I think it is all in the persons perception of what live music sounds like to him/her and how their system presents it. I am from the camp that you can't truly reproduce the sound of live music, but you may come close. As I said, it is all in your perception
What is it I'm failing to grasp?
I come across statements here and elsewhere by guys who say 1) their systems come very close to duplicating the experience of hearing live music and 2) that they can listen for hours and hours due to the "effortless" presentation.
I don't understand how these two claims add up. In tandem, they are profoundly inconsistent with my experiences of listening to live music.
If I think about concerts I consider the best I've witnessed (Oregon, Solas, Richard Thompson, SRV, Dave Holland Quintet, '77 G. Dead, David Murray, Paul Winter Consort), I would not have wanted any of those performances to have extended much beyond their actual duration.
It's like eating-- no matter how wonderfully prepared the food, I can only eat so much-- a point of satiation is reached and I find this to be true (for me) when it comes to music listening as well. Ditto for sex, looking at visual art, reading poetry or playing guitar. All of these activities require energy and while they may feel "effortless" in the moment, I eventually reach a point where I must withdraw from aesthetic simulation.
Furthermore, the live music I've heard is not always "smoothly" undemanding. I love Winifred Horan's classically influenced Celtic fiddling but the tone she gets is not uniformly sweet; the melodies do not always resemble lullabies. The violin can sound quite strident at times. Oregon can be very melodious but also,(at least in their younger days) quite chaotic and atonal. These are examples on the mellower side of my listening spectrum and I can't listen to them for more than a couple hours, either live or at home.
Bottom line: I don't find listening to live music "effortless" so I don't understand how a system that renders this activity "effortless" can also be said to be accurate.
What is it that I'm failing to grasp, here?
177 responses Add your response
"I can listen to my system all day long. I'm not at concert levels but it is totally satisfying and engaging. If you can't listen to your system for at least a few hours, you have a problem" Well, you may be right. However, what I'm questioning just now is whether a system that can be listened to all day long can be truthfully said to accurately duplicate the sound of live music. Personally, I wouldn't want to listen to live music all day long. |
For a stereo system, effortless... could mean 2 different things. Either:
You can actually do both. However, no, I do not like to have a live band in my living room, pretty much ever. Reproducing a live event is probably not what I'm going for. Being easy to listen to may mean to some that it has a built in loudness curve, so it's easy to listen to even at low volumes or it may mean being very smooth, with no exaggeration. Not something I attribute to live music honestly. |
Have you ever been to a jazz club down in Mahattan ? Like the Village Gate.The place is in a basement and very quite...There have been close to 50 live recording make there.Does a recording from there sound live ,yes and no.Depending on the engineer and your system.i have bee and to outdoor concerts recorded live at Jones Beach on Long Island in NY. Sometimes the singers voice is to low or to high.You can have a live r es recording by Joan Baez with can sound pretty close to her live...you know a Singer and her guitar.But Thenyou have Yes with a full orchestra...thats alot of instruments for the engineer to get down..So it depends on alot of factors...
|
I like my audio system BECAUSE it does not reproduce live music but translate it in my room acoustic conditions and for my ears.. Yes the timbre of an instrument must be the more natural possible, but in no way a system can reproduce exactly lived event, all system translate it with different success and with different cues on different aspect coming from different recording methods and trade-off choices in each case anyway ... All acoustic art is to accomodate the speakers/ small room to your own ears liking... I never compared my audio system to a live event... No comparison for me at all.... I prefer listening alone in my room save for some rare lived artist genius event....I will pay for sure to see Kathleen Ferrier singing... ... Then i think the same as you.... By the way a sound appearing "natural" to some ears is not a sound ONLY allegedly "accurately" recorded which is an IDEAL only, but it is a sound also alledgedly "accurately" TRANSLATED in your room acoustic settings and with a specific gear system, which is also an IDEAL NEVER a complete successful enterprise on ALL counts, especially in complex small room... Most people boast about their gear and dont understand acoustic anyway.... |
"For a stereo system, effortless... could mean 2 different things. Either:
I was using the term "effortless" consistent with your first definition. I've experienced the second definition in my system and in others-- no confusion about that!
