Is audiophile sound, natural sound?

[semente]

Great minds think alike...though some are faster with the keyboard. :-)

[DigiPete]

I regularly visits concerts, classical and jazz, and I must say that my hifi system gives instruments and voices a different character than the originals. I have never listened on a hifi system, regardless price, that have reproduced a natural sound. Has hifi sound its own character to be regarded as hifi.

 

Everything adds more or less coloration including your listening room.

 

Many expensive audiophile brands still stick to a house / signature sound to satisfy their consumer base.

Or they are just stuck on unsuited topology and technology.

 

You can get close to the sound of live if you insist, but only with few recordings on chosen rigs in elaborately treated rooms.

Your amazing brain will compensate quite a bit, but it can only do so much.

 

If you insist:

- Get your room well treated, especially first reflections of mid/high.

- Compensate low end with DSP.

- Choose a recording of great musicians playing in a room that fits the music and is recorded with one microphone per channel.

- A recording with many channels and not tampered with.

- Now play back through a rig that is engineered for precision and no artifacts or coloration.

 

You have to be a little insane to even try - I think it's worth the effort.

[DigiPete]

PS. I have hosted large listening sessions, and everybody has loved the experience of "natural live sound", "hearing the recording venue" & sitting among or in front of the musicians.

Experienced ears, lots of non-audiophiles, professional musicians and people from the sound equipment industry alike.

[Maldur]

My take is that equipment should *not* reproduce the sound the artist and engineers and producer wanted. How could the equipment possible know what that is? How could the equipment possibly know if they achieved the sound they wanted?

I agree with Barry. System should sound as neutral as possible, every sign on "more fun with jazz or rap" is bad sign, then system is not neutral.

Good system need to sound good even with movies, without subwoofer. When phone calls in movie and you started look out own phone, then this is good. Good system need to sound exellent with any sounds, no matter from originated. Stoping car or acoustic guitar close miced, motorboat in Amazona's woods in the morning, whatever...

 

Sometimes this "reality" is not so good, when you found from recorded track a air turbulence sound in the studio or instrument mechanical sounds in orchestra during piano. Or quiet street sounds where they not belongs thru studio ceiling.

[sandyk]

I agree with Barry. System should sound as neutral as possible, every sign on "more fun with jazz or rap" is bad sign, then system is not neutral.

Good system need to sound good even with movies, without subwoofer. When phone calls in movie and you started look out own phone, then this is good. Good system need to sound exellent with any sounds, no matter from originated.

 

+1

Many, when adding subwoofers in an attempt to augment speakers with already good LF extension, in a bid to get more low end in a too small room, often inadvertently add low end colouration .However, although it MAY be preferred by them, it is no longer natural sounding in many cases.

[Melvin]

A short but timely article by Mark Waldrep .. Live Sound Is Not My Goal | Real HD-Audio

[Teresa]

What is natural sound? Sound in a concert hall? in a living room? in an amphitheater? In the woods? On acres of farmland (Woodstock)?

 

There are infinite possible "natural sounds".

 

I agree with Jud and Barry, all of the above!

 

I believe the goal of most high-end companies is the output sound equals the input as close as possible with current technology. Thus all the infinite possibilities of the original natural sound can be reproduced just as heard with ears (not equipment) at the original musical event. Areas of improvement include not only the reproducing equipment and listening rooms but the recording equipment as well. In my opinion we are not there yet.

 

In other words if a recording site is awful sounding your system should reproduce that awful sound as accurately as possible, just as it should a reproduce a wonderful sounding recording site as accurately as possible. I call this musical truth.

 

I wonder why so many people associate sonic realism to imaging related characteristics...

And most system and recordings that I have listened to at shows are overflowing with artificial "detail", "air" around instruments, "sparkly" highs and "operating" noises from both instruments and vocals; I never hear these "sound effects" at live performances an they are superfluous from a musical point of view.

 

It's amusing to note how significant the word "soundstage" has become these days; one would have a hard time finding a magazine review or forum talk on sonic performance that doesn't mention it...

