There Is Nothing Like the Real Thing - Our State of the Art
This is a long expose’. My apologies in advance. Perhaps you will find it enjoyable or thought provoking. Perhaps you will find me in need of therapy.
I am lucky to live in the NYC suburbs that provide multifarious venues for all genres of music, dance, and theater within the inner city and beyond. There are the large venues (Carnegie Hall, Koch Theater, Metropolitan) but many smaller venues where ensembles perform. This weekend I attended a Fever Candlelight Concert of seasonal music at the St. Mark’s Episodical Church in Mount Kisco NY performed by the Highline String Quartet sitting about 25 feet from the performers in a warm acoustic environment. Much enjoyable. Vivaldi L’inverno evoked a tear. However, every time I come home from a live performance, I reflect on the state of the art of musical recording and playback, with feelings that as far as technology has advanced in the past 10 years, we are far off from the real thing. I have spent much time with $1mm systems at dealers and have curated a system within my means that focuses on timbre, dynamics, and image density, at least to my ears. But after listening to the real thing, I have the following observations:
1. Organic nature of reproduced music cannot approach the sweetness, liquidity, and palpability of the real thing. The real thing is detailed but never with harsh artifacts that I still hear even in $1mm systems. Massed orchestral strings is the best example of where the state of the art is getting better, but still far off from the sweetness and liquidity of the real thing.
2. Imaging and staging of reproduced music cannot approach the real thing. I find systems homogenizes the sound field and some separate the sound field images in excess compared to the real thing. When in a live venue, there images are distinct but the secondary harmonics from the instruments and the reflected sounds from the venue mix and diffuse the images in a manner that recorded and reproduced music cannot capture.
3. The dynamics of recorded and reproduced music have a different quality than the real thing. Dynamics is where the state of the art has much improved. Macro and microdynamics of systems I like are well reproduced. The difference I hear is that the leading edge of the real thing is powerfully evident but never harsh. It’s forceful and relaxed at the same time.
4. Many systems today produce vivid detail but in a manner different than the real thing. The way the bow, strings, and sounding board/body of the instrument develops and ripples out into the venue in an integrated manner is getting closer, but not yet there. This, combined with my comments on imaging/staging produce detailed sound that progresses from a point source outward in three dimensions. As an analogy, the detailed sound wave images progress into the venue like the visual image of a fireworks exploding in the sky. Recorded music playback is getting closer, but it’s not the real thing.
I believe the recording technology is most at fault. This belief stems from the fact that some recording labels consistently come closer to the real thing. For example, certain offerings from Reference Recordings, 2L, Linn, Blue Note, and Stockfish produce timbre, staging/imaging, and dynamics closer to the real thing. I do not understand recording engineering to understand why.
What are your observations on the state of the art compared to the real thing? For those technical competent, any explanation why we are not closer?
As you say we are at the mercy of what the recording engineers lay down, and that’s always an interpretation of the original event to some extent. Also, when you hear live music it’s often in a larger, open venue as opposed to our relatively smaller listening rooms, and the room has a huge impact on what we hear. Put a four-piece jazz band in your listening room and it’s gonna sound way different from how they sound in a jazz club. That said, I still really enjoy the sound my system produces in the context of my room even if it’s not quite as good as hearing the live event. It’s still good enough that it can, especially with good recordings, suspend disbelief that I’m not listening to a real performance, which is a main goal of hifi IMHO. |
The most expensive microphones are from 1940s~50's. They sound great. The world's best mic right now is Wavetouch mics. Yes. Finally, modern mics catch up the sound of those 80 years old mics. Wavetouch mic sound: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9couuLwOYLs Mic and speaker have a same topology. If one can make the best sound speaker, one can make the best mic too and vice versa. Wavetouch speaker: https://youtu.be/2ru4D-mOMdo?si=Lj8ZagayG11DqhWq Alex / wavetouch audio |
| Post removed |
Thank you for your observations. I understand what you are saying. I think there are a lot of companies chasing different sound... as you have mentioned. Like you, I have spent a lot of time listening to live acoustic music, with the intent moving my system to reproduce natural musical sound. Some companies are trying to produce equipment that captures the gestalt and proportional sound quality of the real experience. Companies like Audio Research, Conrad Johnson, and Sonus Faber. if your objective is fidelity with the real thing, it can be approached very closely. But I think this is not the intent of most companies / users... it is often to "sound great" which varies enormously from person to person. |