|
The acoustic of my small room is better than most acoustical settings of ordinary theater or ordinary musical scene anyway.... Save for very sophisticated amphitheater, all my listening experience are better presented for me in my room...Especially if the recording is very good for sure... In many case my experience in my small room is more INTIMATE than from a seat location in the amphitheater where the opera was originally recorded...in some case i am on the theater scene WITH the singers.... Who say better? A 500 bucks system with an acoustically controlled room for sure... There is no REPRODUCTION of a lived event... It is an IDEAL.... There exist only concrete TRANSLATION from acoustic cues chosen trade off of the recording engineer to another set of acoustic cues in your room.... I dont even spoke about the specific electronic of your chosen system here which will add differences also... Marketting consumers gear publicity is not REALITY, it is rethorical means to sell.... Lived event are SPECIFIC lived event related to seat location for example....Playback system in a small room are another thing.... I prefer my room to most lived event for many reasons, save for the personal touch with some favorite artists which cannot be given by any playback system at any cost anyway.... |
"You do understand that not everyone necessarily thinks like you do right? That's the only thing that I can see you might be missing." I get that others don't think like me. I'm trying to understand how it is they think. But as this "thinking" is deeply influenced by "hearing", and I cannot hear as another hears, it would appear that the above effort is not likely to bear fruit. Thanks for helping me clarify this !
|
Listening to music is not effortless for me. I must be intellectually and emotionally engaged to, at least, some extent. I have to, and want to, think about it. |
An audiophile without a dedicated listening room is like an olympic runner limited to a wheelchair...I exagerate here yes, but my point is not untrue... Most people not knowing this prefer to buy 100,000 speakers than buying a dedicated acoustic room created for a specific speakers pair ... Guess why? It is more easy to do buying and plugging......And writing a review for an audio magazine...After that unplugging the speakers an buying another one pair and writing another review... Ad infinitum... This is called audio for most... For me it is consumers ignorance.... Acoustician generally dont upgrade.... Why? |
I guess the other key thing is live/real music runs the gamut as well in terms of how it sounds. REcordings are reproductions of what occurs live, often in a studio, and the engineers decide what goes into the recording and how it sounds. May or may not resemble live. So you see there is practically infinite variety in how things sound. All I ask of my hifi is to reproduce it as accurately as possible FBOFW and I will handle the rest. I am a music lover first and have no preconceptions that everything should sound a certain way because that is what I like best. YMMV as always of course. Digital streaming of course adds another place where someone can decide how something should sound before you actually hear it. Pretty much anything is possible in the digital domain. It’s very exciting and interesting to see what different vendors and products are offering in terms of features in their streaming systems that the user has control over...or not. Not for the faint hearted old school classic 20th century audiophile necessary though.
