Archive through June 29, 2005
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4247 Registered: May-04 | How many of you listen to live music on a regular basis? If you do, do you use the sound of live music as a reference to make an audio purchase? If so, how? |
|
Silver Member Username: Touche6784Post Number: 421 Registered: Nov-04 | by live music do you mean going to concerts or gigs and listening to music, or you happen to be exposed to real muscial instruments on a consistent basis? i mean i know what a piano should sound like because my sister and i play piano but i dont think that constitutes "live" music. i dont listen to live music that often but i would use it as a reference for accuracy of reproduction. i know in some cases its hard to reproduce the exact experience of live music like deep resonance of an organ or maybe the shrill of a flute but i guess the hifi obsession is all about getting it in the house. interested in a general consensus after that other thread? |
|
Silver Member Username: MixneffectOrangevale, Ca. USA Post Number: 147 Registered: Apr-05 | Jan, I am lost here. Let me see if I understand this right. What exactly do you mean by "live music"? Are you talking about going to a concert in a ampitheater/concert hall or are you talking about a studio, where live recordings are being made. I need to identify your definition before I can answer you question. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4249 Registered: May-04 | The question of "listen to live music" means hearing musical instruments of some sort being played by a person or people who are in the same space with you. It particularly pertains to music being performed for an audience but is not restricted to that. In its most basic meaning it is any music that isn't already recorded and played back through electronics and speakers. Personally, I wouldn't base my system on the sound I hear when I'm sitting on the lawn at an outdoor concert though there are still qualities of live music being performed for an audience that may escape the play back chain. And I wouldn't neccessarily base my system on what I hear in a recording studio considering how most recordings are made today. Once again, there are qualities that you might hear in this situation that wouldn't make it through a home audio system. That's the "how do you use" the experience part of the question. The question of using music as a reference is really a question of how do you judge an amplifier or speaker. But that's not what I'm looking for in this post. The terms detail, imaging, soundstage are thrown around this forum and I wonder how you decide what those terms mean if you are only comparing one speaker to another speaker. If you don't have some idea what performers sound like when they play for an audience, how do you know if your system makes a cymbal sound real or just some vague way you want it to sound? How do you know if the music is, for want of a better word, "musical"? There are many other qualities of live music beyond imaging,soundstaging and good bass that I never see discussed here. I sometimes think everyone is just using words they have read in reviews without any idea what those words actually refer to in live performances. So, do you listen to music that is being performed live in the same space with you? Music that isn't already recorded. What do you listen for when you hear live music? How do you apply that, or do you, to what you want in your system? |
|
Anonymous | I go to mass and enjoy listening to organs on a fairly regular basis. Does that count? |
|
Silver Member Username: MixneffectOrangevale, Ca. USA Post Number: 151 Registered: Apr-05 | I have been building speakers since 1987 and have been a musician since 1984. I play trumpet, some guitar, and keyboards. I have played in open spaces such as stadiums, street marches, and funerals. I have also played in concert halls, churches, auditoriums, and practice studios. I also mix live, thus my username "MIXNEFFECT" which broken down is mix (ballancing out volumes between vocals and instruments), and effect which is the electronic echo effect feature in a mixing board. When I compare a speaker to another, I NEVER use a live performing band to be my source. This is because while the band is playing through the first set of speakers I am listening to, and then say I want to have them stop and play back the same piece while played through the second set of speakers I am comparing, the band will never sound the same as it did during the first set of speaker demo. I hope you understand why this is. I use state of the art equipment for playback, when I am comparing systems. This is to minimize errors. Comparing systems using the same exact source is the only way to make an accurate comparrison. |
|
Silver Member Username: Joe_cOakwood, Ga Post Number: 483 Registered: Mar-05 | For me, I do not get a chance to listen to live instruments anymore. My mother played in the birmingham symphony in England when I lived there as a child , but since I have left(parents divorced mom still over there) I have not listened to much in the way of actual instruments. Unfortunately now I am too busy to spend alot of time out of the house doing nice things like going to concerts(classical) but at our wedding last year we had a cellist play for the wedding and that was very nice. When you ask whether I listen to live music as a reference to the equipment that I buy, then I say no. It would be Ideal to audition speakers side by side with the real thing but I don't have the resources to do that. So like most of us I rely on my memory of tone and detail to help me there. When shopping for new stuff, I like to be swept away by the sound. When I listened to those BG's you and I talked about, I was absolutely swept away by the detail and come to think about it they did make me feel young. Now that may seem silly to most of you but for me alot of my musical appetite comes from my childhood being around my mother and all the recording techno geeks she hung around. The main thing I love more than anything though is the purchase. Lets be honest here really. I know that some of you could go to a concert of classical music and be at heaven, ten fold over your home setup, but for me I love owning more and more toys. Don't get me wrong I love music with all my heart and listen to at least a few songs every day if not more, but nothing gets me going like the prowl for new equipment. I would have to say it is obsessive, but then again all of you type your hearts away online about music and equipment because you love it more than most. So is that really obssesive?? Ok I am done rambling but I will close with saying that if the music I listen to takes me away from the environment I am in, then I am a happy camper. Altered reality, I quit drinking but I fill it other ways> |
|
Silver Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 937 Registered: Feb-05 | I listen to live music in very good venues on a regular basis. Last friday night I attended an "Oregon Bach Festival" Concert. I definately use live live music as a reference. I know that each venue is different and that there are differnces in unamplified vs amplified music but not for my purposes. What I listen for is the relative scale and timbre. When I go home after a concert and fire up the system what is the question that I ask? It's simple. Does this sound like music? What I just heard whether in a bad hall or a good one, amplified or unamplified was music...period. Does my system bring me close enough to that sound as to recreate some of the emotion of the live experience. Music is something that I feel as well as hear. |
|
Silver Member Username: Touche6784Post Number: 424 Registered: Nov-04 | like i said before i dont have lots of live music through my ears but i will say this. from hearing jazz bands, to a live rock band not in a giant concert but more like a small club kinda thing and my sister's classical singing and piano playing i can feel much more than just music. theres that extra essence that you get from good live music. you can delve yourself into the music. i think that i would look for that same response when looking for speakers and other hifi stuff. theres my two cents of uninformed knowledge. |
|
Gold Member Username: MyrantzThe Land Dow... Post Number: 2027 Registered: Aug-04 | Even speaker manufacturers will admit to the impossiblity of creating a speaker that will emulate exactly the original sound regardless of other components - be it acoustic or amplified, hall, stadium or studio etc. But that is what they strive for so, in essence, that is what we should listen for in our systems if accuracy is to determine our pleasure. However, that is not always the case and many people listen for different things - gutsy big bass rather than tight musical bass, dampened high frequencies where accurate hi frequencies may be too shrill for some ears. Personally, I get a buzz when I hear an instrument sound just like an instrument should, or think it should by relying on my auric memory. Overall, it's the resulting rhythm from the tight cohesion of musicians and the impression that they and their intruments can be in the room that, when reproduced as almost real by my system and format, is when I go to that special place. So, not being able to listen to live muisc on a regular basis I do rely on my many good memories of numerous and varied live events. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4252 Registered: May-04 | "I go to mass and enjoy listening to organs on a fairly regular basis. Does that count?" I've been told it will eventually. (Please don't get me started on nuns and Monsignor Eager and all that stuff.) ***** "Comparing systems using the same exact source is the only way to make an accurate comparrison." My point is; an accurate comparison to what? It does no good to make an accurate comparison of two speakers when neither one of them is accurate. So how do you decide what's accurate? It sounds as if you are merely deciding which speaker you like better at the moment; you are not, in this case, deciding which sounds more like the music that was just played. I hope you understand why this is. ***** I'm not asking if any of you listen to live music while comparing speakers. That would be terrific but impractical. Obviously audio shops don't have live musicians waiting around to play music while you decide what speaker to buy. I'm asking; 1) do you listen to live music, 2) do you compare the sound you hear from your system to that sound. If you do; 3) what quality is it that convinces you "this sounds like live performers - this sounds musical"? Is it imaging? Soundstaging? Good bass(!)? Or something else? If it's something else; what is it? Maybe this makes more sense; do you want your system to sound like you remember live music sounding or do you want your system to sound like a good audio system? |
|
Silver Member Username: MixneffectOrangevale, Ca. USA Post Number: 154 Registered: Apr-05 | I hope I haven't offended you Jan, but I agree with most of the people that have posted so far. I use my ear and memory to judge a speaker based on how my body recollects the sound of a cymbal or whatever. I have heard many cymbals in my life. I have heard them right in front of me, to the side, 15 feet away, 100 feet away, around the corner, and so on. I rely on my brain to sort through all that, and then identify how a speaker should perform during playback. I just DISAGREE that speakers and/or audio equipment should be compared during live sessions, instead of a controlled almost anechoic sound room, in order to get a comprehensive review. I take many things into account when I rate a speaker. First I listen for balance. Do all the drivers fire at the same time (phase alignment)? The volume levels between the drivers (are they even). Do the drivers merge together evenly (is there a noticeable transition where the woofer rolls off to where the tweeter begins). What character does the driver have (is it true, or does it have dips or gains). Does the box sound boxy? Does the sound sound like it is coming from the speakers or is it transparent? Is the box built suitable for its application? For instance I just listened to a pair of Monster Cable rays/towers (7200 Eleganza) and while I sat on the couch I couldn't hear the tweeter. I stood up and I couldn't hear the tweeter. I hovered in between the sit down and stand up position and finally I found the sweet spot. What a complete garbage design! I moved over 5 feet and more than half the sound was gone. This is not what I call a quality speaker ($4000... ha, ha, ha, what a joke!). By the way, they sell this garbage at "The Good Guys" audio stores. If you have one in your neighborhood, go check them out for yourself. They have a showroom set aside just for the Monster Cable stuff. It is supposed to be their highest quality stuff. Personally I believe a speaker should reproduce sound exactly as it was recorded. It shouldn't sound like a stage, or like a hall, or like outdoors, or have extreme bass, or whatever... Plainly it should sound like you are there in front of the performer and not in front of a wood/plastic box. |
