Is audiophile sound, natural sound?

[InfernoSTi]

I go to hear two different symphonies regularly. They sound very different because of their halls being so different sounding, as well as due to the conductor, performers, instruments, etc. But if we just hold the one variable, the music hall, up for inspection, we quickly find that if I set up my listening room to sound "close" to the one, I would short change the other (and vice versa, of course). Now there is a strong argument that the recording should define the "space" but in my experience it is the speakers and the listening room that makes the most difference.

 

I also find that we focus way to much on the "reality" test and not the "emotion" test of live music. The emotional connection to the artist and the performance is much more than simply the sound of real music. This emotion can be recreated in the home if that is your goal...and when you find yourself emotionally engaged in the music being played on your system at home, it truly doesn't matter if the sound is "real" or not. Your heart moves, you are connected, you have rushes of emotion, an you are lost in the song.

 

I would argue that "real" should be redefined, at least in part, as the ability to become "lost" in the music, the same way a great author can cause you to become "lost" in their story. This is what live music does for me and when I have that experience at home, it causes me to suspend my disbelief and I am truly connecting to the art in a way that does not matter if it is live or recorded.

 

John

[semente]

If you are listening at no more 2.5 and 3 metres from your speakers, have them pointing almost at the nearest shoulder and your room is treated, then with good recordings (minimal, distant mic'ing) and reasonably accurate or "transparent" equipment you should be able to identify the acoustics of two different halls, even if they don't sound a lot like what you would if you were there.

 

I think that this depends more on the recording than on the room and system, although the more your room contributes to the overall sound, the less different the recordings will sound, just like it happens with "coloured" equipment.

 

R

[Tony Lauck]

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

 

This has not been my experience. With a good system, well set up and in a suitable room, it should be possible to reproduce the character of all the musical instruments involved in a good recordings of acoustic music. The results may not sound exactly like a particular live concert, but then a given concert will sound different in different seats in the came concert hall. What you will not be able to do (with two channel stereo) is get a sound stage that is similar to what you get in a good seat in a good concert hall. However, with suitable recordings (e.g. Blumlein stereo) and suitable playback set up one can get a reasonably close approximation.

 

You can not expect many recordings to provide this level of realism. However, if none do, then I suggest you investigate what you might do to improve your situation. It is certainly possible to reproduce solo instruments or small ensembles in a realistic fashion where the musicians would all fit in a living room. You might not get the exact spatial positioning that corresponded to the musicians original location, but apart from that things can be realistic, but you might have to spent some hours positioning your speakers, finding the ideal listening position, volume setting, etc...

 

Note that there are offsetting "errors" possible that may make a particular recording sound realistic on one system but not so good on a different system, but with another recording the ranking of the two systems might reverse. One thing is certain, however. If a system is not capable of reproducing all the notes the instrument produces at sound pressure levels that the instruments themselves can actually produce then you will not be able to get realism. (Unless, of course on the particular recording the musicians didn't hit those low notes below your bass extension or didn't play at their maximum fortissimo.)

[Foggie]

I go to hear two different symphonies regularly. They sound very different because of their halls being so different sounding, as well as due to the conductor, performers, instruments, etc. But if we just hold the one variable, the music hall, up for inspection, we quickly find that if I set up my listening room to sound "close" to the one, I would short change the other (and vice versa, of course). Now there is a strong argument that the recording should define the "space" but in my experience it is the speakers and the listening room that makes the most difference.

 

I also find that we focus way to much on the "reality" test and not the "emotion" test of live music. The emotional connection to the artist and the performance is much more than simply the sound of real music. This emotion can be recreated in the home if that is your goal...and when you find yourself emotionally engaged in the music being played on your system at home, it truly doesn't matter if the sound is "real" or not. Your heart moves, you are connected, you have rushes of emotion, an you are lost in the song.

 

I would argue that "real" should be redefined, at least in part, as the ability to become "lost" in the music, the same way a great author can cause you to become "lost" in their story. This is what live music does for me and when I have that experience at home, it causes me to suspend my disbelief and I am truly connecting to the art in a way that does not matter if it is live or recorded.

 

John

 

Excellent John.

