Live music - how can you tell?

[michaelab]

If I'm walking past a bar that has live music playing it's always possible to tell that it's live and not recorded, but I don't really know why/how :confused:

Even if (as usual) it's all amplified, using amplifiers and speakers that we here would probably not have great things to say about, it still sounds "live" (and therefore, better). That applies even if the instrument has no 'live' sound of its own (eg electronic keyboard).

I guess this touches on the "music" vs. "hifi" debate again - also on the "Source first" question. With amplified live music, your source is surely as good as it's going to get?

I guess one of the things I'm striving for in my system is that if it's playing some live music I get the same "je ne sais quoi" sensation that it really is live, and not recorded. One thing, that would seem to suggest the flatties have got something right, is that I'm sure this "sensation of live music" has nothing to do with timbral or tonal accuracy as even a terrible PA will let it through. It would suggest that it may well have something to do with timing :yikes:

Michael.

[PBirkett]

I can usually tell if its live, more often than not because the singing is crap :D

[Robbo]

I suspect it is mainly to do with timing and dynamics. Also the music has not had to go through the recording and production process, which probably mangles the signal somewhat.

[wadia-miester]

Originally posted by Robbo
I suspect it is mainly to do with timing and dynamics. Also the music has not had to go through the recording and production process, which probably mangles the signal somewhat.

Either that, or the mixing engineer hasn't 'Screwed' the sound in the 'Production process' from his 'Experianced understanding of the the artists emotions and feelings', that he wishes to convey via his 'Mastering diligence' :p

[amazingtrade]

I think PBirkett as the answer as people always make mistakes in live recordings. Also the live recordings on the CDs etc tend to be best live recording from a gig unless its just randomly picked.

[Rodrigo de Sá]

As usual, I have a long and boring explanation for it. Only today I'm rather short on time. So I'll post later on this. But the question is THE question when considering musical reproduction.

[HenryT]

Originally posted by Robbo
I suspect it is mainly to do with timing and dynamics. I'm in agreement and very much suspect you're right Robbo. :cool:

How many commercially available recordings have dynamics which match those of real life (DVD-A/SACD has the potential in theory) or where the macro and micro dynamics are in exact proportion to a live performance? Even most live recordings are edited afterwards in the studio so that proportions are wrong or get altertered. (what WM said above).

I too can tell the difference between hi-fi and live music 99% of the time. I often hear some very nice piano playing coming from a house on my walk to the train station to go to work in the mornings, and even hearing it through a closed window can tell it's live and not coming from a hi-fi or being amplified or reproduced by some kind of audio system.

The most convincing experience I've had, not from a hi-fi, but from a PA system was when I was at school and use to do dabble as a "sound equipment relocation engineer". ;) We once had this £99 Matsui CD player plugged into one of the inputs on the PA's head unit and I played a CD where one of the tracks was a 5 minute bass guitair solo (Brian Bromberg). Now that to me sounded like the musician had just plugged his instrument into the PA and was actually there playing live!

One question though. In the context of dance music, if a DJ recorded a set that (s)he played in front a crowd one night and played back that same recording through the PA system the following night, would anybody be able to tell the difference? Assuming you couldn't see whether the DJ was on or off stage? Some how I doubt it. :)

[GTM]

Originally posted by michaelab
One thing, that would seem to suggest the flatties have got something right, is that I'm sure this "sensation of live music" has nothing to do with timbral or tonal accuracy as even a terrible PA will let it through. It would suggest that it may well have something to do with timing :yikes:

Michael.

The answer is in this last comment..

The reason you can always tell it's live is because ..

a) PA's have a distinctive sound quality that you are able to distinguish..(even if you don't realise your doing it subconsciously).. this is particularly true of the vocals.. I've yet to hear anything short of a full sized gig..where the vocal mike/PA are anything better than atrocious.. you can always hear a boxy/muffled/honky sound to the vocals. I can't see how you could claim that even crap PA systems maintain the timbre of the instruments.. IMHO .. there is nothing worse at reproducing the correct timbre of an instrument than a cheap PA system.. in fact only the very high end ones get even reasonably close !

b) The timing is often crap too in most of these bands.

Personally ... I think it's entirely down to tonal balance that you can always distinguish the two... most pub/club replay systems are pretty dire.. and so you can always hear it's a recording from the shoddy bass/treble reproduction.. live doesn't always sound good quality.. but there is something about the bass/treble quality that is always "different" from recorded music.

GTM

[timpy]

There's usually someone standing on your foot, it's too loud, and your beers been spilt all over your front at least 3 times.

