"The Truth in Audio" -- according to www.commonsenseaudio.com

[kexodusc]

Hmm, I'm with Woodman on this one...

I've spent more than a few days demoing various tube amps hoping to find one that will just blow me away. Aside from all the impossible to prove rhetoric, I haven't heard any Tube amp that had an ability to make a recording sound like "live music" as opposed to just a recording of such. Same with SS, to be honest.
I meet alot of audiophile types who have some sort of emotional, nostalgic attachment to Tubes, and then others who are dead set against them. Myself, I demand proof, first hand, with my ears to believe that Tube amps are superior to Solid State amps of equal price. I haven't heard it yet, though, many sound AS GOOD to me, some sound great, but nothing better.

I laugh at people who suggest otherwise, then fail challenges using their own equipment to validate these claims.

I am a musician, I play alot of live venues...The sweetest amp I've ever heard playing through VR-1's sounded like utter hi-fi compared to being at a live show. I have personally challenged many people to invite me to listen to their systems so I could hear this phenomenon of transforming playback to the real thing. Most back down, the few that don't admit later that no system can ever be as good as a live venue, no matter how exotic the gear. At present time, nothing even comes close.

I passionately loath the term "musical" as a descriptor, to me this means "I hear something you don't, whether real or imaginary". And I laugh at the suggestions that hi-fi gear of any design (as of this date in history) can match the sound of a live performance.
What is "musical"...at what point does something become (or not become) musical, what value of resistor, what size of capacitor is responsible for this phenomenon.
Why does one audiophile passionately insist his Krell is more "musical" than his friends "McIntosh", and vice-versa?
Thoughts?

[markw]

I see it as meaning that the system "manipulates" the sound in such a way that the listener finds it pleasing.

Likewise the term "transparant". .... as opposed to what standards?

Actually, it would seem that the terms "musical" and "transparant" are at odds with each other.

I guess this is analagous to flowers vs. weeds. A weed is anything that grows where you don't want it to. So, in essense, if you are cultivating dandelions or chickory, a rose would be considered a weed in that garden.

[musicoverall]

no system can ever be as good as a live venue, no matter how exotic the gear. At present time, nothing even comes close.

I can't imagine anyone arguing otherwise. No gear comes close to the live experience. However, in my experience, tubed gear comes closer than solid state.

As for "musical" vs "transparent", I think a better term for the former would be "forgiving". A transparent component would pass the recorded signal unadulterated while a forgiving one would add something to the signal to make it more listenable. In this sense, I think markw's approach is agreeable.

It's hard for me to think of ANY component as perfectly transparent since many of them sound so different from one another. I prefer to think of components as more or less transparent rather than totally transparent. On the other hand, it's hard to guage since I wasn't in the recording studio when the recording was made. So even though I know that a stereo system isn't very close to live, I still use live music as my barometer. The closer a component comes to making me partially believe I'm hearing live music, the more transparent the component. I realize this isn't a very scientific method but it has allowed me to assemble a system that knocks down room boundaries and often makes me believe, even if just for an instant, that I'm at a live venue.

[markw]

On the other hand, it's hard to guage since I wasn't in the recording studio when the recording was made.

bingo. Likewise, we are at the mercy of the remix engineer who has ultimate control over all matters audio. Relative contribution of each insturment in the overall mix, insturment placement, echo/reverb and equalization.

Ultimatly, what we hear on our home system is NOT a real time/real music situation. It's a totally manufactured event.

When anyone states absolutes such as more musical, more transparant, proper soundstaging, etc, etc... I tend to shake my head. The crux of the matter is simply that only the engineer knows for sure what he intended. Anything else that pops up on out home system is simply the manifestation of various distortions, smearings driver/room interactions et. al. that may or may not be pleasing to us.

Yes, it may come close to making us think it's a "real live" performance but that's simply the skill of the engineers at work creating that illusion, not the transparancy or musicality of the system.

[musicoverall]

Yes, it may come close to making us think it's a "real live" performance but that's simply the skill of the engineers at work creating that illusion, not the transparancy or musicality of the system.

