Much as I hate it,
I have to be with Fas here. Two widely different sound systems can both create a very rewarding and satisfying audible experience. I think that is what he meant.jan
Okay SY, 'why' can't the recording emulate the real piano, close enough to fool the blindfolded person - seriously ...
Recorded Steinway sounds much better than live cheaper piano.
When a piano is recorded, the room was also recorded. So the BT should be done in similar room, otherwise you will know quickly that the playback sound is impossible created in the BT room.
Amplified music performance sounds different with acoustic one (unplug).
Ain't it so! We have a moderate quality, upright piano in the same room - and this sounds a bit sick after hearing a show off piece on CD ...
One also becomes very critical of the state of tune, repair of live instruments - school concert with decent grand piano, but all sorts of tuning and mechanical issues were obvious - completely took the air out of its impact as a musical instrument ...
On the idea that a greater sensitivity to sound is inherited, recent research in epigenetics is showing us we adapt on a genetic level far faster than previously thought.
I've always been very sensitive to "good" audio, perhaps because my first stereo was a Rotel integrated amp and Advent bookshelf speakers.
Also I've played music for 34 years, most of that guitar. I never had a good ear and couldn't sing a tune to save my life. About five years ago all of a sudden I "heard" it. My sensitivity to tone went crazy. I can't explain it too well, but it's like all of a sudden I can hear the oscillations in pitch if something is off. And it's been expanding because I can now hear those oscillations for minor notes, scales, etc.
Finally, I just ran a frequency test on my system. I can clearly hear 20khz even at 44 years of age and a couple decades playing in bands. I think it's a cognitive thing, because I have to almost forget about trying to "hear" it and more sense the sound pressure.
I've always been very sensitive to "good" audio, perhaps because my first stereo was a Rotel integrated amp and Advent bookshelf speakers.
Also I've played music for 34 years, most of that guitar. I never had a good ear and couldn't sing a tune to save my life. About five years ago all of a sudden I "heard" it. My sensitivity to tone went crazy. I can't explain it too well, but it's like all of a sudden I can hear the oscillations in pitch if something is off. And it's been expanding because I can now hear those oscillations for minor notes, scales, etc.
Finally, I just ran a frequency test on my system. I can clearly hear 20khz even at 44 years of age and a couple decades playing in bands. I think it's a cognitive thing, because I have to almost forget about trying to "hear" it and more sense the sound pressure.
That 'way of hearing' is key to being able to pick up a lot of things in audio - it's trying to, consciously, 'hear' that often gets in the way of the brain doing it at an instinctive level, when the latter seems to be far more sensitive. One needs to tune into, for want of a better term, "unlistening" - if one wants to pick up the 'finer' things ...
Is this the same as being drunk on beer (India Pale Ale) and being the same as drunk on red wine (shiraz or cab sav)? They aren't the same vehicle for my drunkenness but the state of drunkenness is the same? Come to think of it, I don't know whether I really want an answer because it will be as confusing as everything you say.
Am I giving the answer to "you" or one of the voices?
A general state of confusion has descended - including, for me ...
To me, it's pretty simple: nearly 30 years ago I realised that audio could sound 'better' than hifi, that it could sound 'convincing' - this was purely from personal experience, that I could repeat ad nauseum. Hence, I've been chasing and investigating that ever since ...
So, what's convincing? That's the blindfold test, sitting on the other side of a curtain, standing outside the room - however you want you do it - it means that the sound can genuinely fool you. There's a chap out there with a system that can easily do 132dB, who's quite happy to run that against a real drum kit, claims to been able to fool a drummer.
Convincing is the goal for me - otherwise it's just Yet Another Hifi, and that's nowhere near as interesting ...
To me, it's pretty simple: nearly 30 years ago I realised that audio could sound 'better' than hifi, that it could sound 'convincing' - this was purely from personal experience, that I could repeat ad nauseum. Hence, I've been chasing and investigating that ever since ...
So, what's convincing? That's the blindfold test, sitting on the other side of a curtain, standing outside the room - however you want you do it - it means that the sound can genuinely fool you. There's a chap out there with a system that can easily do 132dB, who's quite happy to run that against a real drum kit, claims to been able to fool a drummer.
Convincing is the goal for me - otherwise it's just Yet Another Hifi, and that's nowhere near as interesting ...
Houseful of top grade speakers here 801's 804's Matrix 3's Jbl 4xxx, great powerful amps too Crowns Rotels Classe QSC (sorry no Thresholds or Pass here, but all very nice amps of 200 300 watt/channel high current variety great references, I make my living with these!!! But sadly All and in combo of these amps and speakers are SMOKED as a listeners amp by restored set of DB keeles ElectroVoice Sentry III Horns powered with an off the shelf Sony receiver. You simply can not replace horns with amp power. It is sad when you try.
I see little mystery in the piano A/B question, except for what is being implied in asking it.
Clearly, room ambience looms large in the recording of a piano, and your listening room's resonances and modes will not match those of the auditorium. So straight away, I think we can say that a recording of a piano will typically not sound completely convincing.
But if the question is implying that a recording cannot capture the dynamic range, or something more mysterious about the sound of acoustic instruments, I don't believe it. Given enough time to play with multiple microphones and corresponding speakers or dummy heads and headphones, or whatever, in your living room, I think the sound of a piano can be reproduced to an arbitrary level of believability.
Clearly, room ambience looms large in the recording of a piano, and your listening room's resonances and modes will not match those of the auditorium. So straight away, I think we can say that a recording of a piano will typically not sound completely convincing.
But if the question is implying that a recording cannot capture the dynamic range, or something more mysterious about the sound of acoustic instruments, I don't believe it. Given enough time to play with multiple microphones and corresponding speakers or dummy heads and headphones, or whatever, in your living room, I think the sound of a piano can be reproduced to an arbitrary level of believability.
Recordings of piano I have seen were all with close miking to the soundboard. That pretty much excludes any venue influence.
jan
Live instruments have very complex 3D polar patterns which interact with the room. Nothing mysterious.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.