What uncontroversial audible differences cannot be measured?

[fas42]

34 minutes ago, Paul R said:

 

Try the CD release of Born in the USA.  Yikes it is awful on a high end system. 

 

Not a Springsteen man, here - have none of his albums. But, had a quick listen to the eponymous track on a YouTube clip - and I see the dilemma for typical high end systems: there's a huge acoustic encoded in this, for all the instruments - and this needs to be properly resolved to work. If the rig gives hints of that acoustic but doesn't get it right, then it will sound awful - I could see this track being a good show off piece for a competent system; in fact, I'm tempted to buy it, .

[semente]

7 hours ago, pkane2001 said:

 

It's interesting. I was recently in the parking lot outside a restaurant. They were playing music over loudspeakers. It took no effort at all to recognize this as a live performance. I had no doubt. Looked inside, and sure enough, a live band was playing there. This was not about sound stage, it was not about unrestricted dynamics, or peak distortions, etc., since I heard the sound amplified and through a set of speakers. This wasn't even a stereo setup, and I was nowhere near the sweet spot. I'm sure the band wasn't using high-end equipment, either. So what made it obvious? What is it that is still present in a live, amplified sound that is not there after the sound has been recorded and played back? 

 

I have listened to reasonably "uncompressed" rock recordings through a PA system (e.g. at weddings or in bars) that sounded more like live sound than hi-fi.

So I would say yes to "unrestricted dynamics, or peak distortions" and add transient response, loudness, wide dynamic swings.

In recordings there's all the signal processing that affects "liveness".

 

With acoustic unamplified music you can recording using minimalist mic setups and hardly any processing but EQ.

But the recording and playback chain has limitations that prevent recordings from sounding exactly like the real thing.

And as I have said sound is just part of the experience of attending a live performance...

[mansr]

7 hours ago, pkane2001 said:

It's interesting. I was recently in the parking lot outside a restaurant. They were playing music over loudspeakers. It took no effort at all to recognize this as a live performance. I had no doubt. Looked inside, and sure enough, a live band was playing there. This was not about sound stage, it was not about unrestricted dynamics, or peak distortions, etc., since I heard the sound amplified and through a set of speakers. This wasn't even a stereo setup, and I was nowhere near the sweet spot. I'm sure the band wasn't using high-end equipment, either. So what made it obvious? What is it that is still present in a live, amplified sound that is not there after the sound has been recorded and played back? 

Live music in such venues is usually played much louder than recorded, so that's a pretty obvious hint. Live performers might also favour different EQ settings than would be used in a studio recording, and some effects are impossible to utilise live.

[semente]

5 hours ago, Paul R said:

 

Try the CD release of Born in the USA.  Yikes it is awful on a high end system. 

 

Ultimately one wonders if hi-fi is necessary or even beneficial for amplified and electronic music like rock, pop, (I won't even mention dance, etc.).

[esldude]

14 minutes ago, semente said:

 

Ultimately one wonders if hi-fi is necessary or even beneficial for amplified and electronic music like rock, pop, (I won't even mention dance, etc.).

Seems beneficial to DSOTM by Pink Floyd.

[semente]

3 minutes ago, esldude said:

Seems beneficial to DSOTM by Pink Floyd.

 

I would say so too, for Pink Floyd and for other bands.

But it all depends on one's expectations.

For some people this is all/what they need:

 

 

[Hifi Bob]

30 minutes ago, mansr said:

Live music in such venues is usually played much louder than recorded, so that's a pretty obvious hint. Live performers might also favour different EQ settings than would be used in a studio recording, and some effects are impossible to utilise live.

Surely mixed differently too, and without the benefit of re-takes and overdubs. 

[fas42]

40 minutes ago, semente said:

 

Ultimately one wonders if hi-fi is necessary or even beneficial for amplified and electronic music like rock, pop, (I won't even mention dance, etc.).

 

It most certainly is ... squashed sound is not what rock and pop is about - it should be HUGE in the presentation; if a system can't do justice to such material then it will be imprinting its failures on everything else as well - just not so obviously ...

[pkane2001]

7 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

The "liveliness" is in the recording, always (phew, sigh of relief!) - but it gets killed in the playback; for me, what's happening is that distortion artifacts are too audible, and the ear/brain closes down on accepting what it hears as being "valid" - fix that, and the liveliness emerges ...