Cheers

[michaelab]

GTM - I think you misunderstood me, I meant to say that even crap PAs which have terrible timbral accuracy still let through the information that lets you indentify the music as live.

But take PAs out of it. As with Henry, at the place I stay when I'm in London I often hear someone playing the piano in one of the houses I walk past to/from the station. The playing is very good so that isn't the giveaway but it's quite clearly a live piano, even with the sound being muffled by the windows of the basement floor it comes from.

Michael.

[lowrider]

I think it has to do mostly with dynamics, CDs played in discos with a powerful system sound like live music, at least to me, our home systems will always compress the music if played at "live" levels, smaller rooms and less power... :rolleyes:

[domfjbrown]

Originally posted by HenryT
The most convincing experience I've had, not from a hi-fi, but from a PA system was when I was at school and use to do dabble as a "sound equipment relocation engineer". ;) We once had this £99 Matsui CD player plugged into one of the inputs on the PA's head unit and I played a CD where one of the tracks was a 5 minute bass guitair solo (Brian Bromberg). Now that to me sounded like the musician had just plugged his instrument into the PA and was actually there playing live!

I also remember a certain red Sharp double deck with a white headphone lead running into a certain WEM valve amp - playing "Telegraph Road" on tape(!!) (must have been 1987??) - and it rocked! Great days dude.

Just wish I'd been there when David Workman blew up the right channel of the PA - wasn't he jamming "Mother" by Lennon??

I think you can tell because of the drum kit usually - there's no way domestic gear can reproduce the scale of a real kit because even sources like SACD seem to impinge on it somewhere. Try reproducing the VOLUME of a kit in your own room too - my mate PD's housemate is a drummer, and when he goes for it it's fekking loud... I have a photo of him and his kit, with my (usually huge, but in this case weedy!) Epos ES14s either side of the kit - there's no way a puny 8 inch driver can reproduce a 18 inch bass drum accurately...

PAs (similar to some of the Naim gear I've heard) seem to be overexuberant in the mid-upper treble (can tend to a flamethrower/ear ringing treble after a few minutes) - probably 'cos most places use a too-weedy PA at high levels so it clips, while real places like, for example, the Stratford Rex, use a huge rig at maybe 30% of its full capacity. Result - you can talk over it, not get ringing ears, but it's still loud.

[HenryT]

Originally posted by domfjbrown
I think you can tell because of the drum kit usually - there's no way domestic gear can reproduce the scale of a real kit because even sources like SACD seem to impinge on it somewhere. In theory, there's nothing wrong with the dynamic of SACD, it's just that there are NO commercial recordings available to demonstrate the type of "uncompressed" dynamic range that you'd experience in real life, it's mixed out during the mastering for practical reasons. Things are done that way, let's face it because in reality, the average Jo Bloggs isn't going to have a set of amp and speakers (mainly the amp I'd say), that could handle those sort of transient demands without crumbling under the demands.

[domfjbrown]

Well, if that's the case, why bother with a super dynamic range format at all for the home? Doesn't make sense to me - they seem to market the whole thing on decay and dynamic range, so if that's really the case, guess they're stiffing us audiophools again then :(

[Rodrigo de Sá]

Well. As usual in a hurry, but let’s give it a try.

First: the frequency range balance has already been mentioned. When you listen to live music, the sound is usually very lean, but the basses are there and go really down. That means, IMO, that hifi tends to reproduce bass through energizing the upper bass, at the detriment at really low bass (because both of power amp limitations and speaker size)

Second: The upper harmonics that make up timbre are always cleaner when you listen to music live. The reason for that is, I think that both the recording and the reproduction gear have massive lower resolution than the real thing. When reproduced with solid state amps I often think music is presented as if in lower resolution: think of printers: a professional one will give you 2400 dpi; a normal one will give 600 dpi. It is that kind of difference, but I think most amplifiers only get to about 300 dpi. With valves, the top end is simply lacking. SACD will undoubtedly better that aspect (I know DAT does), but I think there will still be recording and amplifying limitations.

Third, but related to second: Live music sounds very clean (the resolution factor) even if it is very loud. As a matter of fact, acoustic instruments and voices usually are loud. If you try to get that kind of loudness with a normal amplifier all kinds of distortions will creep in. So, in order to keep that kind of distortion down, people tend to play amplifiers a little softer than the real thing. As a matter of fact that is why the better gear you have the harder it gets to get loud music (Krells, Brystons and other such things apart). That is because distortion adds a sense of loudness – but it is just dirtiness. Live music can get really loud without any distortion.

