Article: Realism vs Accuracy For Audiophiles | Part 1: Soundstage

[fas42]

Quote

So we judge accuracy by how closely playback approximates our memory or sonic concept of the original performance.

 

Sorry, this doesn't make sense to me - our memory is not relevant, since essentially no-one was at the original performance - unless one happened to be at a concert which was turned into a recording. And what is, a "sonic concept"?

[fas42]

37 minutes ago, bluesman said:

"...how closely playback approximates our memory or sonic concept of the original performance" doesn't seem that obscure to me.  You can't make a reasonable judgment about the accuracy of playback without comparison to an actual memory or to a preconceived notion (which I chose to call a "sonic concept") of how it should sound.  That notion may be based on experience, reviews you've read, other people's comments about it, etc.  But unless it springs de novo from your imagination, it's based on something you remember from prior experience.

 

Okay, it's the "original performance" aspect of it that I queried - one may have heard that piece played by another orchestra, in another concert hall - but that's a different thing.

 

"preconceived notion of how it should sound" does answer what a sonic concept is - thanks!

 

37 minutes ago, bluesman said:

 

I own and listen to many commercial recordings of concerts I attended, and I'm sure I'm not the only one on AS who's been to live performances that were recorded.  So memory of the actual event is not at all unheard of.  But more importantly, I and many other AS members are quite familiar with a number of concert halls, clubs, and other venues because we've heard many performers and programs of various kinds there.  So we have a pretty good idea of what to expect because we have our memories of prior experience with live music. 

 

Agree.

 

37 minutes ago, bluesman said:

 

I've attended hundreds of concerts at Philadelphia's Academy of Music, for example.  So I have a sonic concept, based on my memory, of how an orchestra or soloist with whom I'm entirely unfamiliar would sound there.  Throw in my knowledge of the sound of specific instruments and players and I have a pretty fair chance of being correct based on my memory of similar performers on similar instruments in the same hall.  I've heard hundreds of jazz groups at many clubs in Philly, NY and DC - same idea.

 

Makes sense.

 

37 minutes ago, bluesman said:

 

Regardless of whether it's based on your memory, your imagination or some combination of the two, you have a "sonic concept" against which to compare and measure the reproduction you're hearing for accuracy.

 

 

Fair enough.

[fas42]

32 minutes ago, bluesman said:

 

 

 

Pretty obvious, actually - just on laptop speakers ... thanks for that.

 

The Steinway is more 'stolid'; the Fazioli has a 'bounce' to the attack; a liveliness to the tone.

 

[fas42]

18 minutes ago, AudioDoctor said:

regarding realism... Do you think the final version of this album sounds like this video shows it would if you were in the room with the performers when it was recorded?

 

 

No ... how it works if you were in the room with the performers is that you would be aware of a single acoustic, where the sounds blend, with part direct and part reflected sound.

 

In such a recording, what you hear are separate, acoustic layers - each performer is in their own space; which are all on top of each other, in front of you. This sounds like it would be messy; but the human hearing system is very good at untangling this - given enough clues ... on a very transparent system, each layer exists with full integrity, and individuality - it's easy to focus on each layer, in turn, and hear exactly what's going on, with that particular sound source - be it voice, or the drums, say.

 

Is it realistic? No ... but it has its own qualities which are perfectly satisfying to experience. The recording is realistic in that you can hear exactly what happened with the mic'ing, etc - but it doesn't get in the way of enjoying what you're hearing.

[fas42]

I've been a Yamaha fan for a long time - the Yamaha CDP I bought in 1986 was the breakthrough product that showed us how good digital playback could be ... it's taken the industry 3 decades to catch up to what they were getting right, way back then 🙂.

[fas42]

6 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

 

Headphone listening is to me a paradox, the room completely gone, obviously.  Even without binaural recordings, I am able to "get inside" the acoustic and find it wonderful.  This applies to well-recorded classical and old jazz where the performers were together in a real space.  Of course this doesn't apply to hard pan-potted material (The Beatles, etc.) where the "pressure sensation" at the ears is troublesome, though mitigated to at least some degree with crossfeed.

 

Bill

 

Very few people understand, or appreciate that speakers also do this. Why this is so is that the playback chain has to be on its best behaviour to be capable of realising this - very rarely found in the wild, 😉.

 

I can't abide headphones - they add nothing to the quality of the experience, compared to what capable speakers do - and are just a pain in the ars... er, the ears 🙂.

[fas42]

3 minutes ago, Bill Brown said:

@fas42, with all due respect, you are a nut!

 

Bill

 

Right, you've never experienced how convincing speaker playback can be ... got it! 😜

[fas42]

1 hour ago, audiobomber said:

 Laptop speakers?

 

What do you think?

[fas42]

1 hour ago, audiobomber said:

I think you think so.

