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

@jsalerno277,

I am a violinist whose reference for detail, natural timbre with accuracy of freq response is my seat in an ensemble such as string quartet, trio, piano/violin duo. 25 feet distance away from a string quartet is too far away if you want to appreciate full detail of instruments.  Even recordings have the main microphones about 10 feet or closer.  Compared to 10 feet, 25 feet severely rolls off HF and smears/homogenizes detail at all freq.  The consequences are loss of information about the subtleties of any unamplified music.

@jnovak I disagree with you. I have been performing in choirs for 54 years, often with major orchestra members (LA Phil and Hollywood studio musicians), recorded 150+ orchestral, chamber and choral productions in major venues throughout SoCal, have 61,100 LPs/CDs/R2R/78s, etc. Listening to well recorded music is generally a different experience, often superior to live performances. Certainly I prefer a great opera performance live but when it comes to non-visual intense music performances, the venue where the music is performed dominates the quality of the sound heard. I now have a high end audio system as do two of my friends (check out my system). The great subtleties of nuances, phrasing, dynamics are present in my current system. Through the recording method, it is possible to extract greater dynamic contrasts than in live performances. That is my experience. There are still many flawed recordings as there are sonically flawed venues and seating. I also prefer listening to very flawed acoustic recordings (pre-1925) to many modern SOTA recordings. I do not adhere to a blanket statement that live performances are always superior to recorded performances sonically.

There are more varied sonic flavors in recorded music then in venues; however, there are also major labels who have produced (pre-1995) recordings that maintain the same recording venue and engineering attributes that are consistent (i.e. Columbia pop vocal recordings in the 1960s appear to maintain the same aural sound from Bennett to Mathis to Streisand, etc., not necessarily a positive sound attribute).

it is evident on my low cost but optimally acoustically installed system for chorus music because you dont pick the ideal spot for all live performance...

The spatial qualities of the recording when translated acoustically well in a room under control gave a speechless clarity and distinctive location for all singers ...

 

The live performance is superior because of the living participation  and the presence of everyone in the same space which "aura" cannot exist in recorded listening ...

 

 

Listening to well recorded music is generally a different experience, often superior to live performances.

I go to live music as much as possible.One thing I note is that while I really enjoy "imaging" on my HiFi. It is not a characteristic of live music in the same way. That does not mean I can't ID individual instruments/voices live, but that their presentation is part of the whole flow of the music as it washes over you rather than a you can point to it in the soundstage effect.

I like live performances....BUT:

The ticket prices have become such I've become very picky as to Who & Where; 'who' is beginning to relate as to how old the headliner is, 'where' in regard to venues' that suck from the get go.  Been to enough of those that no seat location can overcome any amount of PA placement to be tolerable...

Us, as to the fans' response to the performance.  The 'dirty white noise' of cheering drives me to either wearing noise canceling headphones with/without ear plugs to be able to enjoy the performance vs. the response to it.  Some years back, one of which made my ears go 'pop'....and haven't been the same since...

I like 'loud'....but the performance, not the crowd.
At home, I can control the former; the latter, no....

There were a batch of small venues in the area that got destroyed by Helene along the riversides...small, low budget, funky but fun to support as they were beginning to draw more 'name' acts....

Gone.  What's left is showing the drift into big $'s to draw acts I've no interest in.

When I can stream or download at home with no crowd and little damage to our 'entertainment budget', the choice becomes obvious and influences what goes on locally....

...and the Orange Peel has always sucked....and their new venue in town shows the drift towards high $ tix....

I am with @asvjerry, part of what is driving cost for more mainstream or popular acts is the lack of revenue due to streaming and people not buying physical media. 

Setting that aside I have always preferred seeing performances in smaller venues and finding new talent to enjoy in smaller venues. 

Just my 2 bit's 

@g2the2nd We are on the same page regarding soundstaging of acoustic, in amplified live performances.   Recorded and reproduced music is getting closer, but it cannot capture the  “presentation is part of the whole flow of the music as it washes over you rather … a point on the soundstage”.   See my previous comments on staging, secondary harmonics, and hall ambience effects and their diffusion of images that creat the effect you describe and record labels coming closer than others in engineering that captures this.  