|
Silver Member Username: Frank_abelaBerkshire UK Post Number: 587 Registered: Sep-04 | The thing is, there's a difference between sound and music. All systems can reproduce sounds to a greater or lesser extent. The problem is when they come to reproduce music when the various phase shifts in the system cause the musical impact to be lessened. So a system may sound right but not be musical (and therefore terminally boring). Another system may not sound right, but the musical message is getting through. So which is the right system? Neither. This is the compromise that all Hifi buyers have to live with and it is a compromise that exists at all levels be it a £500 midi-system (e.g. Denon UDM31 vs Onkyo CR505) or a super duper £50000 system (e.g. Naim vs Krell). The former system which sounds right but is ultimately boring is the easy sell. It's obvious when something sounds right (or more right) by comparison to something else. It's more difficult to get a customer to engage in a system, not to listen analytically, but to listen emotionally. I tend to call it listening with your heart instead of your mind. Both compromises are equally valid, but they are a choice. From a sound engineering point of view, this is not true. A recording studio wants the most accurate sounding reproduction in order to identify faults with the technical representation of the recordings that are being made. They're not looking for the message in this case; it's more important to identify that the recording is correct, the levels are right etc. This is where you find the term monitor. Recording studios tend to use small fast accurate speakers which show explicitly exactly what is going on in the recording. They don't necessarily make it sing but they are excellent tools for the job. As to the original question, I think Jan was asking if you used your experiences of live events as a guide to buying the most faithful system. I used to go to live concerts half a dozen times a year but I'm becoming lazy in my old age. I use live recordings to a certain extent but again, not so much. This is because my main priority is to get a system which allows the musical message to come through. If the message is missing, then the system is not for me irrespective of how perfect the sound. Regards, Frank. |
|
Silver Member Username: DmwileyPost Number: 854 Registered: Feb-05 | In judging a speaker, there can only be one standard. And that standard is how close does it come to reproducing the original sound. Anything else is a compromise. While the nuance of the same trumpet may sound somewhat different in a small jazz club than in a concert hall due to the accoutiscal differences, one can still identify certain characteristics that differentiate it from say, a trumbone. If it sounds like a trumbone through the speaker, the speaker is not accurate. As an analogy. Does one generally judge the accuracy of a photograph by referencing another similar photo? No. We base our assessment on how closely the photo represents the original subject. Anything else is a compromise, despite what Jan asserts. End of discussion. |
|
Silver Member Username: DmwileyPost Number: 855 Registered: Feb-05 | Please forgive my spelling. Should be trombone. I'm rushing back to work. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4255 Registered: May-04 | Dale - "Anything else is a compromise, despite what Jan asserts." I think you've lost me; what have I asserted? Though I can't imagine anyone admitting to wanting a speaker to make a trombone sound like anything other than a trombone; the question I ask is how do you know what a trombone actually sounds like? Do you go hear a trombone to have a point of reference; or do you just assume you know what a trombone soundslike? Somewhat like we all think we know what a mole or a wolverine looks like even though we've probably never actually seen one. And then when you actually are faced with the creature itself, you are astounded how wrong you were all this time. I would wager there are substantial numbers of buyers/listeners who couldn't identify what instrument is playing when given the choice between a trumpet and a French horn or between a kettle drum and a tympani. That you can identify a tympani may not be of importance if the music you listen to doesn't employ a tympani; but can you identify the sound of the various cymbals on a drum set? A Steinway from a Yamaha? There are many instances where a performer chooses a brand or model of instrument because they want the character of that particular sound to be a part of their emotional content. Rock music is not played on a Gibson Hummingbird and Flamenco isn't done with a Stratocaster. More and more I get the impression that the real sound of an instrument is not at all important to most listeners. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4256 Registered: May-04 | Frank - Then tell me how you choose to judge whether the message of the music is present. You've confused me with; "If the message is missing, then the system is not for me irrespective of how perfect the sound." How can the sound be perfect if the message is missing? On the other hand, if the message is all important to you, what are you willing to give up to let the message through? ***** "It's obvious when something sounds right (or more right) by comparison to something else." This is what I'm asking in my original post. Are we merely comparing A to B in a void and deciding with no real reference point that one of those two sounds "right - or more right"? More right than what?! How do you know what's "right" and what isn't "right"? |
|
New member Username: T_bomb25Dayton, Ohio United States Post Number: 2 Registered: Jun-05 | Look its the recording that matters it does not matter if it is live or in the recording studio.It ends up in the studio anyway all of our software are recordings it is not played by your speakers at a concert.The bottom line is if it does not follow the source it does not matter what venue than it is therefore inaccurate |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4258 Registered: May-04 | Tawaun - Uh ... you've missed the point?! What is so hard about this question? Does anyone go to concerts? |
|
Silver Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 950 Registered: Feb-05 | Jan did you see my post. I go to concerts often and posted a response to your question. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4259 Registered: May-04 | Yes, some have got the question but others don't seem to understand what I'm asking. |
|
New member Username: T_bomb25Dayton, Ohio United States Post Number: 3 Registered: Jun-05 | No i havent missed the point you misseed the point of your own thread.If you think you can compare a concert to your system then you will be searching for something you will never find.(Remember its about the recording)How difficult is that for you to understand its like comparing apples and oranges. |
|
Silver Member Username: Timn8terSeattle, WA USA Post Number: 203 Registered: Dec-03 | If you listen to music made with musical instruments such as guitar, piano, sax, etc., it's good to know what these instruments actually sound like. If you listen to synthesized music then it's not necessary, IMO. I encounter too many people that say "that sounds harsh" or "it's resonating" when in reality the sound system is reproducing the instrument in a reasonably accurate fashion. Pianos and guitars do resonate and trumpets can be harsh when played loud. That's how they actually sound. There are few worse things to me than hearing a sound system that seems to have a blanket covering the speakers because the owner thinks that's how it should sound. |
|
Silver Member Username: DmwileyPost Number: 859 Registered: Feb-05 | Yes. I go to concerts and spent much of my early and teenage life in bands of various sorts. I know what instruments sound like. I agree that many purchasers do not have the benefit of that or a similar experience. They therefor, have no true or primary frame of reference. They must make judgements on the basis of secondary or subsequent sources such as tapes, DVDs ,tv and radio material. Occasionally, they will luck out and choose decent equipment. Otherwise it's the luck of the draw, unless they have a knowledgable salesperson or friend on whom they can rely to give honest advice. But as long as they are happy with their purchases, that's what really counts. |
|
New member Username: T_bomb25Dayton, Ohio United States Post Number: 7 Registered: Jun-05 | Timn8ter,I know that,yes i listen to real intruments for timbre only there is no possible that you can directly compare a live performance to a recorded performance and then worse try to compare a system that the actual performance wasnt even recorded on absolutely rediculous not possible. |
|
Silver Member Username: DiabloFylde Coast, England Post Number: 130 Registered: Dec-04 | I rarely go to concerts, these days. I used to go to jazz, pop, rock, folk and classical events regularly when younger. I do, however, visit a local pub most weeks which has a 'folk night'. Mainly keen amateurs with the occasional visiting professional. Usual range of instruments - guitar, violin, mouth organ, tambourine, flute, etc. Plus vocals, of course. The level of skill ranges from mediocre to excellent. Very few of the tunes they play are ones which I would listen to at home, but it is real live music played in a medium sized room. I think this gives me some sort of clue as to how some of the music I listen to at home should sound like if it were conveyed in an accurate manner. Acoustic guitar is the obvious comparison. Violin is more difficult, because, at home, I tend to listen to classical violin music, played on an expensive instrument. The £500 violin which I hear in the pub, played more in fiddle style , is not a perfect comparison, obviously. But the underlying harmonics of the resonant cavity and stringing of a violin are fundamentally the same, nonetheless. Do I use this listening to judge hi-fi? Yes - if I find a recording of a violin or vocal piece which I judge to sound realistic -- i.e. has convincing imaging, soundstage and depth on my current system, then I can use that to play when comparing other systems. (There is an obvious fault in this scheme which I have no easy remedy for -- what if my existing system only makes certain recordings sound realistic!). The most important thing in any music system is that it actually sounds 'musical'. That must sound like a dumb statement, but what I mean is that you find yourself actually listening to the music, not the system -- and you don't end up with a migraine after half an hour due to it being too 'detailed'. I have occasionally fallen into the trap of buying something because it sounds like what I imagine it should sound like, not what it really should sound like. Does that make sense? No, I thought not.  |
|
