"I am still hoping though.
Me too Marqmike. After all, do we really have to recreate the entire output of a symphony orchestra in all its grandeur and subtlety? Or just, what I suspect, is the more achievable objective of reproducing what the human ear can detect. |
Hi Vertigo - I have been away from the computer for a few days. I do apologize for the pity comment. That was indeed going much too far.
I have been thinking about this subject while away from the forum the last couple of days, and I did come up with one example where there would not be a significant difference between live and recorded music, and this would be purely electronic, or synthesized music. However, some would say that this example does not even count, because in this case, there technically is no real live "performance," you are hearing a recording - even in a recital hall the piece is played over the sound system, not "performed". There was in fact a thread here in which this was discussed a couple of years ago, I think, though there the question was whether or not such an event constituted a performance.
However, in every other case I could possibly think of, there is a very significant difference between the sound of a live and recorded performance. Electric guitars, for example, have an acoustic element to them. There are a great many very subtle aspects of timbre in particular that are not picked up by a recording, no matter how well it is done and how good the system is that is playing it back. Or as Frogman has mentioned in another thread, there is an energy associated with time and rhythm that is not only physically felt but also perceived by the ear (or perhaps more accurately, the brain) that does not quite translate fully to a recording.
Quite honestly, I have never known a single individual who could not tell the difference between a live performance and a recording, even just a single human speaking voice, again even assuming your suggested experiment where you are in the same room and the exact same distance from the speakers as you are from the performer. I'm not talking about hearing a distant television set, say in another far off room, and not being able to tell if that is real or not. I have absolutely no doubt that you and anyone else could do your experiment with a person's voice which you had never heard before, and you would very easily, in fact instantly, be able to tell the difference blindfolded or however else you wanted to make the test. |
Hi guys...
RE***I like your part about tweaking the cartridge and about how subtle changes in tightening the mounting bolts affects the sound.
That implies to me how much you can veer one way or the other from accuracy with just a few twists of the wrist.
How will you know you when have it perfect?
You won't.***
How will i know? Honestly?
I just want to say that what is happening in regard to nirvana unplugged, norah jones, bob dylan and his harmonica and how it sounds can never be articulated through words. (for good or bad) So in light of that ...as sincere as we all may be, ultimately our discussion to some degree is an exercise in futility. Futility in that, we will "argue" because we are in ignorance of where each person is coming from. All i wish to say is that these rare tracks and concert dvd's thrill me! I am thrilled and absolutely satisfied. With the other recordings, i have the pleasure to try and progress and to try to reel in their sound to a place that brings me great pleasure. It is a work in progress.
For one. I don't expect studio to sound live. I don't want them too! Most studio recordings do not have that goal!!! And we need to note this and forget about trying to deconstruct what the producer did and foolishly try to make it sound live! You wouldn't want it too ...is my point!
More heresy!...
I very much like ...."produced album's" and don't want live!!!!or even a live show...
Why?
Because a producer and the studio are like an extra member of the band! Bringing his vision and his talent to the table. Ultimately a record is a collaboration between artist and the studio and the producer...and that's a great thing. I like a polished sound that is given a certain vision/direction.
What would joy division's album's be without the industrial/space rock sound effects added by their producer. He took those album's to another level!!! Thank God for studio's and producers and manipulated live sounds!
What would the joshua tree be without daniel lanois and brian eno? Just another bare bones live recording.(Yawn)(well, it still might be ok but just different)
Heresy!
Live...Recorded...its all good!...
But back to how will i know when the harmonica is perfect...
Ultimately...you are right...i won't know. But...I do know that bob is a fan of the humble "marine band" harmonica and if i blow through my own marine band harmonica's i can make a comparison between how IT sounds "live" and how HIS marine band harmonica is reproduced by my stereo. If those two sound close to identical...I think that's progress!(and they do sound close to identical!(not all things but this is one of)...the rest of the splitting of hairs doesn't matter. (to me anyways.) This is more than sufficient.
Re***Then again let's talk about the harmonica's you both own.
Even if they are the identical brand, and age of manufacture, they won't have been played the same so the rate of reed and metal fatigue will differ.You will both blow it differently.