Cheers! |
@kahlenz : "Listening to music is not effortless for me. I must be intellectually and emotionally engaged to, at least, some extent. I have to, and want to, think about it." For me, emotional engagement is absolutely key. "Playing music in the background is not the same as listening to music (as I define it). Maybe I could characterize it as "hearing" music, or background noise. I usually find it distracting, and often unpleasant" I agree. Yes! This is why house concerts are so wonderful-- no amplification required! The natural sounds of acoustic instruments reflect centuries of evolution and refinement as humankind is compelled by forces beyond our control to make music. Once you get amplifiers and speakers involved, it is harder for me to totally surrender to it (a good reproduction system can get you there to some degree, but it is a compromise). Well, when I'm in the mood, I can certainly surrender to electric music. Not if the SQ is harsh/fatiguing, though. And I can listen to acoustic music for much longer than electric music. My wife and I have pretty much stopped attending Rock shows because as you say, there are many non-musical aspects that we find seriously detract from experiencing the music-- which is our main concern. I'm not sure whether any of the handful of Dead shows I attended were "transcendent"-- blame the "recreational distractions". The 77 Santa Barbara show was probably pretty good, given that was a good year. I can relate. "...maybe acompanied by a measure of 12 yeard old Scotch and and a bowlful of psychoactive plant material. When I am done listening, I'll turn the stereo off and go do something else". I don't indulge anymore but whatever works for you... |
nice new study out using brain implants…different part of the brain lights up with singing…. One of my cherished references is unamplified small to medium chorale in a reverberant space captured w a simple Decca tree…. a thought : if you don’t know where you are going, any road will get you there….. carry on, best in music to all on this enjoyable and so far civil thread…my compliments…. Jim
|
A live performance is just that. Anything can happen, hopefully what is suppose to happen does. It is a "Performance". Reproduction on the other hand is tailored to the crew that mixed it and then what you think it should sound like. Different people at the dials. I gave up on live unless I know the band.. Carlos They never put on a crap performance. It got so bad in the 80s I quit going, behind 110db + noise levels in the halls with ear plugs in. Deep Purple and Journey. I walked right out of there along with 1/2 the crowd. They were drunker than most of the crowd. Now people bring their KIDS to concerts and expect YOU to behave. NO!!! If I’m gonna do the chicken dance I’m gonna do the chicken dance. Party poopers! get a KID sitter. Chain them in the basement till you get back.. I’ll listen to the records. Only nut there is ME.. Dog is pretty goofy, though.. Regards |
"A live performance is just that. Anything can happen, hopefully what is suppose to happen does. It is a "Performance". Reproduction on the other hand is tailored to the crew that mixed it and then what you think it should sound like. Different people at the dials. I gave up on live unless I know the band" Well said, sir! . |
Great post!... Voices are my meter unit measuring system impression ... Choral is like piano difficult to have it right... Voice recognition is our ONLY programmed by evolution survival acoustic recognizing imperative....Music comes with it not without it....Voice is a MEANINGFUL sound and is treated by other paths of the brain than meaningless sound because voices must be prioritary recognized on two level: physical sound and semantic recognition ...
|
At full volume about 3 hours is my max but I have my system at very reasonable levels for the last 6 hours and it sounds great. I'll turn it off around bedtime. It's not background music, I'm listening to every note. |
Well you can’t listen to everything that comes out of some people’s mouths . Even audiophiles. 😉 However live music serves as a frame of reference. You can’t aim for the target until you know where it is. One may never hit the target exactly dead center perfect but you can get pretty close most of the the time if you really know what you are doing and you have a decent recording to start with.
|
Thanks for that clarification. I keep the sound below 70dB on my spl meter. Much below that (cd volumes vary) and the SQ suffers. I have monitors in a living room that's open to both an adjoining dining room and an adjoining entry that is partially open to loft space, above. Ceilings are on the high side. I would prefer floor-standers but furniture arrangement precludes them and subs as well. My impression is that the monitors need to be turned up sufficiently to pressurize the rooms.
|
Intriguing thread! Indeed, there are things we don't want, and others we do. For example, if one was to reproduces drums realistically in your living room, then the person would go partially deaf in record time. I listened to my pro drummer friend play his drum set in his living room for no more than 10 minutes.... literally deafening, I had trouble hearing for days after that. On the other hand, I and pretty much anyone can take classical concerts at the 7th row for 5-8 hrs a day without emerging hearing discomfort (provided a sane and realistic music repertoire - thinking about Bach, Handel, Schubert, Mahler, Mozart and not a marathon of screeching shrieking pieces trying to break the SPL barrier for no apparent reason). I have voiced my system to reproduce classical music as I hear it in the concerts. It's something that is unamplified, has the highest quality acoustic instruments and most talented & trained singers - AKA the scenario where the matter of fidelity arises.
