136 replies to this topic

[Arg]

I want to pull this discussion into its own thread from the “Advance in Class D Amps?” thread. I hope followers of that thread don’t mind.

For various reasons a discussion began on whether live acoustic music in a performance space is the ultimate goal for music reproduction, and by deduction also for assessing the capability of the reproduction system.

In fact one member wrote it is “an unarguable fact”.

So, I immediately argued. I suggested that there is no pure, session-independent reference point for music reproduction. And that the true reference point is the first generation master. I have quoted the following response, which I would like to use as a kick-off point for this thread, and which I think is very well stated.

I've encountered just your argument many times and I still think it's wrong. My aim in reproducing music in my home, which in my case is nearly always acoustic classical music, is to experience it as closely as possible to what I'd hear sitting in the performance space itself. I have no interest in reproducing any recording engineer's ideas of how they think an orchestra/soloist should sound.
To illustrate , loathe many of Deutsche Gramophon's early multi miked recordings of orchestras which have you hovering over the musicians mid-air and sometimes finding individual instruments or groups of instruments lurching into the foreground where they don't belong. I simply don't care of those unnatural effects are on the master tape. To me that master tape is already a distortion of reality.

I know exactly what you are saying, Dismord. In fact I have posted the exact same viewpoint many times (many years ago!). Passionately.

In fact, it seems a very pure and logical goal: make the reproduced sound seem as close as possible, as an experience, to the experience of live acoustical music performance. What could be more logical, pure, and easy to grasp as a goal? It has a seductive appeal.

However, I gradually came to realise my mistake.

Philosophers like Sterne point out that sound reproduction is a specific discrete class of communication. Each class of communication is a unique creation. No class of communication is a mirror or reflection of another class. It contains its own creativity. I will repeat that: sound reproduction contains its own creativity as a form of communication.

To reproduce sound is to create. To set the objective for sound reproduction of being identical to live sound is a barren path. It is futile because the listener is undertaking a different class of communication in the two situations (listening to live music in one’s presence; listening to reproduced music that was performed remotely in place or time or both). Communication has cultural context for humans, and these two classes of communication have different cultural context and are thus totally different experiences.

Totally different experiences.

Now we are getting somewhere. If we as audiophiles are having totally different experiences in the two situations, what is the logic in trying to deny the reality of one of them?

More to come. But this is a good point to get a feel for interest in the topic, and also other people's thoughts on the Right Reference Point.

[proftournesol]

Interesting question that we've touched on in a number of threads, of course the best answer is probably that we all have our own reference points. I struggle with the idea of the idea of the reference point being the accurate recreation of the original performance. Anyone who has ever heard a real orchestra knows that no system that relies on 2 speakers will ever accurately reproduce the sound exactly. And if so, from which seat? What are we to make of the reproduction if it sounds like it's coming from 'the wrong seat?'

How about studio recordings? Most of those are multi-session recordings. Often performers are not even present at the same time so what is 'the reference?' I think that what we are really after with our reproduction of musical performance is enjoyment and emotional connection and I think that this is ultimately what the musicians want to communicate, not accuracy. I think that we all end up chasing systems that give us this enjoyment and that 'system synergy', digital or analog' is really about finding a system that gives us that enjoyment.

[LuzArt]

Very interesting points made.

I think that the 'reality' of a performance reproduced occurs to me when I hear a recording that without prompting or prior knowledge, actually sounds live. An acoustic offering I have a DSD version of, sounds incredibly real, ie in my room. That realism is no doubt relative, some peoples systems may reveal it better than mine but I find that a really good, accurate capturing of a live in the studio, as in everyone was playing together, live in one take, will immediately stand out.

On the other hand, some albums and genres and just as much about a second level or appropriately matched level of art in delivering the musical idea, ie any Pink Floyd album. I like these approaches too, I love soundscapes, deliberate creations of space and depth that pair well with the musical context. Yet I also love an honest, straight forward live capture of a live performance in the studio. It's hard therefore to nail a system synergy for reproducing both styles evenly.

[aechmea]

My point of reference is whatever is presented on the CD (or whatever) that arrives in the letterbox from Amazon (or where-ever).

I want my system to reproduce that faithfully - nothing added nor anything lost. Now if it happens that the recording engineer or the mastering dude or whomstever tinkers with the source, has done something good or bad prior to that, then, that is something that I have no control over and is therefore of no concern. My CDs should sound like what they sound like.

