Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 116
  1. #1
    Ajani
    Guest

    Live Sound Versus Hi-Fi Sound

    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?

  2. #2
    Forum Regular blackraven's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    St. Paul, Minnesota
    Posts
    5,421
    My magnepans give the most live sound from any speaker I have heard. The Van Alstine equipment helps.
    Pass Labs X250 amp, BAT Vk-51se Preamp,
    Thorens TD-145 TT, Bellari phono preamp, Nagaoka MP-200 Cartridge
    Magnepan QR1.6 speakers
    Luxman DA-06 DAC
    Van Alstine Ultra Plus Hybrid Tube DAC
    Dual Martin Logan Original Dynamo Subs
    Parasound A21 amp
    Vintage Luxman T-110 tuner
    Magnepan MMG's, Grant Fidelity DAC-11, Class D CDA254 amp
    Monitor Audio S1 speakers, PSB B6 speakers
    Vintage Technic's Integrated amp
    Music Hall 25.2 CDP
    Adcom GFR 700 AVR
    Cables- Cardas, Silnote, BJC
    Velodyne CHT 8 sub

  3. #3
    Phila combat zone JoeE SP9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA
    Posts
    2,710
    Ajani, I think what you're mostly referring to are the result of overly close miking. Recordings made without close miking such as most classical and live to two track don't have that more live than live feel the spit from the trumpet sound. I settled on my ESL's because with minimally miked recordings they sound more lifelike than boxes. Unfortunately they make overly close miking and poor recording technique more obvious. We need to remember most music is not recorded, mixed, mastered or sold with "us" in mind.

    Actually, I think my ESL's sound better on every type of recording. That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it.
    ARC SP9 MKIII, VPI HW19, Rega RB300
    Marcof PPA1, Shure, Sumiko, Ortofon carts, Yamaha DVD-S1800
    Behringer UCA222, Emotiva XDA-2, HiFimeDIY
    Accuphase T101, Teac V-7010, Nak ZX-7. LX-5, Behringer DSP1124P
    Front: Magnepan 1.7, DBX 223SX, 2 modified Dynaco MK3's, 2, 12" DIY TL subs (Pass El-Pipe-O) 2 bridged Crown XLS-402
    Rear/HT: Emotiva UMC200, Acoustat Model 1/SPW-1, Behringer CX2310, 2 Adcom GFA-545

  4. #4
    Vinyl Fundamentalist Forums Moderator poppachubby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Analog Synagogue
    Posts
    4,363
    Sounds like your funeral trumpeter could use a lesson or two in harmonics and tone. Have you ever heard a player the likes of Hubbard or Hargrove play live? A trumpet is certainly brighter than many other instruments, but should never be harsh.

    One of my favorite trumpet performances, and an album with great live feel, is Hancock's Empyrean Isles. Hubbard is genius harmonically on this one, he has no tenor to help smooth him out. The harder he plays, and higher the note, the more the hair stands up on my arms. Wonderful tone. The first solo in Cantaloupe Island ALWAYS gives me goose bumps, never harsh or bright.

    Junk in, junk out. I agree with Joe.

    I mentioned in another thread how great The Cowboy Junkies - Trinity Sessions is for stereo imaging. It's damn near perfect. The depth is such that you feel like you can climb into the speaker. Proportionally, the instruments create the space exactly as it was. This album was recorded using a single mic in the center of the room.

    Some of the older Blue Note, Verve and Prestige recordings have the same feel. Using only 2 or 3 mics and recording live off the floor, the imaging comes off amazingly potent and audible.

    For me, as a bass player, nothing can replace the live experience. I just look for as much accuracy as possible with the gear I have. Right now I'm pleased with how my room sounds. It's the exact right amounts of sweetness and technicality for my ears.

  5. #5
    RGA
    RGA is offline
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    5,539
    Audio systems are designed to replay what is on the source disc. And if the material is up for it then a drum kit or a piano should very closely resemble a drum kit or a piano.

    As for soundstage - I have never understood what the driving appeal of it is and why so many glob onto soundstage and imaging. Personally if I notice it it is probably doing a whole bunch of things wrong someplace else. As areviewer I listen for it but as a music listener I want the whole experience. Usually, if my ear is being drawn to one perameter such as soundstaging and imaging it probably means it's tonally off or it lacks credible dynamics.

