Archive through July 19, 2005
|
Silver Member Username: DakulisSpokane, Washington United States Post Number: 234 Registered: May-05 | Jan and company, I'm going to go home in about an hour. Sit down with the Ascends and Lings, A/B the heck out of them, compare them and I'll try to distinguish what each does well and then see, WHAT MORE IS IT THAT I'M LOOKINNG FOR. (Right now, I'd settle for the Denon 2200 showing up to improve my sound some more and my DVD watching and give me the option of SACD and DVD-A. But then, that's the easy request to fill.) As to the rest, I'm going to do some rereading, some reviewing of the audio glossary and see if I my tiny, little brain can wrap itself around some of the concepts we're looking at here. Margie's "engage" and my "connect" seem similar in concept but may not exactly say what we mean. The concept "warm" which your salesman was stuck on is sort of like my "clean, clear highs" and "transparent, clean midrange" - I think I know what they mean but I'm not certain it conveys much to the rest of you or a salesman. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4481 Registered: May-04 | " ... no two live performances held in different venues will sound the same anyway." "Can't a recording be wonderful too even if it doesn't quite capture the essence of the live performance." "Do we want an 'accurate' recording, or one that sounds good? That must depend, to some extent, on the type of music which we are listening to. For pop/rock/easy listening music, then it probably doesn't matter much if there are dozens of takes in the studio, then mixed and muddled through a thousand op-amps, as long as the result is pleasant sounding." "However, should the venue and/or placement of musicians on the stage or some other influence create a less than wonderful live performance, artful mixing to enhance the sound rather than accuracy might be preferable if the end result is more pleasant to the ears." ********************************** If I might interject a thought here without taking us back to the last segment to argue the matter; with these statements you are confusing the sound of the recording with the music itself. I see our destination on this trip being able to talk about the music as it is played through the system. Obviously we would like every recording to have pleasing frequency response and sound quality; but unfortunately we live in a world where that is not likely to happen. We live in a world where the variation in tonal balance and sound quality from speaker to speaker, amp to amp and recording to recording are noticeable in their deviation from "neutral". However whether the recording is rolled off on the high end frequencies or you personally prefer speakers tilted up at the high frequencies, the music is what matters. If you find you are not being shown speakers with enough high frequency emphasis, it is a simple task to ask the salesperson to demonstrate speakers with more tilted highs or simply a "brighter" speaker. You can ask for more bass. If it is obvious, you can ask for a system which is not so muffled. Almost everyone can understand those terms. What is more difficult, in my opinion, is to ask for the system which engages us more. I would think it difficult not because the word is incomprehensible but because the word is seldom used when discussing audio. The word speaks to the music not the tonal balance of the system. Do not confuse the two. You might wish to have more bass; but it is more important to know what you want the bass to do musically. If the music is the important part of what you want, then the recording can be of poor quality in terms of frequency response and still remain musically satisfying. If the music is torn to shreds by those "dozens of takes in the studio, then mixed and muddled through a thousand op-amps" it doesn't matter if the frequency balance is pleasing. The recording has been stripped of its life and is worthless in most respects. So think of the system not in terms of frequency balance or soundstaging or imaging at this point and think instead of how to extract the music from the muck or the most pleasing balance you can imagine. |
|
Silver Member Username: Frank_abelaBerkshire UK Post Number: 672 Registered: Sep-04 | I have a CD of early Oscar Peterson recordings (1945 - 1950) which were transcribed from old 78s. The music that is on there is wonderfully fresh and exuberant. Sure, it's not high fidelity but it's brilliant stuff. It really connects... Regards, Frank. - Struggling while my new speakers run in... |
|
Alfonso Reyes Unregistered guest | OSCAR PETERSON IS DEAD BUT WHEN HE WAS ALIVE I HELPED HIM WITH HIS SOUND SETUP AND HE SWORE TO ME THAT IT MADE HIM SOUND EVEN BETTER THAN HIMSELF ONSTAGE, NO LIE HONEST INJUN I SWEAR ON MY MOMMY'S EYES. |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 3404 Registered: Dec-03 | Frank;- As you surely know, there are people who swear by 78s and go to great lengths to get the best sound from them. Also, the digital transfers and edits done professionally start with 78s themselves. Digital editing makes it possible to correct for speed/pitch changes and also filter out some types of surface noise. Alfonso;- Please tell us about Oscar Peterson's sound setup! Jan;- My request to the ideal hifi dealer would be "How can I get my playback of the recording to sound more like the original performance?" He might reply with "What are the differences you notice between the playback and a live performance?" I would tell him. He would suggest some ways of eliminating those differences. He might suggest I listen for some other differences which I had not identified, or not been able to describe to him clearly. I submit that "involvement", "leading forward" and all these desirable things are in the music, not in the audio system. I still maintain the task of the system is to deliver the music, and, itself, be invisible and inaudible: the system should be transparent. Transparency is a quality of a medium, and means that no attention needs to be paid to the medium itself, so that all one's attention can be paid to what it carries or transmits. |
|
Silver Member Username: W00bPost Number: 168 Registered: Mar-05 | Jan.. you were talking about yin and yang in a system.. how it may be too bright or too warm.. How about an equalizer? you may be able to bring everything to your 'sonic harmony' via an equalizer..just a thought |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4494 Registered: May-04 | Dustin - An equalizer can place another BandAid on the frequency balance. This might be a solution to a single component which is tonally not in synch with the rest of the system but only takes in to account the tonal balance of the system. As a rule, there are other characteristics which typify a yin or yang component we have yet to completely discuss. When you finally consider everything that contributes to a yin or yang system personality, you'll see that an EQ is probably not the best solution. I have found greater success by building the system with the desired balance in mind and placing every component as close to that balance point as the budget allows. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4495 Registered: May-04 | John - Your post seems to be at odds with itself. "He might reply with 'What are the differences you notice between the playback and a live performance?' I would tell him." Well, of course you would, John, that's what we are all here. What would you tell him? How would you go about describing what problems and strengths your system displays? How would you describe what you want? As Rantz poses the question, "If 'we' need these words or phrases, and I agree they'd sure be helpful, what have 'we' said to get by in the past?" If the only answer is "transparency", then we could have ended this thread about 350 posts before this. If that's the case, Frank should be relieved; not only has the unanswerable question been answered but his job as an audio salesperson has been simplified. Somewhat like the salesperson in my example, his only reply to any problem can now be, "Is that transparent enough?" You said, "I submit that "involvement", "leading forward" and all these desirable things are in the music, not in the audio system. I still maintain the task of the system is to deliver the music, and, itself, be invisible and inaudible: the system should be transparent. Transparency is a quality of a medium, and means that no attention needs to be paid to the medium itself, so that all one's attention can be paid to what it carries or transmits." I don't believe any of us would disagree with those statements. We do not want the system to be a performer; the system itself should be "transparent". But the situation we are most often faced with is not one of the system wanting to get in on the act. When it does we are typically saying the basic personality (yin yang) of a component is wrong for the rest of the system. In this case the system becomes too bright, too bloated, too rolled off. These are sins of commission which need to be corrected to bring us back to our desired state of "transparency". For this you can say the problem is the system is too bloated; but I assure you that will not be a sufficient answer to get the situation resolved. The problem many of us are faced with are sins of omission where the system impedes the music's ability to move forward effortlessly and to involve us. Either way the system is the pipe which passes the music and the pipe has a kink in it. The music is not flowing out the same way it went in. We need the language to unkink the pipe; and to do that we need the ability to be more specific about what we hear and what we want to hear. To say no more than, "The system is not transparent and I seek transparency", is similar to walking into the doctor's office and announcing, "I do not feel well and I want to feel well". He might reply with, "What are the differences you notice between feeling well and not feeling well?" You would tell him. What would you tell him? You have to be reasonably specific if you wish to feel well since only you know how you feel. In the instance of your audio system, when the salesperson asked, "What are the differences you notice between the playback and a live performance?", you say you would tell him. What words would you use? You must be reasonably specific if you wish to solve the problem since only you know what you are hearing. What would get you from where you are now to the desired state of "transparency"? |
|
Bronze Member Username: AudioholicPost Number: 89 Registered: Apr-05 | Are we talking about live, UN-AMPLIFIED music here or live amplified music? If the latter, amps, boards, consoles, snakes, mics, eq's, speakers etc will have an effect on what you hear. Hope it's the former. |
|
Silver Member Username: DiabloFylde Coast, England Post Number: 162 Registered: Dec-04 | I went to my local UK hi-fi dealer the other day. The conversation went something like the following. I have cunningly disguised all brand names to make them totally undecipherable to avoid getting involved with comparing brands.  hi-fi salesman : Hello, can I help you thinks - why has he turned up just before my coffee break - dam! diablo : I was listening the radio whilst having a bath this morning and I heard a piece of music on Radio 3 which made me tap me feet. hi-fi salesman : Err, right -- tap your feet, in the bath, sir?? (smiles) thinks - They used to lock these people up, until Mrs Thatcher decided that it was cheaper to let them out diablo : Metaphorically, I mean. I was mentally tapping my foot. thinks - He thinks I ought to be locked up, oh dear, I've got off on the wrong foot here - whether or not it is metaphorically tapping or not hi-fi salesman : Oh. I see. How can I help? thinks - He knows a big word, maybe he isn't an axe murderer after all - so I will humour him. diablo : I bought the CD which the piece came from, but it doesn't seem to do the same thing as when I was in the bath. thinks - Maybe he is right and I ought to be locked up hi-fi salesman : What are you listening to it on? thinks - Might be an Esob system, which this shop could have sold him. Oh no, not another one whose transistor radio sounds better! diablo : It's a DAN 357T with Eltsac Yawnoc 3 speakers hi-fi salesman : Ahh. The DAN is very good. It should sound fine. Not sure about those speakers, though. They have only 3 star ratings in Practical Hi-Fi.thinks - Good, he hasn't bought a Esob. We sell DANs but not Eltsac speakers, so I can rubbish those and get him to buy some of our brands diablo : Hmmm. What would you recommend to improve my system? hi-fi salesman : What would you say is missing from your system? Maybe we can help? The Eltsac Yawnoc speakers are perhaps a little short of treble response? diablo : I do have some problems with lack of treble on some recordings. hi-fi salesman : Ah, well - can I demonstrate some W&B speakers of about the same price range as your Eltsacs, they make them with more treble than the old-fashioned 'British sound' speaker. Much more suited to a sophisticated ear like you obviously have. (smiles again, but more oleaginously this time) thinks - much more suited to impressive demos diablo : Trouble is, I also have some recordings that a a little 'bright', so I don't think that will help, unfortunately. hi-fi salesman : thinks - Hmmm. Problem customer. Have to fob him off with something else hi-fi salesman : Having given this some thought, if you are getting some recordings which are too bright and some which are too dull, then maybe your source is the fault. What sort of CD player are you using? diablo : Errr, I have two. My old faithful Scinhcet A772P-LS MASH player which I have repaired numerous times but which still sounds pretty good. I've also got a fairly decent Cinosanap DVD player which doesn't have to do much when I put A CD in there, it just has to read the bits off the disk and put them through an optical cable into the DAN for it to decode them. thinks - He's going to laugh at me here! hi-fi salesman : Ah, the old Scinhcet A772P-LS, my parents had one of those until I sold, er, bought them a Ynos to replace it. thinks - good profit margin as well. This stubborn old git thinks he knows it all, probably have a difficult job selling a new CD player to this custard diablo : The old Scinhcet may not be a subtle player, but you cannot ignore the music it produces, it has a lot of presence, some would say musical, but possibly in a slightly crude sort of way. thinks - he isn't going to understand this, is he? hi-fi salesman : Has sir thought about the more modern