The music that I play generally doesn't have the concept of "live" or a concept of a "performance" associated with it anyway. eg. Mike Oldfield playing 20 different instruments over a course of months and then patching the bits into a work just doesn't fit the liveness comparison concept.

All of my music is manufactured in some way - some grossly so. Therefore it's the CD as a reference point for me = 'Am I hearing what was on the CD?' 'Yes'. Then all is good. How do I know what was stamped onto the CD and what was it supposed to sound like? I have no idea at all, so it all comes down to 'does it sound right' and 'am I happy with what I hear'. Yes. Then all is still good. You can't expect a system to do any more than replay faithfully what was input to it.

[Art Vandelay]

Interesting question that we've touched on in a number of threads, of course the best answer is probably that we all have our own reference points. I struggle with the idea of the idea of the reference point being the accurate recreation of the original performance.

The ultimate reference is always the live unamplified performance in exactly the same way that what we see live is the reference for all forms of visual art.
And just as an artist will paint a portrait or landscape with deliberate distortions and exaggerations of colour and contrast to focus attention or create emotion, a musical artist (with help from his recording engineers) is free to equalise, compress or distort in various ways to achieve similar objectives

Electronica or syhth is merely music’s equivalent to abstract art and of course there are many Pro Hart’s in the world of music.
In the end the preference of genre boils down to personal choice which is no different to the appreciation of visual arts.

Of course the comparison with visual art overlooks the fact that music itself is an art, and not just the way it’s recorded.

Edited by Art Vandelay, 27 June 2012 - 04:24 PM.

[gainphile]

Consider that there is no way to physically reproduce air particles at the ears as if we're in concert hall, both on frequency and time domain.

Then the best we could hope for is an "illusion". Hopefully a believable illusion.

For auditory illusion to be believable I think there are some factors to be considered:

- How the radiating source interact with listener's space (ie. room). It should be uniform => constant directivity
- How the radiator reproduce signal faithfully => low distortion
- How the signal correlates with natural sound => live acoustic recording

So yes, live acoustic recording has a role (as supposed to electric guitar sound). But only to a point to generate believable illusion.

Not the real thing.

[Art Vandelay]

My point of reference is whatever is presented on the CD (or whatever) that arrives in the letterbox from Amazon (or where-ever).

I want my system to reproduce that faithfully - nothing added nor anything lost. Now if it happens that the recording engineer or the mastering dude or whomstever tinkers with the source, has done something good or bad prior to that, then, that is something that I have no control over and is therefore of no concern. My CDs should sound like what they sound like.

Whether you're aware of it or not your brain is performing FFT analysis and in conjunction with your audio memory you are deciding whether things like harmonic structure, bandwidth, dynamic range and stereo image conform to the reference library that's stored in your head. That reference library is a composite of all sounds, including real and recorded. .

[LogicprObe]

I don't listen to any classical music.......but I would like to know if you guys think the Decca Tree sounds 'right' or not.

http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Decca_tree

[proftournesol]

That's a good example Lp, if the sound is recorded from a point above the conductor's head, what is our point of reference as a listener as none of us sit there at concerts?

[ayou2]

IMO any system can only mimic, it can never 'faithfully reproduce'. A few generalizations will be made as they have to be for the sake of brevity and time, but it still applies to probably 95% of the systems out there.

Very few speakers have the cabinet volume or woofer surface area to faithfully reproduce a kettle drum for example.

How do you faithfully reproduce the sound of a triangle being struck, when most speakers use a tweeter that is mounted in a damped enclosure ?

Organ is near impossible, unless your a DIY horn sub builder with a very understanding or no wife.

Small speakers, LS3/5A, for example excell at vocals. IME they get the scale right because their woofer isn't much bigger than the human mouth. It sounds right because it is close to right. They also have great transparency due to their small cabinets. But of course they cannot faithfully reproduce the snap of a snare drum due to lack of air moved by small woofers, let alone a kettle drum.

Many audiophiles would be horrified if their speakers faithfully reproduced the sound of a cymbal on a drum kit. I got chatting to some guys at a gig one night, they were an audio club of sorts. To a man they were grizzling about the PA horn tweeters being so harsh and the guy driving the desk must be deaf above 12k etc etc. I pointed out the drum kit wasn't even micced up. Few red faces there.