Also is your living room where you listen to music identical to the recording studio?***
I don't know if the room is the same but a harmonica is an instrument that pushes very little air and since it pushes very little air, how it interfaces with the room is probably negligable. If it was an extremely live room (which if you listen to the recording is doubtful) it might produce alot of "flutter and echo" but instead it seems to come out of a "quite dead" room and what is recorded seems to be taken very close to the harmonica so much so that the room doesn't have a chance to contribute anything before the track is laid down. Even if there is some room effect you are getting what seems to be a very immediate direct (closely mic'd) stripped down recording of the harmonica.
re***the rate of reed and metal fatigue will differ.*** usually new strings and harmonica's are taken into the recording studio so instruments sound fresh and alive. Nobody goes into studio with a tired harmonica and tired strings. My harmonica is fresh too.
Am i missing something but isn't the bottom line this...that what is emanating from the speakers and what i hear from my live harmonica are negligible? (qualifier: the harmonica in my mouth has a different directional point of view since it is inches from my ears.)(but the timbres are negligible)(believe it or not... i don't care)
(now if i could only get nirvana "bleach"! to sound sensational!)(i am....working on it!)(check back in 2 years)(smile)
I just upgraded from 2 vh audio flavour 4 cables, to 2 airsine pc cords. And i switched some cables around. The differences have to be carefully assessed. I might now have lost the magic of the parameters i was getting with nirvana unplugged...it might now sound..."reproduced" which gets at what i am failing but trying to express..."great sound is hard work and a bit of "luck" and..."there is no clearly defined understanding of how or where you'll find ..."synergy""...You just have to find it... and find it with your ears...
This means that...expensive doesn't necessarily equal good. (good news for those with less) Nor does it mean that...VERY expensive will equal good. I'm skeptical that cheap can equal superlative...but tinkering with good products, plus some know how, plus some hard work, plus some luck, plus some tweaking, Plus learning from some failures leads to good sound.
RE***On a superior system YOU should be able to hear the differences.****
Still, how would you know since even if you have a "superior system" you are ignorant of the parameters that you mention.Therefore you still have no standard to measure against. Ultimately, we are all sculpting a sound that pleases relative to our understanding of what real timbres sound like and that is progressive and that's good enough!
On a funny note...there is a joke..."My system is so good/reference..it shows up 95 percent of my catalog as unlistenable!!!"(smile)
RE***I think vertigo has conveyed himself very well***
Thanks....
There's some things my system lacks...it doesn't play low enough (yet...)and at present i am trying to dial in my interconnect/pc/receptacle combo with the rest of the system. I am trying to dial in the cables by trying them in different places/combo's so that things sound identical to real instruments. It might take some time but the failures are as important as the successes.
Brilliant sound might be a cable change away and it is unpredictable, the only way to get that last fine nuance that you want , that imitates live sparse recordings/timbres ...is to experiment and listen. With every change ...other areas might need re-addressing to accommodate that change.
I have all my gear sitting suspended above slate with certain footers. I recently asked my friend to cut me some mdf which i plan to marry with the slate. Either alone not being as good as the combo glued together is my logic. Once i make this change all other parameters (in my world) need to be re tweaked to accommodate this change since the change is interfacing with the rest of what is going on in the system. Maybe nothing will need to be changed but maybe it will. It is my hope that the slate/mdf combo will neither be too dead or ring too much but will be "just right"(that is my hope)...and bring greater resolution, clarity, dynamics and timbral fidelity.
I don't expect my stereo to sound like 'live'(except if its playing something back RECORDED live(and recorded ...WELL! (at that).
I do want my stereo to reproduce timbres well and dynamics well. I expect it to play well recorded live music back well, poorly recorded music back poorly and "studio' recorded music back well too but i realize the limitations of studio (relative to live)(not better or worse, just a different animal) and expect no more or less than what the producers intentions were but i or no one, i think ...should mistakenly expect studio to be 'made' to become...live? That is a mistake, unfair and unreasonable and a category error. Studio is good and so are live recordings, i don't think people should discriminate between the two but should enjoy each for what they are and are not.
. |
Hi guys - if I may chime in on a couple of things about this harmonica example:
Vertigo wrote: "a harmonica is an instrument that pushes very little air and since it pushes very little air, how it interfaces with the room is probably negligable."
This is incorrect. As any musician will tell you, every room has a very significant effect on your tone, no matter what the instrument. A professional musician can adjust for this variable and still create exactly the sound wanted in most cases, but this sometimes requires a fairly big adjustment. This does not have mainly to do with how the sound is created, by the way (so your speculation about the airstream size is almost irrelevant) - it is almost entirely the effect of the acoustics of the room on any sound in it.