 

These are not artificial, next time you are at a live acoustic concert, close your eyes for a few minutes and you will hear these too, it is your vision keeping you from hearing these sonic details. Remember you don't use your eyes when listening to audio-only recordings which makes your hearing more acute. If you have any concert Blu-rays have you noticed when the camera pans over to an instrument it stands out and sounds louder? Now turn off your TV and listen to just the music on the Blu-ray and you will not hear any instrument being panned or made louder. This is just how our eyes and ears work together. You will never get total accuracy of a live event when removing the visual component. So to test live to recorded, I close my eyes for a while doing a live event.

 

For me, "natural" sound has a lot more to do with timbre, things tonal balance, transient response, dynamics, resolution at low levels, or space-generated natural reverb; the sound of acoustic instrument playing in a natural acoustic space from the audience perspective.

 

I agree these sonic characteristics are very important as well.

 

But if the engineers and producers don't get this right at the recording stage, there's no way that the playback system will be able to make it (more) "natural", though "bright" or "cold" recordings and even speakers can be made more "digestible" with a little EQ...

 

I agree and that is why I enjoy recordings which are audiophile from the microphones to finished format the most, as they sound the most like what my experience of live acoustic music is.

 

In my experience EQ has caused more problems than it has ever solved. I listen to music flat with tone controls out of the circuit, if a recording's EQ is messed up I either don't buy it or sell it.

[mayhem13]

+1

Many, when adding subwoofers in an attempt to augment speakers with already good LF extension, in a bid to get more low end in a too small room, often inadvertently add low end colouration .However, although it MAY be preferred by them, it is no longer natural sounding in many cases.

 

Two stereo speakers producing LF are never going to sound like the recorded or live experience in a 3D listening space. It is anything BUT natural sounding. The jagged frequency response at the listening position would make the Himalayas look like rolling hills in comparison. You take subjectivity too far sometimes.

[mayhem13]

I agree with Jud and Barry, all of the above!

 

I believe the goal of most high-end companies is the output sound equals the input as close as possible with current technology. Thus all the infinite possibilities of the original natural sound can be reproduced just as heard with ears (not equipment) at the original musical event. Areas of improvement include not only the reproducing equipment and listening rooms but the recording equipment as well. In my opinion we are not there yet.

 

In other words if a recording site is awful sounding your system should reproduce that awful sound as accurately as possible, just as it should a reproduce a wonderful sounding recording site as accurately as possible. I call this musical truth.

 

 

 

These are not artificial, next time you are at a live acoustic concert, close your eyes for a few minutes and you will hear these too, it is your vision keeping you from hearing these sonic details. Remember you don't use your eyes when listening to audio-only recordings which makes your hearing more acute. If you have any concert Blu-rays have you noticed when the camera pans over to an instrument it stands out and sounds louder? Now turn off your TV and listen to just the music on the Blu-ray and you will not hear any instrument being panned or made louder. This is just how our eyes and ears work together. You will never get total accuracy of a live event when removing the visual component. So to test live to recorded, I close my eyes for a while doing a live event.

 

 

 

I agree these sonic characteristics are very important as well.

 

 

 

I agree and that is why I enjoy recordings which are audiophile from the microphones to finished format the most, as they sound the most like what my experience of live acoustic music is.

 

In my experience EQ has caused more problems than it has ever solved. I listen to music flat with tone controls out of the circuit, if a recording's EQ is messed up I either don't buy it or sell it.

 

How do you know if the recording's eQ is 'messed up'? Could it be your ears, system or perception are 'messed up'?

 

If a recording is unpleasant to you....then that's that. No reason to hypothesize about eQ or recording practices.

[Teresa]

How do you know if the recording's eQ is 'messed up'? Could it be your ears, system or perception are 'messed up'?

 

Exactly! That is one of the reasons I prefer those audiophile recordings that use no EQ or other signal modifications. I know a recording's EQ is messed up as it sounds nothing like the recordings in which EQ was not used and nothing like live acoustic music, I try to find out before I waste my money, but if I end up buying it, I trade it in or sell it.

 

If a recording is unpleasant to you....then that's that. No reason to hypothesize about eQ or recording practices.

 

Those recording practices which are neutral and naturally recorded with care taken in microphone placement, no EQ, no tricks and no editing except to correct obvious bad notes, sound the best to me. I am a fan of the great engineers who work for audiophile labels and reject the crass for the mass of the big major labels.

[mayhem13]

Correcting 'obviously' bad notes?.....LOL.....good one. Darn it, I hate those bad notes!