Piano is another hard one, again the scale, the immediacy, the natural decay ... All very hard to 'faithfully reproduce'.

I went down the 'absolute sound' path quite a few years ago and in the end, I had a system that I thought was pretty neutral and accurate. The end result was that I could only listen to well recorded 'Muzak' ..... Good old rock n roll sounded really bad.

So I came back to a balance of forgiveness and warmth so that I could enjoy all types of music again.

There is nothing wrong per se with chasing TAS ... It just didn't suit me and ultimately that's all that matters IMO.

[Briz Vegas]

The right point of reference is multiple points of reference. its basically a mash up the allows you to enjoy your music and to enjoy exploring new music.

Its live acoustic music in lots of venues, its bands at the BDO, intimate gigs and lots of different stereos in lots of different rooms. The live music gives you an idea of reality and the systems give you an idea of what is possible in a residential abode environment. You mash that all together and then you start experimenting, looking for a sound that keeps you happy for most of your recordings. The right solution can also change over time, the system for today might not be for you in 10 years time.

Getting closer to your "goal" is also interesting. The old reference CD can sometimes starts to sound off, but that dull recording now breaths life and has space and detail you never expected. I notice now that recorded audiences can sound so real, but other recordings can just sound thin and others sound congested, but play 5 or 6 songs randomly and most of them sound great. It does not replicate any one reference, but its clearly enjoyable, engaging and fun - thats got to be a good benchmark to aim for.

[audiohobbs]

I have to agree that reference points are pretty much personally defined. For what it's worth my own reference points are acoustic instruments, reproduced well (enough to my ears) from a few certain favourite tracks (and others as I find them). Once I am happy with the sound of those - if my feet get tapping or a smile comes on my face - then I know I can be happy with the system no matter what I play on it. There is no way to know that the system reproduces Vangelis as well as it does a double bass, in reality, but I did say I could be happy with it; not asking others to think the same... ;-)

I also agree with the comment above, too - there has to be some degree of warmth to the system to be truly listenable. Fully neutral is too far on the side of harshness, at least for my ears. Having read the reviews and having a preference for sonic purity I aimed, early in my hifi hobby, at Audiolab amplification, specifically the 8000S with one or more 8000Ps... When I finally had enough money to audition them I was disappointed; disappointed that my ears were not sophisticated enough to appreciate "true" and "faithful" reproduction. Sad, even.

But then I bought what sounded good to me and I like it - still like it, too. Sometimes the absolute sound is just too honest, possibly...

JMHO

[Arg]

I'm intimidated by the high quality discussion here. Thanks to everyone.

Is the OP's claim a bit contentious, that to set the live acoustic hall experience as a reference point is to deny the discrete reality of sound reproduction as a discrete form of communication?

[proftournesol]

If the live acoustic hall experience is the reference point, which hall? Which seat? How will I know, never having had the 'best seat in the house?' What are we to do about studio recordings then?

[THOMO]

Being both an audiophile and a lover of orchestral music must come close to the ultimate definition of frustration.
I have never heard a system that comes close to reproducing the sound of an orchestra playing in a concert hall.
Directional speakers certainly can't do it.Probably the closest I have heard was a system using Bose 901 omnidirectional speakers and the Bose 901 specific equalisation.You need something that is deliberately diffuse not deliberately high resolution or focused.

[KenTripp]

Being both an audiophile and a lover of orchestral music must come close to the ultimate definition of frustration.
I have never heard a system that comes close to reproducing the sound of an orchestra playing in a concert hall.
Directional speakers certainly can't do it.Probably the closest I have heard was a system using Bose 901 omnidirectional speakers and the Bose 901 specific equalisation.You need something that is deliberately diffuse not deliberately high resolution or focused.

If you hunt around the interweb it's not too hard to find quotes from people in the business (orchestral music, it's recording and reproduction) along the lines that it's impossible for 2 channel audio to reproduce the sound of an orchestra playing in a concert hall in your room and to get closer to that goal you need to go multi-channel. Strangely this is not a path many audiophools are willing to even consider as they're firmly stuck in 2 channel land.

Edited by KenTripp, 28 June 2012 - 10:35 AM.

[proftournesol]

Surely you'd need one channel/speaker per instrument to do accurate justice to an orchestra? Really, we listen because it's enjoyable not because it's a real orchestra in our room.