For amplified concerts, we have massive (largely transistorized) amplifiers amplifying the source, that is often not an acoustic instrument, and even the vocals can have filters / processing / EQ / compression on them. That is, the live event already has compromised fidelity, limited by the ability of the PA system and the electronics producing the effects. High fidelity is out of the question, and the only thing to do about it: REPRODUCE IT TO SOUND THE WAY YOU WANT IT. :) Curiously, even live rock concerts and program albums will sound the best (to my ears) when a system is highly optimized for classical music. The only addition needed for live events is the ability to adjust the level of highs, as they can be vastly in excess or lacking, based on how the recording was mastered, and for what playback volume. Don't forget: the CD / etc recording w get is not the exact version of what the concert was, it has been mastered (=ALTERED) for the consumers with specific goals in mind.
Cheers; Janos
|
Too many variable here: Live: listening to Pat Methany or Dave Brubeck sons at the Lobero in Santa Barbara is vastly different from listening to Santana in Las Vegas or at the Microsoft theater. In the live setting the venue is almost more significant or as significant as the artist; as is the live sound engineer. I thought I'd enjoy Zak Brown band live but the Irvine Amphitheater had the worst sound dynamics ever; the band sure seemed to play their hearts out, but the sound production was awful. At one concert in Vegas the volume was so loud that I found it better to stand in the lobby or risk going deaf. Makes me wonder if many Rock engineers are deaf. At home; the recording quality and format takes precedence maybe more than the artist. Assuming your space and equipment are dialed in; At home you control the volume and music selection; above 100dB you may not enjoy the music for long but you have the volume control music selection at your finger tips.
|
Now when folks speak about live music,what kind of music? Orchestral? Jazz? Rock? I guess what I’m trying to say is,if you are listening to un amplified music,isn’t that the true sound that one would be trying to reproduce? Because anything amplified, now the guitar amp,mic choices,and PA system plays such a big part of what you would hear live. Or am I totally missing the point? Me personally,I can listen to all sorts of music for 12-14 hours a day with no listener fatigue what so ever. However ,I’ve listened to live music that makes my ears bleed after 10 minutes. |
several thoughts i would add to (or reinforce) in this nice discussion 1 - agree with many who have said that live performances come in all shapes, sizes, volume levels - listening to a solo jazz piano without amplification at the village vanguard is a totally different musical experience than hearing beyonce at coachella - also, even at a village vanguard kenny barron solo piano gig, if you sit front row, or to the rear, it will sound very different, at the rear you hear the ’room’ alot more than the piano direct 2 - leaving aside amplified live concerts, even some unamplified instruments like drums trumpet or sax played in domestic environment would be ear piercingly loud - so a critical differentiator of the op’s two notions of sweet vs live is the volume setting of the music being played 3 - as relating to hifi systems, to me a really good system should succeed at both delivering smooth soothing beautiful music most of the time, as well as some (not all) of the excitement and visceral nature of a live performance - but often not simultaneously -- per the point above, the volume level is the primary variable, and choice of recording/its quality is the major second variable 4 - in my own experience, really good systems can play loudly with little strain, less evident harshness to the listener, as harmful distortion artifacts are managed to very low levels by good gear selection and optimized room acoustics - thus better systems can be listened to longer at higher volumes before fatigue is felt 5 - some systems, some speakers do better at low volumes, some others come to life and present the beauty, detail, impact and body of live music at a certain (higher) volume level - this occurs as various transducers exhibit different frequency and phase responses at different db/power levels 6 - finally, we as listeners have vastly different tastes, perceptions, hearing, references to what sounds smooth and sweet, and what sound ’live’
|
@stuartk , first of all most concerts are terrible to horrendous from an audiophile point of view but you did pick some real winners. I have seen Dave Holland three times and loved every minute of it. I have every Oregon record ever made along with every Ralph Towner record. So, musically we cover much of the same ground. The best systems will duplicate the volume and power (dynamics and bass) of the real performance and with all but acoustic instruments au natural generally produce a more realistic image as the way instruments are amplified in public performances can really screw things up. The Dave Holland Quintet is an example of electrified instruments done right. His records are recorded with the exact same set up he uses on stage which is a real treat when you play back at home. Most systems can not duplicate a live performance. They lack the power and bass performance to pull it off. There is also a tendency towards shrillness and sibilance due to poor control of high frequency resonance. Paul McCandless's oboe is a perfect example. In person it is smooth as silk, no pain at all. This is not the case with most of the system's I have heard including many of the systems in my past. A system that is capable of mimicking a live performance will in most cases sound better than the live performance. In my own recent past I just saw Tower Of Power at the Hampton Beach Casino Ballroom. It was a great concert but the bass was boomy, there was an unfortunate echo and there was no image. It was, as far as I could tell, a Mono performance. I have the recently released 50 Years of TOP, a 3 disc live album, start to finish. The recording and sound are wonderful, miles better than that concert. If you have not got Oregon, Live at Yoshi's, GET IT TOMORROW! |
"Well you can’t listen to everything that comes out of some people’s mouths . Even audiophiles. 😉 However live music serves as a frame of reference. You can’t aim for the target until you know where it is. One may never hit the target exactly dead center perfect but you can get pretty close most of the the time if you really know what you are doing and you have a decent recording to start with."
