Live Sound Versus Hi-Fi Sound

[O'Shag]

Hi Ajani and all,
hope you had a good holiday weekend.

From my perspective, I've not yet heard any system that can fully reproduce the type of dense resolution our ear-brain can resolve listening to live music - although I have listened to some rare systems and components that have come pretty close. Its my experience that this level of resolution - the sort that leads me to believe I'm listening to live music - requires a top-quality tube preamp at the least, and a hybrid (tube/solid-state) amplifier in combination with that preamp to get closest. I 've heard many great solid-state preamps that sound marvellous and some scoring very high on the 'very musically satisfying' scale, but SS preamps to my ears do lack that last bit of ultimate resolution the kind of completeness that leads me to believe when I close my eyes that what I'm listening to is real.

Also I find that the ultimate resolving preamps and amps whether tube or solid state do inherently have very accurate sound-staging and imaging - the best to an remarkable degree. Its just that when one listens to such a system, one ceases to analyze, because it just sound so right.

I think there are several speaker systems capable of getting close to the sound of live music, but many fall down primarily because of crossover distortion. This is why planars and singly driver speakers have such an advantage because there is no crossover and multiple driver array to distort the waveform.

When listening to a band playing even from outside the room or venue, my ear-brain can still clearly define each instrument and voice and the venue space. I don't think were quite there yet in terms of technology. Same is true of HDTV. Some have said that 1080p is all that is needed to be considered fully resolving. I disagree - in fact I think were nowhere close (although with the new Ultra High-def coming out in the not too distant future we'll be a lot closer).

I think why most systems might tend to sound harsh with some instruments such as the trumpet, is simply a lack of resolving power, and the presence of distortion of the actual sound. This and of course a recording that lacks sufficient resolution. I also think that analogue playback mediums can recreate the most lifelike reproduction of music and sounds.

Best to all,

O'Shag

[blackraven]

When I posted that my Maggies were the most live sounding speaker I have heard. I did not mean it makes all music sound live. But much of the music I listen too was recorded to sound live or have prominent solo vocals. With the Maggies it feels like they are in the room with you and it sounds natural. My hybrid preamp and DAC also have a lot to do with it.

[poppachubby]

Interesting points O'Shag. I have bought an Eico HF 85 to replace my SS pre. I am looking forward to an increase in resolution, we'll see.

[Feanor]

When I posted that my Maggies were the most live sounding speaker I have heard. I did not mean it makes all music sound live. But much of the music I listen too was recorded to sound live or have prominent solo vocals. With the Maggies it feels like they are in the room with you and it sounds natural. My hybrid preamp and DAC also have a lot to do with it.

I agree, and this is an attribute of Maggies that most owners mention. Whether it's truly "accuracy" is another matter.

[frenchmon]

[QUOTE=Ajani]I attended a funeral today and heard an unaplified trumpet playing and it got me thinking again about live versus Hi-Fi sound...

I've long wondered if many of us audiophiles are really chasing the Holy Grail Live Experience as we often claim....

Can we achieve a live sound if some of our HiFi components surpass the live sound in specific areas?

For example, a great deal of focus is placed on pin point imaging and soundstages in Hi-Fi, yet in live performances many of us have found that no such precision exists...

Also, we focus on being able to hear every last drop of detail... With my headphones I can just about hear sweat running down the singer's nose... but in a live performance, there is no way I'd heard anywhere near that level of detail, unless the performer was seranading me with their lips to my ear....

So if we overshoot the margin in some areas can we really achieve a live sound and is that actually even our aim?

So back to the trumpet: the sound was harsh and bright... which I found interesting considering how many times I hear audiophiles wax lyrically about the virtues of warm gear that never makes any recordings sound harsh... So how can I reproduce live sound with gear that makes everything listenable and/or sweet, considering that many live instruments and sounds are harsh and bright?

Have we moved so far away from the goal of reproducing the live event, that we now focus totally on Hi-Fi terms like prat, soundstage and detail?[/QUOT]

Well...a few weeks ago me and MrP went to a guys house who had a rig close to $100.000. The thing sounded live to me. He had Klipschorns... It was sterile as can be and the guy said he built it to be as transparent...free of any signature sounds. To tell you the truth, I don't want my rig sounding like that. I want some emotion...some sweetness in my rig. If I want live, im going to a live set, but in my home...I want tone...emotion...sweetness.

frenchmon

[blackraven]

Frenchie, I agree with you, thats why there are tube fans and SS fans. I like a little of both, hence my hybrid system. You can't really classify the sound of my system as tube or solid state, its somewhere in between. I guess I would call it warm without being overly warm or tubey.