[alistairm]

If your stereo sounded like most live orchestral performances you'd take it back for a refund.

It's like the difference between sex and pornography. The porn is always better looking than the real thing, but we all know what we prefer.

[LogicprObe]

If the live acoustic hall experience is the reference point, which hall? Which seat? How will I know, never having had the 'best seat in the house?' What are we to do about studio recordings then?

I have heard the SSO at the Sydney Opera House............it was fairly new then.........I wasn't all that impressed.

Saw Billy Thorpe there not long after....................Capitol Theatre sounded much better.

[rantan]

If your stereo sounded like most live orchestral performances you'd take it back for a refund.

Absolutely correct.

I cannot say how many hundred times I have heard this mythical mantra about audio people seeking the sound of the actual live performance re-created in their room.
People buy and listen to systems because they like the sound and it makes them smile, dance, cry, jump, relax or maybe just feel great and yet there is this dogma about live instruments that keeps the hamster running on the wheel. For some unknown reason some people just won't admit that they have the system in their room ......................just because they like the sound it makes.

Unless you regularly attend live performances of symphony orchestras or rock stars in every hall in the world, how would one even know what a Strad sounded like at Carnegie hall or a Bosendorfer at The Royal Albert or Clapton at Madison Square Garden?

Edited by rantan, 28 June 2012 - 06:13 PM.

[Art Vandelay]

If you hunt around the interweb it's not too hard to find quotes from people in the business (orchestral music, it's recording and reproduction) along the lines that it's impossible for 2 channel audio to reproduce the sound of an orchestra playing in a concert hall in your room and to get closer to that goal you need to go multi-channel. Strangely this is not a path many audiophools are willing to even consider as they're firmly stuck in 2 channel land.

There are some very good multi-channel hi-fi recordings but very few are recorded specifically with the aim of recreating the venue ambience (spatial cues) as would be experienced from an optimum listening position in front of the stage and pit. Instead of that we commonly get a perspective from the centre of the stage with instruments all around. I find it amusing to hear recording engineers talking up the virtues of multi channel for purist reproduction when they themselves are not working to that ideal.

Given that MC implemented to the same standard as front L+R is going to double or perhaps triple the cost of the system and given the fact that there's limited software it simply makes no sense to invest in it.

So what we're left with is 2 channel stereo that can emulate the live recording / performance but cannot faithfully reproduce it, even within an anechoic environment.

However, 2ch stereo when well recorded and well replayed is capable of faithful tonal reproduction. The only thing we're missing are those 3D spatial cues and that's where imagination comes to the fore.

Edited by Art Vandelay, 28 June 2012 - 06:33 PM.

[kajak12]

.

However, 2ch stereo when well recorded and well replayed is capable of faithful tonal reproduction. The only thing we're missing are those 3D spatial cues and that's where imagination comes to the fore.

That is where great valve amps come in with great dacs or turn tables...............

[ayou2]

There are certain speakers that do a much better job of classical than most.

Shahinian are a good example. However they give a fairly peculiar presentation of nearly all other kinds of music.

[kajak12]

If you hunt around the interweb it's not too hard to find quotes from people in the business (orchestral music, it's recording and reproduction) along the lines that it's impossible for 2 channel audio to reproduce the sound of an orchestra playing in a concert hall in your room and to get closer to that goal you need to go multi-channel. Strangely this is not a path many audiophools are willing to even consider as they're firmly stuck in 2 channel land.

multichannel any recommendations?
what multichannel amplification does justice to timbre,tonality and tone of natural instruments?

[surfpurple]

I went down the 'absolute sound' path quite a few years ago and in the end, I had a system that I thought was pretty neutral and accurate. The end result was that I could only listen to well recorded 'Muzak' ..... Good old rock n roll sounded really bad.

So I came back to a balance of forgiveness and warmth so that I could enjoy all types of music again.

There is nothing wrong per se with chasing TAS ... It just didn't suit me and ultimately that's all that matters IMO.

That has been my point all along. If we listen to a very revealling and accurate system, then it seems to be far too 'limitating' in what actually sounds 'good' on the system compared to everything that you may want to listen to.

I can't see the point in a system that can only play a very limited music style (ie. classical, blues, metal, or whatever other style), unless that is all you are ever going to listen to!