formats? SACD and DVD-Audio? They employ the finest sound engineers for those projects, of course. So the sound will always be identical to the original. Though the higher frequencies vary, some would compare the differences between players to fine champagne or old single malt whiskythinks - SACD etc has more profit margin anyway diablo : I've thought about it. Not much in the way of titles available though, is there? thinks - what's he going to say to that?? hi-fi salesman : Has sir realised that 'Dark Side of the Moon' is now available on SACD?thinks - silly old fool looks like he was a drugged-up hippy in the early 70s diablo : My friends used to bore me by playing Pink Floyd when I was 18 or so, I hate it! I want Wagner, Elgar, Steeleye Span. There's nothing in the catalogs yet, apart from excerpts from Wagner. I shout "I want it all, and I want it now!" (diablo pulls out S&W 568 and points it at salesman) thinks - maybe I do belong in a hospital -- and why have I got a S&W in a concealed holster? , whilst simultaneously wondering if Queen albums are available on SACD hi-fi salesman : Please put away the gun sir. (holds up hands). diablo : (puts gun away) I was wondering about buying a new CD player actually. Have you got a DAN version which also plays SACD and DVD-Audio? (smiles sweetly, whilst fondling holstered gun) hi-fi salesman : No, they only make a CD player which caters for DVD-Audio. thinks - have to change my pants after this nutter has gone diablo : I've read somewhere recently about yin/yang being important im music? hi-fi salesman : Sorry, we don't sell Chinese made equipment. diablo : What about my music in the bath, though? hi-fi salesman : We have a converter which will take the output from a CD player and broadcast it on FM. You can then tune into it on your portable when taking a bath. diablo : Sold! (smiles and pulls out S&W again, but then changes mind and uses debit card) This really happened, honestly. Best regards, diablo |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 3409 Registered: Dec-03 | Totally brilliant, olbaid! You found the S&W produced the desired effect? Well, if it works for you... The true audiophile would take along an AK47 at least, I think. Then there are the Eastern European imports, Kalashnikov and so on. These can be just as effective. Surely you should have pulled the trigger when he said "Sorry, we don't sell Chinese made equipment. "... I should finish here, for now, as a simple mark of respect. But.... Jan;- Yes, "health" is a good analogy for transparency: you know when you don't have it. When you know, or suspect, that you are ill, you go to the doctor. And you tell him about the pain or whatever, and he can decide what it might be a symptom of. Audiophiles have a tendency to psychosomatic disorders, it seems to me. These can be just as serious as physical disorders, but upgrades do not help. Re: Yin, Yang, and S&W, from A Child of Our Time - libretto. A gratuitous plug for a fantastic concert last night. BASS (The Narrator) He goes to authority. He is met with hostility. ALTO His other self rises in him, demonic and destructive. BASS (The Narrator) He shoots the official-- ALTO But he shoots only his dark brother And see he is dead. later... TENOR I would know my shadow and my light, so shall I at last be whole. I gather I am alone in this! http://www.bbc.co.uk/proms/listen/rams/prom1.ram |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4498 Registered: May-04 | Not at all, diablo is tapping his foot along with you. Are you in the bath also? |
|
Silver Member Username: Joe_cOakwood, Ga Post Number: 655 Registered: Mar-05 | You know Jan the fella who sold me the Totems I bought was telling me the very thing you were saying about keeping everything neutral from in to out. Not fixing anything down the line with a band aid so to speak. I really am starting to grasp that now, and enjoy it. |
|
Silver Member Username: DiabloFylde Coast, England Post Number: 163 Registered: Dec-04 | Jan, John may or may not be in the bath (the only thing I know for sure is that he isn't in MY bath), but I agree with his thoughts about the relevance of "A Child of our Time" in todays troubled world. Must admit that I didn't listen to all of the Tippett. Started re-playing the earlier bit of the Prom - Janine Jansen playing Mendelssohn's Violin Concerto. Very decently played, as well. A familiar old piece - but can still causes shivers to run down my spine. No tapping feet though.  |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 3412 Registered: Dec-03 | diablo, the sound is not so great on the Real Audio stream, of course. There is a good Naxos recording of A Child of Our Time, a re-issue of one I have, I think from 1992, on Collins Classics. That has excellent sound. joseph, I think I am with Jan on equalizers. He was unusually polite, I thought. Personally, I wouldn't allow one in the house. There is an expensive TacT digital surround system that is supposed to tune itself to different room acoustics, if I understand it correctly. That seems like much the same idea, to me. As regards toe-tapping in the bath, well, one Proms theme this year is "The Sea", so, maybe, to get those special effects... diablo, you deserve some special award for that post. I am still chuckling. And trying to think of other dealer scenarios. Certain sorts of dealers use the word "digital" in a way I do not understand; "Digital speakers" etc., and I do not think they mean the crossover. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4500 Registered: May-04 | P.B. - Please refer to the opening page of the thread to find your answer: https://www.ecoustics.com/electronics/forum/home-audio/146311.html |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4501 Registered: May-04 | j.c. - What else did the salesperson say; how were the Totems described to hit the mark. John - Have you thought of any descriptive words to use whilst listening to Tippet? I'm referring to your system, of course, not the affairs of the world. diablo - I do hate to be dense; but are you modelling your story telling around Stoppard or Pinter? |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4502 Registered: May-04 | I'm not trying to pick anyone out of the lot and hold them up to ridicule; but here's a post that was recently made on another thread: ***** "I tried the *** floorstander last week and was amazed! They are really nice but a little lacking in the highs. However, that is nitpicking because I was quite impressed. There was not a huge difference with my %%%%%%%%% 6's but the mids were a little better with the *** but I found my %%%%%%%%% 6 went deeper and had better highs. Fit and finish was really nice and they were very heavy and quite big. They would be on my list if I was looking for speakers. I never tried the bookshelf as the dealer had recently sold them and said he was having trouble keeping them in stock as they were good sellers." ***** From that post what do we know about the music that "flowed" through the system? What do we even know about the speaker? |
|
Silver Member Username: Timn8terSeattle, WA USA Post Number: 319 Registered: Dec-03 | I don't spend much time in audio stores. My time is spent more with other designers and at audio meets. However, after so much discussion about what people are hearing I decided to pay a visit to a well respected local shop, along with my wife. The salesman asked what we were looking for. I said a pair of bookshelf speakers around the $500 range. The first pair he played I thought were terrible and I said so. He said, yes that's what you get for $500. We progressed up the ladder. In every case "that sound" was not there. I decided it must be a placement issue. I asked about some very highly touted $1000 bookshelf speakers. He said "oh yes, these are correctly placed and "dialed in". Even then, "that sound" wasn't there. I gave up on the bookshelves and went for the $2500 floorstanders. Hmmm...better. We're almost there except it still sounds compressed. There's no sense of "space" around the music. Is there some invisible blanket in here? My wife blurts out "Where's the imaging? Where's the soundstage?". Not too subtle sometimes. I left rather bewildered. These were the "names" that everyone raves about, the CD player, the amp, the speakers. What's wrong here? When I got home I had to turn on the stereo while the experience was fresh in my mind. Oh yes, there it is. There's "that sound". |
|
Gold Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 1196 Registered: Feb-05 | That's interesting. I usually think that my system sounds better than systems that I hear in audio stores that cost 2-3 times as much. I wonder why? Perhaps it has a little to do with the fact that I have worked hard to put together a system with synergy that makes the most of the space it's used in. Much more difficult to do that in a store where you are playing many different sources and speakers in various combinations, often not in optimal conditions. |
|
Silver Member Username: Joe_cOakwood, Ga Post Number: 658 Registered: Mar-05 | He really didn't say too much about each speaker. He just took the same cd round to the speakers he was showing me and played the same songs on the same NAD amps and let me listen first. The funny thing is , the Totems were twice what I was going to spend. I guess the selling was in the sound itself, he just solidified my choice with facts about the company, the fact he owned a pair, and made me listen to different music to make sure before I bought. The speakers I was comparing to these were: Bohlender/graebners from another shop, PSB image b25's, some old 1980's snell floorstanders (but they were in less than desirable cosmetic shape), they sounded good though, and lastly some other $400 pair that were good enough to let me forget their name. What I understood to be "good" speakers has definitely changed in the past year. I used to think the wow was where it was at. Now I am slowly just understanding the "transparency" thing. I cannot wait to hear all kinds of music on this system. Stuff I would normally never listen to. Everything just sounds so pleasing and relaxing. From Floyd to Vivaldi it's like Im a kid again. I have not even watched a movie in a week , and that's saying something. |
|
Silver Member Username: Timn8terSeattle, WA USA Post Number: 320 Registered: Dec-03 | Art- I agree it is very difficult in that situation. The salesman saying "these are dialed in" just added to my dismay. It was an impromptu visit, I didn't have my music with me and he was playing a highly suspect CD-R. I think I'll try it again. |
|
Silver Member Username: Joe_cOakwood, Ga Post Number: 659 Registered: Mar-05 | Curious to know what brands tim? |
|
Silver Member Username: DiabloFylde Coast, England Post Number: 164 Registered: Dec-04 | J Vigne said "diablo - I do hate to be dense; but are you modelling your story telling around Stoppard or Pinter?" -------------------------------- Well, as it happens, I was having lunch with Tom and Harold just the other day. I said to them that virually nobody in the US would ever have heard of them - except perhaps for retired audio salesmen from Dallas. They laughed at me, but I knew I was right. My little 'drama' was not realistic, of course. Neither were the two opening paragraphs of this spiel. It wasn't like I was trying to recreate "Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead" or "Professional Foul" either. My experiences of visiting audio places have been varied. The best were some I phoned up in advance to see if they could demo stuff. Once I got there, they (with one exception) tried to sell me something else which I didn't want. Visiting hi-fi stores in the UK is probably much different than the US. If I told the full truth about my various store (or even boutique) visits, then I would have had to be much more vitriolic. It appears to me, from the 100's of your posts which I have read, that you were the ideal guy to buy from. I get the impression that you would secretly advise purchase of valve amps and BBC type monitors if you actually didn't actually hate the person you were supposed to be selling to. Or am I wrong. I tend to think you are a nice guy really, though you quite often have a 'pop' at me. I have no problem about that. Please carry on the tradition. With best and finest regards diablo |
|
Silver Member Username: Timn8terSeattle, WA USA Post Number: 321 Registered: Dec-03 | "Curious to know what brands tim?" Yeah, I've been hesitating to name brands because some people are likely to flame me, but here goes. Definitive Technology, Boston Acoustics, Sonus Faber and Vienna Acoustics for speakers. Denon CD and amp. All bookshelves except the Vienna Acoustics Grand Mozart. |
|
Bronze Member Username: Cousin_itPost Number: 40 Registered: May-05 | Did you ever think of bringing in a pair of Lings into a store to A/B? Not to be ubnoxious, but in the name of research? |
|
Silver Member Username: Joe_cOakwood, Ga Post Number: 660 Registered: Mar-05 | You know, I have heard the Sonus Faber concertino series line and was not impressed. The reason would most likely be because I heard it at Tweeter. They only have Denon amps (which I own and know is good for HT but weak on music to me)and mid to low end source hardware. They sounded harsh and very forward to me. Boston I have in my car which is used for "crankin" most of the time, not for listening like I do at home. Their home stuff never impressed me either. If you have a Totem dealer near you I would be curious to see what you think of them. As long as they are hooked up to appropriate electronics. Art, I was thinking about what you said along the lines of the home systems we own outperforming the systems at the shop that cost three times as much. I really believe that the majority of that is psycholigical. Of course there are variables in the environment and equipment , too much to list , that contribute. But I know for me that I love my system. It's nowhere near the best, but I think it's the "best". I really enjoy getting feedback from others who enjoy the same passions. good stuff. |
|
Silver Member Username: Timn8terSeattle, WA USA Post Number: 322 Registered: Dec-03 | "Did you ever think of bringing in a pair of Lings into a store to A/B? Not to be ubnoxious, but in the name of research?" :-) Funny you should say that because, yes I did. I imagine asking the salesman to pull the Sonus Fabers and put the Lings in their place to listen to. He'd probably freak! I do know the owner of one of the high end shops. He might let me do it. Hmmmm....I'm liking this idea. |
|
