2011 California Audio Show

[atomicAdam]

Just finished up day one. Got up at 530am this morning and now just getting home about 1130. Can't wait to sleep.

I have to say I was fearful at first when I saw the size of the rooms - but actually everything has been sounding pretty good, even the massive Salk Soundscapes in a tiny room with AVA gear and Salk's new Streamer.

This will just be a short write up.

Lots of digital front ends controlled by Mac products. Lots of $2k range bookshelf speakers. A better variety of music than I heard at this year's CES or last years RMAF.

I heard the Magico Q3 in the Audio Image room - more details to come - heard folk/blue grass and a Bach pipe organ - and while everything was perfect - it was rather emotionally empty.

The Soundscape room was showing off some entry level Vincent components with Martin Logan bookshelf speakers and new Martin Logan electro-stats. ummm...I'm going to reserve judgement and opinion till I go back on Sunday.

Playback Design had these fantastic looking and great sounding $2k bookshelf speakers from Evolution Acoustics backed by $30.000 worth of gear. It sounds good - put honestly it is such an unrealistic pairing of components.

Audible Arts room was showing off the Usher Mini 2 (massive floorstanders btw) and I was very surprised and pleased at the sound. Very musical. Anyone in the market for $5k floorstanders should check these out. But they are big and powerful. I made a joke that if these are the Usher Mini's I'd hate to see their Grands. o which the guy replayed...Usher doesn't make Grands. Whoa... over the head.

I stopped in the Brodmann room first. They urgently needed the FS series speakers I had on hand so I brought them in. I have to say - having been listening to them for the past two months under ideal set up circumstances they do sound pretty damn good for $5k speakers. They offer up more of the blood and the body of music more than I've heard in most over systems at the show, so far, in that price.

The Angle City Audio Room was showing the Trinity speakers and Melody mono blocks. Man the mid-range on these massive $2k speakers is hard to beat. Heard a violin piece in there and it was - for all intensive purposes that I can remember off hand - the first time I heard a violin on a system do that cool trick where it can sound like a hollow whistle. There is something to these speakers. And the low end was much tighter and cohesive than I've been able to get from the Trinities in my room. Now I'm thinking it is either a combo of my Mystere ia11 and room + the Tinities makes bad jojo. But I'm bring the sublime Melody AN211 home after the show to test out that combo in my apt.

I spent a lot of time in the Fritz/WyWires room tonight. They were spinning the most vinyl and frankly having a good time. Plus happy hr. started at 430 in that room. It took some time but the $1750 bookshelves from Fritz started to grow on me. They have a relaxed presented with a supple and detailed vocal range. Granted the WyWires and vinyl helped give them what they had to play with - but I am hearing something there before I've not heard int he Fritz speakers before.

SimpliFi Audio - Tim was playing the Gradient (sp?) speakers - more info to follow - fack me if I wanted a clean bass rocking system with the thwap of a pile driver I'd be buying up this $20k system. Massive and detailed bass and some emotion behind a pure digital system. I didn't stay as long as I'd like and will be back in the room before the weekend is out. I'll also have my review of the PSI A14M speakers | RME Babyface USB DAC | DMR cables from SimpliFi out very soon.

Well - that is it so far. TIme for me to go to bed. I dropped in a few other rooms - most things sounded good and after the show most of those showing - at least those in the after party I was in - were in good spirits and seemed to be enjoying themselves.

What did you hear?

[atomicAdam]

So no other AudioReview member attended the show?

[JohnMichael]

I want to hear more about the Magico speakers.

[blackraven]

Adam, did you get a chance to go to the Salk/Van Alstine room? I hear that it was a big hit. VA has a new Hybrid Amp that is a beast. http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=96298.0

[tube fan]

Since you asked:

(1) I hated the sound in the MBL room: mate a 1,000 watt ss amp to a digital source, to a bright speaker, and you got sound that caused me to flee the room as fast as I could! "Audiophiles" who never attend live acoustic musical events, may well LOVE this kind of bright, etched sound. Lot's of sizzle, but no tonal beauty whatsoever.

(2) The Audio Note speakers were limited, because they only had a digital source, though the best one I have ever heard. The sound was OK, but not great.

(3) The Magico Q3s sounded horrible on digital: flat, two-dimensional, with little dynamics or tonal beauty. When playing vinyl, the Q3s came to life: detailed, dynamic, with great timbre and density. On my Coltrane/Hartman vinyl, the system captured both Hartman's deep, smoky vocals and the liquid beauty of Coltrane's sax (an extremely sexy combination), On my Ray Charles/Betty Carter record, you could feel the heat between these two greats singing "baby it's cold outside". People even applauded at the end of the song! A cut from Sinatra's "Only the Lonely" brought me to tears! Later, I was in the men's room when the Magico representative came in. I asked him how he was holding up (this on the second day), and he replied, "great". He then volunteered that people stayed in the room longer when he was playing vinyl. DUH! An expensive, but great system, with the latest Audio Research tube equipment, including the D250 amp with the new KT 120 tubes.

(4) I didn't like the sound of the big, expensive Wilson speakers in a huge room. The sound was stunningly flat, lifeless, even on the the fantastic Eric Dolphy "out to Lunch" record. Much better was the sound in the smaller Wilson room, this with the Sophia III speaker. Here Chet Baker's trumpet was appropriately dynamic, but, still lyrical; Pepper Adams' baritone sax was full and dynamic; and yes, Ray and Betty sounded sexy.

(5) The High Violoncello II speakers (at a cool $80,000), sounded stupendous on most of my records. On the Chet record, Pepper Adam's baritone sax was as rich and explosive as I have ever heard it. The "Yulunga" track from Dead Can Dance's "Into the Labyrinth" was plain scary! Not quite as good on vocals.

(6) Not as dynamic, but also exciting in other ways, was Audio Vision's room with the Nola speakers. Ray and Betty sounded as hot as they did via the Magico Q3. Stan Getz sounded like he was trying to seduce Astred Gilberto on "The Girl From Ipanema" (successively, my wife tells me). the system was lively, clear, dynamic, but never harsh. And this was using inexpensive Naim aa equipment. Via tubes, I might have well fallen in love with these speakers.

(7) One of my favorite rooms was the one with the Usher Mini II speakers ($5,700!), VPI Scout tt, and Wells phono and amp. Here they played the stupendous Hugh Masekela "Coal Train" track at full, live SPLs! The SPL HAD to be WAY over 105 dB! With NO distortion! Chet Baker and Pepper Adams were almost as dynamic as they were via the $80,000 Acapella speakers. Oliver Nelson's classic "Stolen Moments" with Eric Dolphy on alto and flute, Freddie Hubbard on trumpet, George Barrow on baritone, and Bill Evans on piano was just gorgeous. Each great has an extended solo, but it all comes together in a meltingly beautiful finish. I loved that the room's representative (Wells?) played many non-audiophile vinyl, including Hendrik and the Doors. Let her rip!!! Not only do these Usher speakers sound accurate and dynamic, but they also look beautiful.

(8) Another room I loved was the one with a $15,000 Vivid speaker and Luxman integrated amp with phono (only $6,000!). This little speaker looked like something from outer space (good IMO). Everything, from Ray and Betty to Coltrane and Hartman to Grant Green sounded soulful, organic and palpable. The music just appeared in the room. Perhaps not for rockers, but one of the best on classical and jazz (90 % of my listening).

(9) Last, but certainly not least, was the totally unexpected sound in the deHavilland room with the 97 dB Sonist speaker ($5,895!), a Glow 5 wpc amp with volume control ($648 !!!) the Kara Chaffee Model 222 tube magnetic playback preamp, and an Ampex 351 tape deck. And, yes, with some unbelievably realistic reel-to-reel tapes, most just bought on ebay. Sinatra and Ellington ("Francis A and Edward K") brought me to tears! The sound on each and every tape was detailed, harmonically rich, with swelling, organic dynamics. Yes, I love my vinyl, and prefer it to digital, but Kara's tapes put my vinyl to shame. IMO, we are going backward in quality: from reel-to-reel, to vinyl, to digital. BTW, Mario of Audio Note, told me to listen to the Kara system. Mario later told me that he got Kara to play his tapes via the Audio Note speakers at one audio show. I'd pay to hear that!

[atomicAdam]

Adam, did you get a chance to go to the Salk/Van Alstine room? I hear that it was a big hit. VA has a new Hybrid Amp that is a beast. http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=96298.0

Honestly I think it could have used more space. The low end was very well controlled, clean, and punchy. The mid-range lacked dynamics and was pretty flat on most music and the high end was slightly dimmed.

