Can TAS still be relevant today?

[Allan F]

anyone up to weighing in/taking on this one?

 

I have a question, if one gets the sound of actual acoustic instruments playing in a real space, would not the sound of electronic instruments playing in a studio also be correct?

 

FWIW, I have always believed that to be the case. That was the basis for Harry Pearson's "absolute sound" mantra.

[gmgraves]

gmgraves2,

well stated for the record.

imo, you would be correct to say the majority of 'hi-fidelity' audio equipment purchasers today do not listen to well-recorded live acoustic performances, especially of classical music.

majority = men. so, at best, they are likely to audition with female vocals which are familiar to them = Rumer, Jessie Ware, Christina Perri, Amy Winehouse, Patricia Barber, Diana Krall, Alison Strauss, Stacey Kent, Norah Jones (earlier recordings), Mariah Carey, etc., and hopefully not Adele or Whitney Houston.

many would then choose the component/system which makes the ^ performance more attractive.

hopefully, audiophiles, including the younger generation of, do bring along some "suitable" classical, and make an attempt (conscious/unconscious) to evaluate with TAS as a reference. personally, i did not (brought classical recordings but not the kind that focused on concept of TAS) for my last purchase... but it sounds like i should in the future.

speaking of which, could you recommend one or two classical recordings that one could purchase as a reference?

cheers.

 

 

Prokofieff - "Lt Kiji", Stravinsky "Song of the Nightingale"; Fritz Reiner - Chicago Symphony - JVC XRCD: JM-XR24026*

 

Elgar - "Enigma Variations", Vaughan-Williams "The Wasps"; Michael Stern and the Kansas City Symphony Orchestra

Reference Recordings RR-129

 

*There are other versions of this Prokofieff "Lt Kiji" by Reiner available. There is an RCA Red Seal CD of this very title as well as an RCA Hybrid SACD and another RCA CD which re-groups the "Lt Kiji" with Mussorgsky's "Night on Bald Mountain". Even though these other offerings are the same performance, they have nothing else in common with the JVC release (which is just a Red Book CD, not high-res LPCM or SACD). The JVC XRCD is one of the best sounding recordings, this audiophile has ever heard - in any format! The SACD release is NOT anywhere near as good.

 

You might also try any of the Mercury Living Presence CDs, Such as Howard Hanson's 1st and 2nd Symphonies with Hanson conducting the Eastman Rochester Orchestra etc. You really can't go wrong with any of the Mercurys recorded by Fine and Eberenz and mastered by Wilma Cozert Fine.

[gmgraves]

I have a question, if one gets the sound of actual acoustic instruments playing in a real space, would not the sound of electronic instruments playing in a studio also be correct?

 

FWIW, I have always believed that to be the case. That was the basis for Harry Pearson's "absolute sound" mantra.

 

I'm afraid that I have to disagree, here. An electric guitar, for instance, is not a complete instrument. It's sound (as is the sound of a Fender Rhodes piano, or other electronic keyboard instrument) depends, to a great extent, on such factors as what amp is used, whether or not any special effects "boxes" such as those designed to purposely introduce distortion are employed, and what kind of signal processing is used at the mixing board. There are so many variable elements including what the monitor speakers were that the recording was mixed on, that unless you were there, you have no way of knowing if your home playback even approximates what the performers/producers/engineers had in mind when the recording was made. Therefore one cannot use such a performance as a source for what HP called "the absolute sound". The reason why only acoustic instruments can be used for such a reference is simply because, when you hear them live, there is nothing between the instrument and the listener's ears but air. That makes that sound the real sound of that instrument, unsullied by electronics, and unknown speakers.

 

My rule of thumb is that if your goal is to make your stereo sound as close to live, acoustic music as possible, then you probably won't be too far off the mark playing anything you like. I have seen HP make a similar observation, and I know JGH felt the same way. We spent many an evening discussing this very thing over a good single malt!

[Allan F]

I'm afraid that I have to disagree, here. An electric guitar is not a complete instrument. It's sound depends, to a great extent, on such factors as what amp is used, whether or not any special effects "boxes" such as those designed to purposely introduce distortion are employed, and what kind of signal processing is used at the mixing board.

