2. music
  3. 192452-179897

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?

jsalerno277
Ag insider logo xs@2x
o_holter
977 posts
 

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.

devinplombier
164 posts
 

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

 

jsalerno277 OP
197 posts
 

@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.  

jsalerno277 OP
197 posts
 

@mark200mph, @noromance, @ronboco  
I posted times before I am first a music lover and second, an audiophile. This produces a degree of dissociative personality disorder where I have two distinct listening modes - 90% of the time listening for enjoyment and reveling in the composition and performance, 10% of the time critical listening as an audiophile.  As an audiophile, my pursuit is a system that approaches the sound of the real thing.  It may never be.  However, Albert Einstein said:  “Imagination is everything. It is a preview of life’s coming attractions.  A person with big dreams is more powerful than one with all the facts.”  I will dream.  

jsalerno277 OP
197 posts
 

 @o_holter Agreed.  See my response to @viridian above.  

More to discover