 

I think it's probobly easier for you to express what you do like as you have done in this reply since clearly you dislike so much in audio.

 

In a nutshell for you, we're down to independent audiophile labels using direct mic feeds and no processing at 24/192 or DSD128. That's not a lot of material available. Reminds me of a box of 128 black crayons.

[sandyk]

Two stereo speakers producing LF are never going to sound like the recorded or live experience in a 3D listening space. It is anything BUT natural sounding. The jagged frequency response at the listening position would make the Himalayas look like rolling hills in comparison. You take subjectivity too far sometimes.

 

And your opinions are from somebody who can't hear differences between well recorded high res and RB CD from the same master, or even differences between USB cables etc. .

Most people who add subwoofers don't integrate them properly, and try to overcome the problems of a smaller than desirable room by brute force methods.

BTW, your average SWMBO is horrified at the thought of any more than 2 speakers, let alone multi channel or 2 subwoofers as well .

[semente]

These are not artificial, next time you are at a live acoustic concert, close your eyes for a few minutes and you will hear these too, it is your vision keeping you from hearing these sonic details. Remember you don't use your eyes when listening to audio-only recordings which makes your hearing more acute. If you have any concert Blu-rays have you noticed when the camera pans over to an instrument it stands out and sounds louder? Now turn off your TV and listen to just the music on the Blu-ray and you will not hear any instrument being panned or made louder. This is just how our eyes and ears work together. You will never get total accuracy of a live event when removing the visual component. So to test live to recorded, I close my eyes for a while doing a live event.

 

Hi Teresa,

 

I am a regular concert goer and have been attending "my" weekly lunchtime recital for over a month now: as I have mentioned I never hear these "sound effects" that many audiophiles are so fond of, not even when I sit less than 3 metres from the instruments with my eyes closed.

I think these (artificial "detail", "air" around instruments, "sparkly" highs and "operating" noises) are the result of close-mic'ing and high frequency exaggeration...

David has defined it perfectly a couple of messages back:

 

(...) I think some audiophiles slide beyond naturalness or transparency into what I'd call hyperreality. Maybe an exaggerated high end or an overemphasized low end or both, or maybe just brain-numbing volume levels. I've heard a number of very expensive systems that sound impressive but not necessarily what I'd consider real.

 

In one word, hyperreality.

This is how many recordings (most of those played at shows) and high-end systems sound like to me.

 

In my experience EQ has caused more problems than it has ever solved. I listen to music flat with tone controls out of the circuit, if a recording's EQ is messed up I either don't buy it or sell it.

 

I was referring to the (judicious) use of EQ'ing in the production stage; i.e. if the engineers are using mics with peaky treble (and unfrotunatelly that would be the majority) then this high frequency colouration should be EQ'ed.

I also feel that many orchestral music recordings could do with a bit more warmth to sound natural and have bought a few remastered editions of some classical CDs that sounded too "cold" and the differences between former and latter must be an indication that some EQ'ing has been used.

 

As for home EQ'ing, I haven't had tone controls for many years now, but I have digitally EQ a couple of ethnic music recordings that sounded unbearably bright.

 

Best,

Ricardo

[InfernoSTi]

My take is that equipment should *not* reproduce the sound the artist and engineers and producer wanted. How could the equipment possible know what that is? How could the equipment possibly know if they achieved the sound they wanted?

 

The monitoring in most studios certainly isn't going to tell anyone what they have. And even in most audiophile setups I've heard, the expectation is that the gear can just be plopped down and will perform magic. In my experience, this is like placing a projector in a room, without carefully aiming it at the screen and focusing, yet expecting to see high quality video. I've seem some audio "projectors" aimed *away from* the "screen!"

 

The equipment, in my opinion, should reproduce the sound of the *recording*, whatever that is.

It is up to the artist, engineers and producer to make sure their recording sounds they way they want it to. (Unfortunately most will never know.)

 

I think the equipment should reproduce the recording and the recording should capture the sound of the event (real or artificial).

Progress is iterative. The best can be pretty good (*much* better than is typically heard, particularly in studios). We can still tell the difference but in the very best cases, it is *starting* to become difficult sometimes, which may be good news.