Silver Member Username: TwebbzAnn Arbor, Michigan USA Post Number: 139 Registered: Apr-04 | I can't say that I've ever thought of a live performance while choosing audio equipment. (...and I've attended countless live rock performances.) Let's talk speakers because the rest of a system is relatively benign. I listen for accuracy, coloration, bass response and an overall sound that is pleasing to me. "Live" recordings aside..a recording is a studio creation, so I ask myself if what I'm hearing is what the artist intended. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4260 Registered: May-04 | Tawaun - I'll go ahead and be as dense as you seem to think I am about this matter. No, your "it's about the recording" doesn't sink in. What's about the recording? The recording is nothing more than a means to an end. It is the messenger, not the message. Obviously I can't fit an entire symphony orchestra into my room. But, by no means is that the only quality I would expect to listen for at a live performance and then expect to duplicate in my home system. And besides, size is a relative matter to where I sit in the performance hall. Timbre is only one of the other qualities I can have in my home system; but it is actually one of the least easily defined if I have no idea what brand of instrument was played when the recording was made. Listening for the timbre of a Bosendorfer would do little good if the piano chosen was a Steinway. I have been listening to mono recordings made over 90 years ago. Identifying the timbre of a certain instrument is difficult since instruments have changed their character in the last 100 years. Yet those recordings are some of the most musical recordings I have in my library. It has little to do with timbre in this case and little to nothing to do with soundstaging. In these recordings it is all about the music and the performance. diablo makes the comment about the harmonics and the resonance of an instrument; certainly I can expect that to be reproduced in my room by any recording of sufficient quality. Harmonics and resonance; is that alone the timbre of the instrument? The concept of musicality that he and Frank have touched on is not restricted to the live event only. If it were, there would be no "HIGH FIDELITY". I think diablo sells his listening faculites short by thinking only a few pieces might possibly be made to sound good on his system. If those pieces of music are auditioned on other systems and found lacking, the process of elimination begins to tell which piece of equipment is correct. The process of comparing each to the sound of real instruments being played should be enough to eliminate many of the pretenders. Tawaun, unless you can come up with a better explanation of "its about the recording", I'm in the mood to say you still have missed the point. |
|
Silver Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 960 Registered: Feb-05 | Well said Tim, Dale, Diablo, and Jan. I am not looking for my system to sound like a live concert per say but rather for the musical instruments to sound real and there is only one way to find out what real instruments sound like. Not being stupid I know that I will not be able to recreate the scale of the live performance in my living room but the closer I get to the sound of real instruments the better. |
|
Silver Member Username: Stu_pittNYC, NY Pakistan Post Number: 108 Registered: May-05 | Just about everyone of us here have seen our favorite performers live on an occasion or two. But if your looking to re-create those performances in your house, it's never going to happen. A live performance has too many other things going on than just music being played. For example, when I saw BB King playing in a small club in Nashville, I was there with a couple close friends and my wife. We all sat down and enjoyed a few pints of Guinness and a couple of smuggled Cuban Cigars (Romeo y Julietta Tubos) and some of the best music any of us had ever heard. Another great concert was Santana at the Saratoga Performing Arts Center. My friends and I had several beers before hand and heard more great music. I could spend a million dollars on a stereo and never come close to that. That's what live music is all about - the experience of being there. When I evaluate a component that I'm going to buy, it's all about the mood the component projects. Some components get the music wrong by making it sound dull and lifeless, while others give you the feeling that this is the way it's supposed to sound. It has life and energy, and that can't be measured on a spec sheet. Things like being color-free, soundstaging, imaging and a flat response all have to do with making the sound "right," but I've come across some equipment that had all of these, but still didn't have any soul or feeling behind them. I guess this is what a lot of people refer to as "musicality." Any well made component will make a guitar sound like a guitar, a kick drum sound like a kick drum, and so on. But not every well made component will make it sound 'right' to every person. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4261 Registered: May-04 | OK, Art, you've made good points about listening to the original product; now tell more about how you get closer to the sound of real instruments. Drawing from your first post, is it emotion that makes it real for you? If so, what can you say about emotion when it comes from a stereo system? Are there hifi "artifacts" that amount to emotion? What decisions do you make and at what point in the whole process do you make them to get the sound of the real thing - or as close as you can get to that sound? Are you aware of those decisions? When I come home from a concert and listen to my system, even when the instruments sound real enough, there's still a little something missing that says this is not the real thing. Is that the same with you? It's not just ambience and it's not how the music is played through my system. It's more that it's easier to believe my system is producing the real thing when I haven't just come from the real thing. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4262 Registered: May-04 | "Any well made component will make a guitar sound like a guitar, a kick drum sound like a kick drum, and so on. But not every well made component will make it sound 'right' to every person." " I could spend a million dollars on a stereo and never come close to that. That's what live music is all about - the experience of being there" Is that it? Recorded music will never be the same as live music? Does that mean there's no point in comparing the two because as Tawaun says it's apples and oranges? Why bother with a better quality system if that's the case? |
|
Silver Member Username: Joe_cOakwood, Ga Post Number: 491 Registered: Mar-05 | but that is it isn't it. getting as close to the "feeling" of being there as possible. The ability to recreate emotion felt at the time of experiencing live music. The hard part is that at home when listening to an audio system, you really only fluctuate one sense, hearing. Most of the other senses are constant to the environment the system is in. When you go to a concert, all senses are blazing. You've got smell of the people and things around you (which is one of the strongest senses tied to memory / lol sounds like a commercial)you have the lighting and setting of the concert to feed your eyes, you have the taste of good food you had before the concert. You have the feeling of presence with all the people around you there for the same reason you are and concluding you have the sound, which unless it is reproduced on very high end equipment or is truly live(without amplification) is probably not much better if better at all that most of our home setups. So, my opinion is that live music is more about the "whole" experince rather that just the audio and recreating it accurately at home, while wonderful as it is, will not come close to "live" music. |
|
Silver Member Username: DiabloFylde Coast, England Post Number: 132 Registered: Dec-04 | Jan said The concept of musicality that diablo and Frank have touched on is not restricted to the live event only. If it were, there would be no "HIGH FIDELITY". I think diablo sells his listening faculites short by thinking only a few pieces might possibly be made to sound good on his system. If those pieces of music are auditioned on other systems and found lacking, the process of elimination begins to tell which piece of equipment is correct. The process of comparing each to the sound of real instruments being played should be enough to eliminate many of the pretenders. No! I didn't imply that musicality was restricted to live events, that must have been Frank! I didn't say that only a few pieces sounded good on my setup. The point was that there are reviews of audio equipment which say that they are best suited to certain types of music -- and my system might not be the best for that type. That is all I meant. I can easily make allowances for recordings made 80 or more years ago. In some ways they were wonderful -- there was no processing at all between the microphones and the recording medium. I have a number of recordings made at that time. I might add that I have been a Wagner fan for many years. I used to like watching Frasier, when it was funny, and remember the quote- Frasier: What are you up to? You have that same smug look you had on your face when you found that recording of Kirsten Flagstad's 1932 Gotterdammerung in the discount bin. This is probably meant as an example of an extreme snobbish attitude. Hey, what's up with that -- I've got that recording as well! Kirsten was a great singer. So you are not the only person on the planet who listens to old stuff.  I've been listening to Wagner for the last 25 years and have heard many performances, many of the best have been from Bayreuth. Some excellent ones made in the UK. I've also heard lots of Wagner from the Met (New York Metropolitan Opera) - these are all fairly duff - though maybe they are made to sound good on a Yamaha system with Cerwin Vega speakers?? Most stuff which has been created by BBC sound engineers sounds great on my system - so maybe that's what I should use as a reference. |
|
Gold Member Username: MyrantzThe Land Dow... Post Number: 2033 Registered: Aug-04 | http://www.stereotimes.com/comm041805.shtm Also posted on thread, "Cable question" |
|
Silver Member Username: MixneffectOrangevale, Ca. USA Post Number: 162 Registered: Apr-05 | I originally answered a question someone inquired regarding if the speakers of today are comparable in to price as they were 15 years ago, or something of that sort. Next thing I know is that this "Jan" person is all roused up about my reviews and went completely ballistic. Let me just say, shall we start another thread... https://www.ecoustics.com/electronics/forum/home-audio/144745.html |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 3272 Registered: Dec-03 | I have just read this thread through, and for the first time. Dan: "Does one generally judge the accuracy of a photograph by referencing another similar photo? No. We base our assessment on how closely the photo represents the original subject. Anything else is a compromise, despite what Jan asserts. " Dan, with respect, that is a great point, but I think you have misunderstood Jan's position. Which assertion? I am serious - cannot find anything contrary to your point. Not from Jan. From mixneffect, yes - his second post. mixneffect:- "When I compare a speaker to another, I NEVER use a live performing band to be my source. This is because while the band is playing through the first set of speakers I am listening to..." OK, put the question like this: you switch to the second set of speakers, and how do you decide whether they are better or worse than the first? With reference to a third set? A fourth? How do you tell these are worth using as a reference? And so on... It seems to me that there has, in the end, to be a speaker-independent reference. If the ultimate reference is not the original performance; what you hear, or heard, or would have heard if you are there, listening to the real thing - well, what else is there? I think this thread carries a useful and interesting discussion, and do not understand the acrimony in that last post, linking to mixneffect's challenge to Jan:- "People have been addressing your question and answering it very detailed and true. For some reason you will not admit that you made an assanine statement. Either admit it or shut up." I just don't see the need for the anger! Just quote the "assanine statement", mixneffect. With respect. I am serious. I have looked, and cannot find it! Best wishes, all posters! |
|