[frenchmon]

The intellectual aspect of listening should never surpass the emotional and spiritual side. That said, imaging on some recordings can give you that sense that you're in a room with the musicians, rather than an album perfectly panned from center.

I agree.I have Canton speakers and these things give you the best impression that the musicians are right there in front of me playing. Canton recommends that you don't toe the speakers in, because they design them to face forward. Canton speakers are not warm, nor are they bright, My Paradigms are brighter. Cantons are not a boring speaker...they have a way of drawing you into the music... they have this mid-range thing with tons of detail that just throw music all over... I have them about 8-9ft apart on teh front wall and all the gear on the side wall. There is nothing between the two speakers the sound stage is wide an deep, and its sweet with tones of emotion.

[frenchmon]

Frenchie, I agree with you, thats why there are tube fans ans SS fans. I like a little of both, hence my hybrid system. You can't really classify the sound of my system as tube or solid state, its somewhere in between. I guess I would call it warm without being overly warm or tubey.

Raven...that's where im headed soon...hybrids. Now I have all SS and all who come and listen are impressed with the Rotel/Musical Fidelity/Canton out-fit. The Rotel has plenty of power @ 200 watts channel, and the Rotel preamp is one of the best that they have every made...it processes very well. The Musical Fidelity gives it a sweet tone with lots of emtion, and I just cant say enough about the Cantons...personally, I think they are one of audio hobbyist biggest secrets. Throw in some good A+ cables and speaker wire it makes for a nice pleasant tonal system. After taking the Musical Fidelity to MrP's house and connecting it to his tubed gear, I was like out done...it was made for tubes. So I think I want to add a tube preamp sometime down the road.

frenchmon

[blackraven]

Raven...that's where im headed soon...hybrids. Now I have all SS and all who come and listen are impressed with the Rotel/Musical Fidelity/Canton out-fit. The Rotel has plenty of power @ 200 watts channel, and the Rotel preamp is one of the best that they have every made...it processes very well. The Musical Fidelity gives it a sweet tone with lots of emtion, and I just cant say enough about the Cantons...personally, I think they are one of audio hobbyist biggest secrets. Throw in some good A+ cables and speaker wire it makes for a nice pleasant tonal system. After taking the Musical Fidelity to MrP's house and connecting it to his tubed gear, I was like out done...it was made for tubes. So I think I want to add a tube preamp sometime down the road.

frenchmon

Cantons are a very good speaker. There's a local store that carry's then along with Thiels.

If your in the market for a tube preamp, consider Van Alstine with his 30day satisfaction guarentee. VA gear is one of the best kept secrets as well with a great price to performance ratio. You should check for used T-8 preamps as he has a new hybrid Vision preamp that people are buying and selling their T-8's and Hybrid Utlra's like mine.

[frenchmon]

thanks Raven...I'll keep that in mind.

fenchmon

[Ajani]

Raven...that's where im headed soon...hybrids. Now I have all SS and all who come and listen are impressed with the Rotel/Musical Fidelity/Canton out-fit. The Rotel has plenty of power @ 200 watts channel, and the Rotel preamp is one of the best that they have every made...it processes very well. The Musical Fidelity gives it a sweet tone with lots of emtion, and I just cant say enough about the Cantons...personally, I think they are one of audio hobbyist biggest secrets. Throw in some good A+ cables and speaker wire it makes for a nice pleasant tonal system. After taking the Musical Fidelity to MrP's house and connecting it to his tubed gear, I was like out done...it was made for tubes. So I think I want to add a tube preamp sometime down the road.

frenchmon

Yes it was... The matching Musical Fidelity X-T100 Integrated Amp was a hybrid with a Tube Preamp and the matching DAC XDAC V8 was also tubed...

I have nothing but fond memories of extended auditioning of a Musical Fidelity X-T100/XRay V8/Monitor Audio GS20 setup...

[frenchmon]

Yes it was... The matching Musical Fidelity X-T100 Integrated Amp was a hybrid with a Tube Preamp and the matching DAC XDAC V8 was also tubed...

I have nothing but fond memories of extended auditioning of a Musical Fidelity X-T100/XRay V8/Monitor Audio GS20 setup...

Wow...I had no idea the X-T100 was a hybrid, nor the Preamp was tubes...that makes perfect sense as to why it sounded as if it was made for MrPeabodys Conrad Johnson tubes.

