Is Steve Guttenberg BS’ing Audiophiles About Their Systems?

I believe that the goal of achieving "live music" at home is now passe. Loud compression aids with this but is anathema is audiophiles, so no I don't think that SG is wrong.

 

It's been quite a few years since I attended a live music event and did not wear ear plugs. I never wear ear plugs when I listen to music through my stereo.

 

I think this thread has an assumption that Guttenberg was making a statement rather than asking a question. And he was asking a question then making points as to how each viewer should answer the question. I think the video was fair. But I've never been one to think any recording is representative of a live performance. Studio recordings are fiction. They are contrived during the mix. Thing are pieced together then placed in a soundscape during that mix. The only thing close to a live performance might be a direct-to-disc recording but even that is influenced by microphone placement and the quality of the microphones themselves. A lot of "live" recordings include overdubs to fix problems with the recording of the actual performance. His view presented is that some may be viewing their system as a substitute for the live experience. And I think many do. I had a roommate in college that had a fairly extensive music library. But he never went to or even accepted invitation to go to live shows. He just wanted to listen to his tapes and records. To each his own, and he did have a great stereo that I used as much as I could. My roommate and others like him were the target of Guttenberg's question. I don't think it was posed to every audiophile. I simply think he has a check for how he views his roles as a journalist. And while there is a place for buying really good stereo gear, and if you have the means to buy the best all the better, it just isn't a substitute for live music. I think that's his point. The thing Gutttenberg ignores in that video is that I can't go out hire the Beatles to play Abbey Road for me when I want to hear those songs. I can play my records. And that's why I still buy records and have a stereo.

As far as my assessment that recorded music is fiction, I don't state this as a bad thing. Fiction is generally what I read in books. There is nothing like a good story. It's usually better than anything that's actually happened to me in my life.

 

Anyone that attends live acoustic music events will certainly agree that our systems aren't as good as live, but I believe it's gotten much better over the years. Live music concerts in large venues that use a PA system really aren't much better than a good system and most times even worse. Much recorded music is multi tracked, eq'ed manipulated, which makes that music completely different from a live experience. Our systems need to reproduce what the producer was hearing in the final mix.

Many musicians don't have the disposable income for an expensive stereo. Some musicians aren't into expensive systems. I don't know what Steve means by real music. Isn't recorded music, real music? I recently listened to Oscar Petersons Night Train. Sure, it's not as good as live but the piano sounded great and besides I won't be able to hear Oscar Peterson live, so hearing his piano playing through my system is a blessing.

I'm a musician and an audiophile and I know some other people on this forum that are as well. So we don't fit his criteria.

Well this comment contradicts his video review of the latest Wilson speaker.

 

I see way to many people on this forum that make side way changes to their systems. In that case the system won't be better just different. For instance, someone has a $3,000 set of speakers and decides they don't like those speakers and then they go out and purchase a different set of speakers for around $3,000. I think one would have to spend hundreds of thousands to get to that certain point you are referring to.

 

Unfortunately i'm an audiophile AND a videophile. This year the toy budget will focus on a video display.

 

I listen to pop and rock mostly. I have yet to hear anything soundstage with a few special effects being the extent of it. Mostly Pink Floyd concerts with their 360 degree sound system. A few coffee house Acoustic shows have a sense k of width and depth. So I look for an honest presentation of what is on the source. I do not expect a disc of Fleetwood Mac to sound like they are on a stage in front of me, but to sound like a well recorded studio presentation.

 

I like the Audiophilliac, and watched the "BSing" video. I think he was just trying to make some people's expectations a little more realistic.
I think I might have made the same point a little differently though. He seemed to be saying that you are "never" going to get the kind of sound that a live performance would bring. I disagree. That is exactly what audiophiles strive for, and even with my (relatively,) modest stereo system, playing sources that are well mastered, I occasionally have reached a "nirvana" in sound quality. Doesn't happen often, but if the synergy is right it is (imo) as good as a live performance. - So, to Steve G. I would say, "never say never".

 

Yep, all of this is subjective, so let your ears be the judge.

 

A week or so ago my wife and I attended a live performance in a concert hall with great acoustics. There, an incredible violinist was accompanied by piano. No amplification / PA at all. Violin and grand piano; nothing else between them and my ears. I'll skip what was played etc. but will simply say that while the violinist's performance could not have been better - it was simply amazing - and her accompanist was top notch - the sound (and we had good seats) was merely so-so. By the intermission I was wondering if I could just buy the CD and enjoy it (the sound - not the performances) more at home in my main HT.

This is not the first time I've had that reaction to a non-amplified live performance, short of a full symphonic performance.