 

I'm curious how you know this and how one would go about proving this. 

[pkane2001]

7 hours ago, Paul R said:

But mostly what you are identifying is context.

 

You are probably right. But, on other occasions, it was just as easy for me to identify the muffled sounds of a live piano from a distance in a situation where a recording over a PA was a much more likely scenario. I am very familiar with the sound of a "live" piano, having played and heard many pianos over my adult life. 

 

And yet, this points to something more than just context. I wouldn't be surprised if that's all that it was, but it would be an interesting test to conduct, playing live music over loudspeakers directly, or through an ADC/DAC conversion. Would there be a difference in the perception of "live" sound? Any references to such tests out there?

 

 

[pkane2001]

2 hours ago, mansr said:

Live music in such venues is usually played much louder than recorded, so that's a pretty obvious hint. Live performers might also favour different EQ settings than would be used in a studio recording, and some effects are impossible to utilise live.

Sure, that's possible. And yet, there's definitely a recognition of live sound that is frequently not there with a playback system. I'm occasionally startled by sounds coming from my system, sounding realistic enough to be in the room. With some recordings I can suspend disbelief and hear it as if I'm at that venue. In most cases, though, recorded music does not sound truly "live" to me. It sounds natural, I hear no distortions, great sound stage, etc., and yet not quite "live".  Perhaps Paul R is right, and it's all about context: after all, I would never expect Dire Straits to be playing live in my basement

 

[pkane2001]

2 hours ago, semente said:

 

I have listened to reasonably "uncompressed" rock recordings through a PA system (e.g. at weddings or in bars) that sounded more like live sound than hi-fi.

So I would say yes to "unrestricted dynamics, or peak distortions" and add transient response, loudness, wide dynamic swings.

In recordings there's all the signal processing that affects "liveness".

 

With acoustic unamplified music you can recording using minimalist mic setups and hardly any processing but EQ.

But the recording and playback chain has limitations that prevent recordings from sounding exactly like the real thing.

And as I have said sound is just part of the experience of attending a live performance...

 

I've had the same experience. So, how do I go about measuring the deficiencies present in the playback chain that hide or distort "liveliness" of the sound? How do I measure "unrestricted dynamics", for example? Is transient response the same as impulse response, and can be measured? What's a "wide dynamic swing"? Is that different than dynamic range?

 

[STC]

2 hours ago, semente said:

I have listened to reasonably "uncompressed" rock recordings through a PA system (e.g. at weddings or in bars) that sounded more like live sound than hi-fi.

So I would say yes to "unrestricted dynamics, or peak distortions" and add transient response, loudness, wide dynamic swings.

In recordings there's all the signal processing that affects "liveness".

 

I am familiar with this kind of sound and regularly get to listen to them with the crowd and without the crowd. The music is more enjoyable with the crowd and when the same music is played with accompanying dance troupe. 

 

I think the liveness is also associated with the surrounding and visual stimulation. It is a mixture of sound, sight and crowd. 

 

I am am not sure how I can explain this but the feeling is akin to watching a comedy movie alone and with a big crowd. 

 

 

 

 

[Teresa]

15 hours ago, fas42 said:

Teresa, if you love them I won't get in your way, not one bit!

 

Thanks.  Musical enjoyment is what it is all about. 

 

15 hours ago, fas42 said:

Maybe I've been unlucky, but many of the recordings that were deliberately made the "audiophile way" that I've come across are just weird, dull, or insipid: massive reverb, violins that sound like there's a towel inside the case - they all tend to go into my "strange stuff" stack ...

 

I am curious about your experience with audiophile recordings though as I have never heard an authentic audiophile recording sound the way you describe on any audio system I've listened to in the past 41 years. So if you have found some bad sounding audiophile recordings I really would like to know what they were so I can avoid purchasing them.

 

I first fell in love with the realism, excitement and thrilling sonic accuracy of audiophile recordings when I heard and then purchased "Harry James and his Big Band: The King James Version" on Sheffield Lab Direct-to-Disc LP back in 1977.

