Forgive me Father.. aka confession of audio heretic..

[fas42]

Which just shows that people like listening to audio systems for different reasons - I, for one, have no interest in "nice" sound - which is probably why 'audiophile' recordings are the ones least often played by myself ... frankly, they're boring - to me 😜.

 

Guess what? The "Have you ever stood 2 or 3m from a real drum set.? Its sound is merciless, the bass drum seems to punch your stomach with its heavy fist and cymbals' piercing sound makes you wanna vomit...

Same goes for many other instruments - trumpets, saxes etc. " experience is what turns me on - the raw intensity of that impact is magic, is part of the reason why musicians love what they do.

 

A system needs to be able to do that type of stuff, without making you run from the room - if it can, then the "nice stuff" is easy peasy, and shows itself in strong contrast ...

[fas42]

1 hour ago, sphinxsix said:

Believe me, my system is much more 'hard hitting' and merciless for the recordings than eg yours and is able to play really loud without distortion or compression (95db sensitivity speakers, my 80W amp is more than enough..).

 

 

Depends what you mean by "merciless" 🙂 - can you give an example of something where you would use this word?

 

Yes, the speaker sensitivity and available power should give you tonnes of headroom ...

[fas42]

26 minutes ago, sphinxsix said:

I mean.. Well, instead of repeating myself I will quote myself  (scroll down if you have time)

All the qualities of the speakers describe also qualities of the whole system.

 

 

 

Thanks!  ... I've read the following posts, and indeed they sound like they perform extremely well - careful construction, and easy to drive to live levels guarantees that they will reveal everything about the recording, and the driving chain - "on the bright side of reality", though, is what I pause at; IME rigs sounding too "bright" is a clue, to me, that that there is possible room for improvement; that's the circumstances where I start to investigate finer areas of a system, to see where further opimisations can be made, 😉.

[fas42]

8 hours ago, hopkins said:

 

Even with the best recording and best equipment it is not physically possible to reproduce the sound waves of a live orchestra through a couple of speakers in your living room. Sorry to break the bad news. 

 

Why do people think this is impossible? It's only sound waves, after all, and the microphones don't run and hide, when capturing the event in the cocert hall, etc. So, just reproduce what the microphones pick up - and it just falls into place ... 🙂

 

As I've said many times, what you get is that everything past the plane of the speakers is replaced by what's on the recording - so, as one example, you could be listening in a tiny room; "looking into" a massive space which could be literally a kilometer deep, if that is what the acoustics of the sound event was. It's not jarring to experience; the mind ignores the space you're listening in, and just takes in the 'projected' illusion.

 

If this doesn't happen for a recording you play, then it's because the accuracy of the playback chain you're hearing it through is not high enough - it's as simple as that ...

[fas42]

Most systems can't do 'intensity' ... they distort too much, are unpleasant to listen to; so someone moves over, fairly quickly, and turns the volume down ... what you have to do is evolve a rig to the point where you want to turn the volume up, even more ... this is the tricky part, of course 😉 - and many people never get to this point ...

[fas42]

56 minutes ago, sphinxsix said:

The room acoustics are important factor too.

 

 

Not IME ... when the system gets it right, then what emerges from the speaker driver surfaces has such a high integrity that what the room is like doesn't matter any more - hard surfaces, soft surfaces, windows, etc, become irrelevant; the illusion projected by the playback is so 'powerful', that it dominates the environment you're in.

 

This is not easy !!! My current setup is getting there, but still may take major surgery to finally break through to that standard - hopefully not needed; but I can't just wish it worked this well; the effort needs to be put into finding out where the bottlenecks are. I don't do room adjusting ... because this is just a form of masking, and will always fail under some circumstances.

[fas42]

48 minutes ago, botrytis said:

Because it is impossible to get live sound from ANY home audio system - period.

 

The Acoustics of the venue, where you sit, etc all affect the sound. One cannot model that and get the live sound. 