Silver Member Username: Joe_cOakwood, Ga Post Number: 664 Registered: Mar-05 | lol |
|
Silver Member Username: Timn8terSeattle, WA USA Post Number: 323 Registered: Dec-03 | "....most likely be because I heard it at Tweeter. They only have Denon amps...." Yes. I have to consider that the Denon 3805 is probably great for HT but may fall short for 2 channel, especially compared to my EL-34 amp. You have to go a bit higher in the SS amps to get to the same level. (bracing for anti-tube flames) |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4503 Registered: May-04 | That smokey smell is from direct coupled bipolar output devices meeting a 2 Ohm load with 180° phase angle. Margie - Are you following along? We're not wanting to loose you and David. |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 3413 Registered: Dec-03 | I thought diablo's scene was out of Raymond Chandler. Or, if he'd shot the guy, it could have been a cut from Pulp Fiction. Jan, do not take offence! A lot of us dream of outwitting certain sorts of hifi salesmen. You are not one of those sorts. And, in your case, we couldn't, even if we wanted to! There is also the sort who assesses your bank balance from visual cues, decides you are not a suitable customer, and then says, in reply to any question, "Just let your ears decide" before going back to his computer game. How would I describe listening to Tippett last night? Thrilling; moving. Actually, very moving. Well, apart from the useful text, and the nice shots of the RAH, which I love, the TV was too big and got in the way. The sound was good; I was not aware of anything in the way of the music. This is using "Aux 2" on my stereo system, of course, and the analogue terrestrial TV reception. My hifi store dream would be auditioning a pair of T8's speakers using ACOOT as test disc, under the suprevision of JV. With an absolutely huge bank balance, and in the company of;- well, now... |
|
Gold Member Username: MyrantzThe Land Dow... Post Number: 2154 Registered: Aug-04 | "What would get you from where you are now to the desired state of "transparency"?" H.G.Wells? ---------------------------- *Posted on Sunday, July 10, 2005 - 09:51 pm: We need a word or phrase that you can carry into a store and tell the salesperson very unambiguously you want a system that is "effortless", that "has a black background of silence", which "lets you envison what is (not) there". ----------------------------- I think the 'word' or the 'phrase' is elusive as the perfect sound. Even if one of us was smart enough to come up with 'it', how many salespeople would be able to comprehend 'it' anyway. So Jan, is this 'word or phrase' a possibilty, or is this discussion really a new 'sport' you conjured up for your entertainment? Maybe by the time this thread hits the 1000th post, someone may surprise us. If not, at least we will have all learnt something - as is usually the case with contributions to this forum from our (wise?) Texan friend. We should doff our hats to him. "Doff" |
|
Unregistered guest | Diablo...very funny John..Joseph...I enjoy your input... Sorry Gentlemen the hifi store dream or nightmare is very different for me. I am a woman and therefore not taken seriously as a real customer. (Not quite as bad as auto salesmen.) I don't think as many women have the love of music (and the equipment) as men do. I don't know why but that has been my experience. If a woman is "into sound" it probably originates with her man. In my youth I could not understand why everyone didn't place a priority on their sound system. Sony and other package deals were just fine. For a time I thought they just hadn't "heard" better or ego was a factor, the car etc.was the thing. Then I began to realize that even though a profession of loving music may be made and may be beleaved, for some of us the reality is still different. Or the experience is different. A different connection is made. For the most part, the people with the connection seem to be men. When I talked to a hifi salesman for the most part I was politely patronized and that was the high end store. A store selling moderate stuff,... probably just ignored. My method of approach became: do your research, go in and say I would like to hear that....connected to that... and that. My age has helped some. I'm no longer a mother with a child, no way a serious customer, still a woman and steered to a package ( Bose anyone?) that will be easy for the little lady to take home and plug in. Words or discriptions weren't of much value in that exchange. This thread is very helpfull to me. I need to....well... want new speakers. Right now I have four sets sitting here. Two are mine, two are just visiting. This is two channel stereo. (My home theater is significantly less important to me and I don't think the quality of sound is as good.) I want to down size...to one set of speakers. They have to be the "right" ones. They may not be new. Speaker that were designed in the tube era can have a very "natural" sound to my ear. Something to do with digital to analog or the other way around or maybe just yang. Tim on another thread you wondered about research on the preferences of women. For the most part I think women focus on the high end. Not exactly research but talking to other women over the years that would be my guess. However my experence also is that women don't listen to the music the same way. Part of it may be that a bass that is boomy or puffy or fluffy or over powering in some way is not as easy to listen to more casually eg. while doing housework or taking care of children etc. If listening to the music is a secondary activity then the high and midrange are more important. Just my observation. Again I fall into this at a little different place because I like good bass. Part of why I hang on to my old JBLs with two hands and both feet...I love their bass! I'm not trying to be hard on women, I just think we are a smaller sample. Any comments anyone? Jan what is your experience with women customers? |
|
Gold Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 1198 Registered: Feb-05 | Margie, My favorite audio store "Stereotypes" in Portland is owned and operated by Teri Inman. She is one of the most knowledgeable audiophiles I know. http://www.stereotypesaudio.com/ The more I hear about audio stores in other parts of the country the more fortunate I feel to be in Oregon. |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 3415 Registered: Dec-03 | "Doff" |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 3416 Registered: Dec-03 | ....also to Margie and Art. Also to My Rantz. The forum format makes it difficult to be polite. |
|
Silver Member Username: Timn8terSeattle, WA USA Post Number: 324 Registered: Dec-03 | Speaking of women and hi-fi, ever heard of Doreen Jordan? http://www.bandor.com/home_frame.htm |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4504 Registered: May-04 | Margie - On average my experiences with women, never girls in the same way that I had boys as customers, is they would like to have a well put together sound system if only someone would let them buy it. It is a problem the audio business has been dealing with by choosing to ignore it for the last fifty years. As Art suggests there are shops which have the common sense to communicate with all customers; but as the mom and pop stores are eliminated by the big boxes, the number of shops where this is possible dwindles every day. The average audio salesperson is getting younger every time I go in a store. (Or maybe I'm just getting older and these people behind the counter all look like my nephews.) As a rule, women are not welcome on either side of the counter. That presents the Catch-22 of the matter. Perhaps it is a right brain/left brain issue or simply a yin yang confrontation. Like a woman in an auto parts store, a female in an audio salon is in foreign territory. The computer industry has done a far better job of appealling to women than the audio market has. I would hate to see high end audio adopt the business model of Compaq but women are eventually going to get what they want in audio even if they have to buy it at a computer dealer. It's a shame the audio industry treats women the way it does since most of my female clients made much more interesting comments about the sound they heard than the average male client could manage. Right brain/left brain; yin yang. The audio industry doesn't even know how to market their product to anyone other than the geeky guy in the Mercedes. ***** Well, Gentlemen, let's review what we've learned to day. Frank listens to good jazz. Alfonso is an idiot. John would tell the salesperson how his system deviates from the real thing. diablo is having lunch with some very classy company. Some bookshelf speakers are flying off the shelves?! j.c. is beginning to peel the onion. And, enjoying doing so. T8 can't buy "that sound". And his wife could probably do a better job of setting up a system than many audio shops can manage. Margie has found the "no shoes, no shirt, no uterus, no service" sign hanging in most shops. Rantz has doffed his hat and I appreciate that; but I have to agree with his question: "So Jan, is this 'word or phrase' a possibilty, or is this discussion really a new 'sport' you conjured up for your entertainment?" To tell the truth I had no idea this thread was going to head in this direction 435 post ago. It just happened to be raining where I had first stopped and this is where the road took me. We certainly haven't progressed down that road even one bit today. We have spent the day gazing at Popsicle stick monuments. We've made clear we would like to have transparent sound, "that sound" and healthy bowel habits. But we haven't come any distance in identifying how to achieve at least the first two from that list. (Please, no suggestions on the final goal.) Is that it? Are we done? Shall we admit defeat and move on to the next question regarding subwoofer cables? I don't think it should be the end. For one thing, we are not looking for one word to describe "that sound". We were engaged in identifying a series of qualities which we find in live performance that could be used to "unambiguously" describe what we desire in an audio system. There are questions for which no one has offered any answers. We have, in general, danced around the questions and shown off our wit. We want a transparent system. Fine, no one would disagree with that any more than they would the sentiment of the Tallis work. How do we get there? What words do we use? Asking the question without offering the solution is a rather futile effort. Even if I provided what I feel are the words, they wouldn't be satisfactory to everyone. So this has to be a joint effort or no effort at all. Shall we just go back to "warm", "bright" and "open"? Shall we just settle for speakers that are quite heavy and very big? If this is as far as the discussion can proceed, I apologize to Margie and David. Margie, possibly you can begin a post asking for advice on which speakers to buy. I'm sure there will be no end of helpful suggestions to that question. |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 3417 Registered: Dec-03 | We want a transparent system. If we agree, that's something. Fine, no one would disagree with that any more than they would the sentiment of the Tallis work. Er, which one? How do we get there? How about we just pay attention, and try to eliminate opacity - departure from transparency - whenever and whereever we find it? What words do we use? Things like "Guitars don't buzz like that"; "The piano sounds like it is 20 feet tall"; "I can't hear the words"; "There is too much/too little bass/treble"; "It is too 'bright'/not 'bright' enough"; "The strings are all mushed together"; "The cymbals are too soft/loud'/hard"; etc. Then we try to decide whether the problem is the recording or the playback, and try to correct the things we think might be wrong with the playback. After each attempt, we listen, compare, and see if things are better, worse, or no different. I do not think there is a "Holy Grail" of sound reproduction. All we can do, with the help of the recording, is try to get "the closest approach to the original sound". At any stage we might think we have reached a point that is close enough. Where that point lies is each person's personal decision, where an important factor is how much time, trouble and money he or she is willing and able to invest. Half the problem with hifi, it seems to me, is that some people tend to insist that their own "good enough" point is the only one that matters. Another half of the problem is that some people tend not to want their attention drawn to deficiencies in what they are familiar with, or have already spent their money on. A third half (cough) is that some people imagine that deficiencies that are either not there at all, or that are in the recording. A fourth half (....um...) is that some people tend to argue that certain departures from "how it is" are "features"; as if artefacts of the system can, in some way, enhance the experience of listening to music. Or speech. Or pistol shots. Or helicopters. Whatever. Look, Jan, you are at the metaphorical wheel: when you steer a car, you concentrate on eliminating the disparity between where you expect the car to be, and where the road is. You keep checking to see if you are successful. Anyone care for a light refreshment of some kind? |
|