Bronze Member Username: AudioholicPost Number: 65 Registered: Apr-05 | Jan, you hit the nail square on the head with this quote "More and more I get the impression that the real sound of an instrument is not at all important to most listeners" This statement is obviously true. If it were false, 98% of all speaker manufacturers would be out of business. Very very few can reproduce ANY musical instrument accurately, due to phase shift from the crossover. The handfull that can get knocked around by all the other speaker manufacturers, everyone that owns speakers that smear time and phase(and don''t know it) and almost every audio magazine because they won't bite the hand that feeds them. Tuff gig, building accurate speakers. Mixneffect....what do you find about this thread that you don't agree with? I think Jan is right on here. |
|
Silver Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 966 Registered: Feb-05 | "Are there hifi "artifacts" that amount to emotion?" Actually it's those artifacts from the system that detract from the emotion that I feel when attending a live musical event. Live is live and anything the system adds to that is not good. "What decisions do you make and at what point in the whole process do you make them to get the sound of the real thing - or as close as you can get to that sound? Are you aware of those decisions?" Those decisions are made when I put the system together and have to do with system synergy and balance. Since my system is not likely to resemble the real thing especially around scale all that I can hope for is the kind of timbral balance that evokes some of the feeling of the real thing. I have heard a system that came very close to the real thing but it cost 150k. Wilson Maxx 2's with Halcro amps. "When I come home from a concert and listen to my system, even when the instruments sound real enough, there's still a little something missing that says this is not the real thing. Is that the same with you? It's not just ambience and it's not how the music is played through my system. It's more that it's easier to believe my system is producing the real thing when I haven't just come from the real thing." Exactly! |
|
Silver Member Username: Frank_abelaBerkshire UK Post Number: 590 Registered: Sep-04 | Hang on - don't just blame the speaker manufacturers. All equipment, from source players (tape, CD, DVD, turntables etc) through amplifiers and cables (!) introduce phase shifts in the music signal. This is not unique to speakers! Therefore the choice of system can lead to 'synergy' but can lead to a 'mismatch' depending on the sum of the distortions being introduced by the various components of the system. These distortions include phase problems, but can also have frequency imbalances (leading to a bright or dull system) and timing problems (resulting in slow systems). Jan, I use my experience to evaluate kit. I used to be a frequent concert-goer so I have a fairly good idea of how most acoustic instruments sound. However, I also have to take into account the source I'm using. For example, I know that Stan Getz Apasionado is a brightly recorded album. If I use that I take into account that it's brightly recorded and can forgive a system (or component) if things sound bright. If it sounds less bright than expected I will use a more balanced recording to check that in fact the system or component is not DULL. So what does this mean? It means, sadly, that the true sound of the instrument is lost in the nature of the recordings. We DO NOT listen to live instruments through our HiFi most of the time. It's usually some source material, be it a live recording on CD, vinyl, radio or TV. Sometimes we'll listen to a live concert on the TV or radio. Great, but you're still listening to the TV's or radio's interpretation of the signal (and its own distortions therefore). You can't really compare to a real instrument either. I can distinguish between JohnColtrane or Stan Getz on sax, or Winton Marsalis and Chris Botti. I can even tell if Chris Botti or Stan Getz is playing without reference to any other instrumentalist just from his sonic signature. I can do this through the recordings I've got, even though they're nowhere near as accurate as I'd wish. You're bang on the money that you can tell that the system doesn't sound like the real thing. The odd thing with some systems is that they sound more 'real' in the next room, rather than the room they're playing in. Ever had that? Weird. I can only put it down to the fact that the immediate distortions produced by the system are lost in the first room, and the distilled message gets through to the second room, making it sound more real. Diablo, I did not mean to imply that musicality is reserved for live events. In fact I meant the opposite. As to Wagner, I have the full Ring Cycle done at the Bayreuth by Boulez. There's obviously some excellent singing in there, wonderful recording and 'live' immediacy, but it's boring as hell. It just doesn't engage particularly well. There is little grip. The singers sound like they're singing by rote. Might as well be mechanical men and women as far as I'm concerned. Now I know my system preserves much of the musical message because I get that from the other recordings I have. I know what the pieces are meant to mean and that different versions put accents on different phrases of the piece so I can interpret that appropriately (and either like or dislike that version). So I know that with Boulez it's the record I have. It may not even be the original recording which I am prepared to accept may be fantastic, but somewhere on the way through mastering and production, the message got lost. Therefore I am willing to compromise quite significantly on fidelity in order to obtain a better rendition of the musical message. For example Naim equipment isn't particularly good at reproducing a deep soundstage. It doesn't produce sharp images and may seem bandwidth limited in comparison to, say, a Krell system. However, to me a Krell system is about as interesting as watching paint dry. Very impressive of course with fantastic resolution, depth, soundstaging etc., just no music. I would choose the Naim over the Krell any day. I moved on from Naim to Chord Electronics. This gives much more of the soundstaging etc. but doesn't swing as much as the Naim. This is a compromise I have so far been happy to live with, although the (beguiling?) nature of the Naim presentation still calls to me... In the end, the compromise one makes has to be one's own choice. How it is made depends a lot on one's circumstances, experience and whether one listens to the dealer who may attempt to show different presentations, but may simply be after the biggest sale. This is the terrible quandary facing most customers - and I envy them not one bit (remember, I work in a shop on Saturdays). Most reputable dealers in the UK are out to have a long term relationship with their customers in order to maximise the sale through return business. This is a hugely important factor to specialist dealers. After all, if you build up from a $1500 system slowly to a $15000 system over a period of, say, 10 years, a dealer can lose you at any stage in that 10 year period. Sorry, I digress....but I hope this has been interesting. And apologies for the length of post! Regards, Frank. |
|
Silver Member Username: DmwileyPost Number: 860 Registered: Feb-05 | Joe is exactly right. The ambience of a live perfromance can never be completely re-created in the home. But I know the sound of Grover Washington's sax and how a Steinway sounds different from a Yamaha. If my system can come close to preserving these distinctive sounds in a convincing manner, I'm happy. As another analogy, I have recorded the voices of my children and played them back over my system. If I leave the room, and engage the recording, it's difficult to determine if "it's real or Memorex", to use an old expression. And that's even with me knowing that it's the recording. I have also recorded my voice calling my dog. I then bring the dog in to gauge his response to the recording. Very, very interesting. Any way moving on to another thread... |
|
Silver Member Username: DiabloFylde Coast, England Post Number: 133 Registered: Dec-04 | Frank, It wasn't me who implied that you were talking about musicality only being available when 'live'. See Jan's posts to see the source of that insult. You must not like Wagner at all if you don't like the 1976 Patrice Chéreau / Pierre Boulez version. Why did you buy it? Admittedly, Siegfried is boring in parts, but most of the rest is wonderfully done. Especially Rheingold. My point, however, was that you can pay huge sums to get the best Wagnerian singers in the world to perform at the Met - and by dint of poor recording practices - give a rubbish version of the work. I'm not a fan of their orchestra either, but that is off topic. A lot of the works performed at the Met are broadcast live on Radio 3 in the UK - maybe because they can get them cheap. I wish they would send some BBC sound engineers over to get the sound onto the airwaves properly. |
|
Silver Member Username: Timn8terSeattle, WA USA Post Number: 206 Registered: Dec-03 | It helps to have a basic understanding of the recording and production process. As an aside, this man produces some of the best recordings I've ever heard. http://www.fimpression.com/ |
|
Silver Member Username: Frank_abelaBerkshire UK Post Number: 591 Registered: Sep-04 | diablo I didn't see any insults in there aimed at me. Perhaps I missed it. Generally, Jan doesn't mean to insult anyway (he generally simply wants to make his point) so I think you may have read too much into it. As to the Boulez version I have, I could have sworn it was later than that - it's a digital recording too IIRC. I bought it because it was a good price. I kept it because it's the only example of the ring I have - and I am a fan of Wagner, particularly the Ring cycle. As to the BBC getting things right, well, there has been much comment in the alst year or two that the BBC have gone microphone mad and things like the Proms simply don't sound as good as they used to. Personally I don't remember the old Proms broadcasts, but the new ones seem good, if not exactly spellbinding. I get exactly where you're coming from about the recordings being messed up a lot of the time. It's interesting that a very highly regarded engineer Tony Faulkner used a hard disc source at one of the HiFi in a fabulous Classe/B&W system a couple of years ago. Rostropovitch conducted the LSO doing Shostakovitch's 11th Symphony at the Barbican. Now as it happens I've heard Rossie and the LSO doing exactly the same piece live in the same venue. The recording was nothing like what I had heard. I also noted the usual problems I have with many recordings - i.e. that soloists were spotlighted, larger than life affairs sitting 'outside' the scope of the orchestra. The result was a mess. The more interesting thing about this is that Tony Faulkner (along with many others) has since abandoned digital recording in favour of analogue, claiming something to the effect that although analogue suffers from its own problems (hiss for example), it captures the essence of music in a more faithful way. Regards, Frank. |
|
Silver Member Username: Stu_pittNYC, NY Pakistan Post Number: 109 Registered: May-05 | Jan - Did you read my last post backwards? The way you cut and pasted a few lines totally makes my point seem ridiculous. I'm not trying to start one of these all too common feuds here. My point is exactly what Joseph Coulson said after your follow up to mine. Why buy a better stereo then? A better quality system still evokes emotion, just a different feel and sound than a live concert. Just because it's not live doesn't mean it doesn't sound great. As stupid as it sounds, whenever I'm considering a new component, the one that puts the biggest smile on my face (that I can afford anyway) usually ends up coming home with me. When I said - " I could spend a million dollars on a stereo and never come close to that. That's what live music is all about - the experience of being there" - I was referring to all of the great times I had at live performances. My favorite one was BB King in Nashville. My friends and I were hanging out, drinking some great beer, smoking some great cigars, and listening to BB King play some of the best music I've ever heard. No stereo will ever put me back there again, and killing myself to try would be a complete waste of time. That doesn't mean I shouldn't bother trying to make my system better. They are two similar yet seperate things. |
|