With some drum pieces the system sounded fantastic. While on songs as a whole it wasn't really cutting it. I'd have opted for the Audio Note 8k speakers and 5k amp above the AVA/Salk set up.

Based off of what I've heard from the Soundscapes before - three times now - they need a big room. Hell they are big speakers. And I think they just couldn't get the gain up enough to get the speakers moving correctly.

But control of the bass was probably the best I heard at the show. I think if the mids had matched in dynamics the highs could have been over looked. But in this case... Certainly not the worst sound I heard.

[atomicAdam]

I have to agree with tubeman on much of what he wrote - but not all.

- I thought the highs in the MBL room were the most effortless and natural I've ever heard. The ultra crisp and dynamic snap not to mention the completely realistic decay of the high end had me enthralled. Mid range and lows were very good but they did seem to lack the ability to translate the timbre of each new CD. Who know if that was the speakers fault of the streamer/CDP. But out of the 9 different songs I heard - several from other folks CDs - it did sound like everything was from the same mixed master disc.

- I really enjoyed the AudioNote room. I wish they had had a table to spin some vinyl but over all I think the sound was great. I'd be very curious what that set up would be like w/ their entry level CDP or TT2.

- Most of the big rooms were wrong or boring. The Q3 came alive with some vinyl but were ghastly from the DAC and file server. I did like the Q1's but $20k for bookshelf speakers? Humm....IDK.

- The AudioVsionSF room w/ Naim and Nola - awful. The image was so blurred and the highs were just chaos. I'm going to blame the Naim since I've yet to hear a Naim system I liked (well w/o at least super expensive Nordost power cables and other gizmos correcting their faults) - but Nola - wow there is a speaker.

- The Usher Mini II room was really good - wasn't it?

- Not a fan of the Luxman either - just too generic sounding.

Other wise some others I liked and disliked.

- The Sony room was a bit of a let down after I heard the promotion about it from a friend. The sound was too bloomy and the highs sounded like plastic.

- There were a lot of $2k speakers. Some were backed by some similarly priced gear while others were backed by extravagant priced gear. Out of what I heard I liked the Fritz speakers for the soft natural mid-range they provided to vocals and horns and I liked what Melody did in terms of detail. The other $2k speakers - even those backed by a butt load of money - while they were good - they were also kind of a take it or leave it.

more to come but got to deal with some work stuff now....

[Ajani]

@AA & TubeFan - Thanks for the show feedback guys... It's always interesting to hear the thoughts of other AR members on different setups... Hopefully someday soon I'll check out one of these shows and post my own opinions on the different systems...

[atomicAdam]

Someone had asked about the Tannoy speakers.

From what I understand and the couple times I tried to go in there was a good response and large following. But I tried to check them out twice on Sunday and both time I went in they were playing one of two songs I had heard so much throughout the event - so I just walked out.

I hate to say it be we should take a stand and not even cover rooms that are playing lame crap.

But I heard in passing a few folks saying they liked the sound and for the moments I was in there they were actually good sounding but I just couldn't stand the music.

They were using some large sized bookshelf speakers but I can't remember which ones. There should be a write up on the room at Dagogo at some point.

[tube fan]

atomicAdam, I just HAVE to ask this: have you EVER been to a live acoustic musical event? I don't see how you could like/love the sound at BOTH the MBL room and the Audio Note room. They had NOTHING in common. MBL produced harsh, sharp, etched, but, unrealistic highs. Audio Note, in contrast, produced mellow, but detailed music, with extended highs. The Usher speaker could do it all. And, yes, Wells tested his system by playing all types of music at live SPLs.

[atomicAdam]

Obviously I've been to a live show. But there are two things at play here.

1) No recorded play back music will ever be just like a live show - so I don't hold it just by that standard.

2) You and I have different ears. We hear things differently. And that is fine. There are enough makers in high high to make sure everyone can get something they like.

I like the MBL and the AN for different reasons. Just like I liked the Teresonic system I heard over the weekend at someone's home. Just like I like the Brodmann I have here or the PMC's I had a while ago. They all sounded different but they all sound good for different reasons. Just like I don't always eat a hamburger for lunch and dinner - I don't always like just one sound.

But on the MBLs. I understand your reaction. That was similar to one of my friends when we walked in. There is just something there that we are hearing differently. I wish I knew what it was - that would be very interesting - but most likely w/o some real testing equipment we never will.

[tube fan]

Obviously I've been to a live show. But there are two things at play here.

1) No recorded play back music will ever be just like a live show - so I don't hold it just by that standard.

2) You and I have different ears. We hear things differently. And that is fine. There are enough makers in high high to make sure everyone can get something they like.

I like the MBL and the AN for different reasons. Just like I liked the Teresonic system I heard over the weekend at someone's home. Just like I like the Brodmann I have here or the PMC's I had a while ago. They all sounded different but they all sound good for different reasons. Just like I don't always eat a hamburger for lunch and dinner - I don't always like just one sound.

But on the MBLs. I understand your reaction. That was similar to one of my friends when we walked in. There is just something there that we are hearing differently. I wish I knew what it was - that would be very interesting - but most likely w/o some real testing equipment we never will.

I'm talking about a live ACOUSTIC show, NOT just most "live" shows that use amplification and speakers. Unless you attend classical musical events, it's extremely rare to hear live acoustic music. In all of my acoustical music listening, I have NEVER heard anything that sounded close to the sound in the MBL room. The sound in the Audio Note room, in contrast, produced, even via CDs, a sound that came surprisingly close to live ACOUSTIC music. The glorious music in the Sonist room, using reel-to-reel tapes, nailed both the subtle details and the tonal density of acoustic music.

Yes, I agree with HP and JGH that the goal of hi-end audio is to reproduce the sound of acoustic music heard live. "It sounds good to me" is not really any kind of standard; it's just personal preference. Fine, but it's NOT hi-end audio.

[atomicAdam]

I'm talking about a live ACOUSTIC show, NOT just most "live" ......

Yes, I agree with HP and JGH that the goal of hi-end audio is to reproduce the sound of acoustic music heard live. "It sounds good to me" is not really any kind of standard; it's just personal preference. Fine, but it's NOT hi-end audio.

You live in the area right? Lets go hear something together and talk about it. That would be fun. Something not amplified.

But to the live music - it just isn't gonna happen - so folks think - what is truest to the source - and frankly that isn't going to happen either.

Besides - when I come home I want to listen to something I like to hear that might posses qualities of a live musical performance w/o all the nasties involved.

[Ajani]

I'm talking about a live ACOUSTIC show, NOT just most "live" shows that use amplification and speakers. Unless you attend classical musical events, it's extremely rare to hear live acoustic music. In all of my acoustical music listening, I have NEVER heard anything that sounded close to the sound in the MBL room. The sound in the Audio Note room, in contrast, produced, even via CDs, a sound that came surprisingly close to live ACOUSTIC music. The glorious music in the Sonist room, using reel-to-reel tapes, nailed both the subtle details and the tonal density of acoustic music.

Yes, I agree with HP and JGH that the goal of hi-end audio is to reproduce the sound of acoustic music heard live. "It sounds good to me" is not really any kind of standard; it's just personal preference. Fine, but it's NOT hi-end audio.

While I understand your logic, I think it falls into the "so what?" category... In other words; the majority of music created and recorded is not classical / other live acoustic... And most persons don't listen exclusively to live acoustic music... So using live acoustic as your sole criteria for high end is pointless to most persons...

[tube fan]

While I understand your logic, I think it falls into the "so what?" category... In other words; the majority of music created and recorded is not classical / other live acoustic... And most persons don't listen exclusively to live acoustic music... So using live acoustic as your sole criteria for high end is pointless to most persons...

You are missing the whole point of hi-end audio: reproduction of what you would hear live and unamplified. And, yes, that means that if you want your stereo to produce sounds like you heard at some "live" rock concert (e.g., a Stones or Who concert through thousands of ss watts and crappy speakers), you may get something that you like, but it has NO relationship to the absolute sound.

[tube fan]

You live in the area right? Lets go hear something together and talk about it. That would be fun. Something not amplified.

But to the live music - it just isn't gonna happen - so folks think - what is truest to the source - and frankly that isn't going to happen either.

Besides - when I come home I want to listen to something I like to hear that might posses qualities of a live musical performance w/o all the nasties involved.