 

Really, in the end and what I would hope most of us are after is that "X" factor - the emotion aspect. That means everything to me, hands down. There are some tunes that work in my space that are just truly fantastic. Holographic. Goosebumps. It never gets old. Some, not as much, but i have no control (to a large degree) of that and I work constantly on improving my space, studying, learning.

[Allan F]

I would argue that "real" should be redefined, at least in part, as the ability to become "lost" in the music, the same way a great author can cause you to become "lost" in their story. This is what live music does for me and when I have that experience at home, it causes me to suspend my disbelief and I am truly connecting to the art in a way that does not matter if it is live or recorded.

 

The quality of the music and the quality of the sound are, of course, often different. One can get "lost" in music independently of the quality of the sound, even if it is relatively poorly recorded and played back in a low resolution format such as MP3. But, listening to that same music well recorded and reproduced in hi res should intensify that experience and establish an even deeper emotional connection.

 

To me, "natural" sound refers particularly to characteristics such as the timbre of instruments or the unique sound of human voices. So called "audiophile" sound, where greater care is taken in the recording and mastering, should produce more "natural" sound. While sound quality can never define the musical experience, more "natural" sound has the potential to increase the emotional connection and enjoyment. OTOH, music that fails to establish such a connection will most often leave one cold, regardless of how "natural" the sound may be.

[bdiament]

I go to hear two different symphonies regularly. They sound very different because of their halls being so different sounding, as well as due to the conductor, performers, instruments, etc. But if we just hold the one variable, the music hall, up for inspection, we quickly find that if I set up my listening room to sound "close" to the one, I would short change the other (and vice versa, of course). Now there is a strong argument that the recording should define the "space" but in my experience it is the speakers and the listening room that makes the most difference.

 

I also find that we focus way to much on the "reality" test and not the "emotion" test of live music. The emotional connection to the artist and the performance is much more than simply the sound of real music. This emotion can be recreated in the home if that is your goal...and when you find yourself emotionally engaged in the music being played on your system at home, it truly doesn't matter if the sound is "real" or not. Your heart moves, you are connected, you have rushes of emotion, an you are lost in the song.

 

I would argue that "real" should be redefined, at least in part, as the ability to become "lost" in the music, the same way a great author can cause you to become "lost" in their story. This is what live music does for me and when I have that experience at home, it causes me to suspend my disbelief and I am truly connecting to the art in a way that does not matter if it is live or recorded.

 

John

 

Hi John,

 

I think "real" already encompasses getting lost in the music. At least for me it does.

If one loves music, sometimes hearing the right performance on a car radio (on the highway with the windows open) is sufficient for getting lost in the art.

What I find however is that the less "work" one has to do in the listening, the easier it is to get to the feeling in the music.

The easier it is to suspend disbelief, the more the music can communicate with the listener's soul.

 

All of which I believe, is just an echo of what you just said. ;-}

 

Best regards,

Barry

Soundkeeper Recordings

http://www.soundkeeperrecordings.wordpress.com

Barry Diament Audio

[Foggie]

What I find however is that the less "work" one has to do in the listening, the easier it is to get to the feeling in the music.The easier it is to suspend disbelief, the more the music can communicate with the listener's soul.

 

Best regards,

Barry

Soundkeeper Recordings

www.soundkeeperrecordings.wordpress.com

Barry Diament Audio

 

Excellent Barry.

[Teresa]

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...In one word, hyperreality.

 

Ricardo, as I said before these are not sound effects, yes some are due to close mic’ing, but others are due to more distant mic’ing, which I will explain in a minute. From your post it sounds like you prefer distant mic’ed natural audiophile recordings over close multi-mic’ed highly processed major label recordings. Is that true? Your answer will be important to what I say next.

 

I will take all of these items that you mentioned one at a time:

 

1) “detail” a good distantly mic’ed audiophile recording will have plenty of detail along with a good feeling of ensemble, just like you are there in the audience. What you describe as artificial detail is mostly from vocals and instruments being to close to the microphones. It’s not artificial but a perspective I deeply dislike and again only found on major label recordings, such as artists who look like they are eating the microphone. Singers and instruments are further away from the microphones on audiophile recordings, and in the case of single stereo microphones or ensemble distant mic’ed three microphone techniques the singer doesn’t even have their own microphone.