Silver Member Username: DiabloFylde Coast, England Post Number: 134 Registered: Dec-04 | Frank, You said "Diablo, I did not mean to imply that musicality is reserved for live events." It wasn't me who implied that you did - that was Jan. With regard to the BBC sound engineers, I may have been too kind to them. Presumably due to management dictat, they have, in recent years, broadcast some of the live Proms on FM with compression! There can never be any excuse for compression except at drive time. They do, however, seem to stick their microphones in appropriate places, which the people at the Met seem unable to. Regards |
|
Silver Member Username: ClaudermilkPost Number: 176 Registered: Sep-04 | Interesting thread. Back to the original question, I try to get to live events when I can (want to hit more local jazz clubs). I used a live recording as one of my audition CDs since I did go to the concert series it was recorded from. I did in fact eliminate some speakers due to the fact that I had personally heard the musician play & knew the speakers were not reproducing anything near what I remembered. On the other hand, the speakers I did choose I feel do a pretty good job of reproducing what the music ought to sound like (IMHO, of course). There is no way for a home system to recreate a live event for the reasons stated several times above. In a small club setting there is also the interaction between you as an audience member and the band that is missing; they get energy from seeing the you are enjoying their performance & it goes right back into their play. A very cool phenomenon if you experience it. |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 3273 Registered: Dec-03 | Frank, Can you give me a reference on Tony Faulkner's switch to analogue? He is one of the "Good guys" like John Boyden and Mike Hatch, I always thought. I have the new "LSO Live" Rostropovich Shostakovich Symphony No. 8 CD. Original DSD, and Faulkner not involved. They praise SACD on their web site, leaving me wondering for the nth time. I have not been to the Barbican yet, but can practically walk there, now, so I shall put this right soon. I put some comments on the Albert Hall sound on June 06 on Teaching an old dog new tricks... which relates to Jan's and my long-running dispute about the value of surround sound compared with stereo. These comments should perhaps be a new thread. As should... Frank and diablo;- I remember a "Feedback" interview with the chief Radio 3 manager 15+ years. He claimed it was necessary to introduce compression because otherwise quiet passages would be mistaken for silence by the transmitters, which would then shut down. Idiot. I would also be interested in comparing notes with anyone who has heard the dire but controversial 128 kbps "Beethoven Experience" MP3 files. I listened to No. 7 "live" on analogue FM today and it was just as bad as the MP3s so far. Lord knows what source they were using. diablo; "There can never be any excuse for compression except at drive time". I agree, but would leave out "at drive time": people can have compression in their cars, if they want (Blaupunkt, Phillips etc will all do it) but compression should never be there in the broadcast. There is no excuse, except on the assumption that no-one is listening. Actually, BBC is still pretty good if you've lived anywhere else. You would not believe the crass and heavy-handed compression on e.g. Swedish national radio, even live broadcasts. I will think about starting another thread (suggestions?) Sorry for the interruption - and length - US friends! This is a really good thread. Please continue the debate. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4266 Registered: May-04 | "Might as well be mechanical men and women as far as I'm concerned." Frank, you're finally catching on to Wagner. The association with Wagner led Gordon Craig to develope his concept of the Uber-marionette. This came from Wagner's desire to have the actors replaced with instruments which would be mechanically perfect. "Even actors - who may inpose their own personalities into the drama - were not safe. Once he suggested that actors be replaced with marionettes. (The Ubermarionette)" http://web.centre.edu/hallock/134/Appia_Craig.htm But that takes us somewhat off course. |
|
Silver Member Username: Thx_3417Bournemouth, Dorset United Kingdom Post Number: 423 Registered: May-05 | Hallo there Jan, & John A. Excuse me Jan, John do you listen to Classic fm as well what a selection of relaxing music and classic fm at the movies with Simon Bates, every Saturday from 17:00 nice, one and late night Lisa, weekends from 23:00, she's got one smooth sounding voice like an angel of the night, check it out, unless you are already listening to classic fm. http://www.classicfm.com/index.cfm?nodeId=35&sw=1024 LSO rules.... |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4267 Registered: May-04 | Thanks for the comments, folks. I find this quite interesting and hope this continues for a while longer. Chris made the comment he eliminated a few speakers by using a recording made in a hall where he was familiar with the sound. Anyone else have such an experience or have the ability to listen to similar performances made in a venue they know well enough? Here in Dallas I get to hear recordings made in the Meyerson Symphony Center. Most of the recordings are done by good quality recording companies such as Dorian. (They get to put their microphones in positions I seldom can afford.) To listen to a performance of Shostakovich in the Meyerson and then listen at home to a recording of the same work made in the same space is an ear opening experience. One shop where I worked loaned Dorian several pieces of equipment for several recordings (including the speakers that were used as monitors) so I am somewhat familiar with what should have been heard not only in the hall but also in the recording "booth". Yes, that is an interesting experience. For the record, I didn't intentionally insult anyone. Let's just say I wanted to stir the pot at that point. Sorry for any misunderstanding. |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 3275 Registered: Dec-03 | Andy, Many thanks. Yes, I put on Classic FM now and again; their presenters mostly cheer me up, and some of the Radio 3 guys are intolerable. I name no names. Mind you, I think the Classic FM continuity is mostly pre-recorded; they are not really there. They don't notice when they play the wrong track. Aled Jones did that last Sunday. Radio 3 does some things better than anybody, though. CD Review (Saturday morning) for example. Plus the Proms and other live broadcasts. Plus "Through the night": all material is owned by the participating European Broadcasting Stations, spliced togther by the BBC in Bush House, and beamed to Europe by satellite, for simultaneous transmission, with gaps for continuity announcements in different languages. Cool. Also great stuff. And I'd put Susan Sharpe against Lisa any time! You're right though. Yep, LSO is up there. That Shost. 8 is brilliant - and budget price, too. "LSO Live" is a superb label. You can even download their stuff in iTunes. I have yet to hear an LSO Ringtone, but you have to admire their nerve. Should we start another thread? Jan, I think we've already rung Wagner dry on "Discoveries" and "Old Dogs". We could start a thread "Do you fall asleep". Problem is, I know too many otherwise sensible people who think he is the greatest. I try to keep an open mind. It ain't easy. Partly because he didn't. |
|
Silver Member Username: Thx_3417Bournemouth, Dorset United Kingdom Post Number: 427 Registered: May-05 | Hallo there John A. Yes the whole classic fm is an uplifting team, unquestionably just did a quick tick over to Radio 3 and sleep started to set in, so quickly flicked back to classic fm, wow that was a close call, radio 3 is like "kryptonite" to me and classic fm lifts the soul above everything else, I first got into classic fm around 6 years ago and before then have always, liked classic music, and this news I hearing about the "ID" cards, well I'm not going to play ball with this one, sorry "Tony Blair" I don't dance. This is going to cost millions a £ pounds I don't care if the bill goes throw, like I said I will not dance to "Tony Blair's" song & dance of his paranoia, and the British Police played a sick trick on me a few yeas ago saying they believe my, Mom is dead and saying it behind my back, no, no, no Tony Blair go to hell drop dead has you support the British Police federation, I am not going to be spied upon.... Any way that's stressed me out I hate the news on classic fm, so I just flicked over to some "kryptonite" Radio 3 for the mean time until it's safe to return to classic fm without hearing the warmonger "Tony Blair" WMD my foot murderer.... http://www.classicfm.com/index.cfm?nodeId=35&sw=1024 LSO rules.... |
|
Bronze Member Username: SubiedriverPost Number: 18 Registered: Apr-05 | Back to original question. I never understand what people mean when they say they hope to make a home stereo that is close to "live" sound. Which live sound do they mean? Couple of months ago my wife and I attended 2 shows at Symphony Hall in Boston, a week apart. First was Cleveland Orchestra and we sat in front center of first balcony, up high. Next show was Kissin and Levine in a 4-handed piano recital and we sat in second row, ie 10 feet from the performers, up close. Both times the sound was magnificent. Which would we try to reproduce at home? And could we, even if we tried, reproduce the acoustics of Symphony Hall in our 20x14 living room? Further complications: Last summer we attended a folk festival in Lowell, Mass. Sat outside and listened to Tuvan throat singers. Can we reproduce the cars in the background, dogs barking, kids crying, people talking? Do we even want to? And yet it was fantastic, fun, exciting. This spring my wife sang with the Yale Slavic Chorus in a hall on the Yale campus. This was a reunion concert, 60 women of all ages, many of them rusty, so a few mistakes, sour notes, etc. And I'm sure audiophiles could recommend countless sound treatments for the boomy room, which was not designed for concerts. Yet this concert sent chills down my spine. Would I like to recreate that experience in my living room? Very much so. Can I? I doubt it. Five years or so ago I was in NY for "The Noise of Time," a multimedia performance of Shostakovich's string quartet No. 15 by Emerson String Quartet accompanied by Complicite, an acting group from London. Flawless playing. Perfect sound. Not a hair out of place, so to speak. Thrilling. And I'm sure that no matter how good a recording someone made of this, and no matter how good my stereo was, I could not have that experience at home. Finally, a ridiculous example. In the late 70s and early 80s I worked as a rock musician, playing in venues all around New England, from nice places like the Paradise in Boston to biker bars in rural Maine. Half the time the mix was so awful and the monitors so lousy that we could not even hear ourselves. Did I have fun? Yes. Did we often come off stage thinking we "sounded great"? Yes. Would I ever want to reproduce in my living room the "live" sound we used to produce in those barrooms, even on our best nights? Er, no. |
|
Silver Member Username: Thx_3417Bournemouth, Dorset United Kingdom Post Number: 430 Registered: May-05 | Hallo there Hubert Grimley As to listening to a full 90 piece orchestra at what db range, no that depends on how far away from the stage I would be, but is an average 90dbA weighting more safe to assume to be safe, as for the 85dbA weighting for 8 hours is the higher the level the less time, that also depends on what type of classical pieces are performed during the evening's concert. All though I do remember a laser light symphony playing at Bournemouth's merrick park 2003 summer festival with fireworks as well, and although I didn't have a ticket as did many others as well, all sat on the embankment next to the playing park in the woods. Can see it nicely and though the sound of hearing it in stereo was diminished due to the angle, Wagner ending the night was fantastic though I'm not good at remembering the titles, I just call it the "old spice" music that's what a man likes.... http://www.classicfm.com/index.cfm?nodeId=35&sw=1024 LSO rules.... |
|