I totally agreed with you up until the above statement. The problem with it is that when my system was SS, some of the engineers skill was missing. And some different solid state systems do a better job than others, as do some tube systems over others.

I think most of what makes a recording sound "live" is the engineer, no doubt. But the final tweak is the system. It enforces the illusion created by the recording. That's not to say that I don't enjoy music on other systems. To be honest, I sometimes wonder if I don't "really" enjoy my second system more than my main rig! But the truth is I enjoy them both at different times and during different moods.

[markw]

The problem with it is that when my system was SS, some of the engineers skill was missing.

I think I can pretty well state with confidence that the original recording was done with solid state equipment. At least those done within the last 30 years or so.

So, if he judged his work by using solid state equipment, how would ss prevent it from getting through to you?

Actually, here we get back to that "musicality" vs. "transparancy" bit. "Musicality" refers to a preference, which is not a bad thing. "Transparancy" refers to an absolute, which can be a tricky thing to back up.

To say that one (ss or tubes) more accurately conveys the engineers intent, you are making a claim for transparancy, or hearing through the recording/reproduction chain to the original event.

When you state that the "engineer's skill was missing", you are alluding that you have inner knowledge as to the absolute truth as to what he/she intended. And, as mentioned before, unless you were in the studio when the recordingwas made, that's an impossibility. Even then, ones memory could be called into question.

So, while you may feel free to say you "prefer" the sound of tubes, you have no reason to say that the sound what they deliver is neither more or less "correct" than the sound of ss.

But, ultimately, I'd say that we both can agree that the engineer's intent is for as many people as possible to enjoy their work. If you feel tubes helps you attain that goal, then enjoy.

[musicoverall]

Well, here's something I can state as an absolute fact: I don't always convey by words what I truly mean to say!

When I say that the engineer's skill was "missing" I am speculating, of course. On the other hand, I find it hard to believe what he was trying to convey was a hard sound, a loss of transient speed and smoothness and a sense of audio reproduction rather than the sound of real musical instruments. I could, of course, be wrong.

The first thing I did with my stereo system(s) is maximize the room acoustics, to the best of my ability. The tubes came just before the cable upgrade i.e second to last additon. Still, I don't have the same gear, room, etc that the recording engineer had. But I agree that all of us should use whatever brings us closer to the music - whatever makes it more of a personally enjoyable experience.

[E-Stat]

bingo. Likewise, we are at the mercy of the remix engineer who has ultimate control over all matters audio. Relative contribution of each insturment in the overall mix, insturment placement, echo/reverb and equalization.

I agree with you completely when you limit the discussion to multitracked studio recordings.

rw

[Geoffcin]

Hmm, I'm with Woodman on this one...

I've spent more than a few days demoing various tube amps hoping to find one that will just blow me away. Aside from all the impossible to prove rhetoric, I haven't heard any Tube amp that had an ability to make a recording sound like "live music" as opposed to just a recording of such. Same with SS, to be honest.
I meet alot of audiophile types who have some sort of emotional, nostalgic attachment to Tubes, and then others who are dead set against them. Myself, I demand proof, first hand, with my ears to believe that Tube amps are superior to Solid State amps of equal price. I haven't heard it yet, though, many sound AS GOOD to me, some sound great, but nothing better.

I laugh at people who suggest otherwise, then fail challenges using their own equipment to validate these claims.

I am a musician, I play alot of live venues...The sweetest amp I've ever heard playing through VR-1's sounded like utter hi-fi compared to being at a live show. I have personally challenged many people to invite me to listen to their systems so I could hear this phenomenon of transforming playback to the real thing. Most back down, the few that don't admit later that no system can ever be as good as a live venue, no matter how exotic the gear. At present time, nothing even comes close.


Thoughts?