Gold Member Username: KeggerWarren, MICHIGAN Post Number: 2519 Registered: Dec-03 | I think diablo was onto something there with: "Do we want an 'accurate' recording, or one that sounds good? That must depend, to some extent, on the type of music which we are listening to. For pop/rock/easy listening music, then it probably doesn't matter much if there are dozens of takes in the studio, then mixed and muddled through a thousand op-amps, as long as the result is pleasant sounding. Maybe they should sell various mixes though, designed for audiophile, average and crap equipment. There probably isn't one mix which will universally good, so they probably compromise somewhere between average and crap." I believe I may listen for different things in my music and how I listen to my music compared to say, Jan and that may way heavely on the type of music I listen too. ................................................................................ ................................................................................ .......... Someone mentioned wine awhile back it almost sounds like Jan is a wine taster/connoisseur and some of the rest of us just want to drink it while others are somewhere in the middle! There is no wrong way to drink in my oppinion, some enjoy the flavor and savor it while others just like to drink casual and get a little buzz from it to put them in a good state. Them some just want to hammer it and don't really taste it but enjoy what they have just done. Then theres the ones that know there brand and have a set amount that they will adhere to that brings them the most enjoyment. Then you have the ones that analize it's ability to pleasure the pallete and how smooth it may go down all the while thinking about where the berries or the grapes had grown that made this delicious drink that puts them in the state of euphoria for which they had been searching and it was done with all the eaze of sliding into a car seat layered with rose petals. At any given time you may enjoy any of these scenarios, maybe even depending on ones mood or when/how they were brought up and there suroundings while they were doing so. There are so many things that go into why someone likes there music/wine and how they do either or both that I don't think you can label any way of doing either right or wrong as long as you understand what it is you are doing and you enjoy it! The absolute # one thing that I listen for when listening to a system that is playing music is weather or not the EQ sounds right to me, too bright or edgy is irritating to the point where I just can't enjoy it but not enough doesn't satisfy me either same goes for the bass and the midrange just maybe not to the extent of the treble. Just like a beer I may think isn't just right I'll drink it but I won't ask for another. ................................................................................ ................................................................................ ........... I have a friend that after listening to a system I'd ask him, so how did that sound, He'd reply with , well the image was a little confined and didn't seem to have much in the way of any depth but did seem to have a fairly precise vocal centerized precense to it. And I say yah but how did it sound? What I'm getting at is yah I listen for the imaging also and a very good system should image well but first what I listen for, does the system sound like it's playing flat then does the music have any texture to it, can I hear the harmonics resonate true like what a real instrument would then onto the imaging but if the imaging is not there I can still enjoy listening to it if all the other bases are covered pretty well while presenting a very friendly toe tapping or head bopping nature to it. Well take that load of crap I just spewded out and either put it into your pipe and smoke it or mix it up into your glass, put a few cubes in it, let it simmer and hammer it down! Keg, out! |
|
Unregistered guest | Well Kegger much of what you've said is true, you just seem to have missed the point. This isn't " the I want to give Jan a bad time" thread. That would be a different one. |
|
Gold Member Username: KeggerWarren, MICHIGAN Post Number: 2521 Registered: Dec-03 | Margie if you knew the history between Jan and myself not to mention a few others on this board you would not have thought of my post in that light as that was not my intention. I have been asked/egged on to visit this thread and post some of my thoughts and insight into this wonderful hobby/relaxation arena of ours. These are thoughts I have shared with many here on this forum for a long time. I do not take any offense to what you have posted just mearly clearing up my posting. Later! |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 3419 Registered: Dec-03 | Yes, that's right Kegger. Margie;- there is an even longer-running thread than this one; Teaching an old dog new tricks..., started by Jan and me to discuss whether surround sound is any good for music. I note you seem to be with Jan, in the "Stereo rules" camp! On that thread, we have had more bust-ups and resignations from the forum than you might guess. That last post by Kegger was as nothing, scoring about Richter scale 0.001. Just don't mention the nuns, and Jan will be able to cope with anything. As if to illustrate the point we covered here about music sometimes being good even of the sound is bad, my last post on that thread recommends the real audio streams in BBC Proms "Listen Online". As a source, you can't get much worse than real audio, imho. Kegger;- My short take on your welcome post is that is that the hifi system is the glass. What is in it is the music. Something fine out of a polystyrene cup beats Schlitz out of lead crystal, imho. |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 3420 Registered: Dec-03 | Apologies to anyone who like Schlitz. There is no bad beer; it is just that some beers are better than others. [The worst wine I ever tasted was in Grand Junction, CO, It was called "Lakeland Red", and came from up-state New York. It was so bad we actually left the bottle, even though it was not "off" and seemed like it was supposed to be like that. Mrs A and I don't normally leave bottles of wine.] |
|
Silver Member Username: Joe_cOakwood, Ga Post Number: 668 Registered: Mar-05 | I have 8 years sober, you guys need to find another analogy! j/k |
|
Gold Member Username: Rick_bNew York USA Post Number: 1235 Registered: Dec-03 | Hi Jan, If I may, very briefly, add to your discussion. I think what "we" seek is a term we associate more with cinema, than hi-fi. Let's call it the "suspension of disbelief". I'm sure we have all experienced it at some time. You just close your eyes, and you swear the performers at right there in the room with you. Isn't the best system just a great audible illusion, and nothing more? |
|
Gold Member Username: KeggerWarren, MICHIGAN Post Number: 2522 Registered: Dec-03 | Nics analogies John! But if Joseph would prefer another route I have no preblem with that. |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 3423 Registered: Dec-03 | I agree with Rick. There are things that stop us suspending disbelief. A transparent system will not introduce such things, of itself. It may, however, reveal other barriers to suspension of disbelief, perhaps in the recording. |
|
Gold Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 1201 Registered: Feb-05 | Well said Rick. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4505 Registered: May-04 | Rick - Not nitpicking here; but I think you mean "suspension of 'belief'". We are trying to go past what we know to be true; or, as John said, when we open our eyes all we will see in front of us are the speakers. I would put your input under the category of "seeing what is (not) there" and say, yes, there is more to a great audio system than that one illusion. We have identified a few others already. To look more closely at your assertion I would argue, if we are going to use the precepts of dramaturgy, that what we want to be believable must be made believable in advance. We are only allowed one McGuffin per episode (the theft of money at the opening sequence of Psycho) and everything that follows must stem from the events and convictions which are shown to us in the course of the action (the son is a whacko who keeps his mother's corpse in the basement/the son is a whacko who keeps his mother's corpse in the basement because of his mother's domineering relationship). In the case of an audio system we might have a McGuffin of a train passing outside the performance space. We can "see" the car and its relative position to the musicians; but the car has nothing to do with the music. To really "see" the musicians before us the system must first establish some basic operational truths such as being "effortless" and "having sounds which emanate from a black background of silence". While those are pieces of the Holy Grail when discussing an audio system we may not have those qualities to their fullest extentm at any one time in our systems. Budgets dictate how much we can possess. What we are seeking, though, is to set those qualities as our target and then, like the yin yang target, aim all our eforts toward that bullseye. As we improve our aim and improve the system, we move the marks a bit closer to the center of the target and the ability to suspend belief becomes more easily facilitated by the system. In an audio system we are not allowed a "deus ex machina" to come at the last minute to resolve the hopeless conflict between reality and our beliefs. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deus_ex_machina) We have to build the belief system from the first note we hear coming from the system (McGuffins aside). So, Rick, I think you are correct as are John and several others on the thread, we want a system which allows an audible illusion. We want a system to be transparent. We want "that sound". Those are the target points that are contained within that small metal ring that defines the bullseye. My question is not so much what is in the bullseye but what are the "pie sections" which narrow down to our system being tansparent and beleivable? 20 points is "effortless", 17 points is "has a background of silence", 15 points would be "allows us to see what is (not) there". I'm trying to get the other pie sections defined or explained or, at the very least, titled. Kegger, I'm glad you've joined the conversation but this is not an Old Dogs' discussion of "right and wrong". This is not about why I enjoy something in a system and you might prefer something else. This is not a matter of do you like horns, tubes, transistors, subwoofers, LP's, DVD's, this or that and I do not. This conversation is about the things we all can agree on in the broader sense of nothing more than getting the music to engage us. We started the thread with the question, "do you listen to live music?" Then we proceeded to, "do you use live music as a reference point when putting to gether your system?" Then the question became, "if you use music as a reference for your system, what are you hearing in live music that you want to capture in your system also?" We are discussing qualities we hear in live music which are required in an audio system to allow us to suspend belief. We are not talking about whether a system or a speaker or a recording makes a piano sound twenty feet tall. We are not talking about whether the tonal balance is too bright or too dull. We are not even discussing whether the system has an image and soundstage (some do and some don't and yet both can be musically satisfying). Instead we are trying to say (good) live music has an ability to engage us and communicate its ideas. Live music comes from a black silence. Live musicians appear before us even when we close our eyes at a performance. Live music possess qualities that we would like to transpose to our systems. What are those qualities? How do we dscribe them? What words can we use that describe our experience hearing the music not the system? Our discussion is about the journey and not the indivdual sites along the way. We are driving until it stops raining and when we arrive at our destination we will have music and not a hifi we have found. We are looking for the real Lincoln Memorial not the one made of Popsicle sticks. We are looking to find the emotional content of the real thing, we are not concentrating on whether the statue of Lincoln has hands that are a bit larger than we think were real. We want to leave with the impression of having ben altered in some way, not the impression of having stepped in some gum. Here are two phrases which are in the posts from yeaterday that begin to mention these qualities we're seeking; "There's no sense of "space" around the music." and "... a system with synergy that makes the most of the space it's used in ... " We are beginning to unerstand synergy a bit more with the opening discussion of yin yang. There's more to be said about that subject. But, we have two ideas of space here. One that encompasses what we hear in live music and one which confronts the realities of an audio system. What are we to make of these two views of "space"? I'm off to another string quartet performance this afternoon. Another tune up for my ears. I'll report back later and hopefully David will have something to add to the conversation regarding his experience with live music this weekend. Until then forget "hifi"; think "music". |
|
Unregistered guest | OK let me see if I am on track. 1. Effortless 2. " let's you envison what is (not) there" 3. " Has a black background of silence" We are working on a word or phrase to discribe the properties of a system that allows the music to engage the listener. This isn't dependent on the type of music or how well it was recorded, rather some words about the system that allows this connection to be made. Organic... fertile... fresh...alive... Am I back on track...assuming we will continue? |
|
Gold Member Username: KeggerWarren, MICHIGAN Post Number: 2523 Registered: Dec-03 | Sorry Jan I just think I'm after something completly different then you are! And like I said it may have to do with what music I like to listen to. I've tried to get into classical and some other forms that generally are live events that people go to but it's just not me. I'll stick to my rock on a good HIFI and let you guy's continue on your journey. I hope you'll make it there in one piece and find your ending! Sorry for my slight impedance of your path but you guy's are looking deeper then I want to go, take care! |
|
Unregistered guest | Sorry Jan, I startd that last post before yours was up. |
|
Gold Member Username: Rick_bNew York USA Post Number: 1236 Registered: Dec-03 | Jan, I think a "palpable presence" is what we seek in the music. For me, I think that says it all. |
|
Gold Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 1203 Registered: Feb-05 | For me the term "suspension of disbelief" that Rick used was accurate. I agree with that more than "suspension of belief". Just being a little nit picky myself. http://www.audiovideo101.com/dictionary/willing-suspension.asp http://ohr.edu/yhiy/article.php/1507 http://www.mediacollege.com/glossary/s/suspension-of-disbelief.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspension_of_disbelief |
|