 

2) "air" around instruments is natural and is always heard with live acoustic music. Let’s say you go to see an acoustic jazz trio, with the piano in the center of the stage, the drums to the right and the bass to the left, you will not only hear the sounds from the instruments themselves but the sound of the room (ambiance) in-between and around the instruments. This ambiance (room noise) between and around the instruments is usually captured with omni directional microphones placed aways back. It is “black silence” between the instruments that is unnatural and is caused by close mic’ing of the major labels. Audiophile labels are more distantly and minimally mic’ed. The natural air around the instruments instead of the cold sounding black silence is why audiophile recordings made from the microphones to the finished format, up sound more like live acoustic music to me.

 

3) "sparkly" highs. The sound of high percussion instruments should not just sparkly but have the impact they do live, that is never happened in my home! Distant mic’ed audiophile recordings in high resolution seem to get me more of the natural impact. Many major label recordings make high percussion sound more like banging trash can lids.

 

4) "operating" noises, conductors breathing, pages turning, etc. means the microphones are way too close, this I hate and one of the many reasons I prefer distant microphoning.

 

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 unfortunately that would be the majority) then this high frequency colouration should be EQ'ed.

 

The reason for the peaky treble measured up close, is so the group or orchestra can be distantly mic’ed and sound more like an ensemble as the microphones being further back the resulting treble will be flat.

 

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.

 

Instead of using EQ, I prefer that engineers spend the time to find the correct placement of their microphones, and to use microphones that more precisely replicates what the recording site sounds like, rather than fixing it later in the mix. With classical recordings made in an empty concert hall this often includes either removing or covering the first couple of rows of seats to make the hall sound more like it would with an audience, something audiophile labels do but usually not major labels.

 

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

 

Good. I haven’t ended up with unbearably bright recordings since I seldom purchase major label recordings. I have made a few exceptions for music I love and just listen with the flaws intact. I find most Deutsche Grammophon analog and digital recordings the most unbearably bright, but all major labels I’ve heard are brighter than they should be, I blame it on close multi-mic’ing.

[semente]

Excellent John.

 

Really, in the end and what I would hope most of us are after is that "X" factor - the emotion aspect. That means everything to me, hands down. There are some tunes that work in my space that are just truly fantastic. Holographic. Goosebumps. It never gets old. Some, not as much, but i have no control (to a large degree) of that and I work constantly on improving my space, studying, learning.

 

While I agree that the ultimate goal of a domestic music reproduction system is "the emotion aspect" but I fail to see how "Holographic" relates to it.

Music is sound, and I think you will need video if you wish to to achieve some visual stimulation...

 

R

[audiventory]

Holographic is fully correct from technical point of view. It sign modeling concert hall in listening room. holographic is re-creating audio wave field.

[bdiament]

...The reason for the peaky treble measured up close, is so the group or orchestra can be distantly mic’ed and sound more like an ensemble as the microphones being further back the resulting treble will be flat...

 

Hi Teresa,

 

I do not believe this is the case - though it may *seem* to be.

What I find with mics that have treble peaks is that the results have treble peaks, regardless of the distance to the source.

With a treble peak in the mic, the results take from said mic will never be flat, even at a distance. What you'll get is diminished energy in the treble, as happens with distance, but the overall shape will still reveal that peak, clear as day. And the overall sound will too, perhaps diminished with distance but nonetheless clear as day.

 

Some like omni mics with treble peaks, on the assumption that the off-axis sound will not exhibit the peak. Here again, the off-axis sound will display diminished level but it will not, at least in my experience, roll the way sound does naturally. Instead, it will roll with that peak. And depending on the shape of the peak, it might smear the time response too.

 

Everyone has their own perspective, I know. Mine is that I wouldn't want to deliberately introduce an error in the assumption that it will somehow compensate (and sum algebraically) for something else. As I often say, my experience has been that 90-95% or more of a recordings ultimate potential quality *ceiling* has already been determined by the time the signals are leaving the mics. (They have not gotten to the mic cables or anything else in the chain yet, much less recording device or format.) As such, I want that signal to be as clean and error-free as I can possibly get. So I want mics that are wideband, peak-free, rolloff-free, flat, and fast-settling. To my ears, anything else will immediately drop that ceiling before the game is even under way.