While not a pro musician myself, I've been around music, and musicians all my life. Usually when 2 or more of my friends gather, at least one of them is a pro, or used to be. MOST guitar players that I know absolutely swear by tube amps. I never understood it totally myself, but being that it's their lively hood, and they devote much of their time to playing, I never questioned it. For home use I reserve opinion on them, as most people who know me know that I'm a "Big SS Iron" man. Even with that being said, I did settle on an SS amp, the PS Audio HCA 2, that is renown for it's "tube like" properties, whatever that might be. I also auditioned the sublime Musical Fidelity Tri Vista when I bought the MF A3cr, and while I didn't think it was worth the extra $$$, it had a quality that is a bit incomprehensible....a sweetness if you will, that A3cr didn't bring to the table. Hey, for $4k more you better get something right!

Even though I have SS amps exclusively, I try to keep an open mind. I'm not saying tubes or SS is better in quality, although just from an ergonomic point of view SS wins hands down.

[kexodusc]

Interesting diversion, Geoffcin, and you've mad a hippocrite of me. I swear by Marshall tube amps and the likes when I play, but tubes in guitar amps are intended to add a thick tone to the sound. That should be captured in the recording...adding tones again would be altering the source.

However, I'll be the first to admit, if there's one group that relies more on rhetoric and provides absolutely NO substantial proof, it's guitar players, and I'm one of them. I doubt I could pick between an inexpensive ss Peavey and a tube amp in a DBT, but if my guitar heroes used it, I'll buy it without question.

Flipping this around, I never said SS amps sound better either as a rule. I just haven't heard anything from a tube amp that sounds outright better.

I think for a given budget, I'd feel comfortable saying I could build a better stereo system with a less costly SS amp while diverting the rest of the money to speakers and source, than taking money away from these and allocating it to tubes. Just my opinion though.

[Geoffcin]

Interesting diversion, Geoffcin, and you've mad a hippocrite of me. I swear by Marshall tube amps and the likes when I play, but tubes in guitar amps are intended to add a thick tone to the sound. That should be captured in the recording...adding tones again would be altering the source.

However, I'll be the first to admit, if there's one group that relies more on rhetoric and provides absolutely NO substantial proof, it's guitar players, and I'm one of them. I doubt I could pick between an inexpensive ss Peavey and a tube amp in a DBT, but if my guitar heroes used it, I'll buy it without question.

Flipping this around, I never said SS amps sound better either as a rule. I just haven't heard anything from a tube amp that sounds outright better.

I think for a given budget, I'd feel comfortable saying I could build a better stereo system with a less costly SS amp while diverting the rest of the money to speakers and source, than taking money away from these and allocating it to tubes. Just my opinion though.

I've got a cheap Peavy, and although it's good, it's not a Marshall Valve by a long shot. The kid wanted a Bass for christmas so we've got a Peavey with a MicroBass amp.
Here's a pic of the kids Guitars so far;

[theaudiohobby]

I am a musician, I play alot of live venues...The sweetest amp I've ever heard playing through VR-1's sounded like utter hi-fi compared to being at a live show. I have personally challenged many people to invite me to listen to their systems so I could hear this phenomenon of transforming playback to the real thing. Most back down, the few that don't admit later that no system can ever be as good as a live venue, no matter how exotic the gear. At present time, nothing even comes close.

Thoughts?

I like the turn that this thread has taken, the live vs. recorded event is always an interesting one. I gathered that when B&O was testing their new acoustic lens speakers and placed a live band behind acoustically transparent blinds, the listening panel could not reliably distinguish between the recorded sound and the live band .

I think the reason why folks think that nothing comes close to live is because they can see the band or at least know it is there , an audio recording will never come close to a live performance because it is audio and has no visuals and we know that , take away the visuals and many folks will be at loss to differentiate between the recording and live sound under optimal conditions.

[kexodusc]

I think the relatively larger size of the live venue has a huge roll to play in it too, and I've never heard any speakers that sound like the real thing just by cranking them up in a large room.

I also think that nobody does justice to human vocals like mother nature does herself. And, as much as we all hype and bash equipment, I think modern recording technology still has a long way to go...