Makes sense ... although I'm not sure I "really know what [I'm] doing" ! |
"Curiously, even live rock concerts and program albums will sound the best (to my ears) when a system is highly optimized for classical music." I'd never heard this before. A pity, then, that I'm not a fan of Classical! I do listen to much more acoustic music than electric, though. "...as relating to hifi systems, to me a really good system should succeed at both delivering smooth soothing beautiful music most of the time..." Excellent points but re: # 3, above, I'm confused. I'm sure we can agree that all music is not designed to be sweet/soothing/beautiful. I'd be very surprised if what you are suggesting is that the measure of a good system is its capacity for presenting all music in a sweet/soothing/beautiful manner. That would be the definition of extreme euphony, no? Sorry if I'm missing something obvious, here. "Most systems can not duplicate a live performance. They lack the power and bass performance to pull it off. There is also a tendency towards shrillness and sibilance due to poor control of high frequency resonance. Paul McCandless's oboe is a perfect example. In person it is smooth as silk, no pain at all. This is not the case with most of the system's I have heard including many of the systems in my past." Always nice to "meet" a fellow Jazz fan! For the reasons you cite above, I use a Schiit Lokius EQ. I have no idea whether my settings render the music closer or further away from how it sounded, live. I just aim to please my ears. And I hate fatiguing highs! I would like more weight and density in my system. That may require a major DAC upgrade which I can't afford at present. So you're saying there's nothing wrong with me or my system if I don't spend more time listening? Works for me!
|
Went to live performance of Beach House over the weekend. I came away with the feeling I'm spoiled by my home system. And this is the exact sentiment I've had with all live performances I've experienced in last four or five years.
Sound reinforcement at most concerts not really very good, add in excessive volume and pretty poor venue acoustics, I get fatigued much sooner than at home. So, no, I don't want to replicate this sound quality at home. Acoustic concerts with minimal or no sound reinforcement and a good room, now I can listen to this much longer.
With sound reinforcement one is really listening to an AUDIO SYSTEM with live performers. Most of these systems are not built with audiophiles in mind. A number of years ago I saw Television at a small venue with my audiophile buddy doing the sound reinforcement, now that was a good system! So yes, sound reinforcement can be audiophile quality, the masses couldn't give a hoot. |
"Live: listening to Pat Methany or Dave Brubeck sons at the Lobero in Santa Barbara is vastly different from listening to Santana in Las Vegas or at the Microsoft theater." Agreed. I heard P. Metheny at the Lobero in the mid 70's. S. B. was a music-lover's paradise in that decade ! " I guess what I’m trying to say is, if you are listening to un amplified music, isn’t that the true sound that one would be trying to reproduce? Because anything amplified, now the guitar amp, mic choices, and PA system plays such a big part of what you would hear live. " Sure. But to play devil's advocate, even if a performance solely utilizes acoustic instruments with no amplification, each venue sounds different, acoustically. Furthermore, the sound in any venue will vary according to where each audience member is sitting and regardless of location, each member will perceive sound uniquely. Which person is hearing the "true sound"?
|