Then again, last evening, a musician friend of mine who's been staying with us for a few days teamed up with a neighbour's daughter to belt out some great duets during a good old fashioned after-dinner music kitchen party. He on guitar and both of them singing some very sweet harmonies. No desire to hear it any other way!

Jeff

 

You mean like many audiophiles who keep upgrading gear from their av dealers that are literally dealers to them

 

studio recordings are artists collaborations that are built from layers and perfectly arranged. I don’t think they are fiction at all. Just something different than a live recording with no edits or overdubs

 

Lisa Gerrard had a high end TAD based system and an acoustically splendid space. Ever since I spent some time with her system, I have tried to keep something from TAD at different points in time.

Guttenberg has always been cranially challenged and boring.

 

Since Steve seems to like everything he reviews, I personally find little value in his opinions outside of the entertainment value of his program. He seems like a nice fellow but full of hot air.

More on topic, I’ve never been under the illusion that studio recordings should sound like live music. How can they? There is so much alteration going on in the micing, mixing, tracking, mastering, etc. Hell, the musicians aren’t even playing together most of the time. Plus, a studio is nothing like most live venues.

Closest I get to live at home are actual live recordings that can capture some of the atmosphere of the venue. Still those are usually adulterated in some way too. It is what it is. Doesn’t stop me from enjoying music at home. Indeed, sometimes live performances suck and the band sounds better recorded and tweaked.

 

Most musicians are also NOT listening to recording monitors at home, or at least, for pleasure. Monitors in a studio are intended to reveal what a recording sounds like, flaws and all. Good sounding HOME speakers (despite what some here might think) are designed to be at least somewhat forgiving.

A powerful example might be the Yamaha NS10's, one of the most hated/revered monitors ever. They are terrible to listen to. Most users put a sheet of tissue paper over the tweeter just so they can listen to them for short periods of time to test a mix. They are painfully fatiguing BUT great at showing what is flawed in your recording. The old adage has always been, "if it is listenable in my NS10's, it is a good mix". It's true.

I had a friend that worked for Meyer Sound in the 2000's and bought a discounted pair of HD1 monitors despite my advice. They were horrible. They measured as flat as a ruler, but had no imaging, ear bleeding midrange, but incredible bass. He sold them at a profit and bought some used Spica t60's and was in heaven.

I personally have had pair after pair of Dynaudio powered professional monitors for work. They walk the line - detailed, but bearable, and on a truly GOOD mix, amazing. Dynaudio consumer speakers are a COMPLETELY different animal. I have a pair of those in a system at home - they are powerful, clean, accurate... amazing. Having said that, honestly the old pair of PSB Alpha B1's I got for $100 that live in my office system are better and more enjoyable in almost every respect. An amazing value.

To summarize.. good home speakers are designed with entirely different goals in mind than monitors.

 

Not a cut and dried answer as you have discovered ! One of the best sounding concerts I have been to recently was guitarist Al Dimeola with a drummer and percussionist. It was in a small theater and the music was amplified through a very nice sounding newer PA setup with the speaker array mounted on tubular columns and beams that framed the stage, speakers were up high. The sound was incredibly clear and loud and did sound to me like pro speakers being driven by high watt class D amplifiers. While this would be easy to duplicate at home, it was the overall spaciousness of the sound in the very large room that made me enjoy it so much along with the music of course.
A room that large would not be so easy to duplicate at home- but it has nothing to do with the quality of the sound system.
A recording played back through the venue's PA would sound just as good as the live show.

 

I’ve never had the NY Philharmonic playing live in my living room. However, I sure have heard my teenage daughter singing and playing acoustic guitar live many, many times. A good recording of a solo singer and guitar sounds virtually the same through my system. Or, listen to the SACD layer of our host’s SACD of Peter Paul & Mary’s In the Wind, played at “live” performance loudness level on a good system. It sounds like they are in the room.

I think it becomes virtually impossible to get that when it gets to very large scale, eg., the NY Phil playing B’s Ninth. Although it still sounds amazingly good when done right. Check out Bruggen’s work with the Orchestra of the 18th Century on Philipps, most of it recorded live. Wow. Even through my smallish Harbeth 30.

 

The more important question is: who cares?

Live music is a transitory shared social experience, an entirely different thing from home audio. Must be a slow day in the world of manufactured YouTube controversies.

 

As I wrote in the other thread, for those who dismiss the very idea of live music as a reference - that was the reference for "High Fidelity" sound for a long time.