Silver Member Username: Thx_3417Bournemouth, Dorset United Kingdom Post Number: 431 Registered: May-05 | And in the home it's a different kettle of fish all together; just as long as the production recording is done with such power and focus on the instruments, and the type of loudspeakers the user is using, PA type huge JBL 4675-A will give a performance in the room with a smile going from side of the face to the other. http://www.classicfm.com/index.cfm?nodeId=35&sw=1024 LSO rules.... |
|
Silver Member Username: Thx_3417Bournemouth, Dorset United Kingdom Post Number: 432 Registered: May-05 | And as to making a purchase of the music from live to home Hi-Fi environment, taking RTA SPL readings and making small notes on paper where I felt it on the body, and so when is released on disc go to lengths of getting it close to the acoustic approximation of the event, as possible... |
|
Bronze Member Username: SubiedriverPost Number: 19 Registered: Apr-05 | Another point I wanted to make is that in a lot of cases (at least in my experience) the sound of "live" music often isn't very good and sometimes it is absolutely awful, even at first-rate venues. It's nice to sit on the lawn at Tanglewood on a summer evening but I'm not sure it's amazingly great sound. Even with a good orchestra playing. Live rock concerts? Please. I've heard Steely Dan play at an outdoor summer show, performing (sadly) pretty much note-for-note from their records. I'd rather listen to their studio recordings. Jazz clubs? Sometimes great. But as often as not the mix sucks, the room is noisy, you're seated off to the side, it's too loud, etc. |
|
Silver Member Username: Thx_3417Bournemouth, Dorset United Kingdom Post Number: 434 Registered: May-05 | You're talking about room modes, now where the sound will be at its greatest in certain parts of the room, it does suck, I wonder what it sounds like in the desert? |
|
Silver Member Username: Black_mathPost Number: 247 Registered: Dec-03 | Jan, If you are asking me if I buy my hi-fi based upon if the equipment makes a particular recording sound like live music, the answer is no. I want my equipment to reproduce the sounds as they were mixed. I'll leave it to the musicians, producers, and recording engineers to make it sound live. I don't quite understand how reviewers talk about listening fatigue when evaluating equipment but not at live performances. In my mind, you probably need a touch of that forwardness (brightness) of the soundstage in order to accurately reproduce live music. |
|
Silver Member Username: Black_mathPost Number: 248 Registered: Dec-03 | BTW, I see lots and lots of live music, both acoustic and amplified. |
|
Silver Member Username: DakulisSpokane, Washington United States Post Number: 123 Registered: May-05 | Interesting thread all, I think Jan's question is fascinating. Someone stated that you use your perception of reality, my words, to compare a photograph to the original. In my profession, I often get the opportunity to question people about their observations, perceptions and the use of their senses. They are often very mistaken about what they've seen, heard, touched, smelled, etc. So, for Stu, BB King will always be remembered based upon that club experience, as affected by room accoustics, a few beers, cigar smoke in the air, comraderie and so on. He'll never reproduce that experience and no speaker/system will reproduce his recollection of the "BB King" sound, because it's coloured by emotions, alcohol, friendship and who knows what else in that room. The human mind and its connection to the senses is an incredible thing BUT it is not an accurate device. I'm somewhat hard of hearing in the upper ranges, yet my musical listening "sense" is very coloured by those upper decibals and how they are reproduced to conform to my "memory" of what a piano chord or violin note sounds like. Yet, I know that I don't hear those sounds or notes like I used to. Still, I rely upon my experience of listening to live music to allow me to determine whether my system "reproduces" what I thought/recall as being the equivalent "music". WOW, I've gotten esoteric but I think that Jan's question is a good one BUT I think it's difficult to answer fairly. We listen to speakers/components before we buy them because they render the music "best" as we recall it. Yet, Jan and I could hear the same concert, go home and listen to the same system reproducing the music at the concert and have very different feelings about how accurate it might be. Is that the system's fault, probably not, it's more a function of our different perceptions, coloured by our experience at the concert. THAT SAID, "yes" I listen to live music so I can try to judge whether my system produces a reasonable resemblance of what I recall and perceived. Got that? |
|
Bronze Member Username: SubiedriverPost Number: 20 Registered: Apr-05 | But here is what I can't figure out about trying to reproduce what the recording engineers heard: How do I know what they heard? And even if I did know what they heard, how can I hope to put together a single set of equipment that will optimally reproduce what 100s of engineers and producers heard in 100s of studios, each using different equipment, over the course of decades? The original Elvis recordings at Sun records and Glenn Gould's Bach recordings and Django Reinhardt on wax cylinders and some digitally recording bubblegum pop album by Britney Spears (OK, I don't really listen to that, honest) -- I'm supposed to find a home hifi that will reproduce all of those things "faithfully" so that I'll hear what the original engineers heard? And then there is the issue of the medium: the studio guys were playing back the master tape or the master digital recording. I'm hearing a copy of a copy of that or something, right? And if it's on CD some portion of the data is gone for good. Then there is the way albums are recorded. I just picked up the first album by Los Super Seven which I think has a fantastic "live" sound but according to the liner notes was stitched together in pieces; some was laid down live in studio and then other parts were added when certain guys happened to be in town over the next weeks or months. So who-what-where was/is the "actual" performance that I might hope to recreate in my living room? Am I trying to get the same sound in my living room (with its fireplace, TV, 2 cats, and bookshelves) that the guys who produced this album heard in some million-dollar mixing room in Los Angeles? And which guys and which million-dollar mixing room am I trying to emulate? What if some songs on the album were engineered in one place and others in other places, and by different people using different equipment? It seems to me you could just drive yourself nuts trying to reproduce some imaginary "Ur" sound with your home hifi gear. Especially when you are attempting to "reproduce" an event that never actually occurred. Another question: Has anyone ever heard a hifi that could pass a "Turing test" playing back solo piano? ie, a hifi so "accurate" that when playing back a recording of a solo pianist, someone in the next room couldn't tell that it was a hifi system playing and not an actual pianist? I was just talking about this with my brother-in-law who is a pianist and a recording engineer; and we both seemed to think the difference would be readily apparent, though we could not put into words why that is. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4272 Registered: May-04 | First off - welcome to the world of an audio salesperson. These are issues that are presented in a decent shop every day. "What do you listen for and what's important to you?" stopped many customers dead for several minutes. One client told me he didn't come into the store to be questioned, he just wanted to listen to speakers. I didn't manage to sell him anything. Why don't recorded pianos usually sound like pianos? To quote the oft used phrase; phase shift. There are several instruments which become incredibly difficult to reproduce accurately. Piano is one of the most difficult. Sounds, whether instrumental or human, which extend over the X-over region of a loudspeaker are quite a challenge and will often show problems more easily than the sound of something like a cymbal. As Frank pointed out, phase shift will affect electronics also. Female voice is usually more difficult and telling of quality than male voice because the female voice extends over the typical X-over point in most speakers. Piano can extend over not just one but two or more X-overs. (Care to tell us about this on speakers with no X-over, John?) This is not to say every instrument will not present its own challenges, just some instruments are more difficult than others. Most systems do not make a cymbal really sound like a cymbal. For one thing, cymbals don't have dispersion problems to deal with. Reading the last few posts I wondered what would make a recording of the "B.B.King" sound trick you into thinking it was a live event. You can't bring the people into your room every night. You can drink lots of beer and smoke expensive cigars, but misses the point in some way. I think Frank alluded to this somewhat when he spoke of the differences in the systems between Naim and Chord and Krell. For the most part I disagree with the idea a system should or can be tailored to sound good on a certain type of music. But, in reality, I have had to make concessions many times to get the sound to perform best on this or that sort of music. When I was selling and had access to a reasonable amount of gear to choose from, I would always play Eric Clapton on the big McIntosh and the Klipschorns. Nothing else in the shop gave me the impression of live music like that combination as long as I was hearing Eric Clapton. Yet no other music sounded live to me on that combination. That combination would have been my last choice for Paul Desmond or a string quartet. As to "who-what-where was/is the 'actual' performance that I might hope to recreate in my living room?", isn't that up to the recording engineers and producers? When LP's were the dominant medium, there were many audiophiles who only really listened to Direct to Disc recordings, or Half Speed Masters. And they did this primarily to hear how good their systems were. Even today there are recordings that sound better than others. And I would expect those recordings to get more play time on a system because we like to hear our systems sound as much like the live event as possible. So there is generally a wide disparity between a really well recorded disc and a run of the mill disc. For piano sound there is a Reference Recordings "Nojima Plays Lizst" which will sound as much like a live piano in the room with you as any disc I've heard. It will do well on almost any system with reasonable quality. On a very good system, it will leave you in amazement at its fidelity to the orignal. But if I balanced a system only toward that disc I would leave 95% of what is going to be played on the system sounding less than good. The 1950's Mercury and RCA recordings are another example of how do you balance a system. For the most part, these Living Presence and Living Stereo recordings have been the gold standard of recordings for almost half a century. The recording engineers have captured the timbre and the space, the dynamics and the ambience of the performance. Luckily the performances were, for the most part, excellent also. I find few recordings that have the same mix of qualities in such abundance. Now, is this what is "all about the recording"? If Tawaun returns, maybe we can ask. Which all means even if you hear live music being played often enough to know what an instrument sounds like in a space; so what? When you come home from that B.B.King concert or the Yale Slavic Chorus performance and you turn on your system; what disappoints you the most? Is it really impossible to bring back the experience? Are there other clues and details which can say "I'm there" once again? As David said, our observations and perceptions are notoriously bad when we try to remember what happened only a few weeks ago. Has anyone found ways to bring the experience back to live? Or are we always going to have the divide between "Is it live, or is it Memorex?" |
|
Gold Member Username: MyrantzThe Land Dow... Post Number: 2039 Registered: Aug-04 | I remember back in my more youthful days when we went to a concert (rock) we would judge the artist/group's performance on how close they sounded to their LPs. Because the music was always purchased way before we had a chance to see the artist/group. Go figure! |