 

With respect, George, I believe you misunderstood the question. It was not whether electric instruments played in a studio can be used to evaluate the accuracy of a system. IMO none of what you wrote above explains why all music, including amplified music recorded in a studio, should not be accurately reproduced by a system that accurately does so for acoustic instruments that cover the audible frequency spectrum. It matters not that we weren't present in the studio when the amplified music was recorded. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that what you are basically saying in the following passage.

 

My rule of thumb is that if your goal is to make your stereo sound as close to live, acoustic music as possible, then you probably won't be too far off the mark playing anything you like. I have seen HP make a similar observation, and I know JGH felt the same way. We spent many an evening discussing this very thing over a good single malt!

[gmgraves]

None of which explains why, IMO, if the acoustic instruments accurately reproduced cover the audible frequency spectrum, that all music reproduced by that system should not also be reproduced accurately.

 

 

I think I said that! So yeah, absolutely. But if you design your system to sound good *to you* only on studio-bound pop music, then your system is no longer about high-fidelity in the strictest sense because you are not trying to be faithful to anything except your own taste. Psychoacoustic studies done in the 30's through the 50's have shown conclusively that most people, left to their own devices, tend to go "open loop" with regard to how their systems sound. That is to say, they tend toward the spectacular rather than the realistic; with big, juke-box like bass, sparkling, over-boosted highs and hyper-etched details*. When such people finally do listen to live, un-amplified music, the more astute among them invariably think to themselves, "gee, my stereo system certainly doesn't sound like real music." That's why I believe that if your goal is high-fidelity, you need to listen to as much live, acoustic music as possible, and no, it doesn't have to be classical; a folk singer with an acoustic guitar in a coffee house or a small jazz ensemble in a night club will work just fine, thank you. In fact, as much as love a symphony orchestra, I do most of my live music listening following the jazz scene at night-spots in my neck of the woods. That's mostly because this type of music is far more accessible and these days, certainly more affordable than a symphony orchestra ticket!

 

* One way to tell an open-loop audiophile: He likes moving-coil cartridges with ear-splittingly boosted top ends. He, at least, doesn't seem to realize that real music doesn't sound like that....

[Allan F]

I think I said that! So yeah, absolutely. But if you design your system to sound good *to you* only on studio-bound pop music, then your system is no longer about high-fidelity in the strictest sense because you are not trying to be faithful to anything except your own taste.

 

But, that's not what I said, George. I believe that, in your enthusiasm to respond, you missed the edited version of what I posted.

[gmgraves]

But, that's not what I said, George. I believe, in your enthusiasm to respond, you missed the edited version of what I posted.

 

 

I went back and re-read what you said, and I still glean this from it (I'm paraphrasing):

 

"If one's stereo reproduces acoustic instruments properly, should it not then reproduce all music accurately?"

 

If I'm reading you incorrectly, please accept my apology and PLEASE re-state your point in a manner that my addled mind can comprehend better.

 

OK I hadn't seen your edited version when I wrote the above. I have seen it now and have commented below.

[gmgraves]

With respect, George, I believe you misunderstood the question. It was not whether electric instruments played in a studio can be used to evaluate the accuracy of a system. IMO none of what you wrote above explains why all music, including amplified music recorded in a studio, should not be accurately reproduced by a system that accurately does so for acoustic instruments that cover the audible frequency spectrum. It matters not that we weren't present in the studio when the amplified music was recorded. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that what you are basically saying in the following passage.

 

 

That is what I am saying. But I am saying something else as well. I am also saying that if one uses only studio-bound pop and rock as a reference, it's like using no reference at all, because those performances don't exist in real acoustic space. Without a reference humans tend to go for exaggerated sound as I said earlier.

[Allan F]

That is what I am saying. But I am saying something else as well. I am also saying that if one uses only studio-bound pop and rock as a reference, it's like using no reference at all, because those performances don't exist in real acoustic space. Without a reference humans tend to go for exaggerated sound as I said earlier.

 

But I wasn't suggesting using only studio-bound pop and rock as a reference, and that wasn't the intent of the question to which I responded. For clarity, i added [correct] and bolded a word.

 

I have a question, if one gets the sound of actual acoustic instruments playing in a real space [correct], would not the sound of electronic instruments playing in a studio also be correct?

[YashN]

I have a question, if one gets the sound of actual acoustic instruments playing in a real space correct, would not the sound of electronic instruments playing in a studio also be correct?

