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?  


 

stuartk

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

 

 

 

An interesting thread.

From my point of view, I accept a recording can never sound like a live performance, even if it is direct to disc. I certainly wouldn't want to listen at live performance levels.

If individual instruments sound as realistic possible and not canned, then that a good test.

 

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.

 

My listening experiences usually take 2 different tracks. Late at night, after work, 2 drinks and a loud "live" like piece of music pretty loud. Then there is the everyday just checking out some tunes experience. Each one has it's purpose and each experience has a different type of recording.

 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.