|
Gold Member Username: MyrantzThe Land Dow... Post Number: 2040 Registered: Aug-04 | I meant to add that those were the days before we had decent Hi-Fi systems. Jan, you stated the difficulties in reproducing the sound of a piano. When playing a hi-res disc of Monte Alexander's my wife and I cannot get over how real the piano sounds - one can almost 'feel' the strings vibrate inside his Yamaha Grand especially as the lower notes decay. |
|
Silver Member Username: Joe_cOakwood, Ga Post Number: 497 Registered: Mar-05 | Any of you guys manage to get the middle of the magnet out of a speaker as a child, man that thing was powerful! Sorry had to switch gears for a minute. |
|
Silver Member Username: Black_mathPost Number: 251 Registered: Dec-03 | I imagine EC through a Mac & K-horn combo would sound more real as this might have resembled a PA system that he would have played through live. If you have a recording like "All things Must Pass" by George, "Raw Power" by Iggy & the Stooges, or "Autobahn" by Kraftwerk and it sounds live, your hi-fi is definately coloring the system. These recordings were not engineered to sound like a live event. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4273 Registered: May-04 | Kraftwerk "performed" in concert recently. According to the review the members of the group stood behind a series of laptops and gave no indication any sound was being produced by them throughout the entire event. An occasional smile was the best the reviewer could detect from the people on stage. He assumed the "performers" were reading some interesting article on the internet. Of course, this sort of music often contains bass signals that are far more challenging to your system than anything coming from an acoustical instrument. Not to mention the upper ranges of electronically generated music can zap a tweeters's voice coil in a very short time. This somewhat leads into the issue of what does amplified music sound like. As Ben said, the Mac and Klipsch combo probably sounded very close to live because the concert system also relied on horns for the reinforcement system. I am constantly frustrated by small clubs that seat less than 100 people that insist on amplifying all performers. There is technically no sound of a Stratocaster without including the sound of the amplifier and speaker. But there certainly is the sound of an unamplified Martin six string. You can discuss the sound of the microphonic pick ups on a Stratocaster but then you would also have to talk about the choice of microphones for any recording and consider how they color the sound of the natural instrument. This is where phase shift begins in a recording. Since classical and a small minority of the jazz that's played now will be unamplified, does this affect your choice in music purchases? Do you pick music for its sound quality or its musical content? Will you pass by an interesting piece of music to get a better sounding recording? |
|
Bronze Member Username: SubiedriverPost Number: 21 Registered: Apr-05 | Jan, From what I remember from the concerts I saw during my youth in the 1970s (and I don't remember much) we usually rated the show by how long it took us to recover our hearing -- if the drugs wore off before the hearing recovered, that was a good show. I'm *sure* I don't want to reproduce any of that today in my living room. |
|
Gold Member Username: Rick_bNew York USA Post Number: 1214 Registered: Dec-03 | There is technically no sound of a Stratocaster without including the sound of the amplifier and speaker............ Very true. However, played through any amp and speaker, the Strat has it's signature sound because of it's single coil pickups, as opposed to a Les Paul with Humbucking pickups. Each has it's own signature sound. On a given recording, I can tell which is being played. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4274 Registered: May-04 | "Each has it's own signature sound. On a given recording, I can tell which is being played." Made easier by the technique of plugging the Strat directly into the mixing board. The pick ups are the signature sound of a Stratocaster whether plugged into a mixing board or into an amplifier. But, the sound of a Stratocaster plugged into a mixing board isn't neccessarilly the same as the sound of a Stratocaster plugged into an amplifier and speaker. So where does that leave us? |
|
Gold Member Username: MyrantzThe Land Dow... Post Number: 2046 Registered: Aug-04 | To contemplate the Telecaster! |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 3278 Registered: Dec-03 | "Care to tell us about this on speakers with no X-over, John?" I have done it before. It is why I bought them! I had a demo years ago of solo piano through Quad ESL 57s. I was quite unable to believe there were just speakers at the other end of the room, and not a Steinway. An amazing illusion. Yes, I think it would have passed the Turing test, Hubert. Just recently I heard some Diana Krall in a demo room, I think through Martin Logans. I closed my eyes, and the sensation was very clearly that there was a real musical performance going on. I wondered what she looked like, opened my eyes, and there were just these speakers. Disappointing. I think the illusion is easier on one's imagination if the real room is a believable setting for what is, in a fact, a virtual performance. A large demo room could easily have a real concert grand in it. Or a string quartet. Or Diana Krall. It takes a bit more to imagine you have been transported from your living room to a concert hall. But it can be done. This is where I think surround sound can - can - help to create the illusion more easily, or more effectively. By the way, I think some of the adverse reaction to the original question, here, might arise from the inference that people should go to concerts to sort of "calibrate their hearing". Some people just do not like going to public concerts and prefer to listen in the privacy of their homes. Even in this case, I still think people inescapably have a mental model of what the real thing must have sounded like. Otherwise the whole experience would make no sense. Take the photography analogy, again. You do not have to have ever seen, say, the Taj Mahal, to tell a good photograph from a bad. Still less do you have actually to be there, in India, with the photographs. Nevertheless, the real thing is the ultimate reference, and it would be especially helpful to have seen it if you wish to judge whether the photographer had achieved an accurate representation, or had added special effects, perhaps with the intention of "enhancing" the experience. Or, more likely, of drawing attention to himself, and away from the object represented. Having some understanding of, and respect for, the "thing itself" is a fairly important factor, it seems to me. |
|
Bronze Member Username: AudioholicPost Number: 68 Registered: Apr-05 | Frank, hate to differ with you, but it is mostly speakers that add phase shift to the signal. Name me one other piece of audio equipment that can split the musical signal like a speakers crossover does and add significant amounts of phase shift both above and below the crossover points, yet changing constantly as you move away from those same crossover points? Speakers are the worst. By far. Most, not all. |
|
Silver Member Username: Frank_abelaBerkshire UK Post Number: 598 Registered: Sep-04 | Paul, We may have to agree to differ. Here's my take: Preamps are a main source of phase shift and alignment distortions. So are the output stages of a power amp, cartridges introduce phase problems and so do phono stages. The only thing that may not introduce phase shifts are CD players, but I think even they do. Incidentally, cables can also introduce phase distortions, particularly silver plated copper. The problem is that the earlier a phase distortion in the hifi chain, the more pronounced it wil be by the time you hear it! Jan, Nojima Plays Liszt is a fantastic recording which shows how desperate some hifi systems are all too easily. And yet Nojima Plays Ravel, recorded produced and stamped by the same people, isn't half as good. Crazy isn't it? Regards, Frank. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4276 Registered: May-04 | Frank - Yes, two very different recordings which you would assume should be virtual clones of one another in regard to both sound quality and performance. The later recording actually seldom makes an appearance in my system because it is just a reminder of how poorly it is done compared the original. I remember the first time I heard the Liszt recording. It was through top of the line Jeff Rowland Designs and Theil CS-7's. No slouch on resolution the system displayed a very annoying click that drew my attention to the recording. It was only when I realized the click was the sound of Nojima's fingernails as they danced across the keyboard that I could withdraw my distraction and be entranced by the magic of the performance and the simple majesty of the recording. It is a reference piece that should be in the library of anyone who enjoys solo piano. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4277 Registered: May-04 | John - Regarding your idea that many "people inescapably have a mental model of what the real thing must have sounded like." That may be true, but that certainly doesn't make their imaginary model correct. Anyone who has seen photos of the Sistene Chapel or the Grand Canyon can only remain agog and amazed at how little of the reality contained in the original is encapsulated in their "non-real" impressions. I used to read automobile magazines and enjoyed the articles on the Italian Supercars. In my limited experience with the real thing, I can attest there is nothing in print that prepares you for the first time you experience sitting in the driver's seat and hearing, and most of all feeling, the motor come to life. Experience is the only teacher. Even the experience of hearing the car pass by at 15' is a sensation you cannot make up in your head and be truly aware of the awe inspiring rumble. That is the point of this thread. How can you know what you don't know and what is knowable and what will remain knownable but unknown. Apologies to Mr. Rumsfeld. |
|
Gold Member Username: Rick_bNew York USA Post Number: 1215 Registered: Dec-03 | So where does that leave us? Right back to the fact that by changing amps and speakers you can alter the sound/tone of those single coil pick ups. All amps and speakers do not sound the same.......What a concept! LOL! Rantz-funny! But the Tele is pretty much the same sound as they use single coil pick ups. Just not as many as the Strat. |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 3282 Registered: Dec-03 | I agree with that, Jan, though I don't think I understand "How can you know..." etc. I'll think about it! As you know, and as we have discussed, I personally think the test of a hi-fi system is how closely the sound it produces resembles that of the original performance. If we have no "mental picture" of an original performance, or if we think there never was one, I don't see what there is left to discuss about hi-fi. We had some disagreement about this, at one time, on "Teaching an old dog..." And, yes, our "mental pictures" may be all wrong, and it is good to go and listen to the real thing from time to time. But, even if we don't, a good hi-fi can help resolve differences, and give us something to listen to, and to get engaged in. For example, Beethoven's 6th Symphony, second movement, has a short passage near the end for solo flute, then clarinet, then oboe, representing different song-birds. Those sounds are very distinct in hi-fi, as in a real performance: entirely different timbres and so on. Even if someone has never heard or seen those instruments, they will still be able to hear the differences in timbre quite easily, provided the recording and playback systems are up to the task. It seems common sense that the quality hi-fi is revealing differences that you would have heard if you'd been there at the performance, and that these arresting tonal colours are diminished, or absent, from a low-fi version because of the limitations of the medium, not because there is no real difference between the sounds of different wind instruments. You do not need ever to have seen and heard these instruments at the same time in order to make a sensible decision about which system is better. It is the same for different kinds of guitar, piano, etc. If you know something about the instruments, you can maybe put names to them. That helps, too, but it is not essential. A better hi-fi always reveals differences that are undetectable in a worse one. I cannot, right now, think of a case where a worse hi-fi creates differences which were not audible at the performance where the recording was being made. Can you? Can anyone else? So, we can assess quality in sound reproduction, for example between speakers, even if we have never heard the real thing. But there has to be a real thing, and it is the ultimate point of reference, surely? |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4281 Registered: May-04 | "So, we can assess quality in sound reproduction, for example between speakers, even if we have never heard the real thing" Of course we can. But what are you then decidng between? That again is the essence of this thread. |