 

The goal of engineers making authentic audiophile recordings is usually to recreate the original performance space, whither that is a concert hall, church, jazz club or recording studio in one's listening room with the detail, natural ambiance and full frequency response from the deepest bass to the highest treble with the weight, impact and excitement of music heard live. Most audiophile recording companies us no EQ, very little or no mixing within a movement or song, and no signal altering devices. The result is exactly what was played by the singers and musicians, nothing more, nothing less.

 

I am talking about authentic audiophile recordings, audiophile from the microphones to the finished product. Not audiophile remasters of major label recordings.

 

Lastly, audiophile recordings are not made for boom boxes, HTIB, etc. but to be played on audiophile equipment thus they usually have a very wide dynamic range with no compression or other studio tricks. They sound best played back at realistically loud levels for the excitement and to hear the softest parts.

 

With that said here are some of my favorite audiophile recording companies:

 

    •    AudioQuest Music
    •    Cardas
    •    Challenge Classics
    •    Chandos
    •    Channel Classics
    •    Chesky
    •    DMP
    •    fonè
    •    Groove Note
    •    Opus 3
    •    PentaTone Classics
    •    Pope Music
    •    Sheffield Lab 
    •    Stockfisch Records
    •    Reference Recordings
    •    Tacet
    •    Telarc (pre-2009, especially pure DSD SACDs)
    •    Turtle Records
    •    ViTaL Records (Vacuum Tube Logic)
    •    Wilson Audiophile

 

Was your poor experience of audiophile recordings from any of the above labels?

 

I don't have a "strange stuff" or any type of bad stack. If I don't like the sound quality or the music on any recording I either sell it or trade it in. I don't keep what I don't like.

 

15 hours ago, fas42 said:

By contrast, pop productions from the 70's and 80's can be amazing creations - fantastic voyages of sound, many times.

 

I’ve been burned too often by the major labels so I rarely buy their recordings. I do like some art rock, folk rock and progressive rock from the 1960's and 1970's but I try to purchase audiophile remasters of those, which are not as good sounding as authentic audiophile recordings but more enjoyable to me than the major label's release.

[Paul R]

6 hours ago, pkane2001 said:

 

You are probably right. But, on other occasions, it was just as easy for me to identify the muffled sounds of a live piano from a distance in a situation where a recording over a PA was a much more likely scenario. I am very familiar with the sound of a "live" piano, having played and heard many pianos over my adult life. 

 

And yet, this points to something more than just context. I wouldn't be surprised if that's all that it was, but it would be an interesting test to conduct, playing live music over loudspeakers directly, or through an ADC/DAC conversion. Would there be a difference in the perception of "live" sound? Any references to such tests out there?

 

 

 

It would be interesting and probably a lot of fun to setup a test protocol for this, and give it a try.   -Paul

 

[Ralph Glasgal]

8 hours ago, pkane2001 said:

I'm curious how you know this and how one would go about proving this. 

Most 2.0 recordings, be they LP or CD have rather good values of localization data on them.  That is level and time differences between the two channels.  However when such 2.0 files are reproduced using speakers separated by 60 degrees, something called localization cue distortion is introduced and by measuring this, (easy) you can prove why stereo systems have a hard time sounding real unless we have only a central solo voice with guitar.  See endless AES papers in the archive at www.ambiophonics.org 

[RogerD]

I will tell you one thing...if it can't be measured easily or understood,but people hear the difference...cash cow baby!

[Ralph Glasgal]

16 minutes ago, RogerD said:

I will tell you one thing...if it can't be measured easily or understood,but people hear the difference...cash cow baby!

If we are talking about localization cue distortion, and the lack of flat response in stereo loudspeaker reproduction, just feed pink or white noise or any wideband music signal into your speakers and facing sideways, walk through the sweet spot.  You will easily hear the change in tonality.  Now face forward and just rock left and right and you will again hear the timbre change.  You also know there is localization distortion when a symphony orchestra is compressed into 60 degrees.  When I play the same recording I normally have an orchestral width of just shy of 170 degrees or there abouts depending on the localization data on the disc.  