 

Think of this situation: your home is literally attached to a concert hall, such that the room you're in is facing the musical action - and a wall is put in that room which aligns with the front of the speakers. On the other side of that wall the parts of the room there are completely removed, so it's now fully open to that performance space. Now, discard your speakers, and put two smallish, open doors in the just installed wall, which are in the same positions as those just removed speakers .

 

What do you think you would hear?

[fas42]

1 hour ago, sphinxsix said:

The sound of the concert hall event plus what the room (you're in) would add to that. With a gaping hole in the middle of the soundstage most probably.

In short, I'd bet it would sound like..

 

 

 

Wouldn't be interesting for someone to actually construct such, as an experiment, to see how different people perceived such a situation - I suspect, for one, that the gaping hole in the soundstage wouldn't occur; the listening brain would integrate the two sound sources, because it recognises that they are merely two "windows" on the same event ...

 

To go a step further, have the listener go over to one of the two openings into the concert hall space, be merely some inches in front of it, with his head central to the opening ... what would he hear?

 

To put this in some perspective, consider walking into a concert space, through one of the many open doorways of a real one, and pause just before going actually through it - would what he hears at that point also be, ummm, a horror? 🙂

[fas42]

15 minutes ago, botrytis said:

 

First, one can NEVER reproduce a concert at home. The volume yes, the scale, the dynamics NO. That is where the difference happens. Also, is the fact that seeing an orchestra, an Opera, even a rock band is more visceral when seeing something live. An opera live is an experience, it is 3 dimensional the scope and the grandeur. One can NEVER get that at home.

 

 

 

Why can't a system do the scale and dynamics? Is it because you have some clear, rational reason for this, or purely because you haven't experienced a setup that was able to do such, relatively effortlessly.

 

If you were at a grand, live event, and closed your eyes for some time, would a large part of the 3D nature and scope of it, etc, simply evaporate from your consciousness?

[fas42]

4 hours ago, sphinxsix said:

True!

No way!

In particular live music heard from a small distance.

If only live sound was better more often..

 

 

Curious that you find the real thing disturbing ... the raw power of a single instrument experienced up close is something else - if it is something so terrible, then we should be immensely grateful to all the musicians who sacrifice themselves, suffering as they endure the sound of their instrument, and those of their fellow players adjacent to them; all for the sake of listeners who remain at a safe distance from the cacophany ... pause for a minute of silence, to show respect for the fallen heros, who have dedicated their lives to giving a tiny bit of pleasure for others, suffering such pain to produce this little bit of goodness ... 🤣.

[fas42]

Yes, the piano in the lounge is a good one ... record someone getting stuck into some boisterous Chopin on that; and see how it comes across, at comparable levels to the live performance - if the energy of that is largely intact, then you should be able to do any large scale musical event ...

[fas42]

11 hours ago, sphinxsix said:

 

Have you ever played a loud note on eg tenor sax in a small or medium size room.? I did. I'm pretty sure it reaches the sound level of about 120db. I do have a 300W electric bass combo and a bass with both active and passive mode. I'm pretty sure, in particular in the former one it's even louder.

 

Yep, been there ... my brother has been a musician since forever - I not at all - and he was into saxophone at one stage; played some big notes in a living room years ago ... amazing stuff! Put it this way - I could have listened to that instrument for hours, compared to the awfulness of sound reinforcement systems at almost all shows, that I put up with for years - end result, completely gave up on going to anything "live", because I was just wasting my money ...

 

Quote

Have ever measured the maximum sound level of your listening session? I'm pretty sure it's less than that! So maybe you also should be 'immensely grateful' to them  not only for the music but also for their countless hours spent practicing and playing in what sometimes is very loud environment.

The law protects us, ordinary people from something like that but not them..

Here is SPL chart for some instruments.

 

https://www.gcaudio.com/tips-tricks/decibel-loudness-comparison-chart/

Some quotes: 

Piano Fortissimo

84 - 103dB

Clarinet

85 - 114dB

Trombone

85 - 114dB

Symphonic music peak

120 - 137dB

Rock music peak

150dB

 

 

Yes, peaks - strange thing, most instruments stay way, way below that most of the time; it's only when you have idiots running PA sets, that compress the hell out of the sound that throws everything off; it's the total exposure to SPLs that does the real damage.

 

Quote

From the 'Notes' of the above article:

"The incidence of hearing loss in classical musicians has been estimated at 4  - 43%, in rock musicians 13 - 30%."

I was actually thinking about the well known fact that musicians usually don't care about the sound reproduction quality. I have friends who are musicians, I know they hear music in a different way than non-musicians but I really wonder how many of them have some level of hearing damage due to their professional activity..

A very quick google search:

"Professional musicians are almost four times as likely to develop noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL) as the general public, reveals research. And they are 57% more likely to develop tinnitus—incessant ringing in the ears—as a result of their job, the findings show."

Hearing loss among musicians

 

If your job is to be in the middle of an orchestra, playing on a regular basis, then your accumulated exposure to higher sound levels is obviously greater - just about anything that humans do, where there is greater than normal levels of effort or exposure, causes more wear and tear on the body; just think of any sport, for example. So, we should tell, say, all athletes, and musicians, to, "Stop Doing That !!!" ... right? 😉

 

Quote

So have I convinced you.? I am definitely ready to pause for a minute of silence to honor all of them, will you join me.?

 

 

Not really ... anything can be to extremes - moderation, as always, is the key....

[fas42]

9 hours ago, Rexp said:

Er..I said sound close to the instrument, not the same as the instrument.

 

Yes. What we're after is the ability to present the impact and sense of the instrument, etc, to the degree that the differences are minor in importance, and that unless we're "experts" at picking differences, then the illusion is convincing.

 

In the case of a piano, we want someone to walk up to the house, hear the instrument through open windows; knock on the front door; enter, and walk into the lounge - and then look bewildered - "I was absolutely certain someone was playing your piano, just now!!" 🙂

[fas42]

From the looks of it, most here haven't been able to achieve climactic impact - say, a hammer blow 😉 - from their rigs ... interesting ...

 

BTW, what's this about, accordion? ... Recordings with this instrument are fab; great sounding box of tricks, 🙂.

[fas42]

The room doesn't matter ... at this very moment I'm playing a no-name label (Bescol ??!), Chuck Berry, 21 Greatest Hits CD - and some of these, say, Maybelline, were done in some huge acoustic space, stretching way back from the speakers; his voice is expanding in all directions. Which works beautifully - has nothing to do with how the speakers are set up in my lounge ...

[fas42]

8 hours ago, sphinxsix said:

 

 

I thing I'd give away one of my spare interconnects for the privilege of being inside your head for 5 minutes.

Not sure I would like to stay there longer, though.. 

  

 

Bev literally said, 5 minutes ago, that she was extremely privileged to able to hear what the sound systems I work on produce - it's something like, "the proof's in the pudding" ... 😉

 

No great mysteries in any of this ... if you have a recording which one day sounded absolutely magical on some rig, is it because,

 

A) The system has so much expensive blinginess that it transformed the playback, by distorting what was on the recording - to make an ordinary recording sound much, much better than it actually is?

 

or

 

B) The recording is actually what's magical, and it just requires playback to have high enough integrity, to cleanly present what was captured?

 

Most people want to believe in A; I obviously believe in B - and if the latter is correct, then all it takes is the effort to create an accurate enough setup to do the job. In the world of audio, where people learn a whole set of rather bizarre beliefs, this doesn't tally ... QED, 🤪.

[fas42]

1 hour ago, botrytis said:

 

Good for you but not a reality, if based on what you have described as your system.

 

The system ultimately is irrelevant - it does the job of reproducing what's on the recording with the least signature possible; and it just turns out that the electronics industry, and China, have done an excellent job of evolving the key elements to a point where value for money is top notch - this certainly wasn't the case even a decade ago.

 

Quote

 

All nonsense there. 'Integrity' - WTH do you mean. 