I see the XDAC every now and then on audiogon...as much as I want that DAC, I just cant bring my self to part with the $800-$900 they are asking for it. Im a cheap azz...Musical Fidelity I heard is coming out with a replacement for the X-DAC V8 in June...and it wont be cheap either...about $1500 I hear.

frenchmon

[Poultrygeist]

Conventional speakers are burdened by their enclosures which color the sound and keep it from sounding more like a live performance. Take a small transistor radio and place it in an empty speaker enclosure and listen to it. The sound will be crappy but when you play the same radio in free air the sound will greatly improve. With box speakers we miss out on the rear sound waves which if we hear them at all must exit back through the driver. With open baffle speakers the slightly delayed rear sound waves are able to join with the front sound waves to produce a very subtle out of phase phenomenon which makes for more live sound. In live performances as in OB all the sound does not arrive at your ears at the same time. I believe that tiny delay is what hooked me.

[poppachubby]

So I think I want to add a tube preamp sometime down the road.

frenchmon

Frenchie, I just bought an Eico HF 85 preamp. It's beyond impressive and has improved the sound 10 fold. Detail and seperation between instruments has increased. Overall there is a real immediacy that is so engaging, I don't want to turn it off. SS is a joke IMO. This is the way music should be heard. And don't think for a second it lacks bass or power. You will be deaf with this thing at half volume...

I got mine for a steal, but they can be had for $300 - 400 in good condition with the original Mullards. As far as value goes and saving a couple of bucks, think about it when you are ready. I HIGHLY recommend a tubed preamp.

Eico HF 85

[Ajani]

Wow...I had no idea the X-T100 was a hybrid, nor the Preamp was tubes...that makes perfect sense as to why it sounded as if it was made for MrPeabodys Conrad Johnson tubes.

I see the XDAC every now and then on audiogon...as much as I want that DAC, I just cant bring my self to part with the $800-$900 they are asking for it. Im a cheap azz...Musical Fidelity I heard is coming out with a replacement for the X-DAC V8 in June...and it wont be cheap either...about $1500 I hear.

frenchmon

The X-DAC V8 originally sold for $1500, so the replacement sounds about the right price...

I'm a Musical Fidelity fan, but my wallet is an Emotiva fan

[Poultrygeist]

Another advantage of OB is that the room becomes the "box" as is the case with live music.

[Ajani]

SS is a joke IMO.

What kind of music do you listen to?

[Ajani]

I agree, and this is an attribute of Maggies that most owners mention. Whether it's truly "accuracy" is another matter.

That's an interesting point; sounding 'live' is not necessarily the same as being accurate....

[Ajani]

I don't have any real interest in creating the live event. I see recordings as an art form of their own. I was at a live event Friday night and the thought occurred to me that I like the sound of my own listening setup better. I certainly can't duplicate the event experience, but then that's not the point of my audio system.

It's interesting how many of us in this thread admit that recreating the live experience is not the goal of our HiFi....

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Another advantage of OB is that the room becomes the "box" as is the case with live music.

The problem is, your "box" was not apart of the live event. The room should not be apart of the listening experience which is why we treat them. If the room is singing along with the music, then there is no way the ear/brain mechanism is going to be fooled into thinking what it is hearing is live music.

I don't want to get into a debate on the merits of "box" speakers versus "open air" or panel designs comparing poorly made box speakers with any other speaker technology. Not all speakers boxed or not are created equal. Not every box speaker will be so poorly designed that its cabinet colors the sound, and not every panel is so open sounding that it simulates a person being in the room with you. These are extreme absolutes that are not realistic in reality. Panel owners often state their dislike of box speakers is based on box colorations when not every box speaker has them. Its an absolute that cannot be quantified. Clarity is often mention as a virtue of panels, but it is a virtue I have also found in a well designed box designs as well.

One of the things I have found in the audio hobby is that "audiophiles" do not really like accurate speakers. They are too clinical and sterile for most of them, as they are looking for a certain "sweetner" to make their listening experience more palatable. If the reproduction chain is supposed to be a "window" into the recording, then they have already clouded that window with a certain audio characteristic coming from their systems. Tubes warm up the sound, and give it a certain listening characteristic that is not apart of the recording itself. Being an audio engineer I like accurate speakers - speakers that reproduce exactly what is fed into them, flattering and unflattering alike. If the recording itself is seemingly sterile, then I want it to sound sterile. If the sound stage is flattened by the recording technique, I want to hear that.