 

It depends if both frequency range and attack transients (i.e. time domain information) for both type of music/sounds are completely covered by the first experiment.

 

Let me try to expound a bit on it: I indeed think that the original target of Hi-Fi has great value, and the only way to actually calibrate a system is to try and reproduce live music with it by someone with a well-trained ear.

 

This, of course, because it is nearly impossible for the end-listener to have the exact same equipment chain as the electronic artists and the Mastering Engineer. The issue with electronic music is that it has to be amplified to be heard so we really have no standard to rely on.

 

To be able to hear the approved Master of an electronic music album, I would need to have exactly the same hi-quality amplifier and speaker system that the Mastering Engineer has.

 

So, really, the only proper way to calibrate a system is with live music.

 

However... if the live music used for calibration doesn't cover the complete capabilities of the electronic music in both frequency response and time domain resolution, the results may be skewed.

 

About two years ago, I revived a Korg Polysix and looked at the frequency response. It's a polyphonic analog synth and goes above 20kHz. Needless to say, some synths and modulars can do very low bass as well, and really fast attacks too.

 

So, a live music calibration should be useful, but there are conditions. If you can get a Mastering Engineer to do a second 'electronic music' calibration based on a track or tracks he worked on, that might be ideal.

 

That's a long reply, Teresa, and maybe it will be hard to follow based on your recent feedback, but it was something I have been thinking about a lot recently.

 

I mostly listen to electronic music myself (more and more acoustic too ever since I worked a lot on my music system), but many friends who drop by and listen get to hear DSD128 on acoustic music, or some live music, and they really, really like the feeling that the singer and musicians are 'in the room'.

[alfe]

http://cdn.shure.com/publication/upload/837/microphone_techniques_for_recording_english.pdf

[davide256]

TAS is not what it started out as. In the 80's it was an eclectic group of earnest audiophiles willing to review anything that offered a value to listeners across a variety of systems. Now its basically a "yacht club" magazine that occasionally pretends to care about audiophiles without trust funds.

[gmgraves]

But I wasn't suggesting using only studio-bound pop and rock as a reference, and that wasn't the intent of the question to which I responded. For clarity, i added [correct] and bolded a word.

 

 

 

Sorry Allan, I simply don't see any difference between what you are asking and what I'm asserting

[gmgraves]

It depends if both frequency range and attack transients (i.e. time domain information) for both type of music/sounds are completely covered by the first experiment.

 

Let me try to expound a bit on it: I indeed think that the original target of Hi-Fi has great value, and the only way to actually calibrate a system is to try and reproduce live music with it by someone with a well-trained ear.

 

This, of course, because it is nearly impossible for the end-listener to have the exact same equipment chain as the electronic artists and the Mastering Engineer. The issue with electronic music is that it has to be amplified to be heard so we really have no standard to rely on.

 

To be able to hear the approved Master of an electronic music album, I would need to have exactly the same hi-quality amplifier and speaker system that the Mastering Engineer has.

 

So, really, the only proper way to calibrate a system is with live music.

 

However... if the live music used for calibration doesn't cover the complete capabilities of the electronic music in both frequency response and time domain resolution, the results may be skewed.

 

About two years ago, I revived a Korg Polysix and looked at the frequency response. It's a polyphonic analog synth and goes above 20kHz. Needless to say, some synths and modulars can do very low bass as well, and really fast attacks too.

 

So, a live music calibration should be useful, but there are conditions. If you can get a Mastering Engineer to do a second 'electronic music' calibration based on a track or tracks he worked on, that might be ideal.

 

That's a long reply, Teresa, and maybe it will be hard to follow based on your recent feedback, but it was something I have been thinking about a lot recently.

 

I mostly listen to electronic music myself (more and more acoustic too ever since I worked a lot on my music system), but many friends who drop by and listen get to hear DSD128 on acoustic music, or some live music, and they really, really like the feeling that the singer and musicians are 'in the room'.

 

 

+1000!

[gmgraves]

http://cdn.shure.com/publication/upload/837/microphone_techniques_for_recording_english.pdf

 

 

An awful lot of "opinion" here. I've tried about everything they mention (at one time or another) and find most of it does not give accurate or natural sound. Still, it's all worth trying because at some time or another everything might just solve a recording problem!