My system is very much less revealling (only because of budget when setting up), but in hindsight I am rather content with the sound of my system. For I started out after a system to play music 'and' home theatre, (on a limited budget) and came away with a system that did just that!

My main point is how can we have a reference point (for the perfect sound) when every system is so different and diverse (which in turn 'influences' the reproduced sound, which in itself has been 'influenced' during production?)

As ayou2 said he has come back to a 'balance' so as to 'enjoy' ALL types of music!

I would not be in the minority to like to listen to a 'vast' array of different styles of music, therefore it would not make sense to 'limit' my system to only play 'one' style of music well!

[surfpurple]

multichannel any recommendations?
what multichannel amplification does justice to timbre,tonality and tone of natural instruments?

'Multichannel' is what I would say could possibly be the best 'reference point' for an accurate reproduction!

Most hard core audiophiles only advocate 'stereo'!..... But why? If you listen to a well produced SACD or DVD-A on a good quality multichannel system, it bring you closer (to actually being in the studio) than any other form of listening can!

And why would that not be a 'better' experience than a 'purists' 2 channel experience?

If you think about a band, you have around 'five' instruments, and if you have five surround speakers plus a sub, then (if the album is produced well) you get a very 'lively' experience that actually makes you feel more in the studio than any '2 channel reproduction ever could!

Just my observations!

[LHC]

multichannel any recommendations?
what multichannel amplification does justice to timbre,tonality and tone of natural instruments?

Yamaha? They make lots of musical instruments and would know better than anyone what is the correct timbre and tonality.

[proftournesol]

I'm not sure SP. I have a reasonably neutral and revealing system, but I find that albums that were 'meh' or even unlistenable now sound more emotionally involving. There are few that have gone the other way and sound worse but very few. I care less and less about a reference point but have a clearer idea of what sound I'm after, the more detail and dynamics the better I like it for analog. Strangely the opposite is true for digital, I'm much more engaged in the car and on the iPod than I am at home.

[surfpurple]

Surely you'd need one channel/speaker per instrument to do accurate justice to an orchestra? Really, we listen because it's enjoyable not because it's a real orchestra in our room.

OK, so in the beginning there was 'mono'! ('one' channel).

Then came 'stereo' ('two' channels).

Then we came up with 'quadraphonic' or 'multichannel'!

If you listen to a 'mono' recording then compare it to a 'stereo' recording there is 'life' and openness to the music!

Just as when you listen to a 'stereo' recording then compare to a 'multichannel' recording there is much more openness and liveliness and realism to the music!

.......Why stop at '2' channels?

[Arg]

multichannel any recommendations?
what multichannel amplification does justice to timbre,tonality and tone of natural instruments?

I would rather we stay on track please. What is the right reference point for assessing home playback?

[Arg]

If your stereo sounded like most live orchestral performances you'd take it back for a refund....

Yes. And why is that? I think it is for the reason outlined in the OP, the so-called 'discrete class of communication' that is sound reproduction.... the cultural context.

The point being made is that, even if you managed technically to exactly recreate, in the home playback environment, the soundwaves and soundfield of a live acoustic performance in a hall, the listener would not have the same experience of it, would not even assess it as remotely the same sounding. And this is because the playback listener is in a different cultural context, partaking in a different class of communication.

In other words, the reference point of a live acoustic performance in a hall is not only futile but actually a mistake and likely to lead to dysfunctional outcomes.

[rantan]

***

Edited by rantan, 28 June 2012 - 09:01 PM.

[Arg]

....Unless you regularly attend live performances of symphony orchestras or rock stars in every hall in the world, how would one even know what a Strad sounded like at Carnegie hall or a Bosendorfer at The Royal Albert or Clapton at Madison Square Garden?

Even if you do attend, you don't actually get a stable reference point. A violin's output is anything but omnidirectional, so different seats in the house will get a wildly, and I mean wildly, different sounding violin. How on earth can you pick one as a reference point?

And a piano has its own, also directional, output, but not directional in the same way as the violin, so so seats that might be working for the violin might not be working for the piano.

And the directionality of the instruments changes with the notes played, so each instrument might sound right (ish) with some notes and wrong with others. And the balance of right and wrong will change from seat to seat.

[Arg]

....multi-channel hi-fi recordings ....very few are recorded specifically with the aim of recreating the venue ambience (spatial cues) as would be experienced from an optimum listening position in front of the stage and pit.

