantastically detailed system costing over $750K give me breathtaking detail which still stands as one of a few references in my personal experience to this day...BUT this 30 second track came across as bright, even shrill. Now, maybe that was how it was actually recorded...but i have made the decision NOT to tune our system to play it this way...and in fact, as we have continued to fine tune by adding emi/rfi/isolation...i have found this 30 second segment has become MORE natural, MORE spacious and MORE real. Works for me.

Yep, we have to be careful about "detail" - what is initially "breathtaking" is usually wrong - it's the system's distortion drawing one's attention to it but it's not heard immediately as distortion, it's only over longer term listening that such "mistaken impressions" are revealed.

Systems that are more natural don't immediately grab one's attention as natural reproduction flows freely & effortlessly. And as you say a real sense of space (usually depth) often accompanies such "correctness" in the reproduced sound.

 

[LL21]

The just one night album is my favorite album fantastic live stuff you probably have it.

I dont! And i just ordered it...sounds absolutely great...managed to find the MFSL for about 28 pounds in the US which is not terrible for a double album. Its 2x-10x that in the UK.

Thanks for the recommendation!

 

[bonzo75]

I dont! And i just ordered it...sounds absolutely great...managed to find the MFSL for about 28 pounds in the US which is not terrible for a double album. Its 2x-10x that in the UK.

Thanks for the recommendation!

The Cocaine on this is by far my Clapton favorite. when you listen to this, you will see that his studio performances were trailers, for the live show coming to a concert hall near you. Every performance is different, and the Cocaine (followed by Blues Power and Setting me up) are great, but listen to the Cocaine carefully a few times. The crowd also makes it very enjoyable. With both Zep and Clapton, it is not so much the song, but which performance of the song, that matters.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

The Cocaine on this is by far my Clapton favorite. when you listen to this, you will see that his studio performances were trailers, for the live show coming to a concert hall near you. Every performance is different, and the Cocaine (followed by Blues Power and Setting me up) are great, but listen to the Cocaine carefully a few times. The crowd also makes it very enjoyable. With both Zep and Clapton, it is not so much the song, but which performance of the song, that matters.

+++++1, love this version played at warp 9.

when I play other versions it just makes me want this version. the crowd interplay just pushes the flow.....

 

[morricab]

Amir, Good recording engineers certainly have challenging and difficult work, and they often get great results from their efforts. But, I wonder if they would say the same thing about recording the BSO or other great symphony orchestra in a great hall. Do you really think they would say they "take the ordinary and make it great" through their recording process? The BSO sounds pretty great to me just listening in the seventh row without any of their editorializing. Many recordings actually take what was once great and make it ordinary. We are listening to their taste, and it is not always good. Perhaps your point is more applicable to mediocre pop music.

Remember, you once described some guy playing a guitar in an airport terminal as your recent experience with "live music". Then I pointed out in the picture you posted that he was actually singing into a mic and his voice was amplified and the speaker was set off to one side, making for a rather disconnected sound. We might disagree about the quality of the sound and whether or not that was "live music". We might also disagree about whether or not it should be held up as an example of a reference against which we should judge our systems.

A few years ago I attended an audio show in NYC. The system which sounded most live to me was a modest digital system played at insanely loud levels through small KEF speakers. I hated the sound. Later that evening I heard a band perform in one of the hotel conference rooms performing similar amplified pop music and played back through the same KEF speakers at insanely loud levels. I think the KEF people were attempting to demonstrate how much that system with their speakers sounded like live music. These two experiences sounded much more similar to each other than almost any other system at that show sounded to my recollection of live music, except for one system: a pair of large Italian panel speakers, 14 watt tube amps and a turntable playing one of my own LPs of Carla White singing. I know the sound of her voice very well because I heard her sing live many times just down the street from that NYC hotel.

The engineers involved with that recording started with something great and were able to retain much of it through the recording process. This latter system certainly allowed me to suspend my disbelief, as Bonzo writes, but so did that crappy digital system. I like Bonzo's thought that we are creating a virtual sense of realism with our systems. That digital system blasting mediocre pop music sounded pretty much like the real thing, but so did the analog system playing an acoustic performance.

I have a hard time believing that a small pair of KEF speakers played insanely loud in any way mimics live music unless your definition of live is aggressive overdriven amps and speakers with tons of distortion pouring out of them. I have been to live shows like that (oddly even a Jazz concert once) but this is not at all what I would use as a reference for live, even though it is technically live. I have also heard phenomenally good amplified live concerts...where I was dying to know exactly what sound systems they were using because it was really good sounding. Playing a pop band back through small speakers to show it gives the same overdriven sound is not a sensible demonstration either. Sillinesss really.

What was the brand of large Italian panel speakers btw.? Was it Relco? Those sound very good but I guess most on this forum haven't heard them.

" This latter system certainly allowed me to suspend my disbelief, as Bonzo writes, but so did that crappy digital system."

I don't get that at all....how does that crapy little digital system remind you of a big amplified live show?

 

[bonzo75]

+++++1, love this version played at warp 9.

when I play other versions it just makes me want this version. the crowd interplay just pushes the flow.....

The one in the 8 CD Crossroads is also good - the first lead is better - well - not necessarily the keyboard in Just One Night is excellent. I used to play it so I played the first lead from this version, then went to the first lead of the Just One Night Version, and played that through. I had my own extended Cocaine