Here's a nice little documentary on making records in the 1950s:



Notice how the use of High Fidelity is used in reference to fidelity to the "real sound" (e.g. of symphonic instruments) and bringing that in to the customer's home.

It was the project of comparing live to reproduced, and pushing audio technology to be able to capture all the elements of live music, that played a big part in the advancement of audio reproduction, to help us get to where we are now. It's still pushing many high end gear designers forward (after all...once you have relatively flat measurements in a modest system...why bother creating designs capable of ever greater scale and dynamics and tonal authenticity? ).

 

I’m a professional musician and an audiophile, and there are at least a few others I know of on this site. I don’t consider hifi to be my hobby - I see it as an extension of my work. Listening, learning, and being inspired by music is an essential part of my practice.

I listen to a fair amount of rock and classical, but the majority of my listening is to acoustic jazz, since this is what I play professionally. I’m also lucky enough to live in New York City, where we have incredible venues like the Village Vanguard and Carnegie Hall, with world renowned acoustics. I don’t have a particularly fancy system, but it’s pretty good, and I strive for music to sound as good through my system as it does at the Vanguard, Of course the scale isn’t going to be there from my little LS50s, but the tonality and transient impact isn’t far off.

I do agree that amplified rock music tends to sound better reproduced via good records on a good system than it does blaring through a PA system in an arena. Seeing those shows is maybe more about the energy than good sound. But I do think that more acoustic musical situations can get closer to an accurate reproduction on a good system in a good room.

 

Also: what we are on listening to 99% of the time on our home systems is not “live music”. We are listening to studio recordings, which are built track by track. Reverb and delay is added to approximate acoustic spaces, compression is added…. And these recordings are made knowing that most of the audience is going to be listening on earbuds at 128kbps.

Even when the records are being recorded, the people in the room aren’t hearing them “live” - they are listening through headphones or studio monitors. Sometimes the amplifier isn’t even in the same room, or there is no amplifier because the signal is going direct into the board.

Reproducing live music has never been a consideration of mine in over 40 years in this hobby. I just want to hear everything that’s in the recording, and I want it to sound good. Same as most people. I don’t know if I’ve ever heard any of my friends in this hobby ever say “gee whiz, I’m not happy with my new hi-fi set up because it doesn’t sound like the concert I went to the other night”. Honestly, I don’t know what Guttenberg is on about, other than trying to get some clicks and engagement. He’s making a pointless point.

 

I don't understand this whole premise of trying to get one's system to sound like live music - in fact, I'd say I disagree with the premise entirely. That has never been my goal or intent. The thought has never even occurred to me! Most of the studio-recorded music I listen to (apart from jazz) does not sound like "live" music, so why would I want a system that makes it sound like music in a live setting? A lot of the smaller and mid-sized venues I've typically gone to over the years to see live bands didn't exactly have stellar sound anyhow, so I wouldn't want to replicate that anyway. I've never been like, "Damn! My setup just doesn't sound like the boomy PA at a large, cavernous venue or the crappy acoustics of a scuzzy dive bar, so I have failed."

I just want things to sound clear, crisp, and detailed with depth, wide sound stage, etc. Or really, I just want music to sound as close as possible to how the artists, producers, and engineers intended for it to sound.

So, to my mind, mildly chastising people for trying and failing to achieve a "live music sound" on their systems when that was never the goal in the first place is a straw man fallacy.

 

But then, the print magazines decided that accuracy was not the end goal but the goal was "fun".

 

............................................................................

 

Also, the idea that most musician's aren't audiophiles because no home stereo systems can compare with live sound is very silly, IMHO. Speaking as a musician myself, unless you're talking about jazz, classical, or some acoustic-type music, most of the time it's the other way around - the live sound does not (and cannot) compare to what's on the record!

Maybe live sound was something to strive for with high fidelity back in the 1950s, but recorded music has evolved significantly since then, with artists utilizing the studio as an instrument to not merely capture sound, but to shape, sculpt, and create new sounds, resulting in recordings which move far beyond the basic sound of a bunch of people playing live in a room.

The other reason why not all musicians are audiophiles is, honestly, because being an audiophile is an extremely niche and potentially expensive hobby. Not all human beings are audiophiles, therefore, not all musicians are either. Plus, musicians who are not rich or famous (and there are far more of those than rich/famous ones), who may have a limited budget, often have to make a choice between buying higher-end instruments/music gear and higher-end stereo components, and it's not surprising that a lot of musicians in that position are probably going to choose to spend more on their instruments. I myself have had to weigh that choice many times over the years.

(FWIW, I don't label myself an audiophile; I just think of myself as someone who appreciates good sound, and I do what I can with a very limited budget.)