 

Best regards,

Barry

Soundkeeper Recordings

http://www.soundkeeperrecordings.wordpress.com

Barry Diament Audio

 

Barry,

 

Thank you for your post. I really like the idea of the video "plopped down without setup, etc..." idea. The problem with the idea (not really a problem but an outcome for me) is I started thinking about video/movies and I realized the goal of video, as the rule not the exception, is different than audio in one respect.

 

Video doesn't have the goal to "fool ourselves that it is a real performance" (to suspend disbelief) but to entertain and to as accurately as possible provide clarity into the film footage itself. This is because it is all seen as it really is: art, not reality.

 

Go to a movie theater that is really good then go home and the comparison is between the two facilities, not if you believe the film was "real." Go to a live play and the sets themselves are faux so there is no attempt to think that when I watch a play, I should somehow think it is "real."

 

Same with photography. Nobody says "wow, I am disappointed in the amazing photograph because it didn't suspend my disbelief it was real." Often, even with photos of real things, it is the ability to "see it" not like one does in reality but to see something common place as a work of art, wonderful and grand even if it is a simple thing. It is the recognition that something at first thought grand that is actually common that can have the biggest impact. This is the ability to suspend our sense that something is "real" (the opposite goal).

 

There is one art genre in painting that is meant to "trick the eye" into thinking it is real. This is a little subset of painting that takes up the smallest of areas in the largest of museums. I never hear people complaining that the rest of the art in the museum is crap because it doesn't attempt to "trick the eye" into believing it is "real."

 

So while I am starting to appreciate the goal is to have high fidelity with the signal going in so that it is as close as possible the same going out of my system, I am am still wondering if we are missing something about the art when we call for it to sound "real" as opposed to moving us emotionally because it is great art?

 

John

[bdiament]

Hi John,

 

Understood and agreed all around.

 

To be clear, I didn't raise video as a comparison in terms of the goal. What I have in mind is that projecting audio from speakers into a room has parallels with projecting video onto a screen.

 

If I was to describe a video installation where the screen was perhaps a bit dirty but centered on the wall opposite the viewing position, the projector was placed low down in one corner of the room (instead of directly opposite and aimed at the screen), and all window shades open on a bright sunny day, most folks would expect a skewed, faded image with the dirt on the screen visible.

 

They'd be absolutely right of course. Yet few, in my experience anyway, consider that their speakers are audio "projectors" and their room is an audio "screen." Some of this no doubt stems from the old misconception of stereo meaning "something coming from that speaker and something else coming from the other speaker." In fact, that would describe dual mono, not stereo.

 

If the room is getting in the way, due to either its acoustic signature or poor placement of the speakers, listening position, and/or everything else within the space, we have in effect, a dirty "screen."

If the speakers are simply placed "on the left" and "on the right" without regard for what is required to minimize room impact and how the speakers and room will interact (and how the placement and listening position will impact the perceived results), we have in effect, a "projector" that is not properly aimed at the "screen" so a skewed result is to be expected.

 

I am reminded that although I've been interested in sound systems since childhood and have been a professional engineer since 1975, it wasn't until 1988 that I heard real stereo for the first time. (!) I was visiting a new friend and upon walking into his listening room, the first thing I saw was that the speakers were "in the middle of the room." Prior to this, I'd been used to "a speaker on the left and a speaker on the right."

 

What I heard that evening changed my audio life. There was no "something coming from this speaker and something else coming from that speaker." The whole side of the room where the speakers were was "alive" and if I closed my eyes, I'd have guessed there were more than two speakers. First, we seemed to be transported into a much larger room than the one in which we were sitting. Even the ceiling seemed much higher than the one over our heads. The vocalist seemed to be a few feet behind the speaker positions and sounded so solid, I might have guessed there was another speaker in that location. (The actual locations of the two speakers could not be discerned with my eyes closed.) There was sound everywhere. Background instruments sounded further away than the wall behind the speakers. This was true three-dimensional reproduction -- from an old vinyl record I'd heard hundreds of times before. Well, I *thought* I'd heard it before but it turned out I had only had vague glimpses of it. I'd heard it in dual mono. Now, I was hearing it in stereo. And I came to understand for the first time what "stereo" means.

 

Sorry for the long-winded explanation but I want to clarify my use of the video setup comparison as being not the expectation of reality but the expectation of actually experiencing what the gear can do.