[theaudiohobby]

Yep, I think it will be pretty difficult to recreate a live stadium event , but recreating jazz club performances and smaller indoor classical ensembles are not nearly as difficult to recreate as many folks imagine, some of acoustic issues that speakers face are also encountered in live performances unwanted reflections, bass boom etc and the make for a less than satisfying experience at times. Truth be told, there are times that a recorded event can sound better than a live event because these issues can be addressed in a recorded event.

[woodman]

Hmm, I'm with Woodman on this one...

..... I haven't heard any Tube amp that had an ability to make a recording sound like "live music" as opposed to just a recording of such. Same with SS, to be honest.

I am a musician, I play alot of live venues...The sweetest amp I've ever heard playing through VR-1's sounded like utter hi-fi compared to being at a live show. I have personally challenged many people to invite me to listen to their systems so I could hear this phenomenon of transforming playback to the real thing. Most back down, the few that don't admit later that no system can ever be as good as a live venue, no matter how exotic the gear. At present time, nothing even comes close.

Thoughts?

Thoughts? Yeah Ken, here are some of my thoughts:

No, you're not "with me" at all. Not until you come to accept the basic truth that auditory perceptions are created by each listener as a direct result of his/her personal ABEs. They function totally independently and with no regard whatever for any scientific facts or "truth"!

I'm also a musician who's played lots and lots and lots of "live venues". In my experience, those venues were more often than not, every bit as problematical (acoustically) as any listening room at home. I can't help but wonder if you're not factoring in the "excitement factor" of a live performance (which is undeniable) into your evaluation of the sonics of the performance venue? My personal preference in music listening is for the reproduction of it rather than the live performance (with rare exceptions).

Finally, your statement that ..... "At present time, nothing even comes close." throws you solidly into the negativity camp of those that I call CONEs - a position that does a disservice to those that fall victim to it, IMO. It strikes me as more than a bit curious and bizarre why anyone would choose to go through their life looking intently for everything that's "not good enough" when the opposite attitude is available to put smiles on your face to replace the frowns. Besides the psychological aspects of it, the statement itself is also patently wrong!. The simple fact of the matter is, that the technologies of sound reproduction today have matured and progressed in a remarkable fashion to the point where they are within an eyelash or two of "perfection". Perhaps it's because I've been intimately involved with audio for nearly 70 years(!) that I'm much more aware of the progress that's been made than most others seem to be.

[musicoverall]

The simple fact of the matter is, that the technologies of sound reproduction today have matured and progressed in a remarkable fashion to the point where they are within an eyelash or two of "perfection". Perhaps it's because I've been intimately involved with audio for nearly 70 years(!) that I'm much more aware of the progress that's been made than most others seem to be.

It must indeed by those 70 years... or something! That close to perfection? To date, you are the one and only person I've encountered, either in person, via the media or via the internet, that has made such a claim. This includes objective as well as subjective listeners, musicians and scientists, anyone! However, none of them have 70 years of experience, either.

Which audio components are within that eyelash of perfection? All of them? If only some of them, which some? Can you be specific, please? Please include examples of perfect speakers as well. I've been searching for just such a component for a long time and I'm very interested in putting upgrades behind me for good. Thanks in advance.

[markw]

... one of the local audio houses was hosting a demo by Tandberg to show off their TCD 310 cassetter deck. they had a chamber orchestra on stage, along with some speakers. They playrd some music and it was etheral. Small venue, close seating, virtually perfect acoustics, the whole yard.

They played a little , they stopped, the guy talked. This went of for a while but there was more than enough music to keep us happy and interested. Nobody wanted to leave.

At one point they were playing, we were into the music and they abruptly put their insturments down BUT... (now here's the punchline) the music kept playing, just as beautifully as it had been all night long. We ALL gasped in astonishment.

So, here we are talking a quarter of a century ago, using a cassette deck, production speakers (I think AR) and electronics and a roomfull of pretty savvy audiophiles.

They had arrived earlier in the week and, in that very room, tweaked the acoustics and set up a recording studio. They recorded, very carefully, the playlist and when we arrived, simply "spliced" in pieces of the recording with the live performance.