The main job of a good audio system is to accurately reproduce every aspect of a recording whether it is analog or digital. The problem lies in the fact that not many know what accurate really is without a reference or mean. We assume what we hear is accurate because we believe we have perfectly set up our systems, chose the best speakers, amps, and pre-pros. The reality is we have set up our system to appeal to our ears, rather than to reproduce what was recorded.

I had an experience a couple of years ago with one of my closest friends who happens to be a big time audiophile. He is not a two channel guy strictly as his system is made up of five very high quality panels and a sub woofer. He has paid so much attention to every detail in the setup of his system to the point of making sure his system maintains the proper phase relationship as the signal travels through each component(this is a must IMO). I had just finished mixing a acoustical music score for a foreign film, one I recorded in DXD(floating 32bit with a sample rate of 352.8khz) and down mixed to both 24/192khz for my enjoyment, but to 24/48khz for the effects and dialog additions. He wanted to hear the recording on his system, so I bought the digital file on a hard drive so we could give it a listen. While it sounded beautiful on his system, it is not what I heard through my system during mixing. When I bought him back to my studio to hear what the mix sounded like during mixing, he realized that his system was subtling adding and taking some things away from the mix in spite of the fact it sounded spectacular through his system. A great majority of folks do not really know what "accurate" is, as their only reference point is their own systems in their own rooms, or that middle six figure system they heard a particular recording on. This is why I shrug off some folks criticisms of recording practices utilized today, as I realize they may not have a clue of what any recording truly sounds like when it is mixed and mastered.

[Ajani]

The problem is, your "box" was not apart of the live event. The room should not be apart of the listening experience which is why we treat them. If the room is singing along with the music, then there is no way the ear/brain mechanism is going to be fooled into thinking what it is hearing is live music.

I don't want to get into a debate on the merits of "box" speakers versus "open air" or panel designs comparing poorly made box speakers with any other speaker technology. Not all speakers boxed or not are created equal. Not every box speaker will be so poorly designed that its cabinet colors the sound, and not every panel is so open sounding that it simulates a person being in the room with you. These are extreme absolutes that are not realistic in reality. Panel owners often state their dislike of box speakers is based on box colorations when not every box speaker has them. Its an absolute that cannot be quantified. Clarity is often mention as a virtue of panels, but it is a virtue I have also found in a well designed box designs as well.

One of the things I have found in the audio hobby is that "audiophiles" do not really like accurate speakers. They are too clinical and sterile for most of them, as they are looking for a certain "sweetner" to make their listening experience more palatable. If the reproduction chain is supposed to be a "window" into the recording, then they have already clouded that window with a certain audio characteristic coming from their systems. Tubes warm up the sound, and give it a certain listening characteristic that is not apart of the recording itself. Being an audio engineer I like accurate speakers - speakers that reproduce exactly what is fed into them, flattering and unflattering alike. If the recording itself is seemingly sterile, then I want it to sound sterile. If the sound stage is flattened by the recording technique, I want to hear that.

The main job of a good audio system is to accurately reproduce every aspect of a recording whether it is analog or digital. The problem lies in the fact that not many know what accurate really is without a reference or mean. We assume what we hear is accurate because we believe we have perfectly set up our systems, chose the best speakers, amps, and pre-pros. The reality is we have set up our system to appeal to our ears, rather than to reproduce what was recorded.

I had an experience a couple of years ago with one of my closest friends who happens to be a big time audiophile. He is not a two channel guy strictly as his system is made up of five very high quality panels and a sub woofer. He has paid so much attention to every detail in the setup of his system to the point of making sure his system maintains the proper phase relationship as the signal travels through each component(this is a must IMO). I had just finished mixing a acoustical music score for a foreign film, one I recorded in DXD(floating 32bit with a sample rate of 352.8khz) and down mixed to both 24/192khz for my enjoyment, but to 24/48khz for the effects and dialog additions. He wanted to hear the recording on his system, so I bought the digital file on a hard drive so we could give it a listen. While it sounded beautiful on his system, it is not what I heard through my system during mixing. When I bought him back to my studio to hear what the mix sounded like during mixing, he realized that his system was subtling adding and taking some things away from the mix in spite of the fact it sounded spectacular through his system. A great majority of folks do not really know what "accurate" is, as their only reference point is their own systems in their own rooms, or that middle six figure system they heard a particular recording on. This is why I shrug off some folks criticisms of recording practices utilized today, as I realize they may not have a clue of what any recording truly sounds like when it is mixed and mastered.