    Lawrence Borden - an audiophile enamored with soundstaging write a nice article on why it's probably not the best thing to be looking for and it mirrors what you noticed about listening live. http://www.dagogo.com/View-Article.asp?hArticle=398

  6. #6
    Vinyl Fundamentalist Forums Moderator poppachubby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Analog Synagogue
    Posts
    4,363
    Quote Originally Posted by RGA
    As for soundstage - I have never understood what the driving appeal of it is and why so many glob onto soundstage and imaging.
    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.

  7. #7
    Ajani
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by poppachubby
    Sounds like your funeral trumpeter could use a lesson or two in harmonics and tone. Have you ever heard a player the likes of Hubbard or Hargrove play live? A trumpet is certainly brighter than many other instruments, but should never be harsh.

    One of my favorite trumpet performances, and an album with great live feel, is Hancock's Empyrean Isles. Hubbard is genius harmonically on this one, he has no tenor to help smooth him out. The harder he plays, and higher the note, the more the hair stands up on my arms. Wonderful tone. The first solo in Cantaloupe Island ALWAYS gives me goose bumps, never harsh or bright.

    Junk in, junk out. I agree with Joe.

    I mentioned in another thread how great The Cowboy Junkies - Trinity Sessions is for stereo imaging. It's damn near perfect. The depth is such that you feel like you can climb into the speaker. Proportionally, the instruments create the space exactly as it was. This album was recorded using a single mic in the center of the room.

    Some of the older Blue Note, Verve and Prestige recordings have the same feel. Using only 2 or 3 mics and recording live off the floor, the imaging comes off amazingly potent and audible.

    For me, as a bass player, nothing can replace the live experience. I just look for as much accuracy as possible with the gear I have. Right now I'm pleased with how my room sounds. It's the exact right amounts of sweetness and technicality for my ears.
    Undoubtedly, the trumpter lacked talent, but if a recording of his performance was played through a HiFi setup it should sound as bright and harsh as it did live.... A UK review mag (What HiFi?) always looks for products that are "all-rounders" i.e. if the recording is bright and harsh, then it should sound bright and harsh, if it's smooth then it should sound smooth... While there are numerous valid complaints about What HiFi's review approach (especially the length and detail in the published reviews), I do agree with the fundamental principle that a good HiFi system should not hide the fact that a recording is bright etc..

    At this point in the game, nothing can fully recreate the live experience, but I still wonder if we've lost focus and are now more concerned with HiFi traits than being accurate to the live event...

    When I see reviews and they say that a product lacks the detail and soundtage of more expensive models, I wonder if that detail and soundstage might actually be more than what is present in the live performance... So could it be that a mid level product with inferior soundstage and detail is more accurate to the live performance than a SOTA one (as the SOTA gear overshoots the target)?

  8. #8
    Ajani
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by RGA
    Audio systems are designed to replay what is on the source disc. And if the material is up for it then a drum kit or a piano should very closely resemble a drum kit or a piano.

    As for soundstage - I have never understood what the driving appeal of it is and why so many glob onto soundstage and imaging. Personally if I notice it it is probably doing a whole bunch of things wrong someplace else. As areviewer I listen for it but as a music listener I want the whole experience. Usually, if my ear is being drawn to one perameter such as soundstaging and imaging it probably means it's tonally off or it lacks credible dynamics.
    Lawrence Borden - an audiophile enamored with soundstaging write a nice article on why it's probably not the best thing to be looking for and it mirrors what you noticed about listening live. http://www.dagogo.com/View-Article.asp?hArticle=398
    That's actually my belief as well: truly accurate systems should do "nothing special" i.e. I should not think "wow that midrange is so silky" or "listen to that bass extension" or "I can pick out the exact height and position of every individual in the choir"... I should just hear music....

  9. #9
    M.P.S.E /AES/SMPTE member Sir Terrence the Terrible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    6,826
    I agree with Richard's assessment. What you are hearing using an audio system is a reproduction coming from the microphone, and the better a signal chain can do it, the more accurate and faithful to the RECORDING it will sound. What we hear in a live setting is binaural, not stereo, not mulitchannel. Multichannel just gets us closer to the live experience with the ability to recreate immersion, and reproduce audio from more points in space. The recording is only a capture from specific perspectives, not an all immersing experience like we get live(except outdoors away from walls).