 

Best regards,

Barry

Soundkeeper Recordings

http://www.soundkeeperrecordings.wordpress.com

Barry Diament Audio

[bdiament]

While I agree that the ultimate goal of a domestic music reproduction system is "the emotion aspect" but I fail to see how "Holographic" relates to it.

Music is sound, and I think you will need video if you wish to to achieve some visual stimulation...

 

R

 

Hi Ricardo,

 

If the tonality and dynamics are correct, getting the spatial qualities right only makes hearing the music - and connecting with its emotional message - that much easier. I want to at least get close to believing I'm hearing a performance, as opposed to hearing a record. Music is sound, as you put, but more correctly, it is sound in space, over time. Without the space (or the time), the music could not exist. The more cues we can supply to our brains, the easier it is, at least for me, to make the connection.

 

Hearing a system that gets it all correct, including the imaging and the soundstage, can be ear-opening. (In an earlier post, I recounted the first time I heard stereo. I was interested in audio when I was a child and became a professional engineer in 1975 but I did't *really* hear stereo or know what it really is until 1988, when I heard a holographic system. It was musical magic.

 

Best regards,

Barry

Soundkeeper Recordings

http://www.soundkeeperrecordings.wordpress.com

Barry Diament Audio

[REShaman]

Hi Ricardo,

 

If the tonality and dynamics are correct, getting the spatial qualities right only makes hearing the music - and connecting with its emotional message - that much easier. I want to at least get close to believing I'm hearing a performance, as opposed to hearing a record. Music is sound, as you put, but more correctly, it is sound in space, over time. Without the space (or the time), the music could not exist. The more cues we can supply to our brains, the easier it is, at least for me, to make the connection.

 

Hearing a system that gets it all correct, including the imaging and the soundstage, can be ear-opening. (In an earlier post, I recounted the first time I heard stereo. I was interested in audio when I was a child and became a professional engineer in 1975 but I did't *really* hear stereo or know what it really is until 1988, when I heard a holographic system. It was musical magic.

 

Best regards,k

Barry

Soundkeeper Recordings

http://www.soundkeeperrecordings.wordpress.com

Barry Diament Audio

 

Hello Barry,

 

Your many responses (posts) on this subject, in my opinion, notwithstanding all the perspectives articulated by the many members about this, perhaps, complicated subject, where the multi fold answers are more complex than the understanding of the elements that render the Magic in the Making of Music, you have probably distilled the essence/awareness into an essential elemental blue print for designing the outcome we experience with appreciation and, ultimately, enjoyment. It truly is Magic in the Making and some of us wave the Wand that produces (manifests) the Magic.

 

With appreciation for the spells you cast.

 

Best,

Richard

[InfernoSTi]

If you are listening at no more 2.5 and 3 metres from your speakers, have them pointing almost at the nearest shoulder and your room is treated, then with good recordings (minimal, distant mic'ing) and reasonably accurate or "transparent" equipment you should be able to identify the acoustics of two different halls, even if they don't sound a lot like what you would if you were there.

 

I think that this depends more on the recording than on the room and system, although the more your room contributes to the overall sound, the less different the recordings will sound, just like it happens with "coloured" equipment.

 

R

 

I understand that. If you want to take this line of thinking to the logical conclusion, it is the primary rationale for high quality headphones, especially the "speakers on the ear" type, perhaps. Even then, they all sound different even if they "measure" the same.

 

Yet it ignores the emotional aspect of live performance. For me, the most accurate recording/playback that fails engage you emotionally is less "real" to you than a less accurate recording/playback that fully engages you emotionally which will always sound more "real."

 

This is also one of the reasons I can't listen to headphones as a primary source of music...while more accurate, the physical impact and dynamics, particularly from 500 Hz down, is missing. I may hear the notes but if I can't feel the air move, my mind doesn't believe it is "real."

 

This is a second reason that nearfield listening such as you describe, for me, isn't as "real" as a properly treated larger room with some distance between the speakers and the listening position.