As for this: "Am i missing something but isn't the bottom line this...that what is emanating from the speakers and what i hear from my live harmonica are negligible? (qualifier: the harmonica in my mouth has a different directional point of view since it is inches from my ears.)(but the timbres are negligible)(believe it or not... i don't care)"
One thing that needs to be added here, assuming that you are playing the harmonica, is that the sound you hear will be quite a bit different from the sound anyone else in the same room is hearing, for the simple reason that you, as the player of the harmonica, are also hearing the sound INSIDE your head. Again, this is by no means insignificant. If you record yourself, and listen to the playback over speakers, you will sound different to yourself (basically the same reason your own voice sounds different to you than to everyone else, or to you when you hear it recorded).
This is why musicians do not rely on their ears alone - we are constantly asking others to go out into the hall and listen to what we are doing for confirmation that it is indeed sounding exactly how we think it is. This is especially the case for my own instrument, the horn, since we have the additional circumstance of our bells facing backwards, but it is true of all instruments. We also record ourselves for the same reason, to make sure that we sound exactly like we think we do. You will also hear very tiny "impurities" in your sound, usually extraneous noise that your body is making along with the production of your tone that is not actually part of your tone, and which are inaudible to anyone else, even someone sitting right next to you, and which will not be picked up by the mike, even if it is placed ridiculously close, as digital mikes often are, but that's a whole other issue. You learn to separate these noises when critically listening to the sound you are producing. This is one of the main things that serious music students have to get used to - the fact that you do not hear your own tone exactly as everyone else does. But the main point is, no, the difference between what is emanating from the speakers and what you hear from your live harmonica will not be negligible, especially if you are talking about your own playing. |
Two things to clarify.
New strings or a new harp are not mandatory when recording.
Certain things develope a "sound" when they've been played awhile(like components-that's another days argument).
But it's an individual thing,does Clapton buy a brand new fresh from the factory guitar everytime he records?
Does a jazz bassist buy new strings everytime he records?
Not if he is looking for that "mellow" or familiar tone sound.
I play in a band with a blues harp player.He has several harps, and plays in several scales, and he has several blowing techniques.
Not once have I ever thought that his harp(even a cheap Marine band) sounded anything remotely like Dylans.
We can recognize a harmonica for what it is, and we can recognize the sound and differentiate one instrument from another,,most of our systems are quite good at this.
But there are so many subtleties involved in reproducing music that are missing when we sit down to listen.
My point is that we shouldn't be dillusional and think that we have arrived at the greatest level of resolution.
Because if we did arrive there then all the differences between your playing of a harmonica and Dylan,would be more than obvious, no matter where either of you fall on a scale of great harp players.
Playing exactly the same notes in the same fashion and even thru the same tape recorder in the same studio,you should still be different, and a great sound system should be able to reveal the difference.If you both sound the same, then something is wrong in the chain.
This is one of the problems I have with a recording system that eventhough it sounds great, it substitutes bits of the music with repeated bits of what it thinks is good enough to fill in the spaces.
Upsampling is great, I've heard some ripped cds that sound better than the original cd did.The system was reveling enough to show the difference.
Yet digital recording puts a ceiling on the high frequencies and in so doing a great deal of musical information is MIA.
Analog rolls off the lower freqencies so that bass notes won't jolt the tone arm off the record,and it too relies on RIAA standards.
Neither system is without it's flaws,all systems are flawed, and nothing today sounds like the real thing.
There is too much missing information and a lot of important musical overtones and harmonics ,present in real life, are not in any recording that was designed to limit what it is recording.
Here's about the simplest example I can give.
Have someone stand in front of you when you blow your harmonica(Or horn or any live instrument)and ask them if they feel the air striking their face.The sonic impact, the pressure, the visceral whole body experience.
Then play a similar recording of Dylan and ask them if they physically feel any of the above.
The differences between live and recorded are still vast.
However improvemnts have made the listening to reproduced music much more enjoyable that it used to be, and some exotic systems can fool some folks into thinking that the musicians were right in the room.If they only ivolve a few of their senses. As stated the impact of a symphony at full blast, exactly recreated in a listening room isn't going to happen is it?
Then why say that it did?
Especially thru small mini monitors.
Well I would partly agree that the listener felt a sense of the recorded venue and a sense of the dynamics of the event, but it is so far removed from the event as to render such statements as misleading at the least, and more as wishful thinking at best.
The musicians ,or I should say, a part of them was in the room.
The parts that todays technology is limited to reproducing. |