I am going to create a product named Live Music Generator that will take any studio performance and elevate it to the level of a live performance. It consists of 12 bookshelf speakers randomly placed in the listening room. At random intervals, the sounds of a live performance are added to the studio recording. Here's a small sample:
Enjoy the show, and have a Merry Christmas all. |
If one looks at the steps of recording and playback, it seems a miracle that it can sound fairly real. But trying to chase “real” in one’s audio chain can be foolhardy if expectations aren’t realistic (poor recordings, difficult room..), it’s much better to chase personal subjective satisfaction. This isn’t some competition of reality vs high-end audio sonics, the later is simply a hobby - both can be enjoyed. |
@_dalek__ Spot on. Humorous but true. There should be on-the-spot expulsions for all of the above. Except if the fart is silent. |
I've tried everything. 6'-4" labyrinths in the listen room. Multiple subs. Monster amps. Even dozens of candle scents. But, listening to my Big Sounds of the Drags album at home doesn't duplicate the pavement pounding, eardrum-shattering SLP levels, nor the smell of burning rubber and spent nitro of the live performance at the drag strip. |
The OP’s questions are good, although ’the real thing’ is slippery. In this case it seems to apply mainly to acoustic music in good sounding concert halls, classical music perhaps. So what about rock for example? I go to rock concerts to get the live experience, the extra something beyond the recording and production in the studio. But for sound? Seldom. I rather listen to the best recordings and productions of the songs, in a good audio system, at home. In this case, "the real thing" is to reproduce the music as good as possible as it was recorded and produced. Usually in the studio. With increasing emphasis on production, from the mid 60s onwards. Not just a good recording, but production as part of the art. This means that you usually cannot hear "the real thing" in live setting. It exists only on the reproduction, the album or track. For example, I cannot hear I am the walrus, or Strawberry fields forever, in a concert, even if all the Beatles were alive and well today. What I can do, however, is to get such songs to sound as good and "real" as possible, compared to the intention - from the producers, engineers, and the artists involved. I use large bipole speakers (Audiokinesis Dream Makers) that excel in reproducing live concerts and a three dimensional sound, with very good timbre and tonality. Live recordings are often a joy. Still, for the best sound, I usually go to the studio albums. On a basic level I understand what the OP is talking about. I play a c flute, alto flute, and some guitar, often trying to play along with the music reproduced from my system. There is certainly a distance, between what I hear from the live instrument, and what I hear from the playback. Especially with the flute. Even if the distance is smaller, with the best recordings. |
I saw David Bowie in concert one time, at Meadowlands if I recall. Let's just say he lived up to his reputation as a terrible live performer. His band was mediocre; a couple of regulars and session guys showing up for the paycheck. Terrible arena acoustics. I was actually glad it was over. Later at home, I put Ziggy Stardust and the Spiders From Mars on the platter, lowered the tonearm, sat back, and soon everything was all right again. Just sayin
|
@viridian i whole heartedly agreed. TAS, especially its founding EIC Harry Pearson focused on pinpoint imaging. However, he also established a lexicon to describe timbre, tonality, and saturation of tone (what I was describing as image density and palpability). I have established a system to focus on exactly what you have identified. I tried to describe how I feel the sound stage of the real thing develops where the focus of an individual instrument is blurred by the primary harmonics of other instruments, secondary harmonics of the instrument, and venue acoustic reflections. I find the recordings by the 2L label are beginning to approach this on my system, as well as a few other labels. I find the much desired Mercury Living Presence somewhat exaggerated sound stage, but with timbre, tonality and saturation you speak. When I speak of the real thing I mean acoustic instruments, not amplified, such as a jazz ensemble or orchestra. This is where I believe the state of the art has room for improvement. Also realize pinpoint imaging is correct for many studio albums where performers are isolated in sound booths and engineers establish the mix. Here, the state of the art should permit us to hear the mix as imagined by the engineer. I feel this has been accomplished to the most part. |
@mark200mph, @noromance, @ronboco |
@waytoomuchstuff The drag strip is, truly, sensory overload. Ain't nothing like the smell of burned nitro mixing with the olfactory rush of deep fried turkey legs and burning rubber all swathed in 140 db of rampaging funny car. |
@acresverde I took a peak at your system post. Surprised at the synapse short circuit I caused based on the sophistication of your system. Horns not a fav of mine but your system and attention to detail lends me to conclude you know what you are doing and must be able to relate at some level to what I am saying. |
This is perhaps the most covered topic on REGs audio forum. (REG is Robert Greene, the longtime reviewer in TAS.) The two speakers which immediately wowed me as they had a live music vibe re their spaciousness, imaging and even tonality were the Spica TC-50 and Magnepans. (Being so relatively inexpensive, I own both.)
|
i dont understand how we could compare such different experiences which cannot be compared... Your location in a big Hall will determine for a big part everything... In your room your acoustics parameters and location... These 2 different experience can be valuable...But will remain forever different...
i am happy with my system ability and his limitations...Because i was in control of them not a victim...Nothing is more gratifying than to be responsible for a well tuned system/room... I will not compare my experience with my room /system to any lived experience... They differ too much positively and negatively at the same time with one another in respect to their advantages and inconvenience...
|
@saboros Bringing back memories of excellent products and transformative experiences. A friend had the TC-50s driven by top of the line Counterpoint electronics and sourced by a Sota Star Sapphire with a Gram tone arm and Koetsu Rosewood. Magic.
|
@_dalek__ +1 I hope to never reproduce the experience of my last few live music concerts. Incessant talkers/yelling, restless people constantly on the move, poor quality sound in poor sounding venues.
I don't understand how the live concert experience has become the de facto gold standard for listening to music. I've been attending live music performances for over five decades, some sound reinforced others not. I'd never want to reproduce at home the drivel vast majority of amplified concerts. On rare occasions volume is reasonable, sound quality fair, but then you have atrocious environmental noise levels. Acoustic or minimal sound reinforcement performances generally better on sound quality front, excessive environmental noise can still remain salient and bothersome for me. The idea visual senses also being stimulated at live events also underestimated or neglected altogether, this sometimes distracts my aural senses.
I much prefer the controlled environment of home listening vs live performance. |
to the OP …. quite astute… keep chasing and wondering and being blessed with a dearth of acoustic music in reverberant space… Loved and appreciated your 2L comments in my own field recording experience / experiment… the first introduction of distortion is microphone selection… there are no perfect transducers… quickly followed by microphone placement… then … , well you get the idea.. You can of course try a relatively simple and not terribly expensive sojourn down the path by hiring a small string ensemble to play in your listening room and capture using the affordable zoom recorder… |
I am fortunate to have a good variety of venues to see live music here in Atlanta, GA. We see live music 3-4 times a month., Some venues are frickin’ horrible for sound. We stopped going to see music there, unless it was a really rare tour by a band that doesn’t tour much. Then we have venues that are just superb, no matter who plays. Fortunately the staff doesn’t feel the need to blow our ears out. Some of the smaller venues known for their classical dates also have wonder jazz blues and popular shows. The Violent Femmes recently played at Orchestra Hall and it sounded great. |
Many, including @pgaulke60 , have responded about the inconsistency of the acoustics of live performances, at times great and at times, awful. I believe the examples given have been for music that is amplified, such as some genre of rock music. I could not agree more. As a music lover, attending live performances is more for the experience and excitement generated by the performers, crowd, and event. I also have been to concerts of amplified music where the sound was awful. I remember on particular Bruce Springsteen and the E-Street Band concert at the Meadowlands, NJ where my wife and used makeshift tissue earplugs to save our hearing which also attenuated the high frequency shrill. Regardless, we still danced in our seats. I also heard Bruce solo on Broadway and even though amplified, the acoustic was well done, intimate and warm. When I speak of the real thing as my benchmark, I mean unamplified, acoustic music. This is because, like any recording, amplified live music puts our ears at the mercy of the engineers and venue. I am also not saying we cannot use amplified music as a benchmark. We can use to for reproduction of the power, dynamics, and PRaT of our systems. However, timbre, imaging/staging, micro and macro dynamic contrasts are best served by acoustic, unamplified music as the benchmark. I will still go to and enjoy live, amplified music, but it is for the experience of composition and performance from a “rock concert” perspective. My expectations regarding the venue acoustic is different than going to Carnegie. |
Okay, my Big Sounds of the Drags was a little tongue in cheek, but it does represent the greatest contrast of live vs recorded that I could think of. The sound of amplified live performances are often disappointing. The hifi nerd in me wants to lower the volume level a few (dozen) decibels and yank out the cheap cables they are using and replace them with "the good stuff." Overdriving the board in a highly-reflective venue is not my idea of a good time. Unamplified acoustic performances typically reside in wonderful, acoustically complimentary environments which are difficult to duplicate at home. |
There are many presentations in high-end audio. There’s the “fool you it’s real” using very transparent components, dropping the noise floor (better components, room treatments, ac conditioner, filters…). There are “musical” speakers like Devore O/96 Orangutan or the Fleetwood Deville SQ. There’s are “musical” phono cartridges like Grado or Koetsu. There’s is the big sound of SPU cartridges. Then we have tube amplifiers that offer midrange magic, but often requires a highly efficient speaker. I have 2 systems- fool you real and a flea watt system (used to discover 300b/2a3/45 tube SET (for acoustic and voices). |
The glass half-full: there's something magical about live music that can never be reproduced. The term "aesthetic bliss" doesn't completely get at it. It's true across the arts: there's nothing like being immersed in Monet at the Orangerie or Rothko in the Chapel; there's nothing like standing next to the *real* David in the Accademia even though you've seen reproductions all over Florence; and my respect if you know every lick on the Betty Board of Cornell '77, but if you never saw Jerry and the Dead, there's just no way to explain that presence. I think a nice framed Rothko poster inspires me to appreciate the real thing, in part by triggering my memories of the ecstasy of art. It would rather devalue art if we could all own Monets, if Dick's Picks = being there, if our stereos could perfectly recreate a jazz quartet. All this was the tease of postmodernism and is rather the promise of AI: that we can't distinguish between reality and artifice. It's a false promise and always will be. Sorry for the rant! I fear we live in a world where fewer and fewer have direct, sensuous experiences of the artistic imagination, and I think the world is the worse for it. |
@northman a lovely post |
@northman Do not apologize for an intellectual, stimulating, and intuitive analysis of the direction of society away from the “direct, sensuous experiences of the artistic imagination” based on “the tease of postmodernism and the promise of AI”. Artistically stated from a literary perspective and in my opinion so true. I hope you have not taken my post as a belief in the “false promise”. However, as an audiophile, I will continually be impassioned to elevate recorded music reproduction to as close to my interpretation of the real thing for it truly “inspires me to appreciate the real thing, in part by triggering my memories of the ecstasy of art”. I will always engage in the arts never embarrassed by being emotionally overwhelmed, whether it is literature, art, dance, music, or architecture. I hope I have passed the ability to appreciate and quelled any fear of expressing emotion openly to my children when experiencing the arts. Thank you for such a most stimulating post. |
To replicate the sound of, say, a live and non-amplified quartet, I suspect the playback system would need be incredibly complex, but somehow remain highly transparent. I envision something like large, orb-shaped speakers that are equipped with many diaphragms firing in multiple directions, including upward-firing drivers. The drivers would produce specific octaves that correspond to each instrument, with steep crossover slopes at the extremes of the instrument’s bandwidth. This would require an “active” system with complex DSP, but one that is also low enough in noise and distortion as to essentially be a “straight wire with gain.” The drivers and enclosure/baffle would need be of the highest caliber and appropriate materials, i.e. no soft domes being used to replicate the sound of metal strings. The baffles would somehow need to have a minimal influence on the drivers and their dispersion patterns. The whole system would need to have incredible dynamic range to accommodate a recording of equal dynamic range. That said, I think the recording system for the music in question would need be equally complex, perhaps more so. The thing about audio recording and playback is that every link in the chain involves some amount of compromise. The very best playback systems minimize these compromises, but ultimately, they are still limited by the recording quality. At the end of the day, if you want to experience a live acoustical performance at home, you have to book some live performers. |
@helomech Omnidirectional speaker designs have existed for over 60 years. One of the first I recall is the Ohm Walsh. Other brands are German Physiks, MBL, Mirage, Linkwitz Labs, Dueval, Morrison Audio, and one DCM model from the 80s with a multiple tweeter array. Some brands were more successful than others at reproduction of “real thing” soundstage. The best I have heard are the MLB Radialstrahler series of speakers if you can afford the price of entry. There soundstage is what I have attempted to describe as that produced in a live acoustic music concert - evident imaging but diffused by secondary harmonics and hall ambience. Much different than the razor sharp images produced by Magico offerings. MLB produces music approaching the thing of attention is payed to set up because Omnidirectional speakers will exacerbate room issues. Regarding recording technology, labels I mentioned before such as reference recordings, Linn, 2L, and old Murcury Living Presence publish in their packing inserts, liners or in peer reviewed literature the microphone placement techniques they use. |
What I was suggesting isn’t very similar to any existing omnidirectional loudspeaker that I’m aware of. The large MBLs or BeoLabs are probably the closest, but still much too simplistic in the way they divide the bandwidths and their lack of point-source dispersion.
|
I identify with the OPs observations and share them. I too enjoy chamber music concerts in a great venue. I agree with the many who note the futility of trying to replicate the live performance in your home. I find the same to be true with acoustic jazz, which I also enjoy in great smaller venues. No mikes, no mixers, no recording engineers, no mastering, no digital. The live acoustic sounds more natural because that’s what it is, subject to the venue and your seating position. The live performance aspect is a draw to concerts too. But I have vivid memories of walking out on rock concerts in venues like arenas for an NHL hockey team. One Billy Joel concert was absolutely awful. We went home and listened to Billy Joel on our audio system and were much happier. I also share the OP’s observations about MBL speakers. I listened to them at an audio show, then in a better listening room at an audio dealer. Great imaging and an outstanding naturalness of instrument timbre. Too expensive for my budget. So I live with and enjoy what I have, still finding a wide range in the quality of recordings. That’s the price you pay for having a revealing audio system. You can all too readily discern the difference between good and bad recordings, especially on acoustic music. |
25 years as a symphony musician and 25 years as a recording engineer settled my mind as to realistic sound. Acoustic instruments playing in an acoustical environment is about as real as it gets and attempts to replicate it are exactly that ------- replicas ----- never exactly like the original, but close enough. A fine recording engineer subtly uses his tools without you realizing his input. George Massenburg is my favorite "artist" engineer. Far too many recording engineers think that they are the "Hand of God" but have no concept of what an honest musical sound is. I’m constantly amazed at how a well-recorded performance using only two microphones can so effectively approach the real thing. But ---- it’s still a replica !! |
@northman Well stated. However, I will suggest that all music venues or performances are not created equal. There are times when I prefer listening to my own system than the "real" thing. If the live performance is amplified and I have less than ideal center front seats the experience is often not as emotional as I can experience from my home system. Add to that audience noise and the frustration of folks standing then that experience can lack intimacy. I remember one concert with one of my favorite artists in a smallish venue where the guitar amp had an anoying ground hum. Drove me nuts. |
Jsalerno277 , I agree some venues sound systems are not good .I watch Chicago Symphony Orchestra here at Ravinia Fextival Illinois many times, though Ravinia has a very sound systems. Every year they sound different.I do enjoy listening to them as welll as my systems. I stop chasing the real thing . If I can feel the liveness through my systems? And I enjoy the music. Iam ok. |
@mahgister +1 Agree - like comparing apples and oranges. |
I don't try to compare my home system to anything but other home systems. Where home systems excel is in the ability to serve on demand! How many times have you had tickets for any given event only to not feel up to snuff on that date? Try going to the Met in your underwear. I listen on the spur sometimes at 2:00AM Where else can you do that? |
@jnovak I respect your position for the beauty of the audiophile hobby, and musical appreciation, is that we personally choose how we wish to participate, from system components choices that sound best to us, to musical genres we appreciate, to venues we frequent. Personally, the greatest satisfaction is a live acoustical performance where there is aural immediacy and intimacy combined with visual stimuli that evoke emotion in a way that recorded and reproduced music cannot. To paraphrase part of @northman s eloquent post, I will strive for improvements to make my system approximate the “rest thing” but this only to “inspire me to appreciate the real thing, in part by triggering my memories of the ecstasy of art.” |