Gold Member Username: MyrantzThe Land Dow... Post Number: 2157 Registered: Aug-04 | I too agree that the term "suspension of disbelief" that Rick used was more accurate. We know to disbelieve that what we are hearing (seeing) is real - that it is either a reproduction (music) or a creation (movies), if the delivery of either the music or the movie is such that it suspends our disbelief, isn't that ultimately the goal we seek? "palpable presence" - nice one also Rick! Okay, I'll give it a try: #1 - I don't want a system to sound like the lights are on and nobody's home. #2 - I want a system to provide music that sounds fully animated by nothing other than it's accurate delivery. Kegger, What we are trying to come up with other than the (cliche') attributes of our kits that makes our music sound appealing to us is a word or phrase that we can take to an audio dealer/salesperson that will relay the message so he/she can put together a system that is the 'real deal' in its delivery of the music. I think you may have misunderstood just as Margie mistunderstood you. Come on stay a while - have a go for a bit of fun! |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4507 Registered: May-04 | I would prefer not to get bogged down once again by a single word. If "suspension of (dis)belief" fits as a description of live music which we universally find in different genres and that is a quality we would like to have transferred from live music to our system then I would say it should be discussed. But, to my thinking, we have once again turned the discussion to the audio system's quality rather than what is found in live music. This is similar to asking for better soundstaging from a system. We are all going to be wanting soundstaging to some degree or another in our final system. Soundstaging and imaging, however, do not exist as qualities of live music; they are a quality of the recording and/or the system just as "bright" is a quality of the system. Staging of the instruments simply "is" in live performance. We do not need to conceptualize an "image" of the performers because they "are" in the room. To that end; we can say "effortless" is a quality of good live music. The music does not sound as if it has a mechanical cap on its range other than the limits of the instruments. The music just "is" before us. The background of silence in a live performance is the sound of not playing vs. playing. While extraneous sounds might be superimposed over the music (the sounds of the audience, the mechanical systems of the performance space or the automobile outside the performance space), the sound of the instrument is not layered over or dependent upon the sound of amplifying devices in live acoustic music. The silence just "is" as naturally as the sound just "is". We envision the performers in a live event whether we have our eyes open or closed. There is no suspension of any belief system because we know the performers "are" there. When we listen to music through our systems we want to believe the performers are in the room with us but we must realize/believe the speakers are in the room, not the performers. We have to suspend this reality/belief in order to accomplish the desired belief. To argue this point further would be similar to arguing whether we see "what is there" or "what is not there". If someone can place this as a quality of live music to be included in our pie segments, then that person will have to provide a way to state the situation as completely as "see what is (not) there" accomplishes. Assuming a well written score and a skilled performer, the engagement of the listener becomes a quality of the music and the performance. The engagement "is" what happens; it is why we continue to listen. We want that engagement from our systems not because the system can achieve that quality; but, instead, we want that quality because it exists first in live music. Whether we relive the emotions or explore new emotional content, the engagement of live music just "is". The music moves forward in a coherent manner because we wouldn't listen if it did not. That movement "is" the heart of music. It's development "is" what keeps us listening. That is where we are at the moment. Those five qualities (effortless, comes from a background of silence, allows us to envision the performers, and engages and communicates with us, moves forward) are what we've defined as qualities of live music we want to have in our audio system. They are qualities which apply whether the system is bright or warm; harsh or mellow; stereo, mono or mutlichannel, whether we are hearing a piano or a vocalist. They are qualities of live unamplified instruments creating music. They are not qualities of the system only (as is soundstaging and imaging). |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4508 Registered: May-04 | Rantz - With the idea that what you desire in your system should first exist in live music, would you care to have a go at placing your two requests in the context of live music or a performance and not an audio system? Margie - "We are working on a word or phrase to discribe the properties of a system that allows the music to engage the listener. This isn't dependent on the type of music or how well it was recorded, rather some words about the system that allows this connection to be made. Organic... fertile... fresh...alive..." Yes, I would say you are on the right track with those ideas. Live music "is" organic, fresh and alive. Stick those ideas to the side and let's move forward with some ideas on how music "is" in a space, how the sound of an instrument occupies and fills the space, how the space is manipulated by the instrument and the performer and what that means in our list of requests. The words you've come up with will be useful in understanding this relationship with space and how that aids the composer and the performer in engaging the listener. The words are not being discarded, they are merely going to be used in a different fashion for the moment. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4509 Registered: May-04 | "I think a "palpable presence" is what we seek in the music. For me, I think that says it all." ***** Rick - "Palpable presence" has become an oft used word in audio since Sam Tellig introduced the concept several years ago in Stereophile. Can you explain how the term applies first to live music and then what it means to us in our music systems? I'm thinking this is a term that audiophiles use all too frequently when the meaning of the term is not fully understood; somewhat like saying we want the sound to be "open". We have a collection of posters who have a wide range of listening experience and an even wider range of experience talking about music and audio. The "Old Dogs" on the thread have had a fair amount of equipment and talk audio on a regular basis. j.c. is getting a system up and running with some recent upgrades; as is David. Tim designs speakers and listens, I would assume, with an ear toward that endeavour. He and Margie have heard a decent amount of audio equipment. Margie is using a Mac 6100 with some JBL L100's and isn't in the habit of using terms "the guys" sling around to keep the "little ladies" from knowing what's going on and how much money is really being spent. Margie has approached this with some very interesting ideas somewhat because she is not tied down to terms such as "open", "imaging" or "airy" and can think of words in a different fashion. I've included a link to the Stereophile glossary of audio terms so we can all be on the same page when "audiophile" terms are introduced. (http://www.stereophile.com/reference/50/index.html) One reason this thread came to life was my feeling the average audiophile uses terms to impress other audiophiles and often the terms don't share the same meaning between a group of audiophiles. (Read what I posted on Saturday, July 16, 2005 - 11:50 am) More importantly the words may not mean the same between a salesperson and a client. If that's the case, how do we ask for the audio system we would like to own? This thread is trying to find words that are easily understood by anyone on the street not because they relate to the small world of the audiophile but because they are universal words and ideas which describe what we hear in live music. The words we are using are meant to not appply first to our system but instead to apply to music. By way of the music the qualities those words describe are what we are asking to have in our system. "Effortless" is an excellent example of the terms that we apply to live music which will contribute to an excellent system no matter what recording we play. With that in mind, how does "palpable presence" fit into this thread? And does it really say it all? Does it say anything different than "seeing what is (not) there"? For those unfamiliar with the term "palpable presence" as it is used in Stereophile, here's the glossary definition; "palpable - Describes reproduction that is so realistic you feel you could reach out and touch the instruments or singers." |
|
Silver Member Username: Joe_cOakwood, Ga Post Number: 671 Registered: Mar-05 | Is it me or do these two not fit together? "palpable presence" and "transparency". It would seem to me that if I could "reach out and touch something" it would not be transparent. When I hear live intruments they are not palpable(obviously), they are deep, fluid and alive. That is where the transparency comes into play for me. It's not so much that I want to close my eyes and hear the instruments near me , as if I could touch them, it's that I want to hear past the instruments and into them if that makes any sense. Of course I am a newbie so this maybe reaching, but it's where I'm at now. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4510 Registered: May-04 | Rick - I've also encouraged the posters on this thread to go listen to live music to "tune up" their ears and give themself ideas about music and not just their audio systems. I have had the opportunity to hear two chamber music presentations in the past week. Today's performance was really more chamber music than string quartet since there wasn't a quartet of performers on stage at any one time. The selections included piano, harp, violin and trumpet. My attention was sometimes distracted to think about the issue of "space". It is an interesting concept that has bearing on live music and our system. Tim mentioned "space" yesterday (and Art made a comment about his system within the space of his listening room). I beleive there is more than enough happening in the issue of music/instruments/space to make that our next pie segment. Does anyone have any thoughts they would care to add to the discussion regarding "space"? Tim and Art, since you two first brought the subject up, can you tell us more about the issue? We had a comment a ways back that a system should have the ability to get large and small and that that was a mark of a good audio system. Does any of this have to do with "space" as you use the term? |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4511 Registered: May-04 | j.c. - That's a good point you've made. Rick, it's show time!!! |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4512 Registered: May-04 | diablo - I haven't forgotten you sitting in the back there. What do you have to contribute to "space"? Any spatial scenarios play out on a recent visit to an audio shop? |
|
Gold Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 1208 Registered: Feb-05 | Would if it weren't for the fact that I'm going to bed. Work tomorrow. Hardly any chance for long posts during the work week. Read this months "Stereophile" review on the Wilson Maxx 2. That is the only speaker (matched with Halcro amps a Linn CD player and a Clearaudio turntable) that forced me to rethink audio. As the lights faded at Definitive Audio in Seattle and the music began to play the veil of disbelief lifted and left me alone with the music and only the music. I wasn't listening to a stereo I was listening to music. In the near dark room it wasn't a stretch to hear where every instrument was in relation to to my seat. I have listened to enough live music lately to know what it sounds like and I was hearing it even without the visual cues it was believable. Live music gives me the same sort of rush that I only get when..oh, say a jet passes over you unexpectedly. There is the largeness of the sound but there is also the unpredictable or perhaps the unexpected rush of volume. A classical crescendo or a jazz combo gettin' in a groove and moving towards a fevered climax. This is what I want from a system but have only heard once from a stereo. The Wilson's make it believable because for them it is effortless much like the sound of live music. The playing is full of life but the sound of the playing is effortless. Well enough for tonight. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4513 Registered: May-04 | "Live music gives me the same sort of rush that I only get when..oh, say a jet passes over you unexpectedly. There is the largeness of the sound but there is also the unpredictable or perhaps the unexpected rush of volume. A classical crescendo or a jazz combo gettin' in a groove and moving towards a fevered climax." Hmmmmmm, sounds to me like you are looking to be suprised?! |
|
Gold Member Username: MyrantzThe Land Dow... Post Number: 2158 Registered: Aug-04 | "Rantz - With the idea that what you desire in your system should first exist in live music, would you care to have a go at placing your two requests in the context of live music or a performance and not an audio system?" Jan - you ask the hard questions don't you My comments were made in relation to how I wish my system to convey the performance - any performance - any music genre. But, in relation to live music, let me try: #1 - I don't want a "performance" to sound like the lights are on and nobody's home. This statement could relate perhaps to the band/orchestra not quite getting the timing correct - the leader/conductor may be having an off day or there was not enough rehearsal time with the unfamilar music - the performance just doesn't sooth the beast - to keep tapping one's toes is an effort and is continued only in support or in urging the music to come together. #2 - I want a "performance" to provide music that sounds fully animated by nothing other than it's accurate delivery. This is when the leader/conductor is getting through to the musicians and everyone is working in absolute harmony. The timing is spot on, the musicians are right in the groove, the beast is being soothed, the toes are tapping involantarilly and music is alive and well. It is being delivered to the audience just as the composer/arranger would wish. It's funny you brought up the word 'space' as it was mentioned more than once yesterday when Mrs Rantz and I had put aside the afternoon for music. With levels adjusted not too loud, though we thought closing doors and windows was justified (thank goodness it's winter), refilling glasses between recordings, very little small talk and a whole lot of relaxation, we sat and let the notes carry all our cares away. As we have in the past, time and again, we could both sense the idea of space between the instruments and vocalists as they performed on the dim stage around us - my dear wife brought this subject up first. Impressed with her I was - as usual. Nevertheless this was another quality time with hi-res surround. And all thoughts of dentists vanished into the ether. |