[semente]

21 minutes ago, Ralph Glasgal said:

If we are talking about localization cue distortion, and the lack of flat response in stereo loudspeaker reproduction, just feed pink or white noise or any wideband music signal into your speakers and facing sideways, walk through the sweet spot.  You will easily hear the change in tonality.  Now face forward and just rock left and right and you will again hear the timbre change.  You also know there is localization distortion when a symphony orchestra is compressed into 60 degrees.  When I play the same recording I normally have an orchestral width of just shy of 170 degrees or there abouts depending on the localization data on the disc.  

 

I wouldn't want to listen to an orchestra spanning over a 170 degree area; this would create a very different perception from what I listen to in live performances.

120/130 degrees might be possible in a first row seat but who would want to sit there anyway...

[fas42]

11 hours ago, pkane2001 said:

I'm curious how you know this and how one would go about proving this. 

 

By the simple process of optimising, tweaking a playback system to the point where you can't hear audible anomalies originating in the reproduction chain - at this point the recording stands alone, it has a unique personality which depends on the era when it was made, the equipment used to capture and the techniques used by the recording engineers. And when the playback works this well, it has all the liveliness one could wish for; the musical energy comes through, every time.

 

Take two different systems, built using totally different philosophies, and components types: normally, a particular recording will sound very different played on those two - so, at least one is getting it wrong; and most likely both are. IME, if those two systems are carefully optimised then that recording will end up "sounding the same", subjectively - the more precisely the same the two highly contrasting rigs present the recording, the more assured you can be that you're only hearing the recording, without the signature of the setup also imprinted on it.

[fas42]

11 hours ago, pkane2001 said:

 

I've had the same experience. So, how do I go about measuring the deficiencies present in the playback chain that hide or distort "liveliness" of the sound? How do I measure "unrestricted dynamics", for example? Is transient response the same as impulse response, and can be measured? What's a "wide dynamic swing"? Is that different than dynamic range?

 

 

Measuring in the sense of getting numbers I have never tried to do. My ears have given all the feedback I've needed, for decades.

 

Let's say I visit someone who is proud of their system, that I've never heard up to that point. I would happily go along with them playing their favourite "show off" recordings, at the volumes they choose - and the only thing I would really pay attention to is the, for want of a better term, "naturalness" of the sound - does it sound 'right'? If the volume is very low I'm immediately suspicious - the system probably "falls apart" when trying for more realistic levels. At some point when a more "aggressive" recording is on I would ask for more volume, and keep asking for it to be raised - normally, amplifier "compression" kicks in at some point; I've found the limits of the playback. If this happens at a lowish volume, then the system is badly restricted, "unrestricted dynamics" is an impossible dream for this one; if at a high volume then the potential is there, in spite of the fact that the sound may be shouty, fairly unpleasant.at these volumes.

 

Went to an audio show a couple of years ago, and found the best amplifier I've heard yet. These were the top of the line Bryston monoblocks ... could go up in SPLs effortlessly, well past anything else I'd experienced. A drum kit solo was "real", tremendous bite and kick ... this was PA volumes, with the quality of the very best headphones.

[fas42]

8 hours ago, Teresa said:

 

Thanks.  Musical enjoyment is what it is all about. 

 

 

I am curious about your experience with audiophile recordings though as I have never heard an authentic audiophile recording sound the way you describe on any audio system I've listened to in the past 41 years. So if you have found some bad sounding audiophile recordings I really would like to know what they were so I can avoid purchasing them.

 

I first fell in love with the realism, excitement and thrilling sonic accuracy of audiophile recordings when I heard and then purchased "Harry James and his Big Band: The King James Version" on Sheffield Lab Direct-to-Disc LP back in 1977.

 

The goal of engineers making authentic audiophile recordings is usually to recreate the original performance space, whither that is a concert hall, church, jazz club or recording studio in one's listening room with the detail, natural ambiance and full frequency response from the deepest bass to the highest treble with the weight, impact and excitement of music heard live. Most audiophile recording companies us no EQ, very little or no mixing within a movement or song, and no signal altering devices. The result is exactly what was played by the singers and musicians, nothing more, nothing less.

 

I am talking about authentic audiophile recordings, audiophile from the microphones to the finished product. Not audiophile remasters of major label recordings.

