I vaguely remember that experiment with the ARs. IIRC they did it outdoors behind a curtain with a real band playing and a set of AR3a playing the recording, with the audience at a distance I’m not sure if I could tell the difference easily in that setting, as the AR3 could play pretty loud and deliver a lot of bass without distorting. In my living room I’m pretty sure I could tell the difference. I’ve invited Bob Dylan over several times to try it, but hasn’t returned my calls for some reason.
Even if the speakers and amplifier were up for the job, you'd need a near perfect recording. A state of the art analog recording in those days would add that 'analog tape' sound to the recording. You'd also get tape saturation which is a bit of that sound and a form of compression. Oh that can sound very nice and pleasing but the live performance has none of that colorization. If you keep the levels down to avoid that you'll add hiss. A modern high resolution digital recording can overcome those issues, but not in the 60s.
Modern high resolution digital recordings can’t hold a candle to the RCA Living Stereo and Mercury Living Presence recordings IMHO. The only “tell” might be some hiss. Also, the AR3a were somewhat rolled off. All I’m saying, though, is that if those recordings could not fool the audience, I don’t think modern digital recording could either.
I love those recordings and have all of them, but what i love about those is the recording technique and the performances. I can surely hear the limitations of the gear. That is not the case with modern gear.
Reading this triggered a memory of Audio Note and the cellist video. The spectators were commenting how they couldn’t tell the cellist from the Audio Note recording of the same piece. Single instrument might be easier I suppose.
Well, my 2 pennies, messing with, tinkering, upgrading, failing, trying again a different way, failing again, its the same as any other hobby… BTW, he seems like a nice guy but I’ve never been able to make it through a whole video…
It's not that there were not some improvements since the 50's and 60's. But they were not dramatic improvements. To my ears the jump in technology from the average recording done in 1949 to a recording done in 1959 was absolutely huge. The jump in recording sound quality between 1958 and 1968 wasn't as significant and the improvement over the subsequent decades similarly was only incremental. (Note... I'm referring to the master recording (master tapes) not the consumer media (LP, Cassette, CD, etc. ) used by the general population. )
It is not nearly as bad as you seem to think. A 'perfect' recording is just a good engineering job away. The AR recordings were done outdoors with Sony C-37 microphones. The performers were a string quartet - hardly a challenge even for the mastering tapes of the period (late 1960s). That 'analog tape' sound is comprised of low order/odd order harmonics, dominated by the 3rd harmonic - these are all but inaudible, especially in a large auditorium setting in which the AR demonstrations were performed. Good engineering is not something which was invented just in the last decade.
I'm not gonna name the internet audio influencer thou he is one of the commons on youtube. A worldwide sale explosion on an amp after his review and buyers found out after 2-1/2 years that the amp is hardly even drawing 3 watts instead of 8 with a modulation of less than 50%. I guess that's not just his influence but even the buyers are so anxious to leave a review just after receiving the amp in a few hours.
I get, relate and agree with you. I have different hobbies and other ways I enjoy spending my time. Two classic muscle cars take up their share of $$ and summer weather time with lots of music on the back porch while, my audio interests are front and center in the November-April time periods. We’re also blessed to have grown kids nearby that we spend lots of time with. it’s a matter of balance, both time and investment wise. My audio system is very modest by most here and my cars are not Barrett Jackson auction ready. But, I enjoy both to their fullest for the enjoyment and fulfillment void I like having filled.
I'd argue 99.9% of it isn't even trying to do that. A lot of it is certainly going for a certain sound (be that good or bad) but a non-trivial amount is just mixed to sound "good" on the radio/car/earbuds, i.e. whatever the current flavour du jour audio delivery mechanism is. And the remix engineer's definition of "good" might well be very different than yours. For example "compressed to have a dynamic range of 1db so you can hear it over the annoying voices at the gym."
I saw Kodo perform at Boston Symphony hall a week ago, had 3rd row seats. NO STEREO I've ever heard regardless of cost (and I've heard some that cost over 500k) is even a vague facsimile of Kodo performing live. None of them have a snowball's chance in hell of accurately reproducing the weight and heft of the big drum live, never mind anything else.
I've had a love affair with Lyra carts that stretches back 25 years, although it's been with their middle range offerings. I'd love to hear what an Atlas can do. I really, really, wanted an Etna last go around but it was just too much, especially on a consumable. "Settled" (if you can use that word in this context at all) on a Kleos.
Big drums are easy. 50 years ago, the EV Voice of the Theater speakers would blow you out of your seat like an earthquake. What's hard is the human voice and a violin.
I disagree. Speakers don't move enough air; and I haven't heard one that gets the instant attack and decay of those drums right. Which is not to say that getting a violin, the projection of a good vocalist, or a piano right is any easier.
Yes but then the question is what is you do for home reproduction, knowing that you are necessarily making compromises. The path I found for my taste and ears may not be the same for others.
Most live pop/rock music is amplified and goes through a sound board. There is a lot of tailoring and mixing of the sound to match the venue. In my mind this type of live music is, in theory, easy to replicate. I think the biggest challenge would be to replicate a full scale symphony orchestra in a concert hall. No (or minimal) amplification and very complex layers of different instruments tones and dynamics that is almost impossible to replicate. I enjoy live Jazz and my system (to my ears) comes close enough to sounding like John Coltrane or Miles Davis is standing in my room. But there is no way my system could come close to replicating a symphony orchestra.
I thought it was dumb because nobody would expect the music to sound live (as in the room of recording) because as it is being recorded there are technicians twiddling the dials and making changes anyway. It will never sound as it does if you are standing in the room as it is the mastering people that have to make it sound as fantastic as they can by twiddling the knobs! Adjustments are being made at recording time I assume. So there will be a difference anyway.
Live music can sound great, but not always. Plus you've got to buy the tickets, get to the venue, (organise babysitting for some of us), be in a venue with sometimes annoying fellow patrons, etc. Nice to have a system that sounds good and you can just kick back with a glass of red and enjoy the music! My system is modest as are my means. I'm really an AK forum guy hanging with the rich dudes here but I've made great improvements to my system over the past few years (record cleaning, subs, better speakers, speaker placement, etc). Mostly, I don't think we're BS-ing ourselves. Occasionally, maybe.
And yet, the amount of times I read that the musicians were life like and in the room... Even though he is stating the obvious. It might be a point worth making. (As silly as it seems)
This is an absolutely crucial and most often overlooked part for me. Personally, 95% of music I listen to is not a "live performance". It also does not try to be an "illusion of live performance". It very often doesn't use instruments or manipulates their sound into new sounds. I view recorded sound art as a willfully, consciously art-ificial, aesthetic product, work of art, that doesn't try to simulate or mimic. It is its own thing, made from various sound sources, in the studio, creating an artificial construct that is a work of aural art. So, what do I, as an audiophile, want? I don't want any "illusion of the real thing". There is no real thing, really. I want as accurate as possible reproduction of that recorded work of art. I want the resolution, presence, spaciality, dynamics, tone, colour, high fidelity of that aural work of art. This whole "chasing the illusion of the real thing" is, for me, a very narrow outlook not only on hi-fi, but on what music/sound art is. And the way I approach which system is better with sound art like this is also the "realness" of concrete sounds in this music, timbre, tonal colour, ability to reproduce transients, dynamics, space around sound objects, voices etc. So, if I chase the illusion, then I chase the illusion of artificially created sound object in the studio and no the illusion of a live performance. This is very different, because I see studio work as a primary "reality", while those chasing the "live performance" see studio work as "secondary reality", an imitation of primary reality.