    A good audio chain can make a performer SEEM like they are in the room, and that is what you are looking for with HiFi. With live sound, you are in the room with the performer, and the ear/brain mechanism can easily figure that out. It has to be fooled with a audio recording, and that requires a system to have a high degree of accuracy in relation to the recording reproduction. As far as great imaging, if a recording has it(remember it is a recording with microphones positioned in space), then the audio chain should have enough resolution to reveal it, that is one of the basic tenets of audio reproduction, not live listening.

    There are times when you do get some level of pinpoint imaging in live music. Try listening to a outdoor concert in the nearfield, especially acoustical music.
    Sir Terrence

    Titan Reference 3D 1080p projector
    200" SI Black Diamond II screen
    Oppo BDP-103D
    Datastat RS20I audio/video processor 12.4 audio setup
    9 Onkyo M-5099 power amp
    9 Onkyo M-510 power amp
    9 Onkyo M-508 power amp
    6 custom CAL amps for subs
    3 custom 3 way horn DSP hybrid monitors
    18 custom 3 way horn DSP hybrid surround/ceiling speakers
    2 custom 15" sealed FFEC servo subs
    4 custom 15" H-PAS FFEC servo subs
    THX Style Baffle wall

  10. #10
    Ajani
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
    I agree with Richard's assessment. What you are hearing using an audio system is a reproduction coming from the microphone, and the better a signal chain can do it, the more accurate and faithful to the RECORDING it will sound. What we hear in a live setting is binaural, not stereo, not mulitchannel. Multichannel just gets us closer to the live experience with the ability to recreate immersion, and reproduce audio from more points in space. The recording is only a capture from specific perspectives, not an all immersing experience like we get live(except outdoors away from walls).

    A good audio chain can make a performer SEEM like they are in the room, and that is what you are looking for with HiFi. With live sound, you are in the room with the performer, and the ear/brain mechanism can easily figure that out. It has to be fooled with a audio recording, and that requires a system to have a high degree of accuracy in relation to the recording reproduction. As far as great imaging, if a recording has it(remember it is a recording with microphones positioned in space), then the audio chain should have enough resolution to reveal it, that is one of the basic tenets of audio reproduction, not live listening.

    There are times when you do get some level of pinpoint imaging in live music. Try listening to a outdoor concert in the nearfield, especially acoustical music.
    So then is the goal really "to extract every bit of information in the recording", rather than to recreate the live experience?

  11. #11
    Vinyl Fundamentalist Forums Moderator poppachubby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Analog Synagogue
    Posts
    4,363
    Quote Originally Posted by Ajani
    So then is the goal really "to extract every bit of information in the recording", rather than to recreate the live experience?
    Yes. This is why people go to such crazy lengths with IC's, PS conditioning and speaker cables to try and squeeze every last audible sound out of the recording.

  12. #12
    Ajani
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by poppachubby
    Yes. This is why people go to such crazy lengths with IC's, PS conditioning and speaker cables to try and squeeze every last audible sound out of the recording.
    That's what I've suspected... That our goal has long changed (or in some cases never was) from recreating the live event to being more concerned with HiFi terms created by our recording techniques...

    Note: I don't think there is anything fundamentally wrong with that, as all that really matters is what you enjoy listening to.... But since we hear the claim of 'truth to the live event' so often touted by manufacturers, reviewers and audiophiles in general, it seems misleading to pretend that recreating the live event is always the goal...

  13. #13
    RGA
    RGA is offline
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    5,539
    I believe the goal is to be accurate to the recording. And the only way to really know if a system is being accurate to the recording is for a system to show as much contrast as possible between recordings, and in fact stereo system components. If system A plays ten recordings and all of them sound completely different from each other and you can tell the difference in tonality, imaging staging, bass dynamnics etc then system A has tremendous resolution and allowing those differences to come through. While many other systems that can only play classical strings and can't play other kinds of music are very low resolution speakers because they have a gross inability to give you what is on the source disc. One of the classic speakers is the Quad 57 and 63 but they are not good resolving loudspeakers - they can play one kind of music and they can please the ear doing it no question about it - but what is also true is that they can't tell the listener the differences between recordings because they lack the ability to produce MANY and indeed "MOST" of the music on the market (which isn't classical). Such a speaker is nice to listen to but hardly accurate.

    A speaker or system is a series of electrical devices and its sole purpose is to take a signal and reproduce it as the musicians intended regardless of whether it is lousy amplified music. Tupac on a Quad is horrible and the reason it is horrible is because the speaker can't produce the notes on the CD or LP. If it can't reproduce the signals of that music it also can't do the canon in the 1812 or most bass instruments properly (although it may make it all sound "nice."

    This doesn't necessarily mean a big boxed speaker is going to be better but I'll put my money on the speaker that can handle all music intended by the artist first and then worry about the ultimate frequency extremes and treble issues or slight box colourations or distortion.

    Granted I am in the HE/SET camp so it's interesting that my view would be that a system has to be able to do AC/DC and Tupac at high levels. I believe SETs get short shrift because they are simply connected to poor efficiency speakers. A speaker may be a horn of 100db but it doesn't mean it's easy to drive. The sad thing IMO is that the two things that a great SET amp does better by far than ANY transister I have ever heard is Transient attack and Decay. The initial sound of a guitar pick or pressed key or thwack on a cymbal - no comparison. And the decay of the piano box the lingers whilst not muddying the sound of the next transient. Sadly it becomes mud with the wrong speaker, but with the right speaker there is no going back.

    Anyway, I understand the appeal of something like the Quad 2905 but I like my cake and eat it as well. I would like a speaker that does everything the Quad is capable of doing and a LOT of what the Tannoy Westminster or Acapella High Violencello is capable of doing and preferably for less than half the price of either one.

    I happen to buy into getting what's off the disc not stamping a panel sound or 40 foot stage (Bose 901) onto every recording homogonizing the results. My bias is to the article written by Leonard Norwitz a classical music lover and composer and Peter Q of audio note some years back and posted on the enjoythemusic.com website http://www.enjoythemusic.com/magazin.../audiohell.htm and it applies to any system not just that maker though that is how they design everything. Practically it's tough to do as they suggest but I think it works well if you can put the significant time in requitred for it.

  14. #14
    Forum Regular hermanv's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Santa Rosa, CA
    Posts
    968
    Define "Live".

    Most "live" events I've attended were played through a mixing console and local speakers. Neither the console, the speakers nor the wages paid to the "sound engineer" were up to a real "live" quality HiFi event. In many cases the speakers in particular were quite poor with a 12" woofer and a horn mid/tweet, all in all not HiFi.

    Trumpets are loud and brash , but not overly bright or harsh (HiFi definition) they sound great un-amplified.

    Another problem of recreating a live event is that most people's listening room is far smaller than the room in which the live music was heard.

    IMHO adjusting for these issues is perfectly acceptable. As is using equipment that doesn't subtract from a rare quality recording.
    Herman;

    My stuff:
    Olive Musica/transport and server
    Mark Levinson No.360S D to A
    Passive pre (homemade; Shallco, Vishay, Cardas wire/connectors)
    Cardas Golden Presence IC
    Pass Labs X250
    Martin Logan ReQuests.

  15. #15
    Vinyl Fundamentalist Forums Moderator poppachubby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Analog Synagogue
    Posts
    4,363
    Quote Originally Posted by RGA
    I believe the goal is to be accurate to the recording.
    Yes, I agree and furthermore, I want to hear everything that I was intended to. Sorry, what's that Rich?

    Quote Originally Posted by RGA
    As for soundstage - I have never understood what the driving appeal of it is and why so many glob onto soundstage and imaging. Personally if I notice it it is probably doing a whole bunch of things wrong someplace else.
    Hmmm. I can appreciate that you don't dig soundstage but in staying true to a recording, you MUST consider it. Some recordings have been made to replicate the studio "environment", so that you at home may feel like you're sitting in front of the band. Where my understanding ends, is when people try to listen to a soundstage on a recording which clearly LACKS any. Some people need to realise that quite a few recordings have been panned to stimulate the senses, and NOT replicate any sense of real imaging.

    As I said before, I enjoy my music in hi-fi. Imaging is a miracle of the studio, and with hi-fi we are privileged to experience it. We shouldn't ignore it but at the same time, shouldn't be overly concerned. It is what it is...

  16. #16
    Shostakovich fan Feanor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    London, Ontario
    Posts
    8,127
    Quote Originally Posted by Ajani
    I attended a funeral today and heard an unaplified trumpet playing and it got me thinking again about live versus Hi-Fi sound...
    ...
    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?
    I listened to some live trumpets today myself during the Easter Day service. I can assure you they were very harsh & bright, just like you observed.

    I listen to live music, mostly classical, from time to time. It is very clear that, depending on the venue, many instruments sound bright. Some locations are naturally reverberate and this tends to exacerbate brightness. This includes not only brass but certainly string instruments -- violins simply are not produce the dulcit, silky smooth sound that some people think they ought to. In fact they can be downright skreechy.

    As for recording, part of it is the natural accoustic of the venue and the rest recording technique. I suspect close-micing also emphasizes the "grating" elements of the sound of strings for instance.

    Are many people deceiving themselves about want is actually accurate? In particular, like you, I think "warmth" is overrated. Some people do admit they prefer euphonic over accurate but others are kidding themselves.

    What is "accuracy"? I agree with RGA and others that it's to accurately reproduce the recording, not some hypothetical live event. On the other hand without listening with the recording engineer in the studio, it's impossible to be sure exactly what the recording is supposed to sound like, and even that is filtered through the monitors and studio's other playback equipment.
    Last edited by Feanor; 04-04-2010 at 01:26 PM.

  17. #17
    Vinyl Fundamentalist Forums Moderator poppachubby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Analog Synagogue
    Posts
    4,363
    Quote Originally Posted by hermanv
    Define "Live".

    Most "live" events I've attended were played through a mixing console and local speakers.
    As a musician that has gigged many times, I agree with your sentiment Herman. I don't know what "live" is supposed to be in hi-fi terms, mostly, because I know what it is in the real world. There is nothing that can replicate a live musical experience IMO. Perhaps a $500,000 system can, but I'll never hear one anyhow, so what use is that to me?

    One quality I do look for and enjoy with my own system, is realism. Realism in terms of sound but also in proportion of the instruments to one another. Funny, just the other day I was listening to Metallica's ...And Justice for All, my favorite album of theirs musically. But good grief, could they have made the drums any more present? Ridiculous really.

  18. #18
    Retro Modernist 02audionoob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    2,908
    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.

  19. #19
    Ajani
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by RGA
    I believe the goal is to be accurate to the recording. And the only way to really know if a system is being accurate to the recording is for a system to show as much contrast as possible between recordings, and in fact stereo system components. If system A plays ten recordings and all of them sound completely different from each other and you can tell the difference in tonality, imaging staging, bass dynamnics etc then system A has tremendous resolution and allowing those differences to come through. While many other systems that can only play classical strings and can't play other kinds of music are very low resolution speakers because they have a gross inability to give you what is on the source disc. One of the classic speakers is the Quad 57 and 63 but they are not good resolving loudspeakers - they can play one kind of music and they can please the ear doing it no question about it - but what is also true is that they can't tell the listener the differences between recordings because they lack the ability to produce MANY and indeed "MOST" of the music on the market (which isn't classical). Such a speaker is nice to listen to but hardly accurate.

    A speaker or system is a series of electrical devices and its sole purpose is to take a signal and reproduce it as the musicians intended regardless of whether it is lousy amplified music. Tupac on a Quad is horrible and the reason it is horrible is because the speaker can't produce the notes on the CD or LP. If it can't reproduce the signals of that music it also can't do the canon in the 1812 or most bass instruments properly (although it may make it all sound "nice."

    This doesn't necessarily mean a big boxed speaker is going to be better but I'll put my money on the speaker that can handle all music intended by the artist first and then worry about the ultimate frequency extremes and treble issues or slight box colourations or distortion.

    Granted I am in the HE/SET camp so it's interesting that my view would be that a system has to be able to do AC/DC and Tupac at high levels. I believe SETs get short shrift because they are simply connected to poor efficiency speakers. A speaker may be a horn of 100db but it doesn't mean it's easy to drive. The sad thing IMO is that the two things that a great SET amp does better by far than ANY transister I have ever heard is Transient attack and Decay. The initial sound of a guitar pick or pressed key or thwack on a cymbal - no comparison. And the decay of the piano box the lingers whilst not muddying the sound of the next transient. Sadly it becomes mud with the wrong speaker, but with the right speaker there is no going back.

    Anyway, I understand the appeal of something like the Quad 2905 but I like my cake and eat it as well. I would like a speaker that does everything the Quad is capable of doing and a LOT of what the Tannoy Westminster or Acapella High Violencello is capable of doing and preferably for less than half the price of either one.

    I happen to buy into getting what's off the disc not stamping a panel sound or 40 foot stage (Bose 901) onto every recording homogonizing the results. My bias is to the article written by Leonard Norwitz a classical music lover and composer and Peter Q of audio note some years back and posted on the enjoythemusic.com website http://www.enjoythemusic.com/magazin.../audiohell.htm and it applies to any system not just that maker though that is how they design everything. Practically it's tough to do as they suggest but I think it works well if you can put the significant time in requitred for it.
    All good points and I agree... though I would ask the question of "how do you know when to stop?"...

    When is a component too detailed? When has it moved beyond allowing you to hear all the details as the recording engineer intended and moved to magnifying details excessively? When has it overshot the mark on soundstage?

    At least (in theory anyway) with an unamplified live recording, you could compare the playback from your HiFi with the live sound and determine if you've met the goal...

    Using Peter Q's approach: the system that shows the most contrast could theoretically be "painting a picture" that is magnified to well beyond its actual size...

    So for example, it might be a case that say a Magnepan MG1.6/1.7 is more accurate than a MG20.1, because the 20.1 has moved beyond retrieving all information on the recording and is now magnifying/exagerating that information.... But how would we know that we should have stopped at the 1.6/1.7 if we really want accuracy?

  20. #20
    Vinyl Fundamentalist Forums Moderator poppachubby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Analog Synagogue
    Posts
    4,363
    Quote Originally Posted by Ajani
    But how would we know that we should have stopped at the 1.6/1.7 if we really want accuracy?
    Through careful auditioning, this is where personal taste would come in.

  21. #21
    RGA
    RGA is offline
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    5,539
    norwitz and peter's essay doesn't need to be as complex as some read into it. If you have five piano recordings and on one system the tone and dynamics are quite a lot different from each other - perhaps one has a small pinpoint center stage - one recording is 25 feet long, one has excellent dynamics and one sounds compressed - the system is differentiating the recordings. If the other system makes everything sound compressed or 2 dimensional then it is clearly not differentiating or contrasting the differences and clearly isn't accurate.

    That's within one type of genre which to me is harder to listen for - so before you even compare those kinds of music genres I would first start with hard rock and nuances well recorded classical and Jazz. The system that can play Beethoven BRILLIANTLY and can also play AC/DC (who have some very good recordings) and can play harder hitting techno - and do it all well is the speaker/system that is better able to contrast recording differences.

    If the speaker bottoms out doing the harder stuff then it has some serious issues. Now certainly with Magnepan 1.6 every speaker in this price range has issues - so you have to choose the strength that works for your musical taste which is why the 1.6 is a good value if you are a classical guy. But when you get to $15k like the 20.1 and it still only does classical well then it deserves some consideration more seriously that something else is probably money better spent.

  22. #22
    Ajani
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by poppachubby
    Through careful auditioning, this is where personal taste would come in.
    Careful auditioning of what? What's the target?

    Personal taste I get and I think is really what audiophiles are after, but since we often claim some kind of objective goal to HiFi (whether recreating the live sound or accuracy to the recording), then how do we meet that objective goal?

  23. #23
    RGA
    RGA is offline
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    5,539
    Personal taste is fine Ajani if that is the choice one makes. People buy the Quad 57 and a huge segment of audiophiles hold it up as one of the finest speakers going. But most of those buyers also realize whther they want to say it or not - that they are woefully inaccurate loudspeakers. Most of us know that if one wants to listen to "Thunderstruck" on a set of loudspeakers that Quad and speakers like it are completely hopeless and that in no way shape or form do they meet even remotely the intent of the band or the recording engineers.

    My issue is certainly not people's choices - I very much like the 2905 myself for what it can handle - but unfortunately a lot of people start trying to claim it as some sort of superior form of speaker or that is "accurate" because it is "lighter" and creates less distortion. My contention is that Dynamics and bass and drive (depending how you know it as) are the main sources of creating distortion (bass dynamics especially) and so it's easy to get rid of distortion by simply avoiding presenting the sound as it was intended in the first place.

    Lesser boxed speakers with a lot of resonances and boxy presentations - virtually every $3,000 and under(and sometimes very expensive speakers) floorstander with several drivers stacked on each other with a metal tweeter and poly/Kevlar woofers make their boxes present on everything unfortunately.

    Classical music recordings that typically focus on violin, cello, flute, clarinet, oboe, French Horn typically get butchered by a lot of gear - doesn't get buthered at all on a Quad 2905 which lives for this stuff. It has a gentle downward slope in the treble so rarely gets harsh and bass isn't really needed for it, and typical listeners don't listen very loud. Meanwhile many boxes will imprint some sort of boom or ping in there or the drivers don't integrates and you get this weird isolated sound. Even the top Wilson Maxx3 despite the huge price and being run by top tube amps sounded all over the place - something that a speaker like the KingSound and Martin Logan or Quad had virtually no issues with.

    It's a fascinating industry because many makers have a variety of approaches and beliefs as to what is the superior presentation.

  24. #24
    Ajani
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by RGA
    Personal taste is fine Ajani if that is the choice one makes. People buy the Quad 57 and a huge segment of audiophiles hold it up as one of the finest speakers going. But most of those buyers also realize whther they want to say it or not - that they are woefully inaccurate loudspeakers. Most of us know that if one wants to listen to "Thunderstruck" on a set of loudspeakers that Quad and speakers like it are completely hopeless and that in no way shape or form do they meet even remotely the intent of the band or the recording engineers.

    My issue is certainly not people's choices - I very much like the 2905 myself for what it can handle - but unfortunately a lot of people start trying to claim it as some sort of superior form of speaker or that is "accurate" because it is "lighter" and creates less distortion. My contention is that Dynamics and bass and drive (depending how you know it as) are the main sources of creating distortion (bass dynamics especially) and so it's easy to get rid of distortion by simply avoiding presenting the sound as it was intended in the first place.

    Lesser boxed speakers with a lot of resonances and boxy presentations - virtually every $3,000 and under(and sometimes very expensive speakers) floorstander with several drivers stacked on each other with a metal tweeter and poly/Kevlar woofers make their boxes present on everything unfortunately.

    Classical music recordings that typically focus on violin, cello, flute, clarinet, oboe, French Horn typically get butchered by a lot of gear - doesn't get buthered at all on a Quad 2905 which lives for this stuff. It has a gentle downward slope in the treble so rarely gets harsh and bass isn't really needed for it, and typical listeners don't listen very loud. Meanwhile many boxes will imprint some sort of boom or ping in there or the drivers don't integrates and you get this weird isolated sound. Even the top Wilson Maxx3 despite the huge price and being run by top tube amps sounded all over the place - something that a speaker like the KingSound and Martin Logan or Quad had virtually no issues with.

    It's a fascinating industry because many makers have a variety of approaches and beliefs as to what is the superior presentation.
    Sadly, most audiophiles would never admit that they just prefer the sound of something, it has to be justified as being the more correct approach or truer to the live performance or some such...

    I am partial to designs that are all-rounders, as I have a very wide taste in music... sadly I won't be likely to hear Peter Q's designs anytime soon... I'm fascinated to discover how a SET/HE system would sound with my music... However, I've found that (for me) the best compromise in the price levels I shop at are full range (multi-driver) box speakers... However, the ones I really like use the same material from tweeter to woofer. Revel - uses OCC (some kind of ceramic composite) & Monitor Audio uses C-CAM (aluminum)... so rather than trying to blend the soumd of a metal tweeter with some other materials, Monitor Audio uses metal for all drivers, and Revel uses ceramic throughout... I find that allows the music to sound coherent as there is no change in tone, etc as you move from bass to mids to highs...

    I am especially intrigued to know what AN will sound like, as I know that Peter Q and Kevin Voecks (speaker killer, I believe you call him... so though I've never heard you speak about Revel speakers, I assume you're not fond of them ) have very diferent approaches to speaker design... So I'd love to compare my high powered 'Revel' setup to a low powered AN setup to see whether I love both, hate the AN or change my mind on the Revels....
    Last edited by Ajani; 04-04-2010 at 08:45 PM.

  25. #25
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    4,380

    Most Live venus suck

    I have been to very few live events that I would want my system to reproduce. I do expect my system to sound true, not live. I expect a wood instrument to sound as such, tell the difference between round and flat wound bass strings, hear a symbol crash to the end and so on.

    I think the term Live is not used properly here or in most cases where this topic comes up.

    As said earlier, your system should reproduce the CD as it was intended, even though in most cases it sounds like crap from over compression and some engineer who puts it all together for Radio play and not High End system playback.

Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 ... LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •