Went and saw Brian Blade at the Vanguard last Saturday, came right home after, and played a lot of the same stuff on the system. Have to say, I was pretty blown away by how close it was. Shocked, really. To be sure, not the same -- really not the same -- but one hell of a lot closer than I expected....
System versus live
To sound live, I have tried, in building my system, to get so many things correct. Dynamic range, Prat, Tone, Coherence, Body, Weight, Visceral momentum, Spatial perspective, etc. I remember being on a ferry ride, listening to a small ensemble, amazed at the beauty and artistry of the musicianship, along with the proper "air" of how the notes started and stopped, and being so engulfed in the performance. I have been on and near performers on stage, with the same amazement. My system touches on all of these things, but it is not "live". Before the system, room and listening position, one must consider the recording itself. Microphones, mic preamps, console faders, acoustics used for the recording, and a whole lot more. Then we have the monitors used for the final product(headphones or speakers) and the engineer(s) who put it together. Then, it is transferred and transferred again. Labels such as Mapleshade and Sheffield Labs(I just happen to have many)go to great lengths to minimize the "electronics", as well as some other aspects, of their recordings, to sound live and pure. Being a member of Audiogon, as well as some other forums, and, being a devoted audiophile, music listener, consultant and above all else, a human being, I ask this question. How "live" do you think your system really is ?
- ...
- 14 posts total
There's a recent A'gon thread that addressed a similar topic at great length. You can read it here. In that thread I wrote... "...to my ears, the three principal characteristics that limit how real most systems sounds are: Dynamic range, spatial cues, and harmonic content. My suspicion is that dynamic range, spatial cues, and harmonic content are themselves chiefly limited by recordings, rooms, and equipment, respectively. Dynamic range is limited both by the inherent informational limits of recording media and by the elective use of compression during mixing. Spatial cues are limited by acoustically under-treated rooms, which obscure spatial cues, or by acoustically over-treated rooms, which limit the directionality of spatial cues. And harmonic content is limited by various kinds of equipment-induced distortion, whether harmonic distortion, IMD, TIM, etc.. This is of course an oversimplification, but the general point is that, IMO, the chief factors that limit how real most systems sound are dynamic range, spatial cues, and harmonic content (probably in that order)." Mrdecibel - Those observations seem relevant to your OP. In direct answer to your question... How "live" do you think your system really is?My answer is: On excellent small scale recordings, my system is somewhat close, which is to say, I *very* occasionally hear something on my system that strikes me as indistinguishable from real. On large scale music, however, my system is nowhere close to the real thing. If people have systems that sound indistinguishable from real with large scale music, I envy them. Bryon |
Against amplified concerts, system easily. Against a piano or violin in a small room, system nowhere close. Then again, have one Marcia Ball CD that comes pretty close. No interest in chamber ensembles anyhow. The music I listen to gets amplified. Funny that Shadorne mentions Tower of Power, because the last concert of theirs, closed my eyes and scrutinized a few times. Great to see though. |
- 14 posts total