 

We haven't even gotten into the idea that "real" is more than simply the space, it is the "tone and timbre" of the sound. The two symphony halls not only have different spacial acoustics, they have different tonal acoustics. A while ago I posted that I had heard a wonderful violin concerto (a real Stradivarius played by a virtuoso), and this is what I had to say about it:

 

To my ear, the Long Center in Austin has a deep soundstage that, while balanced, seems to emphasize the midrange tones over the high tones. This makes the hall sound creamy smooth and it is never too bright. What it gives up in width, it makes up for in depth, and not too forward sounding. This really works well with a violin soloist, and Gomyo really filled the hall from the most delicate notes to the most dramatic passages.

 

Please note the tones and dynamics were as significant as the space/soundstage. The other hall I listen to is "wide and bright" by contrast. The soundstage extends left to right instead of front to back (as experienced from the same general seating area, about 15-20 rows deep, center orchestra). The notes don't hang in the air quite as long. I've also noted that the tone seems to be more balanced/even so it doesn't have that rich midrange sound. This results in a colder, brighter, more detailed sound.

 

Every speaker has a "tone/timbre" that is unique to that speaker. And they can all measure identically (as in +/-3 dB from X to Y) yet sound very different one to the next. This is what I mean by choosing a speaker to match the "sound" you want. If I have two speakers that measure the same but one sounds more like what I've described above, it will sound more "real" all else the same, when playing a performance from that hall.

 

In my experience, speakers have a "tone/timbre" all their own. Headphones are the same. They measure the same but some sound "analytical and cold" and others sound "warm and rich" or whatever words people try to put down to describe them. And this is the problem that can't be solved by trying to say a system should sound "real." It should sound engaging. And this is a choice to you that is subjective, not objective. It is the speakers that sound "better" to you, etc.

 

I think it is easier to admit with headphones because the room is taken out of the mix. We all know certain headphones of a certain brand will have a house sound. We tend to prefer one over the other yet they measure the same. It has to do with the "tone/timbre" preference, perhaps. And they reproduce the same music differently even though they measure the same.

 

All in my opinion and for me, of course...

 

John

[InfernoSTi]

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...

 

In one word, hyperreality.

 

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.

 

Best,

Ricardo

 

Ricardo,

 

I'm sorry I passed this over. I also quoted you with some snips...I hope that your original meaning is intact.

 

I agree with you, there is an exaggeration to me, too, in some recordings. This can be more than what you describe: i.e. it can be over compression, etc.

 

Yet I find that the two halls I've described sound so different from the same seats that if I try to pick which level of brightness is most real, I would be picking my preference as one is absolutely brighter than the other.

 

How do we pick which one is the "right" level of brightness as a reference? We can't...

 

John

[Foggie]

While I agree that the ultimate goal of a domestic music reproduction system is "the emotion aspect" but I fail to see how "Holographic" relates to it.

Music is sound, and I think you will need video if you wish to to achieve some visual stimulation...

 

R

 

Well I guess we all have different versions of what sound reproduction means to each of us (which is fine) and will defer to what Barry eluded to above. My holographic reference has nothing to do with visual or needing some visual stimuli. When it happens it literally makes one do a double take, rewind what your listening to and say "did that just happen"? For clarification, I'm not referring to some obvious/exaggerated flutter echo, comb filtering etc..

 

I owe much of my latest two channel space "revision" to Barry, as I'm currently enjoying the best two channel sound I have ever heard (in my environment, as well as other environments). As he frequently states, apply techniques that results in what sounds good to you

[InfernoSTi]

Barry has helped me, too. I am really enjoying exploring his isolation suggestions. I would never have thought such a thing would make so large a difference. I think there is a good discussion on a thread related to IKEA Bamboo platforms and perhaps elsewhere...

 

John

[Jud]

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.

 

I go to hear two different symphonies regularly. They sound very different because of their halls being so different sounding, as well as due to the conductor, performers, instruments, etc. But if we just hold the one variable, the music hall, up for inspection, we quickly find that if I set up my listening room to sound "close" to the one, I would short change the other (and vice versa, of course). Now there is a strong argument that the recording should define the "space" but in my experience it is the speakers and the listening room that makes the most difference.