95%+ of live acoustic music events are classical. Have you EVER been heard a symphony live? Check out the SF symphony, live.

[Ajani]

You are missing the whole point of hi-end audio: reproduction of what you would hear live and unamplified.

That point only makes sense if the source music was originally live and unamplified... Which it usually isn't...



And, yes, that means that if you want your stereo to produce sounds like you heard at some "live" rock concert (e.g., a Stones or Who concert through thousands of ss watts and crappy speakers), you may get something that you like, but it has NO relationship to the absolute sound.

If all someone listens to is rock and their setup sounds like a rock concert, then it doesn't matter what live, unamplified music sounds like on that system... Absolute Sound by your definition is mostly irrelevant...

Several years ago I went to audition a pair of Magnepan speakers at a dealer in Toronto (as you no doubt know; Maggie is a top choice for lovers of live acoustic / classical music). With my favourite albums, the Maggies were the worst sounding hifi speakers I had ever heard (even up to today). The dealer then introduced me to the Revel Concerta and Performa lines and I was in love with what they did with my favorite albums.... So even if Maggies sound closer to the Absolute Sound by your measures, I would never buy them... At the end of the day, we have to live with our system and our tastes... Personal preference is what really matters in HiFi...

[eisforelectronic]

I think the debate about what an audiophile actually wants from a system and or what is true Hi-Fi is interesting. I also think it's interesting that this issue was actually addressed in the Magico review in the latest Absolute Sound.

[tube fan]

That point only makes sense if the source music was originally live and unamplified... Which it usually isn't...




If all someone listens to is rock and their setup sounds like a rock concert, then it doesn't matter what live, unamplified music sounds like on that system... Absolute Sound by your definition is mostly irrelevant...

Several years ago I went to audition a pair of Magnepan speakers at a dealer in Toronto (as you no doubt know; Maggie is a top choice for lovers of live acoustic / classical music). With my favourite albums, the Maggies were the worst sounding hifi speakers I had ever heard (even up to today). The dealer then introduced me to the Revel Concerta and Performa lines and I was in love with what they did with my favorite albums.... So even if Maggies sound closer to the Absolute Sound by your measures, I would never buy them... At the end of the day, we have to live with our system and our tastes... Personal preference is what really matters in HiFi...

This is epistemological nonsense! Without some kind of objective goal or standard, audio knowledge is impossible. BTW, all the Magnepan speakers I have ever heard fail in tonal decay, micro dynamics and bass. Plus, they are horrible at anything other than high SPLs. Plus, they don't really tolerate really high SPLs (a very small sweet spot for the Magnepans). All the Revel speakers I have heard are more accurate (taking everything into account) than any Magnepan. Electrostatics, on the other hand, can sound accurate in tonal decay and micro dynamics. Plus, they sound great at low SPLs.

[dingus]

You are missing the whole point of hi-end audio: reproduction of what you would hear live and unamplified.

its certainly not the point for me ...

i want to hear an artists work that comes out of the studio. this is usually where the creative process first comes into fruition and what comes out of the studio is usually the best sound quality that can be had of the recorded work. after that process, yes recordings of live performances can be very rewarding, but it takes a rare live recording that can match the sound quality of a competently executed studio recording.

besides, the re-creation of live, acoustic, un-amplified sound via a recording is fantasy... cant be done with todays technology and every recording requires amplification to be heard anyway.

[Ajani]

This is epistemological nonsense! Without some kind of objective goal or standard, audio knowledge is impossible.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on that one... I understand the logic of objective standards, however I don't agree with your choice of standard and neither does the Revel design team BTW:

http://seanolive.blogspot.com/2010/07/why-live-versus-recorded-listening.html


BTW, all the Magnepan speakers I have ever heard fail in tonal decay, micro dynamics and bass. Plus, they are horrible at anything other than high SPLs. Plus, they don't really tolerate really high SPLs (a very small sweet spot for the Magnepans). All the Revel speakers I have heard are more accurate (taking everything into account) than any Magnepan. Electrostatics, on the other hand, can sound accurate in tonal decay and micro dynamics. Plus, they sound great at low SPLs.

Well at least we agree here...

[RGA]

That point only makes sense if the source music was originally live and unamplified... Which it usually isn't...

If all someone listens to is rock and their setup sounds like a rock concert, then it doesn't matter what live, unamplified music sounds like on that system... Absolute Sound by your definition is mostly irrelevant...

Several years ago I went to audition a pair of Magnepan speakers at a dealer in Toronto (as you no doubt know; Maggie is a top choice for lovers of live acoustic / classical music). With my favourite albums, the Maggies were the worst sounding hifi speakers I had ever heard (even up to today). The dealer then introduced me to the Revel Concerta and Performa lines and I was in love with what they did with my favorite albums.... So even if Maggies sound closer to the Absolute Sound by your measures, I would never buy them... At the end of the day, we have to live with our system and our tastes... Personal preference is what really matters in HiFi...

I still like the Comparison by Contrast article that Leonard and Peter wrote - and it works for any system or piece of gear or recording. http://www.enjoythemusic.com/magazine/viewpoint/0601/audiohell.htm

I don't think Magneapn does it very well - though I do find their appeal and I like the 1.7's perspective. I just find it's a very similar perspective across every genre of music I listen to. Dynamics is the most critical life energy of music and they're poor performers in this, IMO the most important, regard.

However comparing a box right after it may make the box seem better than it really is. Just as comparing a panel on string music right after you hear a poor boxed speaker makes the panel seem better than it really is. When I first heard ML it was right after hearing some dumpy Boston Acoustic slim line tower and the overrated and rather horrible Snell B Minor. The ML Odyssey was so awesome compared to that.

[tube fan]

its certainly not the point for me ...

i want to hear an artists work that comes out of the studio. this is usually where the creative process first comes into fruition and what comes out of the studio is usually the best sound quality that can be had of the recorded work. after that process, yes recordings of live performances can be very rewarding, but it takes a rare live recording that can match the sound quality of a competently executed studio recording.

besides, the re-creation of live, acoustic, un-amplified sound via a recording is fantasy... cant be done with todays technology and every recording requires amplification to be heard anyway.

Of course, we want our high-end audio systems to reproduce what we would have heard live in the recording studio! This should be the goal of the recording engineer.

[atomicAdam]

95%+ of live acoustic music events are classical. Have you EVER been heard a symphony live? Check out the SF symphony, live.

Right - but I actually hear a lot of Jazz bands (or rather one) often in a coffee shops here in Oakland. But I'm actually going - again - to Davies tonight.

[atomicAdam]

Of course, we want our high-end audio systems to reproduce what we would have heard live in the recording studio! This should be the goal of the recording engineer.

Right but with all the multi-tracking - dubs - and even now with virtual studios where musicians don't have to be even in the same state anymore - who is to say what a 'recording' session sounds like.

If I had to have a system that sounded like most of the real live performances I've heard in my days - acoustic or otherwise - I'd most likely not be in this game. I like my home set up because it pleases me. I tend not to go to shows because they don't please me. Besides - If I want acoustic music I just pick up my guitar and play.

[JohnMichael]

You are missing the whole point of hi-end audio: reproduction of what you would hear live and unamplified. And, yes, that means that if you want your stereo to produce sounds like you heard at some "live" rock concert (e.g., a Stones or Who concert through thousands of ss watts and crappy speakers), you may get something that you like, but it has NO relationship to the absolute sound.



I think recorded music is like photography. A reminder of the original event. I attend and enjoy classical concerts. Then I go home and listen to that same music in my smaller listening space. I enjoy looking at my pictures of Paris but they are not like walking the streets of Paris. They are a very nice reminder.

[tube fan]

Right - but I actually hear a lot of Jazz bands (or rather one) often in a coffee shops here in Oakland. But I'm actually going - again - to Davies tonight.

The sound you hear at Davies will have NOTHING in common with the harsh etched sound in the MBL room.

[atomicAdam]

Right - I was going to get back to this.

I'd have to say I disagree. The cymbals at Davies were dang near spot on to what I heard in the MBL room.

Except they were 100 or more feet away and in a huge room. But the brashness, the effortlessness, how crisp and resonating they were. IDK if you've ever been next to a cymbal - like right next to it playing in a band or something - but they are harsh and etched on the attack. The resonance isn't - which I found to be the same case in the MBL room.

Except in the MBL room you were like 10 ft away - similar to being 10ft away from a high hat when it is being played loudly. Which most of the time in recorded music - especially with what they were playing in the MBL room - is how it is played - and the engineer can figure out level.

