What uncontroversial audible differences cannot be measured?

[Fitzcaraldo215]

5 hours ago, Paul R said:

 

(grin) I would respectfully dispute that. Even a modest system these days sounds better than most live performances. (/grin) 

 

That is of course, hotly contested by some folks. I contend that the local pub with the singer/songwriter there is a cool experience, but the music sounds better on my system just about every time. The few times it doesn't is usually traceable to a very poor recording!

 

-Paul 

 

It really has a lot to do with the performance venue, its acoustics, the nature of the instruments, etc. etc. So, it often comes down to a chasm between the ways different musical genres are presented live.  For acoustic classical music with unamplified singers in a good hall, nothing beats live. It is not close.  For pop or jazz in a crappy acoustic with a poor PA system amplifying vocals and acoustic instruments, I have no doubt that a studio recording may be substantially better.

[Fitzcaraldo215]

13 hours ago, Paul R said:

 

I will go a little further to say that even an orchestral presentation, or especially a Choral presentation almost always sounds better on my stereo than live. Live Choral music in particular. It is, I think, a touch of arrogance to assume "live" sounds better. It really often doesn't, by just about any measure.  

 

-Paul 

 

Paul - I am not assuming anything.  I go.  I average more than one live concert/month in the large or small auditoria at Philadelphia's Kimmel Center.  I also have several Ondine SACDs made of the Phladelphia Orchestra live in concerts I attended myself in Verizon Hall.  I play them on my carefully calibrated multichannel system worth about $50k in MSRP,  incorporating 7 Martin Logan electrostat hybrids with room EQ supplied by Dirac Live.

 

I do not know what kind of poor live experience it is your misfortune to encounter, nor do I know what miracle audio system you play recordings on that sounds better than live, but enjoy what you like, as is your privilege.

[Fitzcaraldo215]

39 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Nope . When I first achieved "envelopment", 30 years ago, just using two speakers I fell off my chair, so to speak - this ... is ... amazing ... !!  - what else could I have thought ... . I was hooked, and every other system I came across after that was "pretty pathetic", in comparison.

 

Only recently have I understood what appears to be going on, when I became aware of ASA, courtesy of another enthusiastic explorer, John Kenny. The ear/brain is perfectly capable of decoding what the spatial cues represent if the reproduction is of high enough quality - why the illusion normally fails to materialise is that the clarity falls short, especially when the amplifiers and speakers are asked to deliver the SPLs necessary to create the "sound pool" in the room - in car terms, you need V8 ease and refinement, not a screaming 4 cylinder engine.

Yes, Frank, falling off your chair did a permanent number on your noggin.  There is absolutely no evidence you ever recovered.  And, given that, it is also clear to us that you have absolutely no idea what we are talking about.  

 

And, neither you nor Kenny, known here under his hush, hush incognito alias of mmerrill99, if not other disguises, or the ASA miracle is anything other than audiophile fantasyland.  Duh!

[Fitzcaraldo215]

3 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Just curious ... it appears that you have never experienced the "invisible speaker" behaviour that I speak about - am I correct?

Actually, I have been experiencing precisely that for many decades in stereo, and especially over the last 10 years via hi rez ITU multichannel.  There is no sense with countless discretely recorded hi rez Mch recordings of the existence of separate speaker channels in a properly calibrated system.  What is it that you think you have uniquely discovered that did no already exist?

[Fitzcaraldo215]

26 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Not unique - others have done so - but, rare ... I am not talking about sitting in an optimum, "sweet spot" - I am talking about being able to walk around anywhere in the room where the music is playing, including right up to where an individual speaker is, with its drivers - and not be able to perceive, only using one's ears, that this lump of wood and other bits is contributing to the soundfield.

Frank, I am utterly in awe, utterly just beyond all thresholds of excitement that you, there in the hinterlands of the great nation of Australia, could have discovered this stunning and remarkable advance in audio, which, alas, has absolutely no proof, corroboration or supporting evidence whatsoever.  But, I am sure that you are working on those mere details while you tell the world all about your great new discoveries.  We are indeed fortunate to have you here to give us all this preview of this next great phase of audio.

