Do we really belive that the goal of building audio equipment is to perfectly reproduce live music?
Just a personal (subjective) question. I guess I believe that *no* system can do that. In fact, I actually belive that reproduced music is a "ding an sich" (German for "a thing in itself") and that our goal as builders and designers is to make that *thing* as enjoyable and rewarding as it can be to as wide an audience as we can.
What do you think, honestly, given the subjective nature of *taste*, live or not, and given that a physical system can *never* (in a raw physics sense) reproduce a live venue?
What about music like The Beatles? Producers like George Martin worked like a dog to produce sounds that could never be performed live - but were specifically designed to be reproduced...
I don't want to kick off a pointless thread but I do want to know if you believe that we are seeking to do the impossible...
In the end, anyone with enough background in the formalism cannot help but agree that the *accurate* (in every detail and nuance) reproduction of a live venue is so multivariant as to be impossible to reproduce.
What do you think?
Regards,
Tom
Just a personal (subjective) question. I guess I believe that *no* system can do that. In fact, I actually belive that reproduced music is a "ding an sich" (German for "a thing in itself") and that our goal as builders and designers is to make that *thing* as enjoyable and rewarding as it can be to as wide an audience as we can.
What do you think, honestly, given the subjective nature of *taste*, live or not, and given that a physical system can *never* (in a raw physics sense) reproduce a live venue?
What about music like The Beatles? Producers like George Martin worked like a dog to produce sounds that could never be performed live - but were specifically designed to be reproduced...
I don't want to kick off a pointless thread but I do want to know if you believe that we are seeking to do the impossible...
In the end, anyone with enough background in the formalism cannot help but agree that the *accurate* (in every detail and nuance) reproduction of a live venue is so multivariant as to be impossible to reproduce.
What do you think?
Regards,
Tom
As far as stereo is concerned - indeed I don´t see how anything bigger than "chamber music" can be reproduced with life like accuracy in a commonly sized room.
I see recorded music as an art in itself. With demands that nature alone can´t fulfill. Not only do I prefer the analytic sound that multi-miked orchestral recordings allow. I also hate those live recordings where I know from the start that at 12:46 min the clarinet will play the wrong note.
I see recorded music as an art in itself. With demands that nature alone can´t fulfill. Not only do I prefer the analytic sound that multi-miked orchestral recordings allow. I also hate those live recordings where I know from the start that at 12:46 min the clarinet will play the wrong note.
sounding "like live music" doesn't make sense when most music is recorded in a studio.
as for live rock concerts, I'm not at all sure I want to reproduce that, not that it could ever be prpperly recorded live anyway.
That being said.. NP: Supertramp.. "It was the best of days." but I doubt very much that the recording is much like what would have been heard at the original concert
as for live rock concerts, I'm not at all sure I want to reproduce that, not that it could ever be prpperly recorded live anyway.
That being said.. NP: Supertramp.. "It was the best of days." but I doubt very much that the recording is much like what would have been heard at the original concert
Even a live album isn't just recorded 'like you were there', it will be recorded as multi-track, with the crowd miked on a spare track or two to add crowd noises. It will then be mixed down and edited in the studio, with parts replaced, deleted, or added as required. Usually a live album will contain tracks from various gigs in the tour, some are always better than others, so pick the best where you can.
ptwining said:
Even if we could capture a live event in a manner to provide sufficient information to have any hope of reproducing it, even the best systems are still only a fraction of the way towards good enuff to do the job (i usually estimate 10%).
It is possible, by juggling the compromises, yo make 2 very different systems that are equally valid. With this amount of wiggle room the only valid approach (IMHO) is to aim at making something that the end user finds communucates the music, its emotion, and gets the foot tapping (or drags him out of the seat and gets him dancing)
dave
I would love to have the sonic atmosphere of a rock gig - at lower volume - in my listening room. Multitracked or not - the mix is pan-potted even to the main PA - so the front speakers are the main PA in the listening room - and then some sonic sense of the big space and crowd. It does not seem impossible to come quite close, I've had some nice experience with live gigs DVDs.
About a month ago I'm in the back lot of a high school that is being renovated. I have to do my work outside as the cutting and welding I need to do will set off the fire alarm (school is open).
Anyway, I'm working and I hear this "boom, BOOM!" I think: 'Wow, that's some car system!, whoever has that certainly paid dearly for it". Again, Boom, BOOM! closer now. This one made my chest throb. "No way" I said "no way that's a car stereo". A few seconds later the other instuments of the players in the marching band join the bass drum and round the corner of the building.
What a relief.
Anyway, I'm working and I hear this "boom, BOOM!" I think: 'Wow, that's some car system!, whoever has that certainly paid dearly for it". Again, Boom, BOOM! closer now. This one made my chest throb. "No way" I said "no way that's a car stereo". A few seconds later the other instuments of the players in the marching band join the bass drum and round the corner of the building.
What a relief.
Even the holodeck could not be considered real, but it probably beats 2 channel audio.
If the real image or experience is realized between our ears, then whatever it take to get the mind to believe "real" would be a good system. Personally, for very brief moments
my 2 channel audio system has tricked me to believe I was there. The local movie theatre, or a large HD television with good speakers has never once fooled me. With my eyes open, my imagination cannot run wild. I'm always still looking at a flat, 2 dimensional image.
Much music can take my mind on a journey, with familiar, natural sounds or artificial sounds, but the music still produces an enjoyable event. My imagination lets me enjoy it but my mind is still aware it is not real.
Since I have actually been in small clubs with live music, maybe when similar, enjoyable music is reproduced well, in a somewhat similar small listening room, my imagination can make the leap easier to convince my mind that I am really there.
The right audio input, maybe a glass of wine, and I occasionally hear 3 dimensional sounds with startling realism.
Dave
If the real image or experience is realized between our ears, then whatever it take to get the mind to believe "real" would be a good system. Personally, for very brief moments
my 2 channel audio system has tricked me to believe I was there. The local movie theatre, or a large HD television with good speakers has never once fooled me. With my eyes open, my imagination cannot run wild. I'm always still looking at a flat, 2 dimensional image.
Much music can take my mind on a journey, with familiar, natural sounds or artificial sounds, but the music still produces an enjoyable event. My imagination lets me enjoy it but my mind is still aware it is not real.
Since I have actually been in small clubs with live music, maybe when similar, enjoyable music is reproduced well, in a somewhat similar small listening room, my imagination can make the leap easier to convince my mind that I am really there.
The right audio input, maybe a glass of wine, and I occasionally hear 3 dimensional sounds with startling realism.
Dave
I asked a similar question in a previous thread or two.
While being able to reproduce all sorts of live music may be a difficult endeavor the closer the system can get to that level of reproduction the better ALL types of music will sound, even my son's grunge metal rock sounds almost like music on my better speakers.
While being able to reproduce all sorts of live music may be a difficult endeavor the closer the system can get to that level of reproduction the better ALL types of music will sound, even my son's grunge metal rock sounds almost like music on my better speakers.
99% of the music to which I listen is of a type where there is indeed a real event (not a studio construct). My goal is not to produce a reproduction of the actual event however, but rather a plausible event. In other words I am not trying to reproduce a particular concert but rather an experience that very well could be an actual concert. It is I suppose a subtle difference but I think an important one.
"In other words I am not trying to reproduce a particular concert but rather an experience that very well could be an actual concert. It is I suppose a subtle difference but I think an important one."
Well said - whether it's a live or recorded event is really immaterial - it's about hearing what you would hear if you were there at that particular event, regardless of venue.
Well said - whether it's a live or recorded event is really immaterial - it's about hearing what you would hear if you were there at that particular event, regardless of venue.
One meaning of "reproduction" is a producing a facsimile, not the real thing. Think of a modern car or vacuum tube company producing a reproduction of a classic model for example. By that definition it's more clear that we shouldn't expect an exact duplication of the experience of someone in another place and time, just an enjoyable facsimile.
Your point about sound reproduction being a thing in and of itself is very true ptwining. It's not a one way street. Music exists on it's own and is reproduced, but musicians also listen to sound reproduction systems and it influences their music which is then again reproduced and so on. Toole had some interesting comments in his new book about the popularity of Jazz being spread by recordings and the limitations in these recordings producing a sound and style that was reproduced in live Jazz that came after. The Beatles and most everything that came after are of course the end result of this, music that only exists via reproduction.
What happens in the recording control room then has to be taken as another layer of the original art. Unfortunately that artist (the guy at the mixing desk) is usually listening to a system of speakers & room that is very different than what most people have at home. It's his job to try to make something on that system that he thinks will sound good on a wide variety of other systems. A lot of guys still mix on monitors that have anything but a flat frequency response. How do we then "reproduce" the final mix and mastering that ends up in our hands? Well, the guy mixing in the control room doesn't usually expect us to duplicate his setup, he doesn't even listen to it that way at home, but there as basic things that almost everyone will agree make the reproduction sound better.
The sections in Toole's book about large scale blind listening tests of speakers is very interesting. It turns out that in controlled tests where one can only judge on sound (not brand, technology, appearance or "belief system") people generally like the same speakers *IF* they have very close to normal hearing. Age or occupational related hearing damage makes us more individual because certain speakers will correct for our defects and others will make them worse. It also makes us unreliable in our ratings, the same speaker may be loved in the morning and hated in the afternoon. For people with normal hearing there is surprising consistency in preference despite widely varying experience levels. This would come as an absolute shock to someone reading the variety of opinions in the RMAF thread but that kind of setup is testing a huge number of variables, sound quality being very low on the list.
Your point about sound reproduction being a thing in and of itself is very true ptwining. It's not a one way street. Music exists on it's own and is reproduced, but musicians also listen to sound reproduction systems and it influences their music which is then again reproduced and so on. Toole had some interesting comments in his new book about the popularity of Jazz being spread by recordings and the limitations in these recordings producing a sound and style that was reproduced in live Jazz that came after. The Beatles and most everything that came after are of course the end result of this, music that only exists via reproduction.
What happens in the recording control room then has to be taken as another layer of the original art. Unfortunately that artist (the guy at the mixing desk) is usually listening to a system of speakers & room that is very different than what most people have at home. It's his job to try to make something on that system that he thinks will sound good on a wide variety of other systems. A lot of guys still mix on monitors that have anything but a flat frequency response. How do we then "reproduce" the final mix and mastering that ends up in our hands? Well, the guy mixing in the control room doesn't usually expect us to duplicate his setup, he doesn't even listen to it that way at home, but there as basic things that almost everyone will agree make the reproduction sound better.
The sections in Toole's book about large scale blind listening tests of speakers is very interesting. It turns out that in controlled tests where one can only judge on sound (not brand, technology, appearance or "belief system") people generally like the same speakers *IF* they have very close to normal hearing. Age or occupational related hearing damage makes us more individual because certain speakers will correct for our defects and others will make them worse. It also makes us unreliable in our ratings, the same speaker may be loved in the morning and hated in the afternoon. For people with normal hearing there is surprising consistency in preference despite widely varying experience levels. This would come as an absolute shock to someone reading the variety of opinions in the RMAF thread but that kind of setup is testing a huge number of variables, sound quality being very low on the list.
"For people with normal hearing there is surprising consistency in preference despite widely varying experience levels."
That is quite refreshing to hear - something I've believed would be the case but didn't know that it had been demonstrated. It is counter to a lot of the philosophy on the forum, where there is "lively" debate ad nauseum.
Another aspect of the psychology of listening to reproduced sound is that we may have a tendency to find fault with it only because we KNOW we are listening to a reproduction. A musical instrument has no faults - it is a natural sound source so it is what it is, but a reproduction of that instrument, well, we could find imperfections in the reproduction that just might not be there were we comparing the two in a blind test.
That is quite refreshing to hear - something I've believed would be the case but didn't know that it had been demonstrated. It is counter to a lot of the philosophy on the forum, where there is "lively" debate ad nauseum.
Another aspect of the psychology of listening to reproduced sound is that we may have a tendency to find fault with it only because we KNOW we are listening to a reproduction. A musical instrument has no faults - it is a natural sound source so it is what it is, but a reproduction of that instrument, well, we could find imperfections in the reproduction that just might not be there were we comparing the two in a blind test.
I think for some people reproducing live music is most important. They are the concert goers. Mostly of the classical ilk. They want the perfect tone of the instruments and soundscape provided by the concert hall in their living rooms. I agree, it is an impossibility. Our feeble electronic music systems can only provide the best allusion we can engineer.
For me, at least, it's the music that matters most - not the sound of the music. Whereas, those who suffer from acute audiophile-nervosa get too hung up on the sound of the music and miss the emotional involvement of the notes and lyrics, when applicable.
For me, at least, it's the music that matters most - not the sound of the music. Whereas, those who suffer from acute audiophile-nervosa get too hung up on the sound of the music and miss the emotional involvement of the notes and lyrics, when applicable.
Speaker doctor I agree on most counts if the reproduction isn't distorted and that depends so much on SPL, as I'm more than a little deaf and like my music a little louder than I used to I find I actually need better speakers, to avoid that distortion.
Anyway thats the excuse I use when I tell the wife I need to buy better drivers
Anyway thats the excuse I use when I tell the wife I need to buy better drivers
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.