Anyways - just like I said before - we have different ears - and what sound real to me doesn't mean it sounds real to you. So the whole 'should be held to live concert criteria' works fine for YOUR IDEA of what a live concert sounds like.

That gets back to my whole point - holding hifi to what a live sound sounds like is only hold hifi to what you perceive a live sound to sound like. Not what I do with my ears. So there for - holding hi fi to live sound is just as subjective as it is to holding it to 'what i like'. And I personally would rather listen to stuff I like.

[Ajani]

Right - I was going to get back to this.

I'd have to say I disagree. The cymbals at Davies were dang near spot on to what I heard in the MBL room.

Except they were 100 or more feet away and in a huge room. But the brashness, the effortlessness, how crisp and resonating they were. IDK if you've ever been next to a cymbal - like right next to it playing in a band or something - but they are harsh and etched on the attack. The resonance isn't - which I found to be the same case in the MBL room.

Except in the MBL room you were like 10 ft away - similar to being 10ft away from a high hat when it is being played loudly. Which most of the time in recorded music - especially with what they were playing in the MBL room - is how it is played - and the engineer can figure out level.

Anyways - just like I said before - we have different ears - and what sound real to me doesn't mean it sounds real to you. So the whole 'should be held to live concert criteria' works fine for YOUR IDEA of what a live concert sounds like.

That gets back to my whole point - holding hifi to what a live sound sounds like is only hold hifi to what you perceive a live sound to sound like. Not what I do with my ears. So there for - holding hi fi to live sound is just as subjective as it is to holding it to 'what i like'. And I personally would rather listen to stuff I like.

:thumbsup:

There is a reason why the term 'clashing cymbals' is used to denote a loud and irritating sound... I've always found it amusing when persons claim that a system that never sounds harsh is more accurate than other systems... Real instruments can sound harsh and annoying... So an accurate system would be able to recreate that...

Interestingly, the best explanation for what you described above is from The Absolute Sound. TAS refers to 'Realism Triggers'; essentially the aspects of the sonic presentation that make music seem real (live) to you... So for me it might be extended dynamic range and the ability to feel a drumbeat, while for someone else it might be a 3D soundstage... So 3 of us could hear the same live event and yet each of us claim that a different HiFi setup sounds more like that live event...

[Feanor]

:thumbsup:

There is a reason why the term 'clashing cymbals' is used to denote a loud and irritating sound... I've always found it amusing when persons claim that a system that never sounds harsh is more accurate than other systems... Real instruments can sound harsh and annoying... So an accurate system would be able to recreate that...
...
Right on! Live music can should harsh, (or strident), depending on the music, the performance, the instruments, the venue, and you seat in the venue. For everything to always sound sweet and smooth is not realism.

Beyond that there is the matter of the recording. Personally if the recording is not well made and sounds harsh on that account, I still what to hear the recording the way it was made. Why? Because if you try to make a poor recording sound good, you'll make a good recording sound bad.

[tube fan]

Right but with all the multi-tracking - dubs - and even now with virtual studios where musicians don't have to be even in the same state anymore - who is to say what a 'recording' session sounds like.

If I had to have a system that sounded like most of the real live performances I've heard in my days - acoustic or otherwise - I'd most likely not be in this game. I like my home set up because it pleases me. I tend not to go to shows because they don't please me. Besides - If I want acoustic music I just pick up my guitar and play.

Without some kind of standard or goal, hi-end audio would not exist. If mere personal preference was the aim, communication or debate is a waste of time.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Without some kind of standard or goal, hi-end audio would not exist. If mere personal preference was the aim, communication or debate is a waste of time.

Tube Fan, I have told you this before. Your criteria for evaluating good sound(comparison to live sound) is too narrow. When I am purchasing equipment for my enjoyment, the equipment has to have sonic qualities that appeal to me, not to somebody else's perspective of what good sound is. If I listen to a lot of jazz, then I want speakers that sound good with jazz music, not something that sounds good with classical music. Music enjoyment(and good sound) is in the ear of the beholder, not some subjective standard somebody else has thought up. Enjoying music is all about personal preference.

Good example. I think both of us like good sounding equipment, but you like tubes, and I like solid state. You like cones and domes, and I like well designed horn's. You like analog, and I like digital. You like euphoria, and I like accuracy. You like two channel, I like multichannel. With these differences, we both still like a good sounding system. Our desires are the same, but our way of achieving it is quite different. This is how personal preference guides our choices of good sound.

You cannot "suck the air out of the room" by promoting your way as the only way to achieve good sound. There is more than one way to get around Oakland than the 580 freeway.

This hobby is all about personal preference, and there is room at the "good sound" table for everyone's preferences.

[Mash]

You cannot use live music as THE reference for music reproduction? Then what else is there? Nothing, really.

We all use real life as our reference, whether we admit it or not. Personal preferences can be, and usually are, transient, but real life will inexorably repeat itself. And should our preference-based system clash with live music, dissonance will occur.

This is why we all use standardized tape measures, instead of each of us using our own personal versions of a tape measure: all of us using our standardized tape measures allows all of us, with proper care, to get the SAME answers. If we all settled for getting different answers, we would have chaos. For example, a house could never be properly built. Nothing could ever be agreed upon: Project discussions would degenerate into a tower of babel......

I have been in engineering long enough, and l have led big enough projects, to know that we all must use the same reference and measuring standards.

Relying on personal preferences for sound equipment selection can quickly lead one to the poor house because one is likely to repeatedly be replacing what they have with new selections as their preferences shift or their system clashes with the real world causing dissonance, and this can burn up a lot of money. This unnecessary dissipation of money is an even graver issue in today's USA, and in many other parts of this world.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

You cannot use live music as THE reference for music reproduction? Then what else is there? Nothing, really.

If live music is your only reference, then your perspective will shift relative to where you sat in that live environment. As anyone who has visited an auditorium, concert hall, or performance halls knows, not every seat in the house delivers the same listening experience, or will provide an idea listening experience(every hall has a different acoustic, some bad, some good). Folks at the front of the house hear more direct energy, and somewhat less ambient energy. Those that sit to the sides hear a distorted spatial staging compared to those who sit at the center front of the house. Those in the balcony hear mostly reflected energy, which changes the tonal nature of the instruments based on the acoustic nature of the hall. A recording can never replicate the live sound as it is(the complexity of trying to do so is beyond current technology), but can avoid the pitfalls of an individuals seating perspective within that hall. So which do you trust, a recording with a balanced acoustical perspective(an ideal combination of the direct and reflected sound from a single perspective), or the guy that attended the recording, and sat in the balcony(with more reflected energy than direct energy)? This is why live sound cannot be the only standard for judging good sound.


We all use real life as our reference, whether we admit it or not. Personal preferences can be, and usually are, transient, but real life will inexorably repeat itself. And should our preference-based system clash with live music, dissonance will occur.

What is real life to a person who records in a studio environment most of the time. It is the studio perspective, which can also be judged as live music. After all, live instruments where played there. This gives a studio recording just as much credence as a live experience in a concert hall. Somebody(whether in the studio or concert hall) heard a live instrument.


This is why we all use standardized tape measures, instead of each of us using our own personal versions of a tape measure: all of us using our standardized tape measures allows all of us, with proper care, to get the SAME answers. If we all settled for getting different answers, we would have chaos. For example, a house could never be properly built. Nothing could ever be agreed upon: Project discussions would degenerate into a tower of babel......

Standards are only applicable if you are trying to achieve similar results in a wide variety of environments. There are no real standards in live or recorded music. What you hear is what you get. We have standards in the film community because we want to see and hear a very close approximation to what the re-recording guys hear and see on the dubbing stage, and patrons hear and see in theaters. If you follow SMPTE video standards, and THX audio standards, you will pretty much achieve that goal(sans the acoustics of a large theater, and the impact of a huge screen). Since there is both high quality sound tracks(that has standards, and high quality music(which has no recording or playback standards), one can glean the fact that standards are not the only means of achieving a benchmark of good sound in music playback.


I have been in engineering long enough, and l have led big enough projects, to know that we all must use the same reference and measuring standards.

Once again, there are no standards in live, or studio environments in music. Everything is totally subjective - from the placement of the microphones, acoustics of the studio or hall and playback systems environment, to the place where a person sits in a concert hall, auditorium or studio. There is no established criteria of sound quality in this instance, it is all placed on the individual placement of the listener, acoustics of the listening space, and hearing mechanisms of the individual.