 

Best regards,

Barry

Soundkeeper Recordings

http://www.soundkeeperrecordings.wordpress.com

Barry Diament Audio

[semente]

Barry,

 

Thank you for your post. I really like the idea of the video "plopped down without setup, etc..." idea. The problem with the idea (not really a problem but an outcome for me) is I started thinking about video/movies and I realized the goal of video, as the rule not the exception, is different than audio in one respect.

 

Video doesn't have the goal to "fool ourselves that it is a real performance" (to suspend disbelief) but to entertain and to as accurately as possible provide clarity into the film footage itself. This is because it is all seen as it really is: art, not reality.

 

Go to a movie theater that is really good then go home and the comparison is between the two facilities, not if you believe the film was "real." Go to a live play and the sets themselves are faux so there is no attempt to think that when I watch a play, I should somehow think it is "real."

 

Same with photography. Nobody says "wow, I am disappointed in the amazing photograph because it didn't suspend my disbelief it was real." Often, even with photos of real things, it is the ability to "see it" not like one does in reality but to see something common place as a work of art, wonderful and grand even if it is a simple thing. It is the recognition that something at first thought grand that is actually common that can have the biggest impact. This is the ability to suspend our sense that something is "real" (the opposite goal).

 

There is one art genre in painting that is meant to "trick the eye" into thinking it is real. This is a little subset of painting that takes up the smallest of areas in the largest of museums. I never hear people complaining that the rest of the art in the museum is crap because it doesn't attempt to "trick the eye" into believing it is "real."

 

So while I am starting to appreciate the goal is to have high fidelity with the signal going in so that it is as close as possible the same going out of my system, I am am still wondering if we are missing something about the art when we call for it to sound "real" as opposed to moving us emotionally because it is great art?

 

John

 

Hi John,

 

I don't think we can make an analogy between a photograph and a recording unless the photograph is a reproduction of an art form like a painting.

And even though the printed reproduction of said painting will never be like the real thing, if one uses adequate lighting, a high quality lens and camera, a wide-gamut colour space, a calibrated display for monitoring and editing and a calibrated high-fidelity printer we will be able to produce a reasonably credible representation of the real thing.

 

Best,

Ricardo

[audiventory]

I regularly visits concerts, classical and jazz, and I must say that my hifi system gives instruments and voices a different character than the originals. I have never listened on a hifi system, regardless price, that have reproduced a natural sound. Has hifi sound its own character to be regarded as hifi.

 

/lg

/sorry for my language

 

Main disadvantage of modern systems is disability of re-creation of structure of wave field.

 

Sound field like hologram for vision.

 

The systems able fine playback audible frequency range. However non-fully-calibrated speakers + non-fully-calibrated room loss wave hologram structure.

 

Also need right capture the audio hologram.

 

Here not enought frequency correction, but need phase and room form correction, management of sound radiation in different directions.

 

Acoustic instrument is omnidirectional source of sound radiation. It distinguish in different dirrections. It reflect from room surfaces, etc.

 

Thus while we can't get realistic "audio hologram". Anywhere was video. There was compared live and recorded sound by one band.

 

 

 

Also exists sound enchancers for altering sound. As example: tube/vinyl/tape/... emulators. It give nice soft sounding. Used in music production too.

 

Other people preffer maximal undistorted music. Now it is dry digital sound.

 

It's no good, it's no bad. Each sound for each taste. No some hi-fi or hi-end sound.

 

In my opinion:

 

- Good apparatus can good playback at middle and high levels of sound.

 

- The best apparatus can good playback even at low levels of sound.

 

But I don't stumble any "official" or common border between usual and hi-fi and hi-end.

[InfernoSTi]

Hi John,

 

I don't think we can make an analogy between a photograph and a recording unless the photograph is a reproduction of an art form like a painting.

And even though the printed reproduction of said painting will never be like the real thing, if one uses adequate lighting, a high quality lens and camera, a wide-gamut colour space, a calibrated display for monitoring and editing and a calibrated high-fidelity printer we will be able to produce a reasonably credible representation of the real thing.

 

Best,

Ricardo

 

I don't know why we would expect sound to be more convincing than sight. And I've never ever heard someone complain their photograph of a painting didn't seem "real" enough. Nor have I ever heard anyone ever say the goal of a photograph of a painting is that it seem "real."