 

And where have I said, "Laptop speakers give me convincing playback"? As compared to, "Laptop speakers are good enough to pick things in the SQ" ...

[fas42]

7 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

 

Oh Lordy :)

 

Last night I was wondering if it would be interesting to hear your system, and you hear mine (though it is far from perfect).

 

The interesting thing here, is what, specifically, makes you say it's "far from perfect" ... 🙂.

[fas42]

37 minutes ago, Bill Brown said:

I was primarily making sure to convey that I don't think my system is the ultimate, but certainly all are far from the realism that is the topic of the article.  Anyone who disagrees hasn't been to a great performance in a great hall.  Good, yes.  Indistinguishable from real, no.

 

The interesting thing that happened three decades for me, was going to the Sydney Opera house - no longer do this, but back then this happened irregularly - and feeling that I was hearing didn't "shape up" at times - I can still picture a piano recital, where I was thinking at the time, "This just doesn't have the impact that I would be getting at home - I feel too removed from the music".

 

Quote

That you discount the impact of acoustics in a small room is telling.  OTOH, if you enjoy your system, then more power to you, I am happy for you.  Connecting with music, after all, is the whole point.  I could listen to my favorites on an AM radio.  But.....I am fairly confident that your impression of high fidelity reproduction wouldn't be broadly shared.  I would bet my left nut that your system can't convey the realism of the performance I am thankful to have experienced in the Musikverein 2 years ago.  Just ain't happenin'.

 

I'm after the quality of immersion, and size in the presentation - much audio is 'tiny', fails to convey grandeur. So, for a system to be acceptable to me, it has to be able to handle presenting the majesty of a full size pipe organ with "all the stops out"; or the climax of a symphony, with the waves of sound effortlessly rolling over me - last time I checked, an AM radio didn't quite make the grade 😜.

 

Quote

 

I am sitting at our kitchen island cooking pizzas in the oven (wife is rounding and not coming home this evening), drinking a cold beer on a Friday evening, listening to music (Jason Isbell currently) on a B&O bluetooth speaker and enjoying the music.  Engaging, sins of omission only (put it on an oven mitt to decrease some tubbiness in the bass), can forget about the reproduction and simply enjoy.  Yay!  But it ain't real.

 

Best,

 

Bill

 

Good times are always good ... 😉.

 

But, I would have the system running for this - we don't do, "room systems" 😉 ... the volume would at a level so that it fills the house; and it sounds good standing right in front of the speakers - or listening from a room at the other end of the house ... at the same volume setting. That's what happens when a setup is working to a high order  - no matter the volume, or where you happen to be in the general area ... it still ticks all the boxes ... 🙂.

[fas42]

I pointed to a link a short time ago, of a standard that I want the subjective presentation to be at,

 

[fas42]

10 hours ago, mForMusic said:

 

When audiophiles treat a live performance as an ideal that should be matched, it is often ignored, apart from the imperfect reproduction described in the article, that many halls don't have perfect acoustics. In this case, with microphones close to the performers, it can actually sound better on the record than it did for the audience during the performance.

 

Agree. Yes, a recording can easily sound better, a lot better than the "real thing" ... which is why there is no excuse for a system not to be able to conjure up a remarkable presentation.

 

4 hours ago, bluesman said:

I think many audiophiles focus their interest and attention exclusively on the sound they hear. Live music is not the same experience as home listening - they’re different in many ways.  Just being in the same space with the performers is exciting.  Watching them interact with each other, the audience, and, if present, a conductor and/or a soloist is fascinating but missing from your living room.  And knowing that your presence in the audience is supporting the future of music in all its forms is very satisfying, at least to my wife and me.  

 

All good things. And the converse is also true ... I was at a recital for solo cello some years ago - and it was the ultimate agony session. The chap was into the intellectual understanding of the music - and it ground on ... and on ... and on ... and ...

 

 

[fas42]

1 hour ago, Bill Brown said:

 

No way.  Not for acoustic music, i.e. acoustic instruments in a real space.  That is the absolute sound in relation to which all reproduced music should be judged.  Maybe if you are referring to electric instruments over a PA?

 

We have just mentioned a piano recital ... in a concert hall, I am, how far away from it? The very same performance recorded from a microphone right next to the piano, in an optimum position for that sound capture ... which is going to give me a more intense sense of the piano in action?

 

1 hour ago, Bill Brown said:

 

I listened earlier to Muddy Waters' Folk Singer, an astoundingly good (all acoustic instruments) recording, with space, dynamics, and tone. Now Bruckner.  To have been present when these recordings were made would make what I have listened to today absolutely pale in comparison.  To be a fly on the wall listening to Muddy and Buddy making music?!?  No doubts; no ifs, ands, or buts; I question your sanity if you think otherwise.  Hell, I have had (and many other listeners also report) many experiences where after hearing live music I couldn't listen to my system for a few days except casually, realizing how far I was away.  If you think your system is good enough to avoid this you are either high or (happily) delusional (and I guess if that is true, what the hell, enjoy it).