Not bad for so long ago, eh?

[E-Stat]

Not bad for so long ago, eh?

Similar to the AR stories from the sixties using AR-3s with a small quartet.

http://history.acusd.edu/gen/recordi...ges3/92351.jpg

Somehow I think I could tell the difference between a pair of 3s and a symphony orchestra. How 'bout you?

rw

[markw]

Somehow I think I could tell the difference between a pair of 3s and a symphony orchestra. How 'bout you?

One lonely pair of AR3's? Sure. But, if you add enough speakers and power to effectively to move enough air as the symphony orchestra does, then it might be another matter entirely. Remember, it didn't take a lot of speakers to easily handle the output of the chamber orchestra.

Oh, FWIW, the amps were solid state if I remember correctly.

[Mash]

markw
One lonely pair of AR3's CAN easily handle the output of small groups- say three to six, or so, players. This is why AR and others have pulled this bit of theatrics with small groups and not symphony orchestras.........

The AR dog-&-pony shows might have been mid 1960's, and it is cute that Tandberg pulled the same trick.... who did it first?

Fooling the audience by having the musicians go through the motions of playing their instruments while the audio equipment actually provides the sound simply proves that your eyes will dominate your ears, and that sighted listening tests are therefore bogus. Then too, I think Woodman made some comments about "the excitement of a live performance" which may also apply to these venues.

[musicoverall]

... one of the local audio houses was hosting a demo by Tandberg to show off their TCD 310 cassetter deck. they had a chamber orchestra on stage, along with some speakers. They playrd some music and it was etherl. Small venue, close seating, virtually perfect acoustics, the whole yard.

They played a little , they stopped, the guy talked. Thiswent of for a while but there was more than enough music to keep us happy and interested. Nobody wanted to leave.

At one point they were playing, we were into the music and they abtuptly put their insturmants down BUT... (now here's the punchline) the music kept playing, just as beautifully as it had been all night long. We ALL gasped in astonishment.

So, here we are talking a quarter of a century ago, using a cassette deck, production speakers (I think AR) and electronics and a roomfull of pretty savvy audiophiles.

They had arrived earlier in the week and, in that very room, tweaked the acoustics and set up a recording studio. They recorded, very carefully, the playlist and when we arrived, simply "spliced" in pieces of the recording with the live performance.

Not bad for so long ago, eh?

Hmmm... so much for the wow and flutter, noise, and other horrible characteristics of analog! Good thing we "upgraded" to digital - now we won't make those mistakes!

Chamber music would be, I think, easier to replicate than an orchestra or a jazz ensemble. Fairly limited FR. Still, it's an interesting testament. Now if we could only get that today! Didn't Woodman say that audio had progressed and evolved? It appears we've gone backward.

[markw]

Hmmm... so much for the wow and flutter, noise, and other horrible characteristics of analog! Good thing we "upgraded" to digital - now we won't make those mistakes!

Problem is my ears are still analog and I don't relish the thought of an upgrade here.

Chamber music would be, I think, easier to replicate than an orchestra or a jazz ensemble. Fairly limited FR. Still, it's an interesting testament. Now if we could only get that today! Didn't Woodman say that audio had progressed and evolved? It appears we've gone backward.

It's just that you need to use enough of the correct technology to do it. As this "dog and pony" show proved, a pair of speakers with a well recorded piece of music sufficed. And, a cello can go lower than you think when you're up close. As I stated to E-Stat, you don't think they could have accomplished the same task with a larger group given more speakers and power?

FWIW, the last time I was at the Irridium I noticed that everything was amped and that's not really a large venue. But, please note, that in ALL venues, the sound you hear is greatly determined by where you are sitting. We could be at the same event and seated a few feet from each other and each have a different "interpertation" of the sound.

We go to a lot of events here in NJ*, mostly in redone movie theatres (State Theater, Count Basie Theatre, Community Theater, Union County Arts Center), many churches and even some state of the art venues (NJPAC), wherever we can find music, but where ever we sit in these locations, the sould is subtly different from other seats.