[Allan F]

Sorry Allan, I simply don't see any difference between what you are asking and what I'm asserting

 

Sorry, George, but I'm afraid that we are talking at cross purposes. I wasn't asking any questions. I was replying to the question that I reproduced.

 

To clear up any confusion, however, I was AGREEING with you about the use of amplified electric music as a reference, or more correctly, the inappropriate use of it for that purpose.

[gmgraves]

TAS is not what it started out as. In the 80's it was an eclectic group of earnest audiophiles willing to review anything that offered a value to listeners across a variety of systems. Now its basically a "yacht club" magazine that occasionally pretends to care about audiophiles without trust funds.

 

 

Can't argue with that. Unfortunately, that's the direction "high-end" audio has gone. The magazines chase that market, I believe, because magazines that have been founded to cater to affordable equipment, largely, haven't been successful (at least here in the U.S.A.).

[gmgraves]

Sorry, George, but I'm afraid that we are talking at cross purposes. I wasn't asking any questions. I was replying to the question that I reproduced.

 

To clear up any confusion, I was AGREEING with you about the use of amplified electric music as a reference, or more correctly, the inappropriate use of it for that purpose.

 

 

The original question was:

 

I have a question, if one gets the sound of actual acoustic instruments playing in a real space, would not the sound of electronic instruments playing in a studio also be correct?

 

That's the question I meant. Sorry that I mis-attributed it to you.

[Daudio]

TAS is not what it started out as.

 

This thread is concerned with the concept of the 'absolute sound' ('tas'), not the magazine ('TAS').

There were a lot of audio store across the USA that also used that name, but we're not talking about them either. But I do agree with your comments about the magazine. I haven't seriously read a TAS in decades

 

I will have more to say about the 'tas' here later...

[livelistenlearn]

Prokofieff - "Lt Kiji", Stravinsky "Song of the Nightingale"; Fritz Reiner - Chicago Symphony - JVC XRCD: JM-XR24026*

 

thanks.

 

 

cheers.

[semente]

In my view, acoustic unamplified music recorded in a "natural" space with minimalist mic'ing at "civilised" distance is the right material to evaluate system and equipment performance.

The problem is that most pop and rock will not sound good with a high performing system because it's usually poorly balanced (tone), loud, compressed and dry-sounding. Some of the worst examples clearly benefit from a low-fi coloured reproduction...

 

R

[semente]

Oh, he's definitely got ideas about cables, DACs, etc.

 

But the "absolute sound" part is that he records acoustic instruments in natural spaces, not studios; and without close-miking techniques ('cause in a concert you aren't sitting with your ear 3 inches from the acoustic guitar). He's been the producer or mastering engineer of some of the most sought-after versions of recordings by artists like Bob Marley and Led Zeppelin, so he knows something about recording.

 

Judging from the sound of a sample I got from his website and the video of the recording I still feel that his mics are too close, close than a normal audience listening position.

 

R

[Jud]

Judging from the sound of a sample I got from his website and the video of the recording I still feel that his mics are too close, close than a normal audience listening position.

 

R

 

You certainly can't please everyone - I commented here in some thread or other that I wished the lead singer were a little closer to the mics! (But insofar as that indicates Barry's recording is in stark contrast to the usual "open up and say 'Ah!'" vocal mic placement, it's a good thing.)

[semente]

You certainly can't please everyone - I commented here in some thread or other that I wished the lead singer were a little closer to the mics! (But insofar as that indicates Barry's recording is in stark contrast to the usual "open up and say 'Ah!'" vocal mic placement, it's a good thing.)

 

I must agree that his mic placement produces far more natural sounding vocals than what one normally gets in recordings... Perhaps I'm being overly demanding for the musical genre.

 

R

 

P.S.: "light" music is supposed to sound good as opposed to "classical" that should sound natural and realistic

[gmgraves]

In my view, acoustic unamplified music recorded in a "natural" space with minimalist mic'ing at "civilised" distance is the right material to evaluate system and equipment performance.

The problem is that most pop and rock will not sound good with a high performing system because it's usually poorly balanced (tone), loud, compressed and dry-sounding. Some of the worst examples clearly benefit from a low-fi coloured reproduction...

 

R

 

+1!