 

It can be that good - which is not the same thing as saying that it is that good, every time I switch it on ... okay?

 

1 hour ago, Bill Brown said:

 

Frankly, and I don't want to be an ass (though there are nurses who would say I am good at it!), but your contributions to this thread don't measure up to the level of the article written by @bluesman.  Just don't fit.  So much of what you write is vague and circular, lacking important details that would allow the reader understanding and to assess the merits.  Well, perhaps I am thinking of your recent writings on other threads also, not just this one (? the "Goals when reproducing music" one- they are related).

 

The primary goal is realism ... everything else, and I do mean everything else, is subservient to that. Which is why I don't natter about the usual things that audiophiles talk about - what most can't grok is the concept that you listen to a sound system as something that has audible faults; which you work on, to resolve - this is a headspace most don't enter; which is why I don't make sense to them.

 

1 hour ago, Bill Brown said:

 

Hell, maybe you actually have achieved nirvana and possess the secret to awesomeness.  In the context of the high levels of reproduction that this article discusses and aspires to, I have to wonder about your system (and I am NOT talking $ or "mine is bigger than yours" stuff).  You write on this site voluminously, so would you please take the time to describe your system from front to back with a simple drawing of your room and a few pictures?  I (we?) need something concrete.  Show us how you have done it!  Without this , I am have to suspect that the emperor has no clothes.

 

I have described many times, posted a pic, have a thread devoted to where it's going ...

 

You can always check this out, if you want ... 🙂.

[fas42]

2 hours ago, CG said:

 

Many years ago, my daughter was performing in her elementary school band in the usual array of winter and spring concerts in her school.  I thought it would be a good thing to record them, not only for posterity but as an experiment for me.  So, I did some research and purchased a Sony WM-D6C "Walkman Pro" cassette recorder and a pair of Sonic Studios binaural microphones.  You can tell from the vintage of the gear just when this was.  

 

 

Which reminds me of a similar evening some years ago ... the usual range of performances, from rolling one's eyes standard, to quite special.

 

But what struck me was the Yamahaa(/Kawai? - not sure now ...) grand there for the piano efforts - this poor instrument must have gone through the wars; it was a mess - to listen to! Trying to hear through the crazy combination of very unpiano like sounds it was making while it was being played was hard work - now, that's what I call distortion !!! 🤣

[fas42]

dup ...

[fas42]

7 hours ago, bluesman said:

Accuracy means only that playback is identical to the master - no system can (or should even try to) deconstruct what the recording team wanted you to hear.  It’s fine to process it to kingdom come if that’s what makes you happy.  But an accurate system starts with the ability to reproduce what’s in the source file.  

 

 

In fact, an accurate replay does deconstruct what was laid down - if a heavily produced, multi-track effort then that's what you hear ... there are regulars docos where someone plays a master tape of some famous album; and slides the faders so that you hear what is happening on just one track - and that what becomes easy to focus on, with competent playback: you can just 'watch' what's happening in one layer of the production - it has its own identity, its own space.

 

7 hours ago, bluesman said:

 

There are many very enjoyable recordings of all kinds that are as processed and artificial as cheap hot dogs.  I love music and I love hot dogs - I just like to know what’s in both and how they were made.  Like hot dogs at a picnic, both sometimes get dropped into some dirt and need a wipe or two.  Landing in the wrong place is cause for discarding it.  But our kitchen floor is clean, and hot dogs are too precious to waste.  For me, an excursion through harmless dirt doesn’t lessen the enjoyment of consuming either music or hot dogs when I’m in the mood for them.

 

Turns out that highly processed recordings are often the most intriguing - the complexity, the intricacy of the mix is a fascinating thing in its own right; it's like studying a complex painting, where there's a lot going on; and every time you look at it, you appreciate some further quality in it. It's one reason I rarely listen to some "audiophile" albums - everything is so obvious, straightaway; and nothing more is gained on relistening.

[fas42]

What you in fact 'see' is what the microphones saw - if it's a jumble of acoustics, from each mic seeing something different, that's in fact what's there in the final product. Which is why I use the term, "layers" - each layer becomes very distinct, having its specific acoustic, and other characteristics - when a system is sufficiently resolving ... no matter what the engineers do to try and eliminate that identifiability, little cracks of what was used still peek through - and the ear/brain can work out what it all means, 🙂.

 

If you don't want the "naked truth", then add 'seasoning', via the setup - which is what what most people do anyway, whether intentional or not 😉. Personally, I'm happy with hearing "everything!" - if you do this the right way, you still get tonality, imaging, soundstage - the works! That it is a major mismatch from what someone in the recording studio wanted is irrelevant, to me ...