Relying on personal preferences for sound equipment selection can quickly lead one to the poor house because one is likely to repeatedly be replacing what they have with new selections as their preferences shift or their system clashes with the real world causing dissonance, and this can burn up a lot of money. This unnecessary dissipation of money is an even graver issue in today's USA, and in many other parts of this world.

One has to distinguish what is a chase for high quality, or the chase for sonic nirvana or perfection. One is achievable, the other is not. The former can be considered healthy for a audiophile or videophile, the latter a sickness that leads to constant dissatisfaction.

[Feanor]

...
Once again, there are no standards in live, or studio environments in music. Everything is totally subjective - from the placement of the microphones, acoustics of the studio or hall and playback systems environment, to the place where a person sits in a concert hall, auditorium or studio. There is no established criteria of sound quality in this instance, it is all placed on the individual placement of the listener, acoustics of the listening space, and hearing mechanisms of the individual.
...
You don't have to very many concerts or listen to very many recordings to figure this out. But some still argue "live" as a standard. It is possible to have a pretty valid idea about what a given accoustic sounds like, but I suspect that these people's "live standard" is some sort of idealization based as much on preference as on a clear-minded recollection of the live sound of these instruments.

What I want is "accuracy". And by accuracy I mean what sounds like the producer and engineer heard listening to the proof release medium. I'll grant I can't actually know exactly what the producer & engineer heard, but I believe I can avoid the obvious pitfalls of the preference-driven exercise.

I believe the accuracy approach will yield the greatest number of good-sounding recordings and will certainly make the best recordings all that they can be.

[Mash]

These concerns you raise are non-issues.

I understand room accoustics well enough, for both large & small rooms, that I can visualize where boundry effects could be noticable, i.e. specifically near walls. One can also be aware of ceiling height when one attends a recital in a room that one hopes has a ceiling that is at least 15 feet above the floor, as opposed to a symphony in a hall that likely has a very high ceiling. These effects are part of the real world and therefore invariant for specific situations.

One's personal problems such as immediate employment or personal concerns, and other transient personal factors, are unpredictable and cause far greater variations. These personal issues can be extant both when you attend a live performance, and when you listen to and/or evaluate your home system, so the issues w/r/t the live performance venue become minor, and in the course of reattending a performance in a given venue, venue issues will fade even further.

I attended an Andre Segovia concert in Cincinnati in 1965. My seat was near the center and at the very front of the first balcony. Essentially I was hanging out in open air, as it were.

I never listened to Segovia in any form until I attended another Segovia Concert in Bushnell hall in 1985 in Hartford, CT. My seat was again at the front of the first balcony, near the center. Again, essentially I was hanging out in open air, as it were.

Your position would seem to be that I could not meaningfully evaluate nor recall a live performance so as to use it as a reference tool. But did I?

Yes, I did, and with a 20 year gap.

Halfway through the first half of Mr. Segovia's performance, I turned to my wife and said: "This is NOT what I remember from Cincinnati."

Halfway through the second half of Mr. Segovia's performance, I turned to my wife and said: "This IS what I remember from Cincinnati."

So what happened? Do you have any idea?

Here is the explanation that appeared the next day in the Hartford Courant:

During the first half of Mr. Segovia's concert, he was playing his brand new $100,000 Spanish guitar, and that guitar was apparently not responding so well to the humidity in Hartford.

During the second half of Mr. Segovia's concert, he was playing his "old" guitar, the same one he had used in Cincinnati.

Using live music as a reference will trump trusting one's personal tastes every time.

[Mash]

Feanor, if you REproduce the live performance, then by definition you have accuracy to the live performance.

Anything beyond that, and you are transforming your system into a performance instrument, rather than as something intended to REproduce a specific performance.

You can choose either one, but do not confuse the two.

[Feanor]

Feanor, if you REproduce the live performance, then by definition you have accuracy to the live performance.

Anything beyond that, and you are transforming your system into a performance instrument, rather than as something intended to REproduce a specific performance.

You can choose either one, but do not confuse the two.
I didn't think we're far apart here, Mash.

I agree with you that I don't want my system to be a "performance instrument" but rather an accurate reproducer. If we differ at all it's in that I want to reporduce the recording as recorded rather than sound like some imagined live performance.

[Mash]

Re: ".......... I want to reporduce the recording as recorded rather than sound like some imagined live performance. "

"Imagined live performances" are a lot of work and require more spare time than I have ...... and I have been (completely) retired for many years now- I got out before I got old.

So "recording" versus "live performance" depends on how well the performance was recorded: say Blumlien versus death by multi-mike....................

[Feanor]

....
So "recording" versus "live performance" depends on how well the performance was recorded: say Blumlien versus death by multi-mike....................
I have to agree with you there. :rolleyes5:

[dingus]

...Using live music as a reference will trump trusting one's personal tastes every time.

huh? without using ones personal taste you are not able to establish any type of reference in regards to music.

[atomicAdam]

I busted out the Electrocompaniet CDP + Audio Note DAC One Sig w/ the Melody AN211 and WyWires all around and the Brodmann FS speakers. Put on Two Tchaikovsky CDs and low and behold everything was very much clearer than the last three classical concerts I've been to. That is two at Davies and one at the Music Conservatory.

Sh*t I could really hear the violins - include first versus soloist - not to mention the oboe and clarinet were way easier to tell apart. Not to mention the french horn and oboe. Amazing how much more easy it was to hear the separation of instruments in my home system versus the last three live performances. WTF does that mean then?

Now was it as effortless? Not really. Was there a little big of a gap say in the cello range in the home system...yes. Did trumpets really flare - not as much as live. How about micro dynamics - well actually they sounded better on my system? Macro - no - live was better. But boy oh boy was staging and details far superior at home than what i've heard live.

What does that all mean? The point being that comparing to live is only 1 factor in a deciding if a system sounds good. And maybe it might sound as good or better than live in one way and not another.

Anyhow... These WyWIres sure are nice. The digital cable and ICs really tamed the aggressiveness of the AN DAC One. I think the rather forgiving at the extreme high end (tape hiss and digital glare) of the Brodmann's has helped as well. Had a good day rocking out to some classical.

[tube fan]

My objections to ss and digital lies in their inability to reproduce accurately TAS. Digital is simply a flawed concept. Music is analogue. The original analogue signal must be converted into digital bits, and then, those bits are manipulated in billions of ways. Of course, because humans only hear analogue, those manipulated bits must be converted yet again, this time from dsigital back to analogue. What a waste of time! Several digital recording representatives at the 2111 CAS agreed with me that we should have stuck with reel-to-reel analogue tape if we wanted to accurately preserve TAS.

[Feanor]

My objections to ss and digital lies in their inability to reproduce accurately TAS. Digital is simply a flawed concept. Music is analogue. The original analogue signal must be converted into digital bits, and then, those bits are manipulated in billions of ways. Of course, because humans only hear analogue, those manipulated bits must be converted yet again, this time from dsigital back to analogue. What a waste of time! Several digital recording representatives at the 2111 CAS agreed with me that we should have stuck with reel-to-reel analogue tape if we wanted to accurately preserve TAS.
Dear, dear, dear.

The "music is analog(ue)" line of argument is pretty old as well as disproved.

Of course we don't listen to zeros and ones. Before it gets to our ears the analog is reconsituted perfectly within our range of audibility -- in principle and very nearly in practice. The distortions insinuated by digital, even 16/44.1, are demonsterably far less than by LP vinyl.

At its birth, CD was plagued by suboptimal filtering and huge amounts of jitter. This isn't true of any descent current CDP or DAC. Many early CD recordings, especially those direct transcriptions from masters intented for vinyl, were poor. But even from the beginning there were excellent CDs.

I remember LPs. When I first go into audio there was vinyl and tape, (and FM broadcast if you want to include that). My distinct recollection is that were lots of really crappy LPs out there.

[bobsticks]

Dear, dear, dear.

The "music is analog(ue)" line of argument is pretty old as well as disproved.

Of course we don't listen to zeros and ones. Before it gets to our ears the analog is reconsituted perfectly within our range of audibility -- in principle and very nearly in practice. The distortions insinuated by digital, even 16/44.1, are demonsterably far less than by LP vinyl.

At its birth, CD was plagued by suboptimal filtering and huge amounts of jitter. This isn't true of any descent current CDP or DAC. Many early CD recordings, especially those direct transcriptions from masters intented for vinyl, were poor. But even from the beginning there were excellent CDs.