Fourth, the direction of sound. Usually speakers are directional. True sound isn’t. Must hifi maniacs don’t care for omnidirectional speakers, but I always though that was the way to go. Live sound rings in the air, be it in a dry or an ample acoustic. Perhaps with the new multichannel technology that aspect can be overcome when you listen to music at the center of a cube defined by four speakers. But it will take time to get there.

Fifth: Recording engineers know the limitations of usual gear and change the sound to fit into it; hence the bulging upper bass.

Bottom line: If I was asked what the most important factors are, I’d say, first, resolution, distortion and loudness; after that sound direction and recording techniques.

I have no time to edit this. I hope I was clear enough.

[MO!]

I think it's largely down to the less "clinical" sounding performance and dynamics. I've not been to many "proper" PA'd gigs for a while. Only local bands (my brother) in small venues. I guess alot of it comes down to what is considered a live sound? Using my brother as an example, he plays acoustic guitar and sings. I'll hear him play MOst days around the house and am as such, very familiar with the sound. However, put him through a PA and though in some areas it may gain (volume obviously), I feel a fair bit is lost. Now, this is MOre than likely down to a budget set up in the venue, with everything from the room, the way it's mixed, and speakers changing the sound. So, I guess there's live and there's "live" :rolleyes:

The last thing I heard through a decent PA was when I went to see the Lion King earlier this year. The show was the first thing of it's sort i'd experienced. I was blown away by it! The music and the acting impressive in equaly large parts! The thing MOst noticeable about the music side of it was the Dynamics. From a soft vocal and perhaps one instrument into a full on attack of sound! Venes like those where such shows take place are much larger than the average persons listning room, with volume levels to match. The "thwack" factor of drums is often mentioned (Tony and his MA's), and I know my system has nowhere near the chest pounding thwack level of a live drum kit!

I think really good dynamics are best when big rooms and large (potential) levels are available.

MO :D

p.s The lion king was really good :D

[wadia-miester]

Originally posted by MO! Venes like those where such shows take place are much larger than the average persons listning room, with volume levels to match. The "thwack" factor of drums is often mentioned (Tony and his MA's), and I know my system has nowhere near the chest pounding thwack level of a live drum kit!

I think really good dynamics are best when big rooms and large (potential) levels are available.

MO :D

[/B]

MO, I've heard systems with relatively small stand mounts produce serious dynamics, in a small room, although they did have a 250w rms amp on them, it's the proportions in which the speaker/room ratio's are equal?, that it seems to sing.
I recently was invitied to an disused airfield to test some 'newly developed' amplifiers (for Outdoor use) the require ment was 120DB@ 400m :drum: through huge horn loaded drivers shaped like snail shells, with 10KW of power, sadly not enough though only 112/3DB reached, was it dynamic :JPS: I'd buy that for a dollar, but not want you want in our front room.
Having a system that just majors on Dynamic's in my book is a little short sighted, not all music requires squeezing out the speaker at warp 11, and without harshiness or hardiness, plus it can be irksome and relentless.
MO, the Shearwaters are somewhat 'more Dynamic' than the MA's, by a serious margin, with the big plus of a decent mid band too, the pair of XA-200 I heard were fairly dynamic, a lot different to the sleep inducing later kit. WM

[cookiemonster]

Hehe...the first satisfied customer of the new smilie.:D

[Nepherim]

Try listening to a song being played on a hi-fi system over a telephone, and for some reason it sounds live -- not played over a PA live, but live. Jazz sounds particularly good in this regard.

Imagine the dynamics, resolution, and imaging on the phone (ie, non-existant) -- so why do you get that live vibe?

~ ~ Dave

[dominicT]

Having gigged for a few years and done the sound for a band for a few years and now a studio owner I would agree with much of what GTM says. It also depends if you are talking about acoustic instruments or amplified; there is a massive difference and the reason why you would know it is live is different in both. I would sum up as scale and effortless power, assuming that we are talking about a decent size PA system; hifi's cannot match this. If we are talking pub band then it is because the mix is unbalanced, if it is a pop band then it will not sound polished even if backing tracks are used, if it is a competent acoustic set then maybe the timbre - but this is a difficult one but one that I always know.

I do think that this is a different question to the music vs hifi question though. Live music will never sound hifi but it also might not sound music either especially if it is miked or mixed incorrectly. I also think that some hifi systems exaggerate the music bit as GrahamN discussed with us when he was auditioning his Wilsons.

dominicT

[Rodrigo de Sá]

See Titian's masterly post at:

http://forum.hifichoice.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=5827

Cheers.

[michaelab]

A superb post indeed! I will ask titian if I can reproduce it here...

EDIT: Indeed I can, so here it is:

Originally poted by Titian on HFC
This thread was created to continue a discussion between me and RdS about “true sound” or realism and atmosphere in music and in reproduction systems.