 

So no, for me, there is no credible representation of the real thing with a photograph of a painting. It is always missing something: texture, reflective level, depth, saturation, scale, and (perhaps) emotion.

 

My main point is we have this obsession that our stereo should sound "real" when perhaps the problem with that is that it is a reproduction of a recording, not a "real" thing at all. And once that is appreciated, it can sound wonderful (either hi fi or emotionally engaging or whatever is the goal).

 

Almost like freeing ourselves of the burden that it sound "real" allows us to appreciate it in deeper, more satisfying ways...

 

John

[InfernoSTi]

Hi John,

 

Understood and agreed all around.

 

To be clear, I didn't raise video as a comparison in terms of the goal. What I have in mind is that projecting audio from speakers into a room has parallels with projecting video onto a screen.

 

If I was to describe a video installation where the screen was perhaps a bit dirty but centered on the wall opposite the viewing position, the projector was placed low down in one corner of the room (instead of directly opposite and aimed at the screen), and all window shades open on a bright sunny day, most folks would expect a skewed, faded image with the dirt on the screen visible.

 

They'd be absolutely right of course. Yet few, in my experience anyway, consider that their speakers are audio "projectors" and their room is an audio "screen." Some of this no doubt stems from the old misconception of stereo meaning "something coming from that speaker and something else coming from the other speaker." In fact, that would describe dual mono, not stereo.

 

If the room is getting in the way, due to either its acoustic signature or poor placement of the speakers, listening position, and/or everything else within the space, we have in effect, a dirty "screen."

If the speakers are simply placed "on the left" and "on the right" without regard for what is required to minimize room impact and how the speakers and room will interact (and how the placement and listening position will impact the perceived results), we have in effect, a "projector" that is not properly aimed at the "screen" so a skewed result is to be expected.

 

I am reminded that although I've been interested in sound systems since childhood and have been a professional engineer since 1975, it wasn't until 1988 that I heard real stereo for the first time. (!) I was visiting a new friend and upon walking into his listening room, the first thing I saw was that the speakers were "in the middle of the room." Prior to this, I'd been used to "a speaker on the left and a speaker on the right."

 

What I heard that evening changed my audio life. There was no "something coming from this speaker and something else coming from that speaker." The whole side of the room where the speakers were was "alive" and if I closed my eyes, I'd have guessed there were more than two speakers. First, we seemed to be transported into a much larger room than the one in which we were sitting. Even the ceiling seemed much higher than the one over our heads. The vocalist seemed to be a few feet behind the speaker positions and sounded so solid, I might have guessed there was another speaker in that location. (The actual locations of the two speakers could not be discerned with my eyes closed.) There was sound everywhere. Background instruments sounded further away than the wall behind the speakers. This was true three-dimensional reproduction -- from an old vinyl record I'd heard hundreds of times before. Well, I *thought* I'd heard it before but it turned out I had only had vague glimpses of it. I'd heard it in dual mono. Now, I was hearing it in stereo. And I came to understand for the first time what "stereo" means.

 

Sorry for the long-winded explanation but I want to clarify my use of the video setup comparison as being not the expectation of reality but the expectation of actually experiencing what the gear can do.

 

Best regards,

Barry

Soundkeeper Recordings

http://www.soundkeeperrecordings.wordpress.com

Barry Diament Audio

 

Thanks, Barry. I do appreciate you were not trying to paint a picture of this being a "goal" but it made me think about that so I thought I would share.

 

I have heard some amazing systems that do things that really throw the sound well past the speakers themselves.

 

I also have been working very hard to reproduce "tone and timbre" and PRAT rather than focusing on 3D imaging. Perhaps that is another set of goals from a system perspective.

 

John

[mayhem13]

I don't know why we would expect sound to be more convincing than sight. And I've never ever heard someone complain their photograph of a painting didn't seem "real" enough. Nor have I ever heard anyone ever say the goal of a photograph of a painting is that it seem "real."

 

So no, for me, there is no credible representation of the real thing with a photograph of a painting. It is always missing something: texture, reflective level, depth, saturation, scale, and (perhaps) emotion.

 

My main point is we have this obsession that our stereo should sound "real" when perhaps the problem with that is that it is a reproduction of a recording, not a "real" thing at all. And once that is appreciated, it can sound wonderful (either hi fi or emotionally engaging or whatever is the goal).