[Fitzcaraldo215]

14 hours ago, Paul R said:

 

...

 

 

 

You seem have some kind of allergic reaction to the fact that a common system can - at least in many people's considered opinion, including mine - produce sound that is technically better than sitting anywhere in a live concert. Our systems do, in fact, provide the "best seat in the house" to many many performances. That includes classical performances 

 

...

 

 

 

Paul - I have excerpted this paragraph from your post because I am really interested in understanding your point of view.  If you could be so kind, could you list the components and any special features of your system for us? I suspect many others are also curious about how what you say can be achieved: sound that is better than live from recordings played on your home system.

 

Several days ago I posted about the huge differences in how pop and jazz music was presented live vs. classical music.  Yes, there are normally acoustic and other problems with pop and jazz live, so I concede that studio mixes often sound better than the live version in those genres.  So, I do not doubt that recordings played at home are often better.

 

Classical music is where you have stimulated my curiousity, as well as doubts, especially since these days most classical music is recorded in the same venue as live performance, and it is often recorded before a live audience.  I wonder if you could reveal some of the recordings that lead you to your conclusions as well as giving us some insight in how frequently you attend live classical concerts, as well as the venues you use and the ensembles you typically see.

 

I take your point about others making unnecessary noise at live concerts.  This happens to me occasionally, too.  But, really it is quite seldom here in Philadelphia.

 

So, please tell us more about how you have reached your conclusions.

[Fitzcaraldo215]

13 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

A comment on the car radio thing: I run these radios at the maximum treble setting, which just gives them enough sparkle to make them interesting to listen to - the "normal" treble setting is equivalent to disconnecting the tweeter on a decent box speaker. Of course this will sound atrocious if the radio is in bad shape, hence the conditioning exercise ...

Frank - I think it is quite clear that you have a significant hearing problem, and you should consult an audiologist.  It is speculation, but I suspect that may be a result of age and turning the volume way up in stress tests, as you have often said you do.

 

I find it interesting that almost every time I hop into a rental car, the previous user has done exactly what you say with the treble and bass equalizer settings, sometimes the midrange, as well. Personally, that always sounds horrible to me, and I adjust those usually to dead flat.  I find that as important as adjusting the seat and mirrors.  And, it sounds much better to me that way, even as an old geezer.

 

But, to each, his or her own preferences.  Glad you are happy.  However, you have revealed that your hearing is impaired and that all sonic judgements you make are obviously skewed so as not to be relevant to the larger population of normal listeners.

 

[Fitzcaraldo215]

18 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

No, it is not impaired. I've mentioned a number of times over the years that one ear is still capable of registering an 18kHz tone, the other gives up at about 15k - good enough to pick up the beautiful shimmer of cymbals being lightly brushed, and the extreme "singing" of brass and crystal devices used in meditation recordings, etc.

 

You completely missed the point with the car radio, of course. Yes, the rental would have sounded horrible to me as well, but you failed to note what I would do to somewhat rectify that ... you see, I aim to experience the "live vibe" from playback, and, real instruments generate tremendous intensity in the higher frequencies - think, say, bagpipes here. If a real one of the latter were a few feet away from you it would metaphorically drill holes through your skull - that's what an audio system should do, and if it can't, then it's failing ...

Frank - I still find your views on all of audio outrageous, not credible and totally useless.  Glad you had your hearing checked, but I doubt many here believe you have anything at all of benefit to offer them in getting better sound.  You are, of course, entitled to listen any way you want to whatever you want.  I am just glad I do not have to listen to it with you.

[Fitzcaraldo215]

5 minutes ago, jabbr said:

 

Oh c'mon ... sitting in a club watching Buddy Guy play right in front of me has never been captured by any recording ... and we were drinking lots of beers ... can't remember needing to pee until after the show  ... also ChicagoFest, Saturday July 4th, 1981 ... CTA ... crowd went bezerk and that's never been captured. Could go on and on. Grateful Dead, great sound... of course there are many crappy bands with bad sound.