|
Unregistered guest | I've read the posts and plodded through the terminology (good link) but I haven't yet wrapped myself around the "space" thing. It is firming up, perhaps a gaseous state. I keep comming back to live music being full of energy (kinetic ?). The typy, quality, or your distance from the performance doesn't matter the energy is there. For me it's hypnotic. I am drawn to it. A few years ago I was living on top of a small hill in the middle of a vineyard. It was Christmas Day and I was alone ( not sad..happy). The weather was good so I had the place opened up, just enjoying the natural sounds of the area. I heard a bagpipe, just barely, way off in the distance somewhere. I love bagpipes so I went outside and listened. This was pretty unlikely due to the distance of the nearest home but I could hear it and it was live. Someone was playing it not a recording. Energy....space...are they part of the same? |
|
Unregistered guest | Oh I left out the part about haveing a chat with with my neighbor weeks later and sure enough his sister was visiting and had gotten a new bagpipe for Christmas so she was the player. Mystery solved! |
|
Silver Member Username: DiabloFylde Coast, England Post Number: 165 Registered: Dec-04 | Space.- the final frontier? I vaguely recall a joke about the original Star Trek series which had the punch line "The final front ear". It's probably a good think that the human species hasn't developed that feature, it would make headphones very difficult to fit correctly. A new violin player has joined the group of mainly amateur players, who do a weekly folk jam session in a local pub. He has real talent, though his arrangements could do with a little polishing. Mainly due to reading this thread, I was wondering how I could capture his performances, in as realistic manner as I could - if I chose to. To make a totally realistic recording of what I hear, I would need to do a dummy head recording and replay it on headphones. This would capture the 'space'. It would capture sound from 360 degrees around, but focused (slightly, by the shape of the dummy's ears) on the player. It would include the sound of background conversation, orders at the bar, the sound of the air conditioning. That is what I think of when I think of 'space'. It might not be a great recording if replayed more than once, as you would be remember the extraneous sounds. A compromise would be a "coincident pair" of microphones placed near the violinist with a separate mike to pick up the ambiance. If I just put a mike on his violin, then I'm totally giving up the idea of 'space.'. I have a very good recording of a Beethoven piano concerto, but the piano is miked up to be as wide as the orchestra behind it. Sounds fine, but what sort of space am I supposed to be in? The piano is actually at a right-angle to the audience. Einstein would be puzzled by that. I know that I'm not supposed to be talking about recording techniques, but that's the way I think. The only way to get a realistic -- and spacious -- recording, is for them to available to buy. Regards, diablo |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 3424 Registered: Dec-03 | Fascinating, everyone. I was actually present at this performance last night, and could give telling examples from it about space, microphones, palpability, broadcasting getting in the way etc. Not to mention the music, the performance itself (both fabulous imho)... http://www.bbc.co.uk/proms/whatson/1707.shtml#prom3 I have to go to work now but will try to catch up tonight. Kegger has sort of exempted himself before, but I do think genre of music is not the issue. Try to hold on, Keg! One point: if we are going to get to the bottom of this, we have to be boring and literal on occassion. -We MUST distinguish between the music and the system, and be clear about which we are describing when we use these various adjectives. -We MUST distinguish factual statement from metaphor. "Palpable" means "can be touched and felt". Everything palpable has to be present. You can't touch music, not literally. "Palpable presence" is one these fanciful metaphors that gets us no-where. "Defining" "palpable" as " reproduction that is so realistic you feel you could reach out and touch the instruments or singers." is nonsense, and completely missing the point. "Palable" means you CAN touch it. Whether you feel you can is a question about you, not a question about either the music or the playback of a recording. I assume even Stereophile writers do not actually reach out and fondle their loudspeakers. Though, on reflection.... |
|
Gold Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 1209 Registered: Feb-05 | Jan, I think your interpretation of my statement is a bit simplistic. |
|
Gold Member Username: Rick_bNew York USA Post Number: 1237 Registered: Dec-03 | Jan, This thread can remain an excercise in semantics for another 1000 posts, unless everyone agrees that we all try to capture the original performance of the source as it was recorded. That's what is being compared in our respective systems. It can't get any more real than it is when performed live. That has to be the standard. The only thing only hinted on at this point is the Space. By space I mean the hall, room, studio, the physical space in was performed/recorded in. Space is the variable, as to why my system would not sound the same in your room. Different accoustics. I'm coming around to thinking, the best tweak I can put in my system is to tweak the room or space itself. If the space is neutral, or correct, it would bring us closer to the "palpable presence", of the original acoustics of the live source. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4515 Registered: May-04 | GOOD MORNING, DO YOU LISTEN!!! We've got the top down, the seat leaned back and a hot cupajoe in the holder. (You gotta love them "Magic Fingers" they have in those motel beds. Wowser!) Let's turn up the radio and head down this road. First things first: "Art Kyle Posted on Monday, July 18, 2005 - 07:22 am: --------- Jan, I think your interpretation of my statement is a bit simplistic." Art, I agree. But I was trundling off to bed myself and thought I'd give the coals a stir to keep things warm overnight. Feel free to elaborate on what you meant with your post. I think we've all had a similar experience; now it's up to you to put it into words we can use on the thread. What are we looking for with that experience in mind? Margie - Great story. Now we're talking some really big space obviously. And capturing that space on a recording and bringing it into your room through your system is a real challenge. I used to record thunderstorms to play back at night when I couldn't sleep. The problem was my microphones weren't expensive enough to capture the power of those huge rolls of thunder that start in the East and end in the West and shake the whole house. At the same time, I had a friend with a small house in the countryside where I would set up microphones to catch the sounds so I could play them back when I got into Dallas. A very simple experiment like that will give you a different impression of space from an audio system. Margie, with our focus on live performances of music I can't imagine your "live performance" cannot be relevant to our thread. Rantz - What you are getting at is mostly what I was talking about a while back and for which Margie offered the terms "fresh", "organic", "fertile" and "alive". The two of you along with Art have all brought up experiences we can relate to from hearing live music. Though your first example somewhat goes against our basic precept of "good" live music, there is not much which doesn't make you appreciate "good" live music than to hear "less than good" live music. And what you are describing in #1 is exactly what some systems do to music by not getting the "organic" nature of the rhythm and textures. So it is relevant to the discussion. #2 is, I believe, at least a part of the quality we're wanting to make into an "unambiguous" desirable quality. If you went into an audio shop and said, "I want a "performance" to provide music that sounds fully animated by nothing other than it's accurate delivery", I'm not sure what you would be shown. Firstly, there are many examples of systems capable of "animating" the music that aren't that accurate in other respects. So we need to distill that down into something more "unambiguous". The direction you, Margie and Art are headed all have something to do with this quality. Maybe you can get together and work out the final wording for the rest of us. Don't forget space as a quality while you work. Stick it off to the side and consider how what you're describing can affect or be affected by the space. diablo - That third ear thing was an experiment the ear muff industry played with back at the turn of the 20th century. The bean counters figured if everyone had a third ear on the front of the head, sales would increase by 50%. Things didn't go well with the experiment and that, not fashion, is what led to the demeise of the ear muff industry. It's a little known story; been hushed up, you know. I'll try to find the link for you if you feel you need more details. Since binaural recordings do only sound their best through headphones, I would have to opt for your second choice which I assume you would arrange more or less as a "Decca tree". That recording technique has produced some excellent recordings over the last fifty years. My preference is for three omni mics hung above the apron of the stage as the Mercury and RCA engineers used. That, however, doesn't work as well when dealing with a "live" space as the Decca tree since the three omnis don't provide enough control over how the space is manipulated during the recording. With a rowdy crowd of people the three omnis could pick up too much of the crowd and not enough of the performance. The D.T. arrangement allows more control over the "space" since the ambience mic's input can be controlled at the mixing board. The chamber music I heard yesterday wouldn't benefit from the ambience of the space being a major contributor to the recording. (We'd want hi-rez, Rantz, but no need for multichannel.) The acoustic is rather dry and the audience well behaved. The three omnis would suit that performance quite well. The recording you mention (a 1980's DG perhaps?) is a problem of the "multimic, overdub, add the ambience and everything else later" school of recording. It's quite possible the piano was recorded after the other performers had left the state. The question becomes, when we find ourself faced with such a recording; has the music been stripped of its "organic" qualities? Does the music still sound connected? Or have the manipulations of the engineers done away with the connection and communication between the performers? If the former then our perfect system can still give us some pleasure from the music even though our "palpable presence" might be skewed when we consider a piano which appears to be 50' wide. What you've described though is a function of the recording techniques which cause the system to reproduce what is on the disc despite the disc's presentation being wrong. What happens if the system does this on its own accord? While not making a piano appear 50' wide, some systems will vary the apparent size of an instrument as it ascends or descends its frequency range. The sound of the trumpet in yesterday's performance was striking in its ability to occupy space when played directly or with the various mutes the performer employed. The sound of the violin against the harp was an exercise in instrumental "space". What can we say about that quality in a live music performance? John - Hope you enjoyed the night out. We're waiting for you to share some of the "telling examples from it about space, microphones, palpability, broadcasting getting in the way etc. Not to mention the music, the performance itself (both fabulous imho)..." Kegger is certainly welcome to make contributions, he always has something to add which others might not have considered. His musical tastes do run to music which relies on amplification to be heard. There are problems which present themself when comparing that performance type to an unamplified piece of music. For our discussion I think most of us would agree we are trying to devise the perfect system which can play anything we put on it. It would do well with any genre simply because we are concentrating on the music not the hifi. My experience with amplified music and unamplifed music tells me there are things which occur in the unamplified performance which the "rockers" don't hear in their music. That is not to say those accustomed to amplified music can't find the qualities of "live" music, they just don't hear those qualities expressed as often in the music they listen to. So, Kegger, if you're out there, hang in and contribute what seems to hit a mark with your taste. Possibly you'll find something which crosses genres enough to be of interest to you. John, I think the clarity you want will come if we can discuss the qualities of music and avoid discussing the qualities of the system as much as possible. We want to find qualities which we hear in music and then put them into words which can be taken to an audio shop. You are correct though, we need to be clear when we are discussing either side of the equation. Rick - "This thread can remain an excercise in semantics for another 1000 posts, unless everyone agrees that we all try to capture the original performance of the source as it was recorded." Yes, I hope that has been agreed upon by everyone. "It can't get any more real than it is when performed live. That has to be the standard." I think that was the first question of the thread, Rick. We've wandered around the countryside taking in Popsicle stick monuments and truck stops with so-so food; but we've mostly stayed with that as our destination. I think. I'm going to leave it to Rick, John, and j.c. to work on "space" and "palpable" for a while. Remember, we are discussing live music first; we're not concerned with the mechanics of the system at this point. We are trying to get to where the words we take from this thread will allow us to walk into a shop and talk to the salesperson in terms we all can understand. Though "I want acoustic treatments" is understandable, it is not what we're after on this thread. It sounds as though you, John and j.c. have some things to work out regarding "palpable". Please no one bring up rubbing your drivers; OK? Has anyone heard from David lately? T8, did you do him in with your speakers and he can't tear himself away to get on the forum? |