|
Gold Member Username: Rick_bNew York USA Post Number: 1219 Registered: Dec-03 | Jan, If we aree that you can never faithfully reproduce the sound of the live/source performance. What do you consider most important in the reproduction in order to capture the audible illusion? Timbral accuracy? |
|
Silver Member Username: Black_mathPost Number: 255 Registered: Dec-03 | You are assuming that the electric guitar is plugged directly into a mixing board. A lot of musicians will plug their guitar into distortion, overdrive, and delay boxes with a wah-wah pedal in the mix as well. This further alters the sound and makes it difficult to determine what sounds real. That is why I let the producer and recording engineer decide what I should be hearing. |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 3290 Registered: Dec-03 | "So, we can assess quality in sound reproduction, for example between speakers, even if we have never heard the real thing" Of course we can. But what are you then decidng between? Between speakers that permit you to hear differences, and those that do not. It is not genre-dependent: if you can hear that the guitar is plugged "into distortion, overdrive, and delay boxes with a wah-wah pedal" then the speakers you are using are better than ones through which you cannot hear this. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4284 Registered: May-04 | Oh, John, you always reduce these things to the extremes. Since most speakers will allow a reasonable amount of distinction between speaker model A and speaker model B, or between a guitar played with distortion, overdrive and wah-wah pedal and a guitart that is not played with distortion, etc., don't you think that still leaves a wide swath of components to wade through? What you're suggesting only dimisses a few clock radios, what used to be called "transistor radios" and products made by Bose from the potential list of contenders. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4285 Registered: May-04 | Rick - "If we agree that you can never faithfully reproduce the sound of the live/source performance." I'm not certain I can agree to that, Rick. As we've discussed above, there are too many instances where the system and room fit the scale of the performance to absolutely rule out that a faithful reproduction can't be achieved. After all, isn't that the goal of higher fidelity? |
|
Gold Member Username: Rick_bNew York USA Post Number: 1220 Registered: Dec-03 | Yes sir, that is the goal of higher fidelity. You stated in an above post that the piano is one of the hardest instruments to get "right" in recorded music. It has to be because of the scale. It's impossible to try to get the scale of a grand piano, from a pair of 12" monitors. |
|
Anonymous | Why is it impossible? |
|
Gold Member Username: Rick_bNew York USA Post Number: 1221 Registered: Dec-03 | Because after all is said and done, a 4-6" speaker is still small. |
|
Anonymous | Could a Klipschorn do it then? |
|
Silver Member Username: Thx_3417Bournemouth, Dorset United Kingdom Post Number: 493 Registered: May-05 | What about 3x JBL 4645 sub bass, along a with a JBL 2360-A HF that should produce some classic music with some slam of symphony power.... I'm doing some designs on paper to see which one will work, and has anyone ever heard the "Sonics" used in the IMAX cinemas dame, are they pucker..... |
|
Silver Member Username: Thx_3417Bournemouth, Dorset United Kingdom Post Number: 494 Registered: May-05 | I've come up with this design though how to use paint or art to draw it, how do send it, Jan you may or may not like it, looks cheep to build a prototype.... |
|
Gold Member Username: Rick_bNew York USA Post Number: 1222 Registered: Dec-03 | From a scale perspective, yes. |
|
Anonymous | There you go then. It just takes good sized speakers of good quality to do the job. |
|
Gold Member Username: Rick_bNew York USA Post Number: 1223 Registered: Dec-03 | Not always......The K-horns would get the scale right, but I feel they leave a lot to be desired as far as accuracy goes. Just my humble opinion, and many will disagree. Bigger isn't always better. There are some things small speakers can, and can't do well, and vice versa. This will always be a hobby of trade offs. |
|
Bronze Member Username: AudioholicPost Number: 69 Registered: Apr-05 | Frank, my pre-amp will pass a perfect square wave from 1hz to 50khz. My amp will pretty much do the same. No ringing. No overshoot. Ultra low negative feedback designs in both. Won't argue with the phono section, but the amp/pre-amp combo cannot come remotely close to generating the kind of phase shifts common in most speaker systems today. You add 90 degrees of phase shift per order of crossover slope. 2nd order has 180 degrees, 4th order a full 360 degrees. Thats one full cycle of phase shift between woofer and tweeter. No amp or pre-amp i'm aware of has this much phase shift. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4290 Registered: May-04 | Rick - I believe you've already heard me say the most frequent comment I made to clients was, "If I give you one thing, I'm likley to take away two." The second most used phrase was, "There is no free lunch." Meaning there are always compromises. Small speakers can do this and large speakers can do that. You, as a listener have to make decisions as to what you are willing to give up, at least partially, and what you deem most important. If you're fortunate enough to have the funds available to continually exchange equipment, then you can experience more of what is important to you. But unless you are willing to shell out big bucks each time, you will not experience it all at once. And that is what I often found interesting about the clients who could afford to change equipment regularly; they often went from one extreme to another in just a few steps. Whereas the people who bought equipment to keep for five, ten or more years had to make their decisions and live with the result. Those clients needed much more clarity in what they were willing to give up and what they cherished. I'm not clear on why you feel a small speaker can't handle the scale of a piano. As we've discussed on other threads, a well designed small speaker - particularly a small speaker that can emulate a point source - can project a scale well outside the bounds of what most people would expect from the dimensions of the enclosure. Any speaker that can reach into the 45-55Hz range in room can do a very credible job with most piano pieces. Because piano has one of the widest frequency ranges of all instruments it will present problems that many speakers find difficult. But typically frequency range is not really the problem with reproducing a piano. I suspect John and Frank and a few others can add to my comments here but essentially it is the amount of information presented by a piano at any one instant which becomes the first challenge a speaker faces. As you can see on this chart: http://psbspeakers.com/FrequenciesOfMusic.html a piano can present information into the mid 30Hz range (a larger 96(?) key piano can go lower and there are special considerations for reproducing the power of such an instrument). But seldom does the performer reach those last few notes. Even considering the substantial subharmonics a piano can produce, the amount of bass response required to convince you of the reproduced sound of a piano stays generally above 40Hz. So it should be a somewhat rare instance where the actual frequency response of a recorded piano should challenge the actual frequency response of most speakers. What makes the piano a very difficult instrument to reproduce well is the amount of information that is presented at any one time. Unlike many instruments where the signal is diminished in amplitude fairly quickly, the piano has the ability to sustain notes while combining them with the sharp transients of signals which follow. Covering a wide range of frequencies with this sort of information is going to wreak havoc with speakers (and electronics) that have phase and time problems. Moreover any discontinuity between drivers in a multi-driver enclosure will be shown immediately as not blending in a natural manner. At least not natural to anyone even vaguely familiar with the sound of a real piano. The larger the piano, the more difficult the problems become. And the more range the performer uses in both frequency and dynamics the more a speaker will alert the careful listener to the sound of a speaker and not a piano. Box resonances further complicate the problems a piano can present to a typical speaker. John will glow with pride here; but I've not heard a piano more convincingly rendered than on a pair of Quads. They have the range; they lack the box colorations; they have no phase or time problems to speak of and they can, for the most part, handle the dynamic range well enough to be believable in almost all cases. I would have guessed the shop where you bought your Magnepans would have demonstrated them with a piano recording for the same reasons. I have to say in my experience it is not the scale of a piano that usually fouls a speaker's presentation of piano. It is all the other things that make a good speaker exceptional that many speakers find impossible to achieve. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4291 Registered: May-04 | One of the great difficulties in reproducing a piano correctly is the problem a piano presents to the recording chain. Think of the problems encountered by the microphone when trying to respond to the mutlitude of air pressure changes which a piano can create. A small 5/8" capsule will possibly have the speed to cover the highest ranges but not enough bottom response to adequately convey the power of a large concert piano. (Condensor or dynamic mic? You decide.) No matter where the microphone is placed, there will be some phase shifts between the upper and lower registers. Using more than one microphone presents obvious problems. Getting the mix correct between the paino and the ambient information is a matter of choices and tradeoffs. In many instances this is where the reproduction of a piano begins to fall apart. To the list of speakers that convincingly reproduce a piano to my ears add the old Celestion SL600. Not to get off the subject too much, but I'd be interested to know what other speakers listeners feel can capture the sound of a piano. |
|
Anonymous | The SDAT SB 639 Ds, thanks to their extension down to 20Hz can easily reproduce the piano and give listeners the feel of having the piano in the room with them. |
|
Walrus Man Unregistered guest | I also have to agree that the SDAT SB 639 Ds are the best speakers I have ever heard at any price. |
Main Forums
Today's Posts- Home Audio Forum
- A/V Receivers Forum
- Amps Forum
- Cassette Forum
- CD Players Forum
- CD Recorders Forum
- DAC & Transports Forum
- DVD-Audio & SACD Forum
- Equalizers Forum
- Integrated Amps Forum
- iPod Docks Forum
- MiniDisc Forum
- Mini Systems Forum
- Digital Music Systems Forum
- Phono Forum
- Preamps Forum
- Speakers Forum
- Subwoofers Forum
- Tuners Forum
- Home Video Forum
- Home Theater Forum
- Car Audio Forum
- Accessories Forum
- All Forum Topics