In MCH-land that is called the 'audience' perspective. And I wrote just above why I don't think the 'optimum' listening position exists.

Instead of that we commonly get a perspective from the centre of the stage with instruments all around. ....

In MCH-land that is called the 'stage' perspective. AIX/iTrax actually produces and sells both perspectives for the same recordings, and we can buy whatever we want. The Aix site owner says that once people get used to the immersive (stage) mixes they come to prefer them. (see the FAQ "Why do you include multiple mixes on your products?" )

[:) al]

the question comes back to me, can you actually fully capture a live performance. surely you have to be able to fully capture it to then be able to reproduce it to compare back to the original reference.

even then you will be relying on surely your memory on what it sounded like. the old nugget you cannot rely on your audio memory. and dont forget unless your sitting there blindfolded quite a bit of the performance you are usually taking in is via your visual senses.

my suggestion. consider the statement reference or preference. save yourself a whole lot of bother....you have no idea what the reference in most cases ever was like, and even if you do you are largely relying on your very poor audio memory. So instead indulge your preferenece and just enjoy the reproduction for what ever it is ...

ps speaker designers like to have a reference. I remember colin whatmough say he used to often go listen to performances at robert blackwood hall at monash uni. just to remind himself how a large scale performance should sound (including detail imaging of instruments etc). He would then try recreate that in his speakers. Following this description he playedd a track from tutti

http://www.amazon.co...D/dp/B001CR686A

an orchestral piece on his reference speakers to demonstrate what he would try achieve

a reference to me is how tracks I know real well play on my system I know very well. Not to suggest that is how everything should sound. it to me is just a control in say any comparisons I might do

Edited by :) al, 28 June 2012 - 09:38 PM.

[davewantsmoore]

I think I'm in agreement with you Arg. If I understand you correctly.


The "right reference" for sound reproduction is a subjective red herring.

No doubt, live un-amplified music would be a very good goal to have your system sound like.... and if you want it that way then it's a subjective world and there's nothing wrong with that. I'm (sincerely) sure I'd think your system sounds great.


However, the "right reference", to put it that way, is to be measuring the data contained in the source record .... measuring the output and comparing, etc...... and some might say, that's what they're doing by going to concerts, and comparing to their playback system .... or even playing a piano in the same room as playing back the same piano via their speakers...... but this all involves a very very unreliable measurement tool, our ears.

After the experience, even though reasonably limited by some standards, I've had measuring and listening, etc.... I would never trust my ears to tell me what is "right".

They tell me what "I like", sure.... but tweaking sound reproduction the way "I like" .... often ends up being "wrong" .... ie. further from the original recording.


What a conundrum.

The right reference is whatever makes you happy ..... but lets not fool ourselves about what we're doing. Science is not a democracy.

[proftournesol]

In MCH-land that is called the 'audience' perspective. And I wrote just above why I don't think the 'optimum' listening position exists.



In MCH-land that is called the 'stage' perspective. AIX/iTrax actually produces and sells both perspectives for the same recordings, and we can buy whatever we want. The Aix site owner says that once people get used to the immersive (stage) mixes they come to prefer them. (see the FAQ "Why do you include multiple mixes on your products?" )

A great example of 'audience perspective' live recording is Holly Golightly's 'Down Gina's at 3', probably the most convincing live recording I've heard.

[ayou2]

Used to use this reference disk quite often.

Good tool for really seeing how accurate a system is, what it's good at, not good at etc etc.

http://www.sheffield...?detail=SL10508

[frankn]

and what we are chasing is not completely bedded in science either. Your ears, or more specifically your brain provides your reference & perspective to what music should sound like. That is what you work with and ultimately it is the final arbritrator - for you. Your joy (or not) is a result of comparing what you are experiencing to your musical memory along with associated emotions linked to those memories. You can open yourself to more experiences, study, learn, perhaps even become a musician which increases your "in-built" references.
I like the earlier quote of reproducing what's on the medium, as recorded as the goal.

[Arg]

the question comes back to me, can you actually fully capture a live performance. surely you have to be able to fully capture it to then be able to reproduce it to compare back to the original reference.....

I agree al, IMHO we cannot fully capture the live performance, asssuming that means the entire sound field. As a purely technical challenge I think it has not been met, and I don't think it ever will.