 

Sitting in front of a quartet: priceless.

 

I know, I know convenience. But trust me, if you've ever been up close to a hot cellist intently playing... recordings never do that justice 

I have limited experience with live rock, more with jazz and a whole lot in classical.  Paul is certainly entitled to his opinion, and there are times when it might be true.  But, I suspect, especially with acoustic instruments in the right venue, that you are exactly right.

 

But, his points about classical music are basically total King of the Mountain BS, based on his "I know better than you mere mortals and my system, which I am not going to reveal, is simply awesome" mindset.  Classical recording engineers, and I know a few, for heaven's sake, totally reject his position, and are happy when they even come remotely close to live.

[Fitzcaraldo215]

15 hours ago, Paul R said:

 

LOL!  I must admiit I have enjoyed almost every concert I have gone to immensely, even ones where things sometimes went wrong. Well, if you count out the Ring Cycle, which I tend to find less than thrilling. (I prefer "I killed the wabbit!" myself...) 

 

I don't think a recording can compare to the experience of a live concert, but I don't think the sound at a live concert compares favorably to the recording either.

 

-Paul 

 

So, Paul, why not tell us how many live classical concerts you have attended over the last year in what halls with what ensembles?  Of course, your opinion of live vs. recorded is up to you, but I think many here would like to know more about your experience upon which it is based.  

 

If you do, I will not criticise whatever you might say.  I just think people ought to know exactly where you are coming from.  I will be happy to list my own concert experience over the last year, if you wish.  

 

So, rather than just calling me an elitist slob, why not tell us the context for your opinion.  If I am an elitist slob, by the way, at least I go to numerous live concerts. Do you?  You have not said,  you have kept that vague and mysterious, though you hint, hint, hint that you do.  It points to the notion that your actual experience with live classical concerts is exaggerated.   

 

As I said, I know classical recording engineers who laughingly disagree with your view.  They regularly compare the sound in the hall to the mike feed, and to the recording during the steps of the production process through mastering.  Live is their standard, and they are getting ever closer to it, but they still feel they are short of live. One good friend is a Grammy-winner who is doing some remarkable recordings, the best I have heard.  He specializes in hi rez Mch recordings, by the way, which are about all I buy and listen to these days.

 

I also know and attend some concerts with recording critic friends who write for a prominent magazine.  They do not agree with you either, and they listen to more recordings than both of us combined, I am sure.

 

In the context of this thread, how could it possibly be that a recording would have better measured frequency response, lower distortion, better dynamic range, better time domain performance, etc. than live?   Or, on a subjective scale, how can a recording provide a better soundstage,  depth, dimensionality, more ambiance, air, sense of the hall acoustic, all better than live?  We really desperately need to know about the wonder audio system that has transported your experience to such extraordinary levels.

 

I am not sure you mean it literally, but you keep bringing up this seating thing - best seat in the house.  Yes, seating in the hall makes a difference in sound, but  live sound always still has an essential quality of liveness that recordings just don't quite capture.  Some seats in some halls may be inferior by comparison to other seats, but seldom in comparison to recorded sound. And, it is not just a question of ticket cost, either.

 

In our Verizon Hall, our seats have changed each season, and for about the last decade our subscription plan varies our seats for each concert, within a selected seating quadrant of the main orchestra floor level.  Yes, the sonic perspective changes somewhat, but not that much across the main floor orchestra section or the lower balcony tiers.  With my critic friends, I sit in row M dead center, which is where they prefer.  I have sat closer, further back and up in the balconies, as well.  I don't find it makes a huge difference.   As long as one does not sit too close to the stage, the sound is generally excellent.  Also, in our superb chamber music venue, Perelman Hall, there are simply no bad seats.

 

I know I will not change your opinion, but time to stop throwing rocks and list our actual experience so that others can better gain insight as to our credibility.