What Neutral Means in Reviews & Our Discussions? Are We Confusing Tame/Flat For Neutral?

@wolf_garcia wrote:

"each and every live acoustic event is more or less "holy" in and of itself"...even when they sound bad? I’m not a religious person but maybe I should be to understand the "Holliness" of events, but some sound better than others, and to use them as a standard reference is silly

Seems to me you're missing the point. I mean, what's the alternative? By "holy" I meant to say that each venue/performance is what it is, and uniquely so; if there's a venue one doesn't like and it's a general tendency, don't go there, but that's not to say there aren't great live performances and experiences to be had, nor that one mayn't be inspired by them fiddling with the home stereo. 

My primary live ref. is the acoustic one, and I don't attend concerts with shitty acoustics and/or musicians/orchestras. The local venues in my area provide excellent reference points if nothing else for what they are in themselves and the experience they offer, rather than necessarily being a reference to emulate via one's home stereo. That is, listening to a live symphony orchestra or choir/organ church concert can be an overwhelming experience without its - by miles - domestically reproduced equal.

Still, going by the fact that a reproduced approximation can be had of a live acoustic event - and not least that it can be approached more readily and effectively in scale, scope and overall authenticity with the right choices of gear and acoustics - it's not a project in vain. It's just setting out to do so and be ready to accommodate what's required (and it's less a monetary factor than others), which also involves having the dedicated (oftentimes larger) space and being willing to adhere to physics and the large and more efficient speakers it requires. If on the other hand it's not important or feasible to you (for a variety of reasons, perhaps) or your experience is different in this regard, cool, to each their own. I for example need an even bigger space to get closer to a live acoustic goal in particular, but hopefully that's to be realized down the road. 

I don’t think anybody really wants to "replicate small venues" as much as simply enjoy well recorded things such as those engineered by old mister Scheiner. Some musicians really shine in live performances and simply cannot get the mojo from a live show onto their recordings. Very common in the "unpopular music business" that I’m very familiar with so there’s that.

This ties into what I wrote above, and I partially agree, except that with the proper gear one can certainly instill the feel of a live amplified (or acoustic for that matter) performance from smaller venues.  

I saw a fave, Brad Mehldau, doing an unamplified show of his Bach-like stuff in Cambridge someplace and although he played brilliantly, you couldn’t really hear it well from our seats, and those seats weren't bad...bummer...a poorly attended unamplified Vijay Iyer show later at a more acoustically vibrant theater was astonishing good and I could hear every note...which is the reference? Neither. For the most part Vijay's recordings are free from the aforementioned "acoustic signatures and anomalies from myriad reflections and time and phase realities" and generally sound fabulous.

It appears you just don't dig live acoustic performances, even the ones you deem "astonishing good." Look, what you perceive as imperfections of even a great live acoustic concert with its "acoustic signatures and anomalies from myriad reflections and time and phase realities" (our go-to quote as is), I simply hold as the very signature and inherent traits of the same. Essentially, you seem to want to turn an acoustic performance into something else than what it is, to what is more akin to a studio recording - at least that's my assessment. 

"It appears you just don't dig live acoustic performances." It appears you don't comprehend much of what I've said, including the fact that live acoustic performances have been my life for decades. Why would I "not dig" Vijay Iyer's performance? I raved about it for months and I consider it a highlight of my lifetime of attending live shows. There's a marked difference between thinking things are imperfections and knowing they're realities. "acoustic signatures and anomalies from myriad reflections and time and phase realities" are simply what happens in live events...they don't bother me in the least as it's part of the charm of live music. The "reference" issue is what seems lame to me because it's so utterly varied, as it should be. I don't require that shows sound like recordings as that's simply ridiculous, I simply will continue to wonder about the endless claims of references to the "Absolute Sound" of live as being the goal of recordings...recording arts are simply attempting to make things sound great. An example is the brilliant Bach Trios album by Yo Yo Ma, Edgar Meyer, and Chris Thile...recorded at James Taylor's home studio, this likely would kill as a live performance, but by carefully recording these guys with  modern recording techniques you get a sound unavailable as a live event...not better than being at a live event, but as good as it gets for recording music which is sort of what one wants. 