|
Gold Member Username: Rick_bNew York USA Post Number: 1238 Registered: Dec-03 | I think you should walk into an audio salon, and have a salesperson who knows, that a great system is one that doesn't have to work hard to understand or enjoy the music................. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4517 Registered: May-04 | We all agree, Rick; how's that fit into live performance? |
|
Silver Member Username: Timn8terSeattle, WA USA Post Number: 327 Registered: Dec-03 | When hearing naturally occurring sounds it's usually easy for us to identify what is producing the sound. When listening to recordings it's not always that easy. "Oh, I hear a bassoon. Wait, there's something else there. Ah ha, there's a bassoon and a beritone! I haven't heard from David. He was supposed to do some HT comparison which could take more time than a music comparison. |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 3425 Registered: Dec-03 | diablo wrote: Sounds fine, but what sort of space am I supposed to be in? ....I know that I'm not supposed to be talking about recording techniques, but that's the way I think. The only way to get a realistic -- and spacious -- recording, is for them to available to buy. I agree. The better our hifi systems, the more we become aware of differences in recordings. Also broadcasts, btw. I think microphone techniques are very relevant to this thread. We have to trust the engineeers. Sometimes they get it wrong; perhaps through trying to improve on the original, perhaps through trying to compensate for defects they think we will have in our replay systems. There is nothing one can do about the shortfalls of sound engineers, except not buy their recordings. In the RAH yesterday I got a good picture of the microphone set-up for Prom live broadcasts and recordings. They have lines strung overhead across the stage, and in front. Each line had about eight small, unobtrusive microphones suspended, maybe 8 feet apart from each other. Probably there could be as many as 4 x 8 = 32; I am sure not all were being deployed. The sense you get from listening to the result is not spot-miking; they probably have the whole potential performance sound-field covered, just in case, then select the ones they need for the size and location of the performance, and then do some skillful mixing. There were some wonderful spatial effects actually there, as part of the performance. There is a great little song on The Fairy Queen "Come all ye warbling songsters of the sky" or something. This was a staged semi-opera. The soloist, a tenor, looked up, as if puzzled. Then the chorus. Then the whole audience. You could not resist! All we all knew was that the two recorders, sounding like songbirds, were playing very high above us indeed - probably in the gallery or even in the dome itself. It was a joke; one of many. You could never get that effect, even from surround sound. You would have to be in the centre of a sphere, or cube, of loudspeakers in order to reproduce that. The other thing I noticed about the live performance is how it was possible to hear very clearly the softest imaginable music, and hear it accurately, and in pitch and location, even when it must be very close to the threshold of hearing. There is another Purcell joke about echos, involving off-stage trumpets, and the echos from the last to play (probably out of the hall and and down one of the corridors) was so faint and so clear. Then the whole band comes in..... Magnificent. What is the dynamic range of real music......?! No hifi I have ever heard could have done justice to that concert. "Hi-res" is not in the race. Apologies of this is off-topic. The link is in a previous post if anyone is interested. |
|
Silver Member Username: DakulisSpokane, Washington United States Post Number: 240 Registered: May-05 | OK guys and Margie, back from the road trip. And, just to clarify, the actual term used in cinema is: "the willing suspension of disbelief." (Hey, my father-in-law has 60 years in the movie industry and was the one-time manager of Grauman's Chinese (now Mann's Chinese) and part of what got me going on this forum, and especially this thread, was the concept of trying to bring that sound home.) However, the phrase suggests that it's a childlike, almost, decision to set aside all that we know, perceive and understand in order to be moved/touched/enthralled/entertained/enlightened by the fantasy of film. So, is music susceptible to this willing suspension of disbelief? I got home late last evening and had only an hour or so to listen to something. I selected a Mormon Tabernacle Choir CD, only because I had seen a live performance a couple of weeks ago and my wife picked up a CD of the same "concert." I was disappointed after about a half hour. (No, it wasn't the speakers - or was it?) This was clearly memorex. There was no feeling of spaciousness, no sense of direction of where the voices, organ, orchestra were located within the music. Yet, in my mind I knew. So, I wasn't able to achieve the "willing suspension of disbelief." It was just a CD, it didn't carry the emotion, the depth, breadth, expanse and that something I can't quite express in words of the live performance. I've finally caught up on the thread, which has just taken a considerable amount of work time and we may be farther down the road but I'm not sure we're any closer to an answer to Jan's most recent question. I'll continue to follow along and throw my 2 cents worth in, when it may be worth that much. LOL David |
|
Silver Member Username: Timn8terSeattle, WA USA Post Number: 328 Registered: Dec-03 | "You would have to be in the centre of a sphere, or cube, of loudspeakers in order to reproduce that." It has been done. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4519 Registered: May-04 | With recorders playing in the fly loft and trumpets coming out of the scene shop down the hallway, what does John's experience tell us about "palpable presence'? David - I have to ask the question; how was the music? Are the spatial clues neccessary to enjoying the music? |
|
Silver Member Username: DakulisSpokane, Washington United States Post Number: 241 Registered: May-05 | Jan, great question. No, I don't think that they're necessary to enjoy the music. But, I do think that they're necessary if we're going to find audio nirvana, if that means were trying to get our systems to reproduce nearly live music. If I don't hear the separation of voices, instruments, organ and hand ringers, which I know existed in the live performance, my mind tells me I'm listening to a reproduction and not a real performance. There's no "willing suspension of disbelief," there's just the recorded music. In some CDs the "recorded music" is enough because it's pretty darn good and very close to the original, I suspect. (I don't know if my system is capable of that, yet. I'm still listening and learning and playing with speaker placement, components and musical genres to understand what the system does well, and doesn't do well.) This brings me back to those "compromises" we all have to make, i.e., if only I was a millionaire I could solve this problem by throwing more money at it, or could I? That's the rub, as My R-Man and John A might say. |
|
Silver Member Username: Joe_cOakwood, Ga Post Number: 679 Registered: Mar-05 | John, when I first picked up the Totems, my wife and I watched mahler's 8th "symphony of a thousand" on Discovery hd theater. This was the first night with the Rainmakers and they had only about three hours on them. It was still one of the most captivating audio experiences I have had to date. Your right the mic's are all over the place, must be hell trying to edit that stuff. The end result though is amazing. One soprano or all one thousand everything was heard. Good stuff. Love to see that again now these are good and broken in. |
|
Gold Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 1210 Registered: Feb-05 | Jan, I did put it into words. If you didn't understand it please be specific and ask a question. David I honestly think that many of us answered the original question long ago. "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?" I think that we have gotten bogged down in a sort of semantic mental masturba1ion. The first part of the question is easy to answer. "How many of you listen to live music on a regular basis", or for an individual "do you lsiten to live music on a regular basis". That's an easy yes or no question. It's the second part that takes a little more reflection. "If you do, do you use the sound of live music as a reference to make an audio purchase? If so, how?" There is no wrong answer, as the answer to that question will depend on who you are and what you expect from audio gear. Also it depends to a great extent as to what you hear that makes a live performance unique from a home audio experience. Is it more than just what you hear? Well lunch is about over. |
|
Silver Member Username: DakulisSpokane, Washington United States Post Number: 242 Registered: May-05 | Art, I agree that the original questions were answered or may be unanswerable as it is largely personal preference. I thought we were on to a new question and thus my statement about Jan's most request question, i.e., ". . . My attention was sometimes distracted to think about the issue of "space". It is an interesting concept that has bearing on live music and our system. Tim mentioned "space" yesterday (and Art made a comment about his system within the space of his listening room). I beleive there is more than enough happening in the issue of music/instruments/space to make that our next pie segment. Does anyone have any thoughts they would care to add to the discussion regarding "space"? Tim and Art, since you two first brought the subject up, can you tell us more about the issue? We had a comment a ways back that a system should have the ability to get large and small and that that was a mark of a good audio system. Does any of this have to do with "space" as you use the term?" Maybe, this isn't the current question du jour, in which case I need further enlightenment, I guess. |
|
Silver Member Username: Timn8terSeattle, WA USA Post Number: 329 Registered: Dec-03 | I have this horrible affliction of always thinking about these things in technical terms. When I listen to recorded music there is, as you know, an image of a performer with or without an instrument. There are multiple sounds other than the fundamental note being played that surround the source point of the sound. The audio system needs to be able to play those, even though they may be several octaves, and decibels, away from the fundamental and may last longer than the fundamental also. It's those sounds, often beyond the ability of your average system, that give the recorded music "life", "ambience", "space" or whatever you want to call it. I'm not sure if this next comment is relevant but it keeps popping up in my mind. Isn't it amazing that in a noisy room we can pick up a conversation or other sounds that are quite different and at a lower level than the noise in the room? Does the audio system make those types of sounds available to the listener? |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 3426 Registered: Dec-03 | T8 that is called "the cocktail party effect" and it requires two good ears so you can focus on the position of the conversation in space and filter out everything that does not originate from the same place. It also requires a lot of processing power to separate out the signal from the background by means of the unique phase relationship of the two inputs we have. People with partial deafness in one ear cannot do it. Try blocking one ear in a social gathering and see of you can "tune in" to conversations. "Does the audio system make those types of sounds available to the listener?" Yes. But he/she needs that phase information. "It has been done." Where, when, how, and by whom.....? I can imagine it working if the listener is suspended somewhere in the volume of a sphere defined by a speaker at each corner. 8-channel surround sound. Has it already hit the market? The "willing suspension of disbelief" Yes, that's right, Dakulis. Thanks! So another question is what does it take for us to become willing......? |
|
Silver Member Username: Timn8terSeattle, WA USA Post Number: 330 Registered: Dec-03 | Dolby Labs demo'd 13.1 channel surround sound at CES this year. I remember reading about research being done where a listener would sit in a sphere of speakers. I've been unable to find it again. |
|
Silver Member Username: DakulisSpokane, Washington United States Post Number: 244 Registered: May-05 | John A, First, the music has to engage, involve, capture or call it whatever you like. If the music could not move us when "live," it won't do it out of the system. I think the CD I listened to last night was not very well recorded, IMHO. Then, the system has to reproduce the music in a way that we can be "surprised", I believe is the term that Jan used earlier. It represents the music in a way that makes us "tap our toes," sit up and listen or lay back in wonder at what we're hearing. Finally, we've got to be prepared for the experience. I have been doing some "critical" listening recently as you all know. I'm not listening to be "surprised," I'm trying to evaluate the sound emanating from two speakers. It might be possible to be "surprised" in this environment but I think it's more difficult because i'm not "listening" to the music to be moved, I'm listening to how the speakers render the music and trying to judge the sound coming out of them. So, possibly only when all three of the above factors are in alignment do you have the opportunity of having that "surprise" experience, unless you're Jim Nabors, I guess. |
|