And as I said in #31, it won't result in the listener perceiving it as the same sound field anyway.

[KenTripp]

multichannel any recommendations?
what multichannel amplification does justice to timbre,tonality and tone of natural instruments?

Sorry Arg but I'll go off track for just a moment.

You'd probably use the same amplification that you use for stereo if you think your current amps are doing the job.

And no idea where this idea that MC music requires the use of a HT AVR and specifically their usually very average power amplifiers.

Edited by KenTripp, 29 June 2012 - 10:29 AM.

[surfpurple]

Sorry Arg but I'll go off track for just a moment.

You'd probably use the same amplification that you use for stereo if you think your current amps are doing the job.

And no idea where this idea that MC music requires the use of a HT AVR and specifically their usually very average power amplifiers.

Sorry too Arg, but I have a 7.1 CH (100Wx7) Denon amp and it seems to be a good all round stereo/multichannel amp!

Plenty of settings to tweak BUT also 'direct' mode for the 'purist' stereo listening!

That's all, now back to topic!

[davewantsmoore]

You can open yourself to more experiences, study, learn, perhaps even become a musician which increases your "in-built" references. I like the earlier quote of reproducing what's on the medium, as recorded as the goal.

Indeed. I play 6 instruments, most of them for about 20 years.

... I do NOT ideally tune (my) playback system by ear... because I always make it some variant of "wrong" depending heavily on the room ... the speakers polar response... and whether I am familiar with the recording (and can "remember it" accurately).

Of course in most situations, I'm unable to take extensive measurement, especially off axis..... and the best I can do is make it sound "nice", however I wouldn't have any chance of knowing if I'm reproducing what's on the recording by using my ears --- even if I made the recording myself.

Like I said before, I think the thing to keep in mind is how very subjective and malleable our own internal references actually are .... I've proved mine "wrong" to myself countless times.... more often than not, in fact.


It's an art-vs-science conundrum.... I don't believe people can accurately setup a system by ear..... but not everyone wants to take measurements, or can take measurements, or thinks that an accurately measuring system sounds "best".

There shouldn't be any shame in perusing either approach (subjective or objective) ..... but I think it's healthy for both sides to appreciate the limitations of what they're doing (or not doing).

Experience with music, certainly does teach you how to listen, and definitely helps you develop what sounds "nice" to you.... which is all that matters at the end of the day.

Edited by davewantsmoore, 29 June 2012 - 11:03 AM.

[Arg]

Sorry Arg but I'll go off track for just a moment....

As Clint Eastwood in Gran Torino said to the Korean women he was trying to shoo off his doorstep but then discovered they were bringing the delectable chicken casserole he had tried earlier at their party, "Wellllllllllll, allllllllllll riiiiiiiight".

[Arg]

....a live performance....you will be relying on surely your memory on what it sounded like. the old nugget you cannot rely on your audio memory. and dont forget unless your sitting there blindfolded quite a bit of the performance you are usually taking in is via your visual senses....

Another good point by al, thanks for that.

What if we were able to solve the memory issue. In fact, what if we are the artist and the recording crew in the studio, auditioning the final master tape, through a quality playback system in a 'domestic simulation' room.... and the recording is solo violin and the artist happens to have her violin with her, and the actual room used for recording is next door.

Should they get her to play the music live in one room or the other, while they switcheroo and try to get a sonic 'match'?

How many things are wrong with that idea?

• The 'class of communication' thing means they cannot succeed. In fact, if they are aware they are engaging in a unique class of communication with its own creativity, they will want to create in order to succeed as artists in that medium.
  
• The musician (or someone there) will have chosen the particular recorded performance as the best playing of many attempts by the artist, and there is only the faintest chance the artist is currently playing as well for this test.
  
• The recording is most likely edited or compiled from several passages of playing, hopefully compiled by someone musically astute (the artist or other person) and agreed as superior to any one unbroken performance. In which case, what is being heard now is an original communication.
  
• The artist will be hearing something so completely different when playing live to listening to herself on playback, that her attempts to 'match' the live sound will lead down a unique path compared to everyone else.

What should be happening in the audition described above, is everyone trying to grasp the musical communication that is occurring now, and what adjustments can be made to best communicate their new creation.

And if they succeed, and the recording is released on LP and digital (individually tuned by the team), I can't see a better reference point than that digital master, for our home playback system to aim for.