*Yes, we do the city too, but we try to keep it local.

[hermanv]

Musicians sit in the middle of the orchestra, what sounds "normal" to them does not sound "normal" to an audience member. Audiophile musicians who try for accurate TEND to build systems that most of us would call overhyped or hot in the treble, this is because that is what they hear when they play with other musicians.

This is neither right nor wrong but it partly explains why different people have different preferences or different definitions of what sounds right. It also goes a long way towards explaining why there is no standard definition of neutral sound.

Backing up several posts there were all tube direct to disk recordings made not that long ago. I have a CD that claims only tubes were used in the recording studio chain, it sounds pretty damn good, maybe it's the tubes, or maybe it's because they made an extraordinary effort. Like everything else there is no absolute right. Its the attention to detail that I think makes for better sound.

[woodman]

It must indeed by (be?) those 70 years... or something!

Of course it's the 70 years that makes all of the difference - no question about it. There's simply no substitute for experience. I learned that basic truth early on in my life (in the 1940s) when I had to make a career change. I was a professional musician during that decade, but after World War II ended, the music business went directly into the toilet. Since I was recently married and an expectatnt father, I needed a new career and in a hurry. So, I enrolled in a school to learn enough about electronics to service television sets. I'd been "playing around" with audio for a number of years before then, but there was no such thing as a career to be found there. I quickly learned (to my dismay) that my TV schooling hadn't really taught me enough ... I had to plunge in and "learn by doing" - which I did for the next 50 some years.

That close to perfection? To date, you are the one and only person I've encountered, either in person, via the media or via the internet, that has made such a claim. This includes objective as well as subjective listeners, musicians and scientists, anyone! However, none of them have 70 years of experience, either.

Obviously, because they lack the perspective that those 70 years put "on the table" is reason enough for them to not see things in the same way as I do. In order to better understand my perspective on this, it's necessary to include relativity in the equation. Everything is relative, and life itself is duality-based ... up and down ... left and right ... hot or cold ... sweet or sour ... light or heavy ... black or white ... loud or soft ... tall or short ... on or off ... in or out ... the list goes on, seemingly forever. It takes one of the two in order to give meaning to its opposite. In order to fully appreciate just how far we've come in audio technology, one needs to have been a participant in the evolution as it progressed.

Which audio components are within that eyelash of perfection? All of them? If only some of them, which some? Can you be specific, please?

Now we come to the most important part of the discussion ... which is perception. With all things being relative, it's no stretch at all to find vast discrepancies in the perceptions that different people report. Even if there was no such thing as "relative" and there was an actual sonic "truth" regarding how something performs, you'd still get the broad variety of perceptions! How could this be? The answer is simple. It's the individual's ABEs that accounts for all of the difference. The magic in all of this lies in the discovery that by merely changing one's Attitude(s), which then alter your Beliefs, you can experience far greater amounts of joy and appreciation for just how good and wonderful audio reproduction can be (and really is).

To answer this question about "which components" - the most accurate answer I can offer is: most of them (excluding loudspeakers of course).

Please include examples of perfect speakers as well. I've been searching for just such a component for a long time and I'm very interested in putting upgrades behind me for good. Thanks in advance.

Speakers are the one component that has yet to reach anything resembling flat frequency response, which is the major attribute that would constitute "perfection". Fortunately, (or unfortunately) human hearing comes up a bit short in this criteria as well. This makes the choosing of speakers such an individual proposition - and controversial to boot. So, sorry ... I cannot offer you a magic bullet to put your speaker upgrading behind you for good. I can offer you this however ... the Attitudes and Beliefs that you choose (yes, we DO choose those for ourselves) can go a long, long way towards giving you the enjoyment that we all say we're looking for,

Hope this helps you

[musicoverall]

Hope this helps you

Actually, it does. I'm not sure I completely agree with all your points but I don't necessarily disagree, either. Food for thought, that much is clear.

Thanks for a well thought out and intelligent post.