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
helomech
1,703 posts
 

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.

jsalerno277 OP
208 posts
 

@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. 

helomech
1,703 posts
 


@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. 

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. 

 

jsalerno277 OP
208 posts
 

Understood 

sameyers1
139 posts
 

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. 

More to discover