 

I also find that we focus way to much on the "reality" test and not the "emotion" test of live music. The emotional connection to the artist and the performance is much more than simply the sound of real music. This emotion can be recreated in the home if that is your goal...and when you find yourself emotionally engaged in the music being played on your system at home, it truly doesn't matter if the sound is "real" or not. Your heart moves, you are connected, you have rushes of emotion, an you are lost in the song.

 

I would argue that "real" should be redefined, at least in part, as the ability to become "lost" in the music, the same way a great author can cause you to become "lost" in their story. This is what live music does for me and when I have that experience at home, it causes me to suspend my disbelief and I am truly connecting to the art in a way that does not matter if it is live or recorded.

 

John

 

I'm going to use an extreme example to make a point.

 

If listening to a car radio with open windows, how much of the resulting sound would be the audible product of foggie's twenty different snares or John's two symphonies, and how much would stay the same between the sound of the various snares and symphonies because hey, it's a car radio with open windows? I imagine there would be little if any audible difference. The differences in the sources would be overwhelmed by the limitations of what you were listening through. That is an extreme example of what I mean when I say we can tell that a system is reproducing reality better when it lends less of its own sound to the audible result and lets the differences in the source material come through.

 

So that's what I do - I never listen for highs, lows, detail, blah, blah, because who knows what the original performance was like, and what the recording and mix captured? I listen for how different the system or individual piece of hardware and software can sound on different material. Listening for how great a soundstage a system can produce? I don't. I listen for how the system renders *differences* in soundstage. I've got a CD called Stay Awake with various artists performing songs from Disney movies. On it, Tom Waits performs "Heigh Ho," the Seven Dwarfs' theme song from Snow White. But instead of the cheery tune you hear in the movie, Waits and the production/engineering team deliver the sort of squashed, gloomy industrial dirge you'd expect from small men working hard underground at a dangerous, dirty job all day. If the soundstage height is up past your chest, the system is doing something wrong. But the soundstage on Officium or Officium Novum, recorded in a monastery, had better be big and reverberant.

 

Of course one of these recordings is done in an artificial, created aural environment, while the other is done in a rather unusual one (unless you've heard a lot of saxophones in monasteries). So to check further we'd want something different yet again, something simple and natural that you might have heard reasonably often "live." There are tracks like The Saga of Harrison Crabfeathers, where an acoustic bass is given a workout front and center, and you can easily tell the difference between real detail and transients from plucked bass strings versus artificial detail and transients from a raised high end, since the acoustic bass isn't playing in the upper octaves. Or there are the songs from Gillian Welch's The Harrow and the Harvest, with pretty well unadorned voice and acoustic guitar. Or there are many of the early Beatles songs, where you can listen to John and Paul's relatively simple vocals. ("I'll Follow the Sun" is very simple and clocks in at little over a minute, making it a really nice little test track. Oh, and by the way, the "percussion" is Ringo slapping his legs, so you don't even need to worry about how the drums are tuned. )

[InfernoSTi]

That makes a lot of sense that the differences between recordings would be the greatest with the most revealing of systems. I, too, will use an extreme to make my point, but I will choose the other end of the spectrum.

 

In my experience, two first class headphones, one with a warm house sound and the other with an analytical house sound, will be equally able to distinguish between recordings and will equally convey the sense of space and the recorded sound. However, they will still sound different from each other. One will sound more like my "warm" music hall and the other will sound more like my "bright" music hall.

 

So I am not yet convinced that the more revealing system will address "tone/timbre" issues. On my system, I can really hear the differences between recordings...it sounds like a different system with each one. But I am not patting myself on the back saying it sounds "real" because I know that what it actually sounds like is "revealing."

 

One further point that I didn't make before was that at either symphony I can clearly place instruments in three dimensional space. I don't understand how anyone couldn't hear that. I close my eyes and the kettle drums are in the left rear in one hall and spread across the back in the other, the piccolos are center mid-rear on the left side in both halls, etc. This is in addition to the whole symphony sounding wide or deep, etc.

 

At the brighter hall, the conductor often sets up the violins and the violas mixed rather than in sections. I think this is to help create a "fuller" more balanced sound in the hall. Just conjecture on my part.