I remember LPs. When I first go into audio there was vinyl and tape, (and FM broadcast if you want to include that). My distinct recollection is that were lots of really crappy LPs out there.

Tisk, tisk, tisk...Bill, Bill, Bill...

Live music is in it's purest form based on heat and magnetism. I thought you knew.

[JohnMichael]

I use classical music as an important part of my equipment auditions. Of course I use all types of music since I listen to all types of music. I would like all my music to be enjoyable. The one issue I have with the live music only thought is the variable of the concert hall. I do not have any recordings from any hall where I have enjoyed classical concerts. Does a violin sound the same in Hall A as it does in Hall B? That is why I will always use a wide variety of music. Oh and not every audio shop has a turntable where you can hear your vinyl. Yes I take cd's to audition.

One aspect of my stereo is the better imaging than what I hear in a classical concert. When I attend a concert and I close my eyes the sound is diffuse. When eyes are open the visual cues let me know where the sound originates. The audible cues of a recording let's me know where the musicians are seated. Therefore is imaging a coloration of sorts.

Oh and I do enjoy solid state and find my Krell an accurate reproducer.

[Feanor]

I use classical music as an important part of my equipment auditions. Of course I use all types of music since I listen to all types of music. I would like all my music to be enjoyable. The one issue I have with the live music only thought is the variable of the concert hall. I do not have any recordings from any hall where I have enjoyed classical concerts. Does a violin sound the same in Hall A as it does in Hall B? That is why I will always use a wide variety of music. Oh and not every audio shop has a turntable where you can hear your vinyl. Yes I take cd's to audition.

One aspect of my stereo is the better imaging than what I hear in a classical concert. When I attend a concert and I close my eyes the sound is diffuse. When eyes are open the visual cues let me know where the sound originates. The audible cues of a recording let's me know where the musicians are seated. Therefore is imaging a coloration of sorts.

Oh and I do enjoy solid state and find my Krell an accurate reproducer.
The stark fact is that recordings can sound better in a lot of ways than a live performance. As I've often said, live performance depends on the instruments, the performance, the venue, and your own particular seat in the venue.

With the seats I can afford I don't often hear much separation of the instruments.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

These concerns you raise are non-issues.

No, they are not non-issues, you just dismissed them.


I understand room accoustics well enough, for both large & small rooms, that I can visualize where boundry effects could be noticable, i.e. specifically near walls. One can also be aware of ceiling height when one attends a recital in a room that one hopes has a ceiling that is at least 15 feet above the floor, as opposed to a symphony in a hall that likely has a very high ceiling. These effects are part of the real world and therefore invariant for specific situations.

Here is the problem with your logic. Room boundary effects in concert halls are not easy to detect as they are in small rooms. Also how do you separate a boundary effect from the concert halls overall sound. We just don't hear boundary effects in isolation, we hear the ambience or room signature of the hall as a whole. Lastly, there are nearly thousands of opportunities for the sound to interact with the walls - so how does one ascertain if the boundary effect is far from you, or very close? You can't.

You last line is as wrong as two left shoes. Every concert hall has a unique sound signature, and therefore creates a variant that has to be accounted for.


One's personal problems such as immediate employment or personal concerns, and other transient personal factors, are unpredictable and cause far greater variations. These personal issues can be extant both when you attend a live performance, and when you listen to and/or evaluate your home system, so the issues w/r/t the live performance venue become minor, and in the course of reattending a performance in a given venue, venue issues will fade even further.

This is also wrong. The only way the venue becomes a non issue is if you sit in the same seat(minus the halls acoustics), with the same group of performers in front of you playing the same instruments with the same song. Once you change each of these things, you have created a audible variant. A solo pianist will create a different sonic signature than a wind ensemble in the same hall. Each time the orchestration changes, the sound of the hall will change along with it. The amount of people in that hall is also a variant, and that will also change the sonic signature of the hall. Let's couple that with the fact that a recording will never sound like the hall, because our rooms are too small, and their acoustic is superimposed over the acoustic of the recording.


I attended an Andre Segovia concert in Cincinnati in 1965. My seat was near the center and at the very front of the first balcony. Essentially I was hanging out in open air, as it were.

With a reflective surface right in front of you in the name of the facade of the balcony.


I never listened to Segovia in any form until I attended another Segovia Concert in Bushnell hall in 1985 in Hartford, CT. My seat was again at the front of the first balcony, near the center. Again, essentially I was hanging out in open air, as it were.

Different venue, different acoustical signature = variant.


Your position would seem to be that I could not meaningfully evaluate nor recall a live performance so as to use it as a reference tool. But did I?

Yes, I did, and with a 20 year gap.

This is pure nonsense. Nobody on this planet has a echoic memory that last 20 years. Our echoic memory(acoustical memory) at best is only 3-4 seconds. This is why DBT are switched so quickly, because we can only remember a passage or an acoustical signature for a very short time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Echoic_memory


Halfway through the first half of Mr. Segovia's performance, I turned to my wife and said: "This is NOT what I remember from Cincinnati."

Halfway through the second half of Mr. Segovia's performance, I turned to my wife and said: "This IS what I remember from Cincinnati."

So what happened? Do you have any idea?

Yes I do. The humidity affected the resonances of the sounding board, and can change the tuning of the strings. So it probably sounded like the song was in a different key, non resonant, or brighter or darker than usual depending on how the sounding board and frets are responding to the humidity. I hear this all the time from our guitar and bass players during a humid day or nights at my church.


Here is the explanation that appeared the next day in the Hartford Courant:

During the first half of Mr. Segovia's concert, he was playing his brand new $100,000 Spanish guitar, and that guitar was apparently not responding so well to the humidity in Hartford.

During the second half of Mr. Segovia's concert, he was playing his "old" guitar, the same one he had used in Cincinnati.

I think your explanation is pure nonsense. First nobody has the ability to filter out the complex reflections of a hall so they can hear the unique sound signature of one guitar from another if both are tuned identically. You will hear a difference if one is out of tune, and the other is not.


Using live music as a reference will trump trusting one's personal tastes every time.

How would this apply to a person who listens to pop music, or studio recordings? How many people have heard live music minus the acoustic of the venue? What if the person does not listen to classical or jazz? How would live music help them? What if the person reference to live music comes from a place with poor acoustics? While live music can be one of many references, it cannot be the only one without addressing all of the variables that come with that reference. A lot of folks here do not listen to classical or jazz, and their only reference to live music came via the PA system at the venue. Do we just dismiss their reference?

The bottom line here is our systems are put together based on our own taste of music. Ralph likes small ensemble classical works, and his speaker are very good at reproducing it I am sure. I like a very wide variety of music, everything from classical, jazz, and gospel, to hard rock and rhythm and blues. That goes for movies soundtracks as well, and the system in my signature is very good at doing all of these musical genres well. Why would any jazz lover put together a system that does not sound good when a jazz recording is playing? Why would an analog lover build a system around a good CD players? Why would a high resolution digital guy like myself build a system around a turntable? We/they wouldn't, they would build a system that sound good with the genre of music they like.

Live music is one reference point, but our own personal taste in music cannot be dismissed.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

My objections to ss and digital lies in their inability to reproduce accurately TAS. Digital is simply a flawed concept. Music is analogue. The original analogue signal must be converted into digital bits, and then, those bits are manipulated in billions of ways. Of course, because humans only hear analogue, those manipulated bits must be converted yet again, this time from dsigital back to analogue. What a waste of time! Several digital recording representatives at the 2111 CAS agreed with me that we should have stuck with reel-to-reel analogue tape if we wanted to accurately preserve TAS.

By this post, you have shown me you have no clue about how digital audio works. Now I completely understand why you don't like it, you don't understand it.

[Mash]

Music may be analog but those nerve impulses sent to your brain by those hair cells in your inner ear are not....

Anyway I have experience in acoustics/noise & aerodynamics and these sister disiplines are modeled similarly these days with FEA. A boundry can be essentially rigid and (usually) 100% reflective or non-rigid and maybe 100% absorbtive, or something in between. The boundaries (walls) of concert halls are (intentionally) in between.

I have walked from the back wall of a balcony to the frontmost seats of that balcony and the perceived change in the sound of the performers is appreciable: from sounding confused with dulled highs at the back to a very clear and lucid sound at the front of the balcony. I have found the front & near-center balcony seats to be most satisfying.

This personal taste as a measurement criteria to determine accuracy leaves me cold: some of us will prefer blue and some of us will prefer red but most of us use the same references to actually define "blue" and "red".