I think the issue with HiFi is that there really is no objective measure of what accurate to the original recording is....

If I played a track that you mixed in your studio on my HiFi setup, how would I know that I am hearing it exactly as you intended it to be? Maybe my system is hiding some of the detail.... Maybe it is even more revealing than the equipment you used during mixing and I'm hearing detail that you never meant for me to hear....

Audiophiles often use the best sounding system they've heard as a reference for what HiFi should sound like... The obvious problem being that there is no way to know if that reference setup was in anyway accurate... So we end up buying HiFi to suit our individual tastes and proclaiming them as more live sounding/natural/accurate than others....

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I think the issue with HiFi is that there really is no objective measure of what accurate to the original recording is....

This has been my opinion every since I got into recording.

If I played a track that you mixed in your studio on my HiFi setup, how would I know that I am hearing it exactly as you intended it to be? Maybe my system is hiding some of the detail.... Maybe it is even more revealing than the equipment you used during mixing and I'm hearing detail that you never meant for me to hear....

Another angle would be am I hearing the detail in the way it should accurately be presented?

Audiophiles often use the best sounding system they've heard as a reference for what HiFi should sound like... The obvious problem being that there is no way to know if that reference setup was in anyway accurate... So we end up buying HiFi to suit our individual tastes and proclaiming them as more live sounding/natural/accurate than others....

That last sentence is something I find around here a lot from certain folks. Sometimes they get real high on a high chair and proclaim the folks that mixed and mastered the audio are incompetent because a certain recording does not sound good on THEIR system. How about that!

[Luvin Da Blues]

..... He wanted to hear the recording on his system, so I bought the digital file on a hard drive so we could give it a listen. While it sounded beautiful on his system, it is not what I heard through my system during mixing. When I bought him back to my studio to hear what the mix sounded like during mixing, he realized that his system was subtling adding and taking some things away from the mix in spite of the fact it sounded spectacular through his system......

And how to you determine the colorations, antenuations and distortions that your studio monitors induce into the signal?

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

And how to you determine the colorations, antenuations and distortions that your studio monitors induce into the signal?

Since all components have them to some degree, you make sure that every component in the signal chain keeps it to a minimum. The fact that you have actual musicians and instruments right in the studio as a reference gives the studio a leg up on this that the casual listener does not have. Nothing like recording a piano live, and it taking seconds to cue up what you recorded and listen quickly to the results.

[poppachubby]

Putting aside the whole "live" concept, I will explain my own world of accurate. I don't agree that there are no references to be had.

"As the band/engineer intended" I suppose is a stretch, as we don't truly know what they intended. One thing I am certain of, and Terrence correct me if I'm wrong, is that the band and engineer intend for the listener to hear every nuance of recorded music. Every instrument, vocal and multi-track there of. They laboured in a dark and boring studio sometimes for months, they want you to hear what has been recorded and edited for your enjoyment.

As far as references go, my system isn't the most resolute. I start by checking the tracks notes as to which instruments appear on the song. Subtle bongo tracks? Quiet mellotron harmonies? This is the first reference point. So if I can hear all of these things in the recording, I know I am deep enough into it, and have the beginnings of accuracy.

From there, I try to listen for multi tracking and layering. This becomes more difficult for a system to output as they can be subtle and quiet. Vocal layering and harmonies, guitar multi tracking and auxilary instruments to name a few.

Lastly, I look for realism with all of these sounds. Do they sound like the real thing? Is there proper seperation between them? Are they imaged correctly in terms of size (ie guitar tracks outweighing rhythm section 3 to 1).

As I already stated, for me these are the "references" I use to determine how I'm doing. As far as SS v. tubes, some say warm and coloured, I say tonal and detailed. In the "real world", professionals all seek to play their instruments with exceptional tone. Thus when Slash plucks the intro to Sweet Child O Mine, sure its bright but its contained and rich with tone. I think tubes do the best job to convey that same tone, so that with the right speakers and source, you get a fine representation of a natural instrument.

Anyhow, great thread. Ajani, lately I have been on a jazz bender but I enjoy most genres to some degree, with the exception of country and classical. Perhaps you'd be interested to know that Roots Manuva, Gangstarr, Aesop Rock and Murs all sound incredible when presented through tubes. In fact, I was shocked at the bass response as no other genre rose to the occasion quite the same. I have also found Stephen Marley, Bounty Killer, Bob Marley, Burning Spear and Jimmy Cliff all to be excellent sounding.

OK, chat soon...