 

Lastly, audiophile recordings are not made for boom boxes, HTIB, etc. but to be played on audiophile equipment thus they usually have a very wide dynamic range with no compression or other studio tricks. They sound best played back at realistically loud levels for the excitement and to hear the softest parts.

 

With that said here are some of my favorite audiophile recording companies:

 

    •    AudioQuest Music
    •    Cardas
    •    Challenge Classics
    •    Chandos
    •    Channel Classics
    •    Chesky
    •    DMP
    •    fonè
    •    Groove Note
    •    Opus 3
    •    PentaTone Classics
    •    Pope Music
    •    Sheffield Lab 
    •    Stockfisch Records
    •    Reference Recordings
    •    Tacet
    •    Telarc (pre-2009, especially pure DSD SACDs)
    •    Turtle Records
    •    ViTaL Records (Vacuum Tube Logic)
    •    Wilson Audiophile

 

Was your poor experience of audiophile recordings from any of the above labels?

 

I don't have a "strange stuff" or any type of bad stack. If I don't like the sound quality or the music on any recording I either sell it or trade it in. I don't keep what I don't like.

 

 

I’ve been burned too often by the major labels so I rarely buy their recordings. I do like some art rock, folk rock and progressive rock from the 1960's and 1970's but I try to purchase audiophile remasters of those, which are not as good sounding as authentic audiophile recordings but more enjoyable to me than the major label's release.

 

Thanks for your extended response, Teresa!

 

Of the labels you mention, I have a few Chandos items, and they're fine - but I wouldn't have thought that this company was particularly audiophile in intent; Sheffield Lab is the worst offender, nothing from them that I want to listen to; Telarc is a mixed bag, a couple are fine, but I also have some bizarre orchestral efforts from them. I'm not on top of the actual CDs I have at the moment, so if you want the precise items I'll need to get back to you on that, if you're really interested.

 

Too many times I've listened to a really lack lustre recording brought by someone else, and afterwards I find it's a specifically audiophile recording by some company - I make a mental note to avoid that mob from then on ... that's where I'm burnt, .

 

Audiophile remasters don't work, IME. A friend is a keen Yes fan, and we compared the specialist remasters, to the original release - the remasters were all about simplifying and spotlighting the original content, and to our ears were a relatively poor rehash, compared to the first version - the complexity and depth to the music making had been discarded, and weren't in the same league as a listening experience.

 

YMMV ...

[kumakuma]

23 minutes ago, fas42 said:

Audiophile remasters don't work, IME. A friend is a keen Yes fan, and we compared the specialist remasters, to the original release - the remasters were all about simplifying and spotlighting the original content, and to our ears were a relatively poor rehash, compared to the first version - the complexity and depth to the music making had been discarded, and weren't in the same league as a listening experience.

 

I think it depends on what kind of music you're into. I've got hundreds of remastered jazz albums and the remastered version is usually (but not always) the best sounding version.

 

@Teresa

 

One additional audiophile label I can recommend is Sound Liaison (http://www.soundliaison.com). The four albums they have recorded by Carmen Gomes are especially good.

[fas42]

Teresa pointing to Harry James reminded me of one of my test CDs, this one: https://musicbrainz.org/release/e6cdaff7-f18f-4247-a2d2-f4964e281161

 

These are tracks broadcast on 'The Harry James Show', 1948/47; US Navy transcriptions. Media noises and glitches, but very simple recording technique which has captured the tremendous driving energy and power of this band - this is the first track,

 

 

A system would need to be able to do a totally clean rendition of these tracks, with all the intensity of the powerhouse music making captured here fully expressed, to tick the boxes for me.

[Ralph Glasgal]

4 hours ago, semente said:

 

I wouldn't want to listen to an orchestra spanning over a 170 degree area; this would create a very different perception from what I listen to in live performances.

120/130 degrees might be possible in a first row seat but who would want to sit there anyway...

I should have said up to 170 degrees.  It is easy to adjust the angle of the orchestra if you don't like 5th row center.  If you add the surround speakers for hall ambience you can sit in the balcony.  Stereo limits you to 60 degrees max with no control.  I once had a patent on a stereo width control but it only went from 60 to 0 degrees.  I think though when you see the kind of detail, clarity and depth  you can get when you reproduce all that is on an LP or CD without localization cue distortion that you might want to move up a few rows.