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Lord have mercy...we don't have enough interpreters around, and somebody is having a real spiritual moment here.

[atomicAdam]

my dogma just ran over their karma

[Mash]

gee whiz, Terry. You certainly have the ability to complicate something to the degree that no solution can be found with any confidence or efficiency. You drag in endless conflicting details..,.. Why don't you simply perform a full factorial design every time?

This is NOT life or death, dude. For years I cut to the chase by seperating the chaff from the wheat.... and I have the patents to prove it. And yes, one can remember sounds for a very long time... but maybe you can't. So sorry.

[E-Stat]

The bottom line here is our systems are put together based on our own taste of music. Ralph likes small ensemble classical works, and his speaker are very good at reproducing it I am sure.
Actually, you must be confusing me with Feanor. Classical comprises only about 10% of my listening mix and I prefer larger symphonic works (Copland, Saint Saens, Holst, Strauss, etc.) including movie soundtracks. Saw the latest Harry Potter flick last night and plan to get that music.


I like a very wide variety of music, everything from classical, jazz, and gospel, to hard rock and rhythm and blues.
Ditto,except for gospel. My most recent CDs were a couple of Rihanna's. The texture of the bass synth on Hard is very nice - something you never hear live or at discos. What I value most is transparency regardless of what genre I'm listening to and at lower levels (85-95 db). I've found that better systems fool my sense of "liveness" without having to play at ear bleeding levels. If you want to go dancing, however, then you really want more because the focus is not listening. Business recently took me to Orlando where the company took us to The Blue Martini after dinner for some fun. There were about twenty of us in a VIP section and had a great time. Consumption of adult beverages is usually in the mix in these situations. :)


Live music is one reference point, but our own personal taste in music cannot be dismissed.
True. Which is why most folks are content with low quality sound reinforcement sound. It is very easy to replicate the resolution of the gear used at "live" amplified events for those venues.

rw

[Feanor]

I think recorded music is like photography. A reminder of the original event. I attend and enjoy classical concerts. Then I go home and listen to that same music in my smaller listening space. I enjoy looking at my pictures of Paris but they are not like walking the streets of Paris. They are a very nice reminder.
You raise an interesting point, JM. When I think about, I realize that at least 98% of the music I listen to, I have never heard in live performance.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

gee whiz, Terry. You certainly have the ability to complicate something to the degree that no solution can be found with any confidence or efficiency. You drag in endless conflicting details..,.. Why don't you simply perform a full factorial design every time?

So we understand each other completely, my name is not Terry...are we clear?

Moving on, this is a complicated and complex issue. Now for those folks who like to gloss over detail, you are welcome to simplify it so you can get your head around it. But one must understand they do not have the complete picture when they do that.


This is NOT life or death, dude. For years I cut to the chase by seperating the chaff from the wheat.... and I have the patents to prove it. And yes, one can remember sounds for a very long time... but maybe you can't. So sorry.

So even when given a link that disproves the notion of a 20 year echoic memory, you still want to maintain that claim? You are killing me with your second hand smoke. Nobody can aurally or visually remember anything they saw or heard 20 years ago....IT IS IMPOSSIBLE. Making claims like this in the face of facts does not lend much credibility does it?

Since you can cut to the chase by separating the wheat from the chaff, apply it here as well.

Echoic memory is one of the sensory memory registers; a component of short term memory (STM) that is specific to retaining auditory information. This particular sensory store is capable of storing large amounts of auditory information that is only retained for a short period of time (3-4 seconds). This echoic sound resonates in the mind and is replayed for this brief amount of time shortly after the presentation of auditory stimuli.

modern neuropsychological techniques have enabled the development of estimations of the capacity, duration, and location of the echoic memory store. Using Sperling's model as an analogue, researchers continue to apply his work to the auditory sensory store using partial and whole report experiments. They found that the echoic store has a duration of up to 4 seconds,[2] and in the absence of interference has been shown to last up to 20 seconds

Now if 20 seconds is now 20 years, then I will live to be over a thousand years old!

[tube fan]

Right on! Live music can should harsh, (or strident), depending on the music, the performance, the instruments, the venue, and you seat in the venue. For everything to always sound sweet and smooth is not realism.

Beyond that there is the matter of the recording. Personally if the recording is not well made and sounds harsh on that account, I still what to hear the recording the way it was made. Why? Because if you try to make a poor recording sound good, you'll make a good recording sound bad.

Yes, I agree that often live music produces clear and penetrating sounds, i.e., a trumpet. The Audio Note Es failure to EVER produce a penetrating trumpet sound (compared to speakers with ribbon or electrostatic treble units) is one reason I prefer other speakers. My objection to the the sound in the MBL room was that ALL treble sounded "clear" and penetrating, even when a more burnished tone was called for. A very fatiguing sound. Yes, IMO. Of course, I also hate 1,000 watt ss amps and digital sources. Perhaps tubes and analogue could help the MBLs sound mellow when the recording calls for mellow sound. I suspect that very few tube amps have enough power for the MBLs.

[tube fan]

Tube Fan, I have told you this before. Your criteria for evaluating good sound(comparison to live sound) is too narrow. When I am purchasing equipment for my enjoyment, the equipment has to have sonic qualities that appeal to me, not to somebody else's perspective of what good sound is. If I listen to a lot of jazz, then I want speakers that sound good with jazz music, not something that sounds good with classical music. Music enjoyment(and good sound) is in the ear of the beholder, not some subjective standard somebody else has thought up. Enjoying music is all about personal preference.

Good example. I think both of us like good sounding equipment, but you like tubes, and I like solid state. You like cones and domes, and I like well designed horn's. You like analog, and I like digital. You like euphoria, and I like accuracy. You like two channel, I like multichannel. With these differences, we both still like a good sounding system. Our desires are the same, but our way of achieving it is quite different. This is how personal preference guides our choices of good sound.

You cannot "suck the air out of the room" by promoting your way as the only way to achieve good sound. There is more than one way to get around Oakland than the 580 freeway.

This hobby is all about personal preference, and there is room at the "good sound" table for everyone's preferences.

I, of course, prefer true accuracy which includes tonal density and three dimensional sound (not the same as depth). I LOVE horns! Just love the best ones. I also have heard great high res digital sound (objection: very little software to date). I also have always VASTLY preferred multichannel sound. Here both the hardware and software is limited.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I, of course, prefer true accuracy which includes tonal density and three dimensional sound (not the same as depth). I LOVE horns! Just love the best ones. I also have heard great high res digital sound (objection: very little software to date). I also have always VASTLY preferred multichannel sound. Here both the hardware and software is limited.

I have over 300 high resolution multichannel and stereo recordings that I have collected since Bluray came out, and they sound great on the Oppo BDP-95

You can also go to HD tracks for high resolution music downloads.

SACD and DVD-A titles are still out there.

There are quality universal players there, so there is no shortage of high resolution multichannel music out there, and players to play them on. You just have to look, that is all.

[Ajani]

My objection to the the sound in the MBL room was that ALL treble sounded "clear" and penetrating, even when a more burnished tone was called for. A very fatiguing sound.

Now that makes sense to me... Anything that either smooths everything out or makes everything sound too clear/harsh can not be accurate... An accurate system should be able to change from smooth to ear bleeding, depending on the quality of the music and the recording...

[frenchmon]

Since you asked:

(1) I hated the sound in the MBL room: mate a 1,000 watt ss amp to a digital source, to a bright speaker, and you got sound that caused me to flee the room as fast as I could! "Audiophiles" who never attend live acoustic musical events, may well LOVE this kind of bright, etched sound. Lot's of sizzle, but no tonal beauty whatsoever.

(2) The Audio Note speakers were limited, because they only had a digital source, though the best one I have ever heard. The sound was OK, but not great.

(3) The Magico Q3s sounded horrible on digital: flat, two-dimensional, with little dynamics or tonal beauty. When playing vinyl, the Q3s came to life: detailed, dynamic, with great timbre and density. On my Coltrane/Hartman vinyl, the system captured both Hartman's deep, smoky vocals and the liquid beauty of Coltrane's sax (an extremely sexy combination), On my Ray Charles/Betty Carter record, you could feel the heat between these two greats singing "baby it's cold outside". People even applauded at the end of the song! A cut from Sinatra's "Only the Lonely" brought me to tears! Later, I was in the men's room when the Magico representative came in. I asked him how he was holding up (this on the second day), and he replied, "great". He then volunteered that people stayed in the room longer when he was playing vinyl. DUH! An expensive, but great system, with the latest Audio Research tube equipment, including the D250 amp with the new KT 120 tubes.