 

That distortion and electrical noise artifacts are under control - this is almost always hard to do, so far; and is what 'ruins' the SQ of some of the most ambitious rigs out there; they have extreme "signature", meaning that they impose far too much of their own lack of, yes, integrity on what you hear.

 

Quote

 

What does all this have to do with the OP's OT?

 

Well, he offers the thought that recordings can be better than live - and, I agree! The corollary is that the playback chain has to be operating to a very high standard, to realise that opportunity ...

 

Quote

 

Have fun and continue on.

 

I indeed intend to do so, 😉.

[fas42]

1 minute ago, sphinxsix said:

Who is Bev

 

My partner - she was around when I first got convincing SQ 35 years ago, and has no trouble being irked by, say, violin tone that doesn't nail it ...

 

1 minute ago, sphinxsix said:

 

Why do you often say something sounded one day .?

 

Because it often happens that "one day the stars aligned" - that is, the playback system happened to stabilise to a peak quality, for a variety of reasons, and the replay was brilliant - this could disappear an hour later, because a single factor was no longer in the optimum state, to make the playback sound so good.

 

This is something I have been dealing with for decades - working on evolving complete control over everything that matters.

 

 

[fas42]

13 minutes ago, sphinxsix said:

You have taken into account that this factor may be in a 'room' I asked @botrytis about, which is also the same place I was thinking about getting into for indecently low price of a second hand interconnect, haven't you.?

 

 

 

Stick some rock n' roll band into into any sort of space where they're got enough room to set up their gear, and have them play to people standing in front of them - which type of spaces stop them sounding like group of live musicians, playing? 🙂

[fas42]

18 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

Have them first play in an anechoic chamber then move into a room which has no sound absorbent materials at all in it.

 

Come back and tell us if you still believe the room doesn't matter.

 

 

Of course the room will have some impact - it's impossible for it to be otherwise - but subjectively what you relate to is the direct sound of the musicians; if they happen to play in a very large space with hard surfaces, then that will produce strong echos; this will be very noticeable in any slight pause in the stream of music, coming from the instruments.

 

But none of that stops the emotional impact of what you hear - if you record the band in an anechoic chamber; and then move them into that big, hard surfaced space, and record the same material; and then playback the two takes - you will hear two different acoustics, in which they are performing - which will "sound better", which is "more correct"?

[fas42]

16 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

Let's see what Bev has to say...

 

In the early days, we went together to hear what other rigs were doing, especially the more expensive ones ... let's just say we didn't disagree on their failings ... 😜.

[fas42]

Awww ... maybe we just need a bit of

 

 

[fas42]

It all depends upon what one is after - if one is after a very precise version of what one thinks playback should sound like, then doing all sorts of fiddling with the room may be exactly what does it for you - akin to having a play on a stage, where one spends great effort in having all the decorations of the surrounds just so, and meticulous attention to detail in every aspect of the lighting; so that it enhances the action as it happens. Or, just have the actors walk out into any space where they can be seen, and have them go through their lines, with the accompanying physical actions. If they are well skilled in the craft, then you will be drawn into the sense, and the tensions, etc, of the story in no time at all - the actors themselves convey everything that is necessary to support the 'illusion' of what is going on.

 

Recording playback can be like those seasoned Thespians repeating an identical piece - a world opens up which is always the same, no matter what the surroundings are like.

[fas42]

There is a phrase that is used regularly - the ability to "see into a recording" ... and that's what happens - you are an observer, looking into the space captured by the recording, or one that was created purely synthetically; and often a combination of the two. A competent setup produces that 'mirage' - if what is in that vision is more interesting than what exists in your room, which is usually the case 😁, than your focus will be entirely on that 'picture' ...

[fas42]

Just found this thread, https://www.whatsbestforum.com/threads/natural-sound.32867/

 

... only started reading it, right now, but it perfectly expresses what the journey can be like, discovering what is possible with sound reproduction. If one wants to move beyond a 'special effects' presentation style, and have something closer to how live music actually comes across, I would suggest that this could be good reading ... 😉.