There are aspects of the whole of what a live music performance is that transcend “sound” as usually considered or defined by audiophile jargon. Some of these aspects do, of course, have to do with sound characteristics while others (for some listeners, even more importantly) have to do with the performer’s musical intent. Sure, it is always ideal to hear a performance in the best possible acoustic. However, this is often not the case. So, are we to sit through a fantastic performance by a great artist, the entire time annoyed that the sound of the venue is not great? What a loss! What about the beautiful phrasing, or the gorgeous tone that no venue short of your bathroom might destroy. I have yet to attend a live performance of acoustic music that has caused me to want to run out of the room. A terrible performance may illicit that reaction, but never the sound of the venue with its unique sonic traits, including its problems. I cannot say the same for amplified performances. Of course, the listener needs to be able, or be willing to suspend our usual audiophile expectations. These expectations can be distractions from the music and unfortunately, for some they can be a deal breaker. I like phusis’ qualifier for acceptance of a venue’s sound “for what they are in themselves” when speaking about a venue with acoustics that are less than what any one of us considers ideal.

There are traits in the sound of acoustic instruments and voice that transcend the venue. They are nuances of timbre, texture and dynamic shading that only are available to be heard in their fullest expression from the live acoustic experience; even accounting for whatever damage the less than ideal acoustic of a venue may cause. These nuances haven’t been distorted by the electronics of the record/reproduce process. I would argue that any reasonably decent venue allows more of these to be heard than even the best audio systems . This is why the sound of live acoustic music can be and is the best “standard”. I can sit at the bar in the back of The Village Vanguard with its poor acoustics and even with the constant din of talking and tinkling of drinking glasses and listen to an acoustic Jazz trio or quartet or….and hear a certain purity of timbral texture and immediacy of musical intent that NO recording can match. Perfect? Of course not, but this why a great musical performance can be very enjoyable no matter the quality of the venue’s sound

What is the alternative, to simply put together a sound system with a sound that we like as the only standard? Sure, why not? That is what many claim is the only way in spite of the fact that, like the varied sound of venues, there are practically endless variations of “sound that we like”. So, then, what is the problem with aiming for a sound that, in at least a particular listener’s world and on balance, sounds as close as possible to that listener’s experience of the sound of live acoustic. Lame? I don’t think so; just the opposite.

@wolf_garcia --

I don’t know what planet you’re on, but you don’t seem to comprehend the very basic premise of what I’m trying to explain here with regard to "reference" - your 50 years of experience be damned. Emulating the live amplified sound feel of a performance from a smaller venue, even with a recording that hasn’t sought to "replicate" it as such, is perfectly viable with the proper range of speakers in particular. Holding the live event as a reference here is what referring to "live feel" is about; in seeking to attain the dynamic wallop, in-room presence and overall tonality of the instruments/voices at hand. It doesn’t mean replicating the event to detail, but simply that aspects of what makes a live event live in its sound are fairly authentically realized.

As to live acoustic concerts, here is what you wrote earlier:

If you can sit in the sweet spot at acoustic concerts you still get room tainted sound, which is unnatural and a form of amplification. You have to be outside in an utterly dead quiet environment hovering above the musicians...which could mean you’ve recently died. There’s yer reference.

Why do you refer to an acoustic concert with "room tainted sound, which is unnatural and a form of amplification"? How is it unnatural? Seems to me you’re speaking of imperfections here. And why then do you go on with this in your latest post:

There’s a marked difference between thinking things are imperfections and knowing they’re realities. "acoustic signatures and anomalies from myriad reflections and time and phase realities" are simply what happens in live events...they don’t bother me in the least as it’s part of the charm of live music.

So now the live acoustic event is one of reality? Which is it? I agree with your quoted paragraph just above, but it certainly doesn’t comply with your earlier ditto which I based my earlier posts on.

The "reference" issue is what seems lame to me because it’s so utterly varied, as it should be. I don’t require that shows sound like recordings as that’s simply ridiculous, I simply will continue to wonder about the endless claims of references to the "Absolute Sound" of live as being the goal of recordings...recording arts are simply attempting to make things sound great. An example is the brilliant Bach Trios album by Yo Yo Ma, Edgar Meyer, and Chris Thile...recorded at James Taylor’s home studio, this likely would kill as a live performance, but by carefully recording these guys with modern recording techniques you get a sound unavailable as a live event...not better than being at a live event, but as good as it gets for recording music which is sort of what one wants.

Sometimes it’s easier sitting face to face and getting an understanding of one another. I do see where you going at, but generally I hold live performances in higher esteem than a reproduced counterpart - certainly acoustic live concerts. And I believe I’ve now made myself clear in regards to a live reference..

@frogman --

Well put!