(4) I didn't like the sound of the big, expensive Wilson speakers in a huge room. The sound was stunningly flat, lifeless, even on the the fantastic Eric Dolphy "out to Lunch" record. Much better was the sound in the smaller Wilson room, this with the Sophia III speaker. Here Chet Baker's trumpet was appropriately dynamic, but, still lyrical; Pepper Adams' baritone sax was full and dynamic; and yes, Ray and Betty sounded sexy.

(5) The High Violoncello II speakers (at a cool $80,000), sounded stupendous on most of my records. On the Chet record, Pepper Adam's baritone sax was as rich and explosive as I have ever heard it. The "Yulunga" track from Dead Can Dance's "Into the Labyrinth" was plain scary! Not quite as good on vocals.

(6) Not as dynamic, but also exciting in other ways, was Audio Vision's room with the Nola speakers. Ray and Betty sounded as hot as they did via the Magico Q3. Stan Getz sounded like he was trying to seduce Astred Gilberto on "The Girl From Ipanema" (successively, my wife tells me). the system was lively, clear, dynamic, but never harsh. And this was using inexpensive Naim aa equipment. Via tubes, I might have well fallen in love with these speakers.

(7) One of my favorite rooms was the one with the Usher Mini II speakers ($5,700!), VPI Scout tt, and Wells phono and amp. Here they played the stupendous Hugh Masekela "Coal Train" track at full, live SPLs! The SPL HAD to be WAY over 105 dB! With NO distortion! Chet Baker and Pepper Adams were almost as dynamic as they were via the $80,000 Acapella speakers. Oliver Nelson's classic "Stolen Moments" with Eric Dolphy on alto and flute, Freddie Hubbard on trumpet, George Barrow on baritone, and Bill Evans on piano was just gorgeous. Each great has an extended solo, but it all comes together in a meltingly beautiful finish. I loved that the room's representative (Wells?) played many non-audiophile vinyl, including Hendrik and the Doors. Let her rip!!! Not only do these Usher speakers sound accurate and dynamic, but they also look beautiful.

(8) Another room I loved was the one with a $15,000 Vivid speaker and Luxman integrated amp with phono (only $6,000!). This little speaker looked like something from outer space (good IMO). Everything, from Ray and Betty to Coltrane and Hartman to Grant Green sounded soulful, organic and palpable. The music just appeared in the room. Perhaps not for rockers, but one of the best on classical and jazz (90 % of my listening).

(9) Last, but certainly not least, was the totally unexpected sound in the deHavilland room with the 97 dB Sonist speaker ($5,895!), a Glow 5 wpc amp with volume control ($648 !!!) the Kara Chaffee Model 222 tube magnetic playback preamp, and an Ampex 351 tape deck. And, yes, with some unbelievably realistic reel-to-reel tapes, most just bought on ebay. Sinatra and Ellington ("Francis A and Edward K") brought me to tears! The sound on each and every tape was detailed, harmonically rich, with swelling, organic dynamics. Yes, I love my vinyl, and prefer it to digital, but Kara's tapes put my vinyl to shame. IMO, we are going backward in quality: from reel-to-reel, to vinyl, to digital. BTW, Mario of Audio Note, told me to listen to the Kara system. Mario later told me that he got Kara to play his tapes via the Audio Note speakers at one audio show. I'd pay to hear that!

Hey tube fan....I was more interested in the music you where playing rather than the gear....sounds like you had your own?

[frenchmon]

Hey Adam...you guys take any pictures??? If so post some please.

[tube fan]

Hey tube fan....I was more interested in the music you where playing rather than the gear....sounds like you had your own?

As for pictures, Stephen Mejias has posted some wonderful ones of the show at Stereophile's web site. Unfortunately, most of his comments are solely positive; I don't get the feeling that we are getting his honest feelings, especially negative ones.

Here are the records I took to evaluate the systems:

(1) "John Coltrane and Johnny Hartman". All the cuts are great, but my favorites are "They Say It's Wonderful" and "My One and Only Love". Coltrane is at his lyrical best, and his mellow, liquid sound is a perfect match for Hartman's smoky, soulful singing.

(2) "Chet". "Analogue Productions" version. Again, all the tracks are fantastic, but the first, "Alone Together" is a true test of a system's micro and macro dynamics. Pepper Adams moves across the stage on one solo, and his playing goes from a wisper to fullout power on this track. The Acapella horns and the Usher both captured the dynamics of Pepper and the penetrating beauty of Chet Baker's trumpet. Both speaker systems have great tweeters and this track will reveal any shortcomings in the high frequencies. BTW, on the first day, the Acapella speakers were reversed; Chet was playing from the right instead of the left speaker. No big deal. When I returned on the second day, the Acapella representative was very dissapointed when he learned that I failed to bring the "Chet" record (yes, the sound via his $80,000 speakers put the whole group right there in the room!). The rest of the musicians on "Chet": Herbie Mann on flute, Bill Evans on piano, Kenny Burrell on guitar, Paul Chambers on bass, Connie Kay or Philly Joe Jones on drums. Not too shabby!

(3) "The Blues and the Abstract Truth". Another fantastic group: Oliver Nelson, alto and tenor sax; Eric Dolphy, alto sax and flute; Freddie Hubbard, trumpet, George Barrow, baritone sax; Bill Evans, piano; Paul chambers bass; and Roy Haynes drums.
The Acapella representative had to "settle" for this record, instead of "Chet". Of course, here the first cut, "Stolen Moments" is THE cut. Lots of these greats give a solo, and then come together in the meltingly beautiful finish.

(4) "Getz/Gilberto". The classic summer hit of decades ago is still fresh today. My favorite track here is "O Grande Amor" for Getz's solo, liquid and lyrical, both with swelling dynamics and beauty. Only the Acapella and Usher systems fully captured the dynamics of Getz's solo.

(5) "hope" The stupenous Hugh Masekela's record (again, the "Analogue Productions" 45 version). The side 4 cut: "Stimela (The Coal Train)" has everything from Masekela's emotional singing and trumpet to simply unlimited dynamics. Played at live levels, the sound is scary and shocking! That is if the system can reprocuce such dynamic swings. Only the Usher came close to the Acapella in unlimited dynamics.

(6) "Songs For Distingue Lovers". Billy Holiday, backed by an all star cast. About half of the systems I played this on captured Billy's emotional voice.

(7) "folk singer", with two of the great blues players, Muddy Waters on vocals and guitar and Buddy Guy on guitar. The first cut, "My Home Is on the Delta" has some impressive Chicago style blues singing as well as great interplay between Muddy and Buddy. Plus some deep notes on guitar by Muddy to test a system's slam (or lack of).

(8) "Ray Charles and Betty Carter". On the "Baby, It's Cold Outside" you can feel the sexual tension between these two (on a great system). On this record, I felt that the Vivid system did the best job. The room was using a Luxman integrated tube amp, and the sound had impressive timbre.

(9) "Into the Labyrinth" Dead Can Dance. The first cut," Yulunga", has some dynamics that come close to those on "The Coal Train". The music is unusual, but I love it. The whole first side is a test for any audio system.

[atomicAdam]

Nope - no photos for me - no camera.

Dagogo.com should have a bunch of photos if you want to swing over there and check it out.

-adam

[tube fan]

Jonathan Valid had almost the exact same response to the Magico Q3s that I had: "When Yair Tammam, co-designer of Magico speakers, asked me what difference I thought the 'table made in the Q3s presentation, which I 'd found a touch too warm at CES, I said: 'outside of the 100% improvement in neutrality and realism, not much.' To which he replied: You're 100% right." At the 2011 CAS, via digital (high-res), the Magico Q3s sounded just average to me. Using the tube AR phono, the sound came alive with correct timbre and dynamics.

[atomicAdam]

Jonathan Valid had almost the exact same response to the Magico Q3s that I had: "When Yair Tammam, co-designer of Magico speakers, asked me what difference I thought the 'table made in the Q3s presentation, which I 'd found a touch too warm at CES, I said: 'outside of the 100% improvement in neutrality and realism, not much.' To which he replied: You're 100% right." At the 2011 CAS, via digital (high-res), the Magico Q3s sounded just average to me. Using the tube AR phono, the sound came alive with correct timbre and dynamics.

I agree - when I heard the Q3 from the Berkeley digital music server I was unimpressed - from the TT was a whole other story.