Silver Member Username: DakulisSpokane, Washington United States Post Number: 245 Registered: May-05 | Oops, I meant to post this site for a video perspective of the concept, which I believe has merit in an audio perspective as well. Maybe we can find descriptors that discuss the same types of range of problems in audio renderings that prevent the "willing suspension of disbelief" and we get closer to those words we use when we're talking to the audio hi-fi sales person. http://www.milori.com/articles/image_quality_issues.asp |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 3428 Registered: Dec-03 | Thanks, friends. I agree. 13.1 seems a very strange number of channels, Timn8ter. I wonder where they put the speakers, and where was the listener. That is thinking technically, too, I suppose. For an approximation to a sphere I would have thought twenty. Then we have this darned subwoofer issue again, kicked around a bit on "Teaching an old dog new tricks..." Having spent some months now with a stereo-only system, I am even more sceptical about the active sub, especially for music. I cannot imagine where they put the ".1" in that set-up, either. If you had any approximation to a spherical array of speakers, a single sub would have to be at the centre in order to serve all channels equally. Perhap it was under the listener's chair, like an infrasound generator in an IMAX cinemas. That is a very interesting link, Dakulis. I shall go back there to learn about video; many terms there are mysterious to me. Yes, I think some of the same considerations apply to audio. If we had a thread "Do you watch" then a lot of the same questions might well come up. Many people today would say they are not interested in re-creating the experience of going to the theatre, for example, and yet that is where movies and the cinema originated. In the cinema we expect close-ups and changed camera angles and so on. Perhaps many modern recording engineers see their job as a creative one, and similar to that of a film cameraman. |
|
Silver Member Username: DakulisSpokane, Washington United States Post Number: 247 Registered: May-05 | Well, I had an interesting evening trying to get the "new" Denon 2200 to play nice with the Denon 3803. Wouldn't you think the manufacturer would have these pieces act pretty compatible. The only change, besides the 2200, was to use digital coax instead of RCA cables and the systems just wouldn't get along. Anyway, enough of my problems. The sound is the thing. After finally getting these two sibblings to quit fighting, the music was incredible. Completely different sound, "yes", toe tapping sound. Might even have been "jumping up and dancing sound" BUT at 11:30 p.m. and after hours of frustration, I really wasn't in the dancing mood. BUT, I am getting closer to being "surprised." So, Jan and friends. The sound was fuller in all respects. The soundstage was larger, like the rest of the choir showed up and brought some of the orchestra with them. Diana Krall's "Peel a Grape" made me smile and I got a tingle down the spine. So, will the hi-fi guy know what I mean when I say, "more tingles, please." :-) |
|
Silver Member Username: DakulisSpokane, Washington United States Post Number: 248 Registered: May-05 | By the way, Jan, I didn't mean to exclude you from the "friends" group but you're also the Dr. Frankenstein of this whole thread gone crazy. LOL |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 3436 Registered: Dec-03 | Dakulis;- my experience with NAD is that the sound is distinctly better with analogue connections. I think I recall My Rantz said it is the same with his Denon/Marantz combination. Certainly if you want DVD-A and/or SACD the RCA cables are the way to connect; three pairs. I am not sure you will find the same result, but try it and see. I realise you may not believe there is further to go...! |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4522 Registered: May-04 | Art - I understood what you posted and I asked a question that requested more information from you. "What are we looking for with that experience in mind?" Were you simply reiterating the concept of "effortless" as a desirable quality we hear in live music? Here is the last paragraph of your post which mentions live music. "Live music gives me the same sort of rush that I only get when..oh, say a jet passes over you unexpectedly. There is the largeness of the sound but there is also the unpredictable or perhaps the unexpected rush of volume. A classical crescendo or a jazz combo gettin' in a groove and moving towards a fevered climax. This is what I want from a system but have only heard once from a stereo. The Wilson's make it believable because for them it is effortless much like the sound of live music. The playing is full of life but the sound of the playing is effortless. Here is what I've read in your post that doesn't refer to an audio system. "Live music gives me...(a) rush ..." "There is the largeness of the sound ... " "This is what I want from a system ... " My question is how do we put your experience with live music into words which tell someone else what we are trying to find in an audio system. In other words, what will be the heading of the pie segment? No one has disagreed with your statement; I do think most of understand what oyu have experienced. The problem I have is I don't think anyone could say to the salesperson, "that system doesn't give me a rush", and the salesperson would know where to go from there. To take your words to David, "There is no wrong answer, as the answer to that question will depend on who you are and what you expect from audio gear." I wholeheartedly agree with the first statement; there are no wrong answers, or "not legitmate" answers. There are no stupid questions and no wrong answers. We each get to contribute on our own personal level of experience. Fortunately, we have a group with a wide range of experiences with live music. Those experiences are what we are trying to define and put into simple words. However, I couldn't disagree more with your second statement. What this thread is seeking is not what you expect from your audio system. We have begun a search for what we hear in (good)live music which is desirable in our audio systems. While discussing your experience with audio systems will be relevant to the discussion, your experience with live music is what we are after. Think of the discussion of an audio system as describing a photograph of a butterfly. While your description of the photo may be quite interesting and shed some light on the shape, colors and habitat of the butterfly, you are still only describing the photograph. How much more information could you provide if you described the real creature and its habitat from your own personal experience of taking the photograph? If this method of considering the music first and the system second is to work there are, as John and Rick suggest, some things which must happen. John's two suggestions are; "We MUST distinguish between the music and the system, and be clear about which we are describing when we use these various adjectives." And, "We MUST distinguish factual statement from metaphor." As Rick said, "It can't get any more real than it is when performed live. That has to be the standard." So, for this to stay on track I feel we should be discussing our experience with live music in order to find our qualities. After we have identified a quality we can all agree upon, such as "effortless", we can proceed to turn it into (pie segment) language that applies to our desires for an audio system. Therefore, we can all agree from what we've previously discussed that a system which possess the effortless sound of live music is a system we might enjoy. However, effortless sound would not appear to be the only quality we have experienced in live music. We have identified other qualities of music that we want to bring home and we are searching to find other qualities that might be pertinent. If there are others, we want to put them into our pie segment format. When the time comes for any one of us to think about our audio system, we then will have the opportunity to think first in terms of the music we hear and how well the system serves that end. Each of us will decide which qualities from the list are most important to our own system. The rest of the qualities will fall into line in order of importance to each individual. So the end result should be not what we expect from our systems but rather what we experience in live music that is important to us. I'll ask again, this time more clearly I hope; how do we take your experience of live music giving you a rush and the largeness of the sound you describe and put them to work in this thread? |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4523 Registered: May-04 | "I think you should walk into an audio salon, and have a salesperson who knows, that a great system is one that doesn't have to work hard to understand or enjoy the music................." "Isn't it amazing that in a noisy room we can pick up a conversation or other sounds that are quite different and at a lower level than the noise in the room? Does the audio system make those types of sounds available to the listener?" Certainly a system can make those sounds available to the listener. One of the first qualities I noticed when I began selling audio was the ability of a McIntosh system to play loudly while I could speak in a conversational manner. It was the same experience I had found in live music but never before with an audio system. Until that point I assumed all systems could get loud but I had to shout over the sound/music. That is what I found when I listen to amplified live music. The ability of a system to be "relaxed" enough to allow me to relax was an interesting correlation between live music and reproduced music. In this instance, I think there is a distinct difference between describing live music as "effortless" and as "relaxed". Relaxed comes not only from the quality of live music and the sophistication of the system but also from the space. To easily explain what I mean; think of walking into the auditorium of the best symphony hall you've experienced. It's certainly not an anechoic chamber but there is a different "spatial" quality inside than outside the space. There is also a different quality in various locations in the space. Try standing on the stage and then standing in the auditorium. A more frequently experienced example of the ease of live sound is the restaurant you go to where you can engage in a quiet conversation even though the space is full of people. Think of how rare that type of space is compared to the restaurant where you have to shout to be heard across the table when only a handful of patrons are in the space. For me, "relaxed" is a very important quality of live music, my audio system and the space both exist within. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4524 Registered: May-04 | As you can see, David, space is a quality we want to consider. And there are many, many ways to discuss the simple term "space". I think it important to explore these various ways to think of space when we think of live music. The space of the performance hall is not the only consideration in my estimation. Here's an example I experienced Sunday in the chamber music performance. The piece of music was Saint-Saens "Fantaisie", Op.124, for violin and harp. The striking spatial quality of the harp was at times as solidly, "palpably there" as any piano or wind instrument. As the harpist varied how she struck the strings and where she struck in relation to the soundboard, the sound could shift easily from solidly there to an ephemeral wisp. The music could occupy a large space and a very small, almost nonexistent space. One single note could be transformed by the manipulation of the pedals on the instrument. The violin never could achieve the largeness of the harp but could easily compete on the solidity and the ephemeral nature of the sound it produced. Bowing and plucking produced not only different sounds but gave the instrument the power to change its "space". In one passage the violin climbed the scales as it reached the limits of its extension. The sound grew smaller and more delicate until it appeared to float in the space of the auditorium. Higher and higher the notes went as they reached for the height of the tallest branches in a mysterious forest. There was a brief pause. The silence filled the space. The harpist struck a low note and the space seemed to burst into the ripples of a daydream. Not only had the instrumemts themself had a "space" they occupied; but the "space" the composer and performers created was the engaging quality we seek in live music. Try that effect on a cheap system! Similarly to Margie's bagpipes, the other worldliness of some music is beyond the scope of some systems but is the magic of live music. How many ways are there to think of the "space" of live music? That's a question I think we should spend some time exploring. What does one meaning of "palpable presence" mean when confronted with the experiences John and I have related from hearing live music performed in a changing space? The question has been asked; do we want to reach out and touch the performers or do we want to hear beyond the instruments and into the instruments? |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4525 Registered: May-04 | "So, will the hi-fi guy know what I mean when I say, 'more tingles, please'." I have my doubts that would be sufficient explanation of what you've heard. However, the more pertinent question I can think of would be; in deference to Margie and her experience with audio shops, what meaning might be taken from your words if you were addressing a "hifi gal"? |
|
Gold Member Username: Rick_bNew York USA Post Number: 1239 Registered: Dec-03 | Effortless works for describing live music, but seamless is the word that best describes it for me. Live music is seamless. Seamless sound....... |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4527 Registered: May-04 | "Well, yes, Mr. Barnes. 'Seamless' is an excellent quality to have in a system. Of course, we here at 'Not a Big Box Audio' choose all of our systems to be 'seamless'. Top to bottom and sideways too. Since this is your first trip to our salon, I'm sure you'll find our systems far superior, and absolutlely 'seamless', compared to those you've heard elsewhere. Only in live music will you find sound that comes as close to being 'seamless' as our systems can make it. Actually, many of our systems make the music sound even more 'seamless' than the real thing!" "With the components who've purchased from our competitors (who really couldn't recognize 'seamless' if it hit them in the face), there must be a serious 'unseamless' quality to your music right now. Just to be clear, since you've only dealt with the dolts who aren't us, could you describe 'seamless' so we're both clearly understanding what it is you desire? Hmmmm?" |
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