 

Almost like freeing ourselves of the burden that it sound "real" allows us to appreciate it in deeper, more satisfying ways...

 

John

 

Correct.....like a painting, drawing, photograph, film........good art inspires and summons an emotional response. Reality isn't a factor if you remain open minded to the message of the artist.

[semente]

I don't know why we would expect sound to be more convincing than sight. And I've never ever heard someone complain their photograph of a painting didn't seem "real" enough. Nor have I ever heard anyone ever say the goal of a photograph of a painting is that it seem "real."

 

So no, for me, there is no credible representation of the real thing with a photograph of a painting. It is always missing something: texture, reflective level, depth, saturation, scale, and (perhaps) emotion.

 

My main point is we have this obsession that our stereo should sound "real" when perhaps the problem with that is that it is a reproduction of a recording, not a "real" thing at all. And once that is appreciated, it can sound wonderful (either hi fi or emotionally engaging or whatever is the goal).

 

Almost like freeing ourselves of the burden that it sound "real" allows us to appreciate it in deeper, more satisfying ways...

 

Correct.....like a painting, drawing, photograph, film........good art inspires and summons an emotional response. Reality isn't a factor if you remain open minded to the message of the artist.

 

Don't you think that if one is not facing the original work, a more "accurate" reproduction might better "potentiate" that emotional response?

 

But we'd then need to define "accuracy" in the context of domestic reproduction of music recordings...

 

Current recording and reproduction equipment and tehniques cannot capture or recreate the original event in a absolutely "realistic" way (and probably never will).

And if the reproduction "as is" is not realistic (but "flawed"), what "tricks" should we use to "potentiate" emotional response?

Must we strive for accuracy to the signal or should we instead customize the sound of our system by adding a few "emotion triggers" (i.e. low even order harmonics, etc.)?

 

R

[semente]

"Good" music can be emotionally engaging even in mp3, broadcasted in FM and reproduced by a cheap car stereo, crapy earbuds or a small monaural tabletop radio...

 

R

[Foggie]

There have been many discussions similar to this and some vehemently defend what is and what is not “natural sound” and or a proper set-up to which there is only a certain way to get there. I for one do not understand this perception.

 

I have some twenty (or had) snare drums which are used and or tuned for a specific sound, plays well in a certain room. I know exactly what a ‘20’s black beauty sounds like (since I have one). I know exactly what a kick drum (ported or un-ported) sounds like with MY tuning preference. I know exactly what a vintage K ride sounds like and on and on. That is natural sound => in my environment, studio, auditorium etc.. and that is my point of reference, just like most have a point of reference.

 

Having “that sound” (instrument) being played in different rooms and then mic’d and mastered, that sound will again change a little or a lot depending on the end goal.

 

How can anyone tell me that a source file of music playing through my signal chain in my rig is rubbish, not natural, can’t use subs (lol), too big, too small, overcompensate, not the proper color carpet etc..?

 

If you were in the studio at the time when “No Quarter” was being recorded, THAT is natural sound. Logic would dictate then, that sound isn’t going to be reproduced in ANYONE’s room, through anyone’s rig (theoretically speaking). This is no different for classical music as well (which it always seems to come back to). I would go as far and say the room (acoustics) is probably the most important or has the most significant impact on “that sound” and therefore “that sound” will be different for everyone, end of story.

 

If you want natural sound then hire a band or orchestra into your living room to hear music. I’ll “tune” my rig to my point of reference/preference since I was never at any of the recording in my library, how can that possibly be a bad thing.

[coot]

Any movie sound effect technician will tell you that producing "natural" sounds as captured at the time of camera "filming" will not be adequate for release. Viewers expect the sounds to be exaggerated. Could it be that we are so used to that exaggerated sound that we expect (want) it from our music systems? Just a thought...

[semente]

Any movie sound effect technician will tell you that producing "natural" sounds as captured at the time of camera "filming" will not be adequate for release. Viewers expect the sounds to be exaggerated. Could it be that we are so used to that exaggerated sound that we expect (want) it from our music systems? Just a thought...

 

I think that many people have never listened to a live acoustic music performance and they are only familiar with reproduced sound.

It seems natural that their expectations and preferences are different from those of the people who have.

 

R