@jsalerno277 ...Precisely, +10.... Ones' space and equipment can only strive to recreate the IRL experience; you can't expect on a practical level the wattage involved and the speakers flown at stage sides....not unless you're located outside of city limits with acreage about you.....not to mention 440vac mains... ;)

One experience of interest at a show in North Houston, the venue having an 8' ish tall CMU wall at the back of the lawn area....

Taking a moment to get a handle on some refreshments, I backed up to that wall.  What seemed to be a dip in the mix disappeared, likely due to cancellations and 'infill' of the effected frequencies....

I chalked it up to the audience 'soaking up' said fq's.... 🤷‍♂️😏

Another + on live vs. studio is the performers 'riffing' with each other and/or the extended plays of a fav bit.  It's always a kick to experience a group giving the crowd a treat, even if the roadies have to OT a tad...   👍😎❤

@fleschler, I currently play violin in a small orchestra in a church.  Vocal soloists are on a small stage near me.  It is thrilling to hear the soloists and my fellow orchestra players at a close distance.  There are no ambient acoustical effects to smear their tone quality and detail.  But the chorus is placed beyond the last row of orchestra.  They are far away.  With the curved ceiling projecting them, the chorus is smeared worse than any low-fi audio system.  

Similar problems were evident at a concert including the Prelude #1 of Wagner's Lohengrin.  I sat in the audience in the 1st row.  This piece has 8 (eight) divided violin parts.  The first 2 rows of the string section were gorgeous with detail.  But further back, the winds, brass and percussion were badly smeared.  The concertgoer for large works has an untenable situation.  Sit in the 1st row center, get excellent  detail for the players in the front of the stage, but bad smearing for players further back, a schizophrenic situation.  Sit further back in the hall, get more uniform balance, but with uniformly muddy detail from all musicians.

@viber6 100%.  That's why a fine recording can outperform a live performance for the audience/listener.  

@fleschler, right.  The only exception is if you are lucky to sit very close to a small chamber ensemble in a small room.  In summer of 2005 before Hurricane Katrina, I went to Preservation Hall in New Orleans.  For $6 I got to hear a jazz band for 30 min.  There were 3 benches, room for 20 listeners in a cave-like room with the performers on a small stage with an upright piano.  Crackling hot and live!!  I don't see why most audiophiles crave the mid hall muddy sound--they need to go to Preservation Hall and wake up to real excitement.  Forget Carnegie and other famous halls.  Forget soundstage audiophile BS.  Preservation Hall is still around at $40 a seat.  $400 seats at Carnegie are for society conscious people who are there to be seen but don't know anything about raw sound and hearing as much as possible of the written score.

@viber6 

Pure nonsense. There are all types of live sound presentation, and all are good for different purposes You prefer in-your-face perspective, not everyone does.

           

It appears this community is divided into two camps with regard to preference for “the real thing” and the state of the art of music recording and reproduction.  I will attempt to generalize some conclusions.  One camp prefers live performances (amplified or acoustic, with the latter the majority).  They cite their preference is based a the artistic, immersive and immediate nature of the performance where all senses are stimulated. The camp notes differences in timbre, staging, imaging and dynamics from recorded and reproduced music, preferring live performances.  The second camp prefers recorded and reproduced music.  The camp cites the ability to hear all performers without smearing and loss of detail due to hall effects, and no distractions from the audience .  There is a preference for the staging , imaging, and dynamics  of recorded and reproduced music and no issues with timbre.  Both camps are neither right or wrong for it is what they prefer.  

I will always prefer a live performance of acoustic music regardless of genre, and support all of the arts (music, dance, theater, and the visual arts including architecture).  I also will frequent amplified rock and jazz performances but there are separate expectations for this experience as I attempted to articulate in this thread.  I will to strive to make my system approach my ideal of the “real thing” within my means for it  “inspires me to appreciate the real thing, in part by triggering my memories of the extract of art. “ Thank you again @northman for your eloquent post. I hope regardