Agreed. I make that point all the time. There is often a rejection of using live sound as a reference using a binary thinking "It's impossible to perfectly reproduce the sound of real instruments THEREFORE it's worthless to use live sound as a reference." There is of course a continuum. Few people could draw free-hand an absolute perfect circle (none if the criteria were strict enough). Yet that doesn't mean we can't identify among a spectrum of "closer to a perfect circle" vs "further away from a perfect circle." Even if perfection is impossible to reach in practice, a standard still allows for getting closer to that standard or further away. Likewise we all know that a system can sound more life-like or less life-like. In fact much of the work we do in my profession of sound design/sound editing for film/tv involves massaging sound towards or away from "life-like" - e.g. "more natural" or "less natural." (A lot of the work on film dialogue tracks are directed at both intelligibility and more natural/believable sound quality for voices, the reference of course being to real sounds and voices). I have recordings of me playing my acoustic guitar. When I play those recordings on various speakers or sound systems, I can certainly hear when the sound is "more like the real thing" and "less like the real thing." In fact, on some systems I've had it's been fairly startlingly like the real thing. And I notice that those are the systems I tend to enjoy the most for all types of music.
I do. Well, that is to say: like Steve I often calibrate my expectations or my system to real sounds. I've long been fascinated by live vs reproduced sound - how they differ and why. I often use the "stop and get a real reference" approach at, for instance, audio shows. So many systems are playing carefully selected minimalist tracks, with a single vocal and subtle accompaniment, meant to induce the sensation of "a real person singing in front of you." They can sound extraordinarily vivid, but I will often close my eyes and listen to that reproduced sound, and compare it to the sound of real human voices - as often someone is talking nearby. It inevitably exposes the way the reproduced voice is artificial - too hard in the transients, too ghostly, with an electronic rather than organic flesh-and-blood timbre. And if I find myself thinking "this vocal sounds live" at home, I'll do a check and listen to a family member's voice with my eyes closed and it will reveal the differences more distinctly. (BTW, my little Spendor S3/5s, powered by my CJ tube amps, survives this comparison with real human voices better than most speakers I've used). Personally I seek an "organic" sense of tone and timbre in my system, and also a sense of presence and texture, so the sound is both timbrally beautiful like I hear from real instruments, and has a "happening right now" sensation. To that end I often do what Steve does with his bell, but using my hands. If there is clapping in a live track I'll clap my hands to check if the timbre in the reproduced sound is "off." Or even if some drums or wood blocks are being hit I'll snap my fingers, drum a bit on my legs, which give me an instant reference for what a presesnt, organic sound is like. When I have a system dialed in right, there will be very little to no difference in the "gestalt" of the sound I'm creating in my listening room, and the sound coming from the speakers. It sounds "there, happening now" and my hand claps could meld easily in to the recording of a clapping crowd. And when a system can do THAT, I find it far more engaging. It's the type of system where I just can't stop listening to track after track in to the night, of any type of music. I understand plenty of other audiophiles have different criteria and approaches.
Audiophiles don’t want realistic sound to begin with, they want pleasing sound. So the premise of mr. guttenberg is based on an incorrect assumption.
The best way I could describe my system objective is a plausible reproduction of the “sonic image” of the recording I’m listening to. I just approach that in a way that satisfies and suits me. I guess most others do also.
But for some audiophiles, more realistic sound is more pleasing. Generalizations about "what audiophiles want" are always a problem.
The problem is cherry-picking rare exceptions. Of course I’m aware that rare exceptions exist. Those exist with nearly anything, so that should be obvious. It doesn’t make my point any less valid.
We aren't talking about "rare exceptions." The reference between the sound of a system to real sound is made all the time in audio reviews. In fact, there was literally one of the most popular and famous review magazines devoted to the concept: The Absolute Sound. Again: I am not claiming that many audiophiles "expect their system to sound indistinguishable from the real thing." What I'm pointing out is that real sound is still very often a reference for some, if not many, audiophiles. I mean...do you care if a good piano recording sounds more like a piano rather than a toy music box? Or that a sax sound more recognizably like a sax, than a kazoo?
I've often described it as similar to what "realistic" means in watching a movie. Nobody expects a movie to be like having an experience indistinguishable from real life. It's an illusion, we can see it's an illusion, 2D images (usually) projected on a flat screen, contrast and color depth can't match real life, etc. And, like music recordings, there is a whole range of what is meant to be perceived as "more related to real life" vs artificial (the distance between a Pixar or Marvel movie and a "realistic" family drama). Ultimately it's an illusion that we as the audience come to meet 1/2 way. We bring a certain willingness to "lose ourselves" in the illusion for a while. When movies are seeking more believably, they pay attention to making things more closely mirror real life - the realism of the script, acting, great lengths going to picking believable locations or creating sets, the wardrobe, the lighting etc. All these things make a movie more "believable" and feel more like we are seeing "real life" portrayed on screen. It's still an illusion and we know it, but it's an illusion that can have characteristics "more like real life" or less like real life. That can even be the case for things we've never seen. I mean, Jurassic Park wasn't a massive hit just for the story: nobody had ever produced the sensation of seeing "real dinosaurs" on screen like that before. Same with listening to music on a system, for me. There are recordings that will ever sound anything like real life, recordings that don't even have reference to "real sounds" (e.g. lots of electronic music), spanning the gamut to more natural sounding recordings. The more a recording and system combine to recreate "more of the character of real life sounds" the easier it is to meet that illusion 1/2 way in terms of expectations, and sink in to the illusion. In fact I've had some pretty amazing experiences having the sensation of listening to a symphony through some of my systems.
You might not want realistic sound maybe. I'm an audiophile and I want realistic sound. But that starts with the recording. If you don't have an intentionally realistic recording, not much the playback equipment can do about that. "Pleasing sound"? I'm not sure what that means. In an ideal world the recording captures a performance in its original space and playing it back is like a time machine that can transport me into that time and place, that's the audio experience that most pleases me. But I'm mostly listening to jazz and classical music, so realistically capturing and reproducing a performance in its original space is maybe a more relevant standard for me than someone listening to EDM or close mic, iso recorded rock, or all recorded and mixed in the box pop. Some people are pleased by boom and sizzle, or thumping over exaggerated bass at least. Those are people seeking pleasing sound, but those aren't audiophiles. An audiophile has an interest in high fidelity sound reproduction, not just personal pleasure. And I'm definitely not a rare exception. Audiophilia may not be like it was when I got into the hobby 30 or 40 years ago when almost all the listeners were classical listeners. But there's still a high percentage of audiophiles who are listening to classical and jazz, not rock and pop.
As Matt Hooper said the sound of clapping hands (and a lot of other noises) can tell you a lot about how good your system is. Trouble is it's not always obvious if it is lacking until you hear better. Breathing can be heard, notes have texture within them, air and space exists, tonality increases, all these things are possible, 5 years ago I wouldn't have known. Apologies to Sheryl.
You have apparently never heard a really good recording on a really good system. Just last night I was playing a track from Tommy Bolin/Private Eyes that has a 12sting guitar playing rhythm. My 20 year old son who is a musician commented how it sounds just like when he's playing with bandmates. Like that 12 string is right there in the room next to us. His mother my wife who was a professional musician for 22 years has made similar comments about numerous recordings. On Curtis Mayfield/Curtis Live she said it sounds like we are there. It's not that I have ever set out with that "fools errand" that you mentioned, but things just sometimes fall into place when systems are carefully put together and set up. Send a private message to out host and ask his opinion on this.
This is a fantastic thread. So many thoughts.... First off, I certainly agree about the use of live recordings to audition a set of speakers or a system. (live recording-talk about irony!) I also believe quite firmly that the room, obviously, tends to be the most important ingredient, albeit also the most overlooked. Compromises must often be made. Living rooms these days tend to be heavily dominated by the TV/video setup, plus furniture compromises. Those of us lucky enough to have dedicated listening spaces, which have been acoustically treated, could likely suffice with a 20wpc vintage SS receiver and a small set of bookshelf speakers with any source and still get an exemplary final product. Finally, we all hear so differently: Which guy rode motorcycles his whole life, which one worked in a quiet office. Plus substance use whilst listening versus teetotaler, plus DNA differences & age.
Private Eyes is not what I would consider a really good recording. It isn't a recording that will ever do the absolute sound. I do have audiophile fufu recordings that are minimally mic'ed with just two microphones in a stereo pair. By labels like 2L Records and MA Recordings and other audiophile fufu labels. Those recordings have a chance of presenting the absolute sound. Yet they don't and won't. Cause the absolute sound is a fools errand. You're never going to get those musicians in the room in a realistic manner that will fool you and get you to think it is live and not a recording.
I think 100% accuracy in the reproduction of a 100% accurate source is an admirable goal but I know that I’m never going to achieve it. I’ve just done what I deem practical for me to attain as close to that goal as probable within my individual limitations. Is it wrong to reach that point of satisfaction?
Yep. The single most common reaction to demos of my systems for non-audiophiles is commenting on how "real" it sounds. Most people aren't even cognizant of how much closer to the real thing a great stereo can sound, so they don't even think about it. It's a shock when it's encountered. A while back I was playing the Taxi Driver soundtrack for a musician friend. It has some magnificently vivid recording of lower woowinds especially. On my system the bassoons can take on an amazing corporeality, like big dense instruments vibrating a column of air within a deep soundstage. My friend was in awe "incredible, it's like I'm there listening to the musicians in the studio." Of course, if you put a real bassoon in the room you'd immediately notice the reproduction has a way to go. But that doesn't mean the reproduced sound isn't significantly MORE like the real thing to twig that memory or sensation of "real." I think the audiophiles who claim we are never to try to reproduce real sounds let alone expect it would do to remember: The original notion of "High Fidelity" was to the sound of real instruments and voices. One was trying to capture and reproduce those with "high fidelity." Which makes sense of course. Early on you were always putting microphones in front of real sounds, so the point was reproducing those real sounds. It's why there used to be live vs reproduced demos, why "high fidelity" equipment was sold as "bring the orchestra to your home." However, once musicians began to exploit the recording process itself, and the studio tricks, to make recordings that were heavily artificial sounding and not even meant to sound real, then the sound of the recordings and production techniques became part of the art. So now people don't have only the reference to live sounds when evaluating systems - we have references to all our encounters with different sounding systems and different sounding recordings. However, despite that the range of our references for "good sound" has expanded, live sound remains ONE available touchstone for sound quality. That's why even people who don't normally expect their sound systems to "sound real" nonetheless tend to be impressed when they hear a system "sound more real." Like my guests encounter.
Im glad a dont give a rats about anything sounding "real", I think thats a silly fruitless ideal. I just want it to sound "good". If I want real, Ill go see someone play live. Simples.
He makes some good points. Particularly that recording technology hasn't really improved dramatically since the late 50's. Most of my best sounding recordings came from the 50's and 60's. I stopped looking at measurements a long time ago. My reference was live Jazz music. Call it subjective or objective, that became my goal without spending a fortune. I'm satisfied that my system has just enough detail, dynamic range and soundstage to create the illusion of live music. Could it be better? Probably. But for me it's good enough; I haven't made any equipment upgrades for more than 10 years. I've tried new amplifiers and new speakers but the "improvement" didn't warrant the cost. Sometimes I think reviewers are impressed by a new piece of equipment because they hear something they haven't heard before and they call it an improvement, but I always wonder if it made the sound come closer to "real music". Perhaps it did, but then the problem is that everyone has a different perception of "real music".
Read some books about the psychology of sound and how we perceive it and many of your opinions will change including those 'cast in stone' rules - I violate most of them. Also helpful are books about the recording process, and microphones and their placement and uses.
Agreed. And to think that AR claimed to have done this in the 60s with AR3a's. I actually owned a pair for a few years in the early 70s.
One of the most distinguishing features between two different masterings I had of Pink Floyd's DSOTM was the intro to Time. On the really good mastering the chimes and bells sounded so much more realistic. Attack, decay, timbre, clarity of tone (whatever you use to describe it) was so much better on one mastering than the other. ...and yes the rest of the album was better as well, but it really stood out with the bells. (it was actually on two different media as well but I won't go there)
I agree that recordings made in the 50s and 60s are the equal of today's recordings but with less effects. HOWEVER, the idea you can't get 'live music' in your house is pure BS as are some of his other repetitious ideas. I view speakers as 'musical instruments' which radiate in 360* and NOT a single plain (plane?) like most speakers are designed. How can you expect to get 'accurate' sound when the speaker can't reproduce sound the same way a musical instrument does? I use critical thinking, concerts, and books I read to come to my own conclusions of the way sound needs to be reproduced. Let's face it, much of the sound we hear at concerts and recordings is reflected and the room interferes with the recording no matter how close a mic is placed to an instrument or a guitar amp. I view my room as an extension of the speakers and the room as an enclosure, just like a speaker. You need to think 'out of the box' to get the best sound oftentimes breaking all the rules. YMMV