This is a long post so I will first list the table of contents so that you can decide to stop your reading now or not.

List of contents
- Preface
- Sound propagation: instrument characteristics (classical, jazz and pop..)
- Ambience, music halls
- Awareness of music quality
- Sound reproduction systems (HiFi quality, high-end quality, philosophy, new ways)
- conclusion




Preface
These notes are the result of my analyzing mostly classical music in live concerts and comparing it with what is reproduced with HiFi / high-end systems. I also had lots of discussions with a person who makes high-end loudspeakers and had made preamplifiers and power amplifiers. These discussions (sometimes 3 times in a week) helped me to be even more aware of small technical details in the music and in the high-end components. I would like to emphasize that I am not a professional in this field and that I haven’t studied music nor electronics therefore don’t take my statements as facts, but only as a base for any discussion concerning them.

Sound propagation and “Air”
The biggest frustration I had, was when I was listening to any kind of music system after coming back from a live concert of classical music. That feeling, which I had since over 25 years, made be much more aware on how I percept the sound. I suppose that’s why since I was 14 I always tried to get the “best” place at the free concerts at the radio station. Later on I could afford only a student ticket but I nearly always found away to stand in front of a column at a very good position.
When I am in a symphonic concert and close my eyes and concentrate not on the music itself but on the sound (what a pity to throw away a concert like that), I notice that I don’t hear all single instruments crystal clear neither do I hear every instrument clear. I hear an amalgamation of all instruments but nevertheless I can hear definitively where each instrument group are. I can also hear some instruments clearer than others and this in my opinion because the propagation of the sound is different for every instrument. Not only that but it is different depending also on which note some instruments play.
When I hear a trumpet the sound comes to me quite sharp and clear. The sound of a horn instead is for me much less sharp but fills the space of the hall much more than a trumpet and therefore it isn’t so clear lo localize. Adding all these characteristics together gives a very complex image, which I expect a music system should be able to reproduce.

When there are only a few instruments playing, the image is quite simple and therefore IMO a lot of systems can reproduce it quite well. An exception is the organ because the instrument it self is more complex. It can have at the same time different kinds of sound propagation, depending on the note and the registration. But the problem of an organ is that it is very powerful and mostly played in a huge place. The music fills all the spaces before it arrives to the audience.
In the music, which is made through electronic components, the sound propagation depends on the equipment used, which are mostly very powerful amplifiers and directional loudspeakers. The sound propagation is the same type for all involved instruments. The resulting sound image is much more simple and therefore easier to reproduce.

I feel also another difference between the sound of a horn and a trumpet and that is while the sound of the trumpet is for me much more “physical”, concentrated, dense, the sound of a horn is much more “airy”. I would say something such as a difference between an oil painting and an airbrush one.
Also in the homogeneous sound of the orchestra, I notice the air between the instruments, mostly around those instruments which sound is not so direct.

Ambience, music hall
Again when I am sitting in front of the orchestra I don’t only hear music that comes directly from the orchestra but also from the side and from the back: Actually from everywhere. Also the characteristic of the material of the concert hall has influence in the propagation of the music. This is what I and some other people call ambience. The ambience makes you have the feeling to be completely inside (wrapped up) the music. Organ music is an example of one only instrument that creates an enormous ambience because of its power, its special kind of propagation and because of the place where it’s played in (mostly churches).
I supposed that a few decades ago, some engineers wanted to give this feeling by inventing the quadriphony. But this wasn’t the answer to the problem because the characteristic not only of the loudspeakers but also of the rest of the system was directional. Also today they are many approaches to create in a cheap way the ambience.
If they will succeed only the future will say.
The problem with the ambience is that you can easily confuse it with unclear music. Very often when I hear systems of dealers and we discuss what we hear they are very concerned about the clearness. So clear that you have the feeling to be two meters away from every instrument: totally not as in the concert hall, but certainly very good for any kind of electronic music. Actually so good that it sounds better than in a live concert, since over there the quality of the equipments is less good that the one at home! The digital recording system with Cds and dvd goes totally in this direction.
If a system should reproduce a symphonic music like in the concert hall, it has to be on one side very accurate to be able to give sharpness to those instruments, which really reproduce a sharp sound, but on the other side the system should also reproduce totally the ambience.