 

Best,

John

[bdiament]

In mastering sessions, I've heard clicks that were obvious through the monitors (even if I was momentarily distracted and not totally focused on the sound). Those same clicks are not audible in any headphones I've ever tried, even knowing ahead of time when they occur and expecting them.

 

Headphones can be wonderful fun but I'd never trust them to assess audio quality.

As always, just my perspective.

 

Best regards,

Barry

Soundkeeper Recordings

http://www.soundkeeperrecordings.wordpress.com

Barry Diament Audio

[InfernoSTi]

In mastering sessions, I've heard clicks that were obvious through the monitors (even if I was momentarily distracted and not totally focused on the sound). Those same clicks are not audible in any headphones I've ever tried, even knowing ahead of time when they occur and expecting them.

 

Headphones can be wonderful fun but I'd never trust them to assess audio quality.

As always, just my perspective.

 

Best regards,

Barry

Soundkeeper Recordings

http://www.soundkeeperrecordings.wordpress.com

Barry Diament Audio

 

I've not had that happen to me but I have found headphone lacking in in bass energy as a lack of physical presence that makes them less desirable as a way of listening. I'm sure others have similar stories of how headphones are lacking in one way or another, perhaps such as soundstage/space which is somewhat odd with headphones compared to speakers or a live performance.

 

Why do you think that a headphone wouldn't reproduce a "click" sound when a monitor would? Certainly it isn't a frequency range or +/- dB issue as headphones tend to be pretty flat across the band. Could it have been a comb filter issue with the room emphasizing that frequency? That would make a lot of sense to me.

 

This bigger issue does fit with the idea that every transducer has its strengths and weaknesses and we tend to pick the one that sounds "right" to us even if the measure similarly enough that one could not tell the difference between speakers "on paper" (i.e. without listening to each one in person).

 

John

[bdiament]

I've not had that happen to me but I have found headphone lacking in in bass energy as a lack of physical presence that makes them less desirable as a way of listening. I'm sure others have similar stories of how headphones are lacking in one way or another, perhaps such as soundstage/space which is somewhat odd with headphones compared to speakers or a live performance.

 

Why do you think that a headphone wouldn't reproduce a "click" sound when a monitor would? Certainly it isn't a frequency range or +/- dB issue as headphones tend to be pretty flat across the band. Could it have been a comb filter issue with the room emphasizing that frequency? That would make a lot of sense to me....

 

Hi John,

 

At one time, I would have thought headphones would reveal more, not less. I'd probably still believe that if I hadn't heard better speakers and better placement. Too many instances of something being right there with the speakers and absent in the cans - many different speakers, many different cans.

 

No, I don't believe it has anything to do with comb filtering. That would involve missing information. I'm talking about increased resolution of low level transients. In other words, it isn't a frequency issue as much as it is a speed issue. I believe good speaker setups reveal more because they simply have more resolving power.

 

Best regards,

Barry

Soundkeeper Recordings

http://www.soundkeeperrecordings.wordpress.com

Barry Diament Audio

[sandyk]

I use a high quality discrete DIY headphone amplifier, which is more like a high quality low power amplifier, as a test bed for further design improvements.

These improvements are also able to transfer the same benefits to my main preamplifier and Class A PA after modifications to them. Perhaps your typical headphone amplifier, many of which are I.C. based, are simply not as revealing or as well designed as your typical high quality Power Amplifiers ? I agree with Miska about the benefits of high quality headphone listening. Both headphones and speakers have their place and it's possible to enjoy both in a typical family situation.

Regards

Alex

[jabbr]

At the brighter hall, the conductor often sets up the violins and the violas mixed rather than in sections. I think this is to help create a "fuller" more balanced sound in the hall. Just conjecture on my part.

 

That has to be very experimental. I'd think it would be more difficult for the sections to remain in sync. I can't imagine how he'd conduct that ...

[jhwalker]

That has to be very experimental. I'd think it would be more difficult for the sections to remain in sync. I can't imagine how he'd conduct that ...

 

Was thinking about that, as well - you'd have to direct all your cues for both violins and violas to a very generalized area at the front of the orchestra. Wouldn't work at all for my style of conducting, but some are much more general, I suppose, which would allow them this flexibility.