Awareness of the music
Everybody has listened to music in his life and music is part of everybody’s life. The music industry knows that and is trying to extend their turnover by bringing more and more cheaper stuff in the market (DVD for less than 40£!). Everything is just becoming a junk: buy and throwaway. The online music store (Apple) which is going to be followed soon by other companies) is a typical example in which direction we are going. Stay at home, just download the song you like (ignore the others in the album, as if they were less good) and consume until you are fed up with it then delete it from the hard disk. About the quality of the music there is no concern at all, important is that it doesn’t use so much space). The fact is that there are less and less people who are really concerned about any quality at all. The awareness of music is disappearing also in the world of the classical music where so many instruments have to harmonically coexist and build a symphony of sound. How many people find time today to sit down and hear concentrated to music. With this I am not saying that the enjoying of music depends on the awareness of the true sound of music. Music you can enjoyed with any kind of audio systems, cheap or expensive especially if you already know the piece of music. When you instead hear something for the first time, there is a greater possibility that you like it when played live or by a good system than with a cheap one. But if you are interested in having a system that can reproduce a “true sound” then you should need a certain awareness of music.

Sound reproduction systems and recordings
If someone is aware about sound propagation or how music sounds in a concert hall and aims the same quality at home, then he gets into serious trouble to find anything that can do that (again I am talking about classical music). Nearly every sound reproduction equipment was created to give maximum clearness and definition possible for that category but very ,very few are constructed in order to reproduce the ambience. This can be done only when the unit is made with that concept in mind from the beginning on. Phono sections or preamplifiers which have IC in the first stage cannot have ambience. All kinds of plastic eliminate ambience. Particular attention has to be kept for the wires, capacitors and resistors used. Very high quality of wires are used or even double wirering (two different type of wires) in some critical points. Capacitors and resistors used are not only very expensive, but also selected (same principle as for tubes) because not all capacitors / resistors of the same type sound the same. Multicaps capacitors are used and special attention is done for isolation.
A unit like this can easily cost much more than others but it has this characteristic that makes the difference in the reproduction of classical music. On the other hand there are lots of equally expensive units, which don’t have ambience.
The quality of recordings is very different one from the other. When something doesn’t sound so good, we very often give immediately the fault on the recordings’ quality without even considering that our system doesn’t even read and reproduce accurately what’s recorded. It is of course true that no system can reproduce something that is not recorded.

Conclusion
If somebody wants to have a system that can reproduce a “true sound” for classical music he first should be aware of the music characteristics of an orchestra and each instrument. Visiting frequently live concerts and concentrating on the sound propagation is very important. Playing an instrument doesn’t help for the knowledge of the true music because the music propagates away from the instrument (centre). The sound that the interpreter hears has different characteristics that the listener.
To be able to reproduce the “true sound” the listener needs to hear the music at a concert level which is loud enough to have problems with the neighbour or with the “sweet other half”. Also a special room (not necessarily huge) is recommendable.
The costs for a system that can reproduce something near the “true sound” is huge but that doesn’t mean that the more a system costs, more it can reproduce that sound better.
But as conclusion I must say that luckily to love music or to have pleasure for music one doesn’t need a good system. There is nothing better than live performances independently from whatever system one has.

Michael.

[lowrider]

"Ambience" is fairly well achieved with a good surround system and DPLII... :MILD:

[ilockyer]

Originally posted by timpy
There's usually someone standing on your foot, it's too loud, and your beers been spilt all over your front at least 3 times.


That and the people chatting noisily through the whole show about their friends sad lives/diy/what beer to go and get/how long before the end they should leave to avoid traffic. I can't understand why people pay good £ to go to a show and talk about this stuff. At least at loud rock gigs you don't hear them!

[Rodrigo de Sá]

In answer to Titian, I wrote the following:

[QUOTE]

Titian:

As you know from my previous post (at the other thread), I completely agree with you.

TRUE SOUND AND HIFI

I'll try to state the differences between reproduced and real acoustic sound. For that I'll use an analogy.

Most of us remember the old days of MS-DOS. First there was CGA, then EGA and after that VGA. The SuperVGA followed and now we have even greater resolutions. The same is true with printers: the old day 150dpi printers were awful, and then came the 300 dpi, now 600 dpi seems to be the standard. But compare that with a magazine, where they use 2400 dpi linotrons and even the 1200 dpi looks dirty and unclear.

For me true sound (by the way: as both a player and a listener, I think you are right, it is the audience who knows how the instrument sounds, not the player; this may sound crazy but I will explain if requested), I was saying, true sound is totally clear: the outlines of the threads of music are totally clear, as if in a linotron. Even the best hifi stuff I listened to sounded murky, hashy, and, well, dead. As if the true sound was 2400 dpi and the best you can achieve with hifi is a miserly 600 dpi.

This means attacks are clearer, the sound is leaner but true bass is far stronger (most hifi emphasizes upper midbass in order to emulate true bass which is very hard to render - mega watts are necessary, horns, and a really big room). Sound is usually, also, drier. It is richer, more detailed and absolutely uncluttered by distortion (that is the fuzziness of virtually ALL systems I've heard).

So, paradoxically, even if true sound is usually much louder that reproduced sound, it actually doesn't seem so: that is because distortion creates a kind of fake loudness, fatiguing in the long run.

THE RECORDING PROCESS

I don't know the extent of the fault of sound engineers. In pop/rock they usually tune things to sound great in mid-fi systems. But with classical music they really strive to get the picture as close as it gets. That is why they enhance EACH instruments presence (Karajan used glass walls to divide the groups of players and recorded each one in one channel - so there is a long history of trying to get a muddle free sound - something that actually never came true). That is also why the recordings are often brighter than the real sound: the engineers know the public will listen to it at a far lower level, which leads to loss of harmonic detail. The basses are more difficult still, because there is no way you can make a 20Hz tone vibrate in a 6*4*3 room: it will just boom and get you a headache. You see, it needs about ten meters to vibrate, and therefore will get muddled. That is why the midbass is stressed: you get the illusion of true bass without actually having one (I can explain this if anyone is interested).

DIRECTIONALITY

This is one of the greatest problems with recorded music, and I think it will never be tackled. With live music, you have an omni directional source that is strongly propagated (remember, without distortion the tone really needs to be louder) and is reflected by the actual acoustics of the place. So, the same instrument can sound very different according to where you play it. You listen to sound coming mainly from the source (in certain odd acoustics not even that), but it really comes from everywhere and completely surrounds you.

Now if the recording engineer chooses to capture the reflections of sound, he may do it, but it will come across as a directional ambience, which is quite alien to the true effect.

Of course one might try with omni directional speakers. But then, you'd listen to your room's acoustic (usually very dry).

If the multichannel technology develops, we may, eventually, get some of the 'hallo' effect of true music.


CONCLUSION

You can't have the true sound at home. All you can get is an approximation you are comfortable with. For some people it is dynamics (I mean the true sense of the word: from pianissimo to fortissimo); for others it will be tonal accuracy; for others, resolution - the dpi effect.

I personally went for tone accuracy and high resolution. But my system lacks true bass and true dynamics. When it comes to play a string quartet or something of that kind, it is almost as if you were there (with some of the 'buts' I mentioned before). But it can't convey the true sense of a big orchestra or the scale of a true big organ. It gives you a kind of ink drawing of the true thing, black and white and without the density of the real event, accurate nevertheless.

Of course, my room (or my ears) wouldn't stand having a true organ sound. I contemplated the possibility of having a true pipe organ built for my library. But, in terms of sound, I could never dream of getting strong high pitched sounds (very REAL ear damage possibilities) or strong lower pitched ones; as the very low ones MUST be very loud in order to be heard, it couldn't have them, period.

I always though sound must be downscaled by the system. The one that does it better for you is the best for you.

As I said previously I'm writing this in a great hurry, so I'm not even checking spelling or plain senseless parts of what I wrote. But your thread starter was so good I made a question of answering to it in earnest.

[michaelab]

RdS - I've done as you suggested and put titian's post here aswell as your reply and deleted the other thread.

Michael.

[MO!]

Ah, just what I like. Some nice light reading! Nothing quite like it for helping to fight off a hangover :D

[boxsoft]

Live music tends to be louder, and often tonally screwed up, but it's the lack of extreme compression that enables you to discern "Live vs. Memorex".

-=> Mike Hanson <=-

[dominicT]

Originally posted by RdS
In answer to Titian, I wrote the following:

[QUOTE]

Titian:

As you know from my previous post (at the other thread), I completely agree with you.

TRUE SOUND AND HIFI

I'll try to state the differences between reproduced and real acoustic sound. For that I'll use an analogy.

THE RECORDING PROCESS

I don't know the extent of the fault of sound engineers. In pop/rock they usually tune things to sound great in mid-fi systems. But with classical music they really strive to get the picture as close as it gets. That is why they enhance EACH instruments presence (Karajan used glass walls to divide the groups of players and recorded each one in one channel - so there is a long history of trying to get a muddle free sound - something that actually never came true). That is also why the recordings are often brighter than the real sound: the engineers know the public will listen to it at a far lower level, which leads to loss of harmonic detail. The basses are more difficult still, because there is no way you can make a 20Hz tone vibrate in a 6*4*3 room: it will just boom and get you a headache. You see, it needs about ten meters to vibrate, and therefore will get muddled. That is why the midbass is stressed: you get the illusion of true bass without actually having one (I can explain this if anyone is interested).


Of course one might try with omni directional speakers. But then, you'd listen to your room's acoustic (usually very dry).




This has not been my experience or the experience of others that I know who are studio engineers. Engineers do mot mix for a midi system. There are so many engineers who are fanatical about the gear and desks that they use to get the absolutely right sound for the album. Yes they are likely to use nearfield monitors and probably they will be cheap yamahas on the basis that if they sound ok on the yamahas then they will sound ok on the radio. It is a bit of a leap, and rather ill-informed to suggest that engineers record pop just for the radio.

I do agree witrh your comment about omni-directional speakers and think that the Shahinians and the German things that Walrus sells are great.

DominicT

[Rodrigo de Sá]

Originally posted by dominicT
This has not been my experience or the experience of others that I know who are studio engineers. Engineers do mot mix for a midi system. There are so many engineers who are fanatical about the gear and desks that they use to get the absolutely right sound for the album. Yes they are likely to use nearfield monitors and probably they will be cheap yamahas on the basis that if they sound ok on the yamahas then they will sound ok on the radio. It is a bit of a leap, and rather ill-informed to suggest that engineers record pop just for the radio.

I do agree witrh your comment about omni-directional speakers and think that the Shahinians and the German things that Walrus sells are great.

DominicT

I know the Shahinian pretty well. I had two pairs at home for a couple of weeks. They are great (the Arcs particularly) but I think they are made to sound in an enourmous room - say 12*8*4m, with very beefy amplifiers. That said, they sounded gorgeous with the Jadis SE valve amplifier.

Of course I didn't mean pop music is recorded to be played by midi systems. By mid-fi I mean the rather good Nads, Yamahas and Rotels (I have two subsidiary systems: an all Nad one and a Nad/Yamaha/Rogers one -they sound rather good). But of course, it is not High Fidelity in the sense that a Krell or a Konrad Jonhson or a Lavardin is.

So sorry if I mislead you. In the context-high end 1000 000 000£ Hifh Fi-de-li-ty - even a serious sounding Roksan is considered midfi...

Hifi is a very snobish ladden field... I agree you can have your pleasure with music with a modest system. I often listen to my 'lesser' systems and I am quite contented...

[wadia-miester]

RDS I understand you plight only to well, my system's postively midfi and pales in to dust in realation to my brother Martain's hum dinger of a system, however I still have to kick him out, when he visits and I want to go bed :( , great for impressing the visiting exec's and impressionable calllow hifi guys', although now his new one is :acoustic: pretty spectacular, I still do like the music, and so it appears does he. Tone

[themadhippy]

ok heres one to throw into the mix,this evening we had a youth showcase at work,most were singing to backing tracks of various quality,a live band a girl with acustic quitar and a dance troop using commercial cds(must get mezzaneen? who was it by again?wicked bass line on angle)most of yesterday was spent sound checking and rehersing (they still changed the running order with minutes of starting ,a busted raidio mic annd leaving the smoke machine on a fraction too longhttp://www.click-smilies.de/sammlung/alles_moegliche/mixed-smiley-001.gif) but anyway the diffrence between live and recorded/live was very noticable.
live volume levels were much louder ,drum kit with wana be cozzy powel in charge,whoo know were rocking :D no distortion ,well apart from when"i wanna be hendrix"adds it,backing tracks with live vocals were quiter,you could tell the difference,sort of lack of energy,but again mostly very lisanable,the girl on accustic guitar was even quiter but nothing was lost,yes we add some help to the quitar,but it didnt need much,the raw cds were exallent :D especially messaneenhttp://www.click-smilies.de/sammlung/grinser/grinning-smiley-026.gifyou could tell the diffrence how i dont know answeres on a post card to

[HenryT]

Originally posted by themadhippy
must get mezzaneen? who was it by again? Massive Attack? :)

[themadhippy]

thats the one:D certainly tested the subs:JOEL:

[MO!]

Originally posted by themadhippy
thats the one:D certainly tested the subs:JOEL:

A song that once you've heard it go realllllyyyyy loooowwwwww, you know how it should/could be sounding on your kit!

Quality stuff!

[Rodrigo de Sá]

Originally posted by wadia-miester
RDS I understand you plight only to well, my system's postively midfi and pales in to dust in realation to my brother Martain's hum dinger of a system, however I still have to kick him out, when he visits and I want to go bed :( , great for impressing the visiting exec's and impressionable calllow hifi guys', although now his new one is :acoustic: pretty spectacular, I still do like the music, and so it appears does he. Tone

WadiaMonster:

How could a Wadia's based system be midfi? The Belcanto is expensive, too. And what about the Meadowlarks and Valleythrushes? And all that expensive cabling, tubular pneumatic supports and stuff.

Or did you throw all that away, given it to paupers and went Franciscan? (And now have a Rotel based system and a Fiat Punto)?

:notworthy :JOEL:

:D :D

[Rodrigo de Sá]

Mad Hippy:

Interesting considerations. If you look closer, you'll see we say more or less the same. of course I hate mezanine kind of stuff, but that is irrelevant: I'm talking about the difference between live and recorded sound.

Live sound is louder, less distorted and clearer, even when it seems quite low level it is quite loud and clearly heard.

[wadia-miester]

Rds, my word most unlike you, I was merely replying to your earlier post in the thread, oh you beastly man :) .

Rds, wrote in earlier......

By mid-fi I mean the rather good Nads, Yamahas and Rotels (I have two subsidiary systems: an all Nad one and a Nad/Yamaha/Rogers one -they sound rather good). But of course, it is not High Fidelity in the sense that a Krell or a Konrad Jonhson or a Lavardin is.

So sorry if I mislead you. In the context-high end 1000 000 000£ Hifh Fi-de-li-ty - even a serious sounding Roksan is considered midfi...

Hifi is a very snobish ladden field... I agree you can have your pleasure with music with a modest system. I often listen to my 'lesser' systems and I am quite contented...


I was just making a comparision, between my system and my brother's, as in it makes mine sound very Mifi, that was all, oh how words are misconstrood. :rolleyes:

Rds continued with .........

How could a Wadia's based system be midfi? The Belcanto is expensive, too. And what about the Meadowlarks and Valleythrushes? And all that expensive cabling, tubular pneumatic supports and stuff.

The entire system, cables and all, was a awful lot less than you think, due to a keen eye for a bargin, and WM's bartering skills.
hope that helps

:)

[Rodrigo de Sá]

Originally posted by wadia-miester
Rds, my word most unlike you, I was merely replying to your earlier post in the thread, oh you beastly man :) .

Rds, wrote in earlier......

By mid-fi I mean the rather good Nads, Yamahas and Rotels (I have two subsidiary systems: an all Nad one and a Nad/Yamaha/Rogers one -they sound rather good). But of course, it is not High Fidelity in the sense that a Krell or a Konrad Jonhson or a Lavardin is.

So sorry if I mislead you. In the context-high end 1000 000 000£ Hifh Fi-de-li-ty - even a serious sounding Roksan is considered midfi...

Hifi is a very snobish ladden field... I agree you can have your pleasure with music with a modest system. I often listen to my 'lesser' systems and I am quite contented...


I was just making a comparision, between my system and my brother's, as in it makes mine sound very Mifi, that was all, oh how words are misconstrood. :rolleyes:

Rds continued with .........

How could a Wadia's based system be midfi? The Belcanto is expensive, too. And what about the Meadowlarks and Valleythrushes? And all that expensive cabling, tubular pneumatic supports and stuff.

The entire system, cables and all, was a awful lot less than you think, due to a keen eye for a bargin, and WM's bartering skills.
hope that helps

:)

I understood what you say, Wadia Monster (I hope people will call you that in the future :D ; besides your signature should be 'the club's authorized pit-bull').

And I agree with you that really high-end is often pure masturbatory activity.

But suppose I buy a super Konrad-Jonhsn and a super Elgar whatever dirt cheap. It will still be high-end. The other fellow may be a high-idiot, but my gear will still be high-end.

And I also agree people waste too much money on hifi. You are a clever fellow, and so you got a lot of expensive gear cheaply. But that doesn't mean your systen is not high-end. Of course, you brother's may be of the masturbatory kind (the impotent Sultan's harem kind of stuff - I don't mean to doubt your brother's manhood - gracious me!! It is an example ;) ).

Anyway, I was just pulling your leg. It sometimes just begs to be pulled:D :D .

Your posts enliven this forum. It would be quite morose and dull without your grumbling and strongly coloured opinions. :JPS:

And on top of that you like the Porsches... :MILD:

[Rodrigo de Sá]

Bump?

This is a very interesting question. As a matter of fact, I think it is the most important question regarding hifi.

[merlin]

Yesterday, I had a very interesting chat with a true stalwat of the industry who was recounting a time in the distant past when he, and a number of others were asked to take part in a live vs hifi demonstration by a very well respected speaker company.

Sitting in a darkened room, a voice came out from behind the screen "kick drum!", followed by three loud strikes on said instrument.

Some moments later, the same voice announced "loudspeaker". There followed, what was described as a loud farting noise, at which point the entire "panel" fell off their chairs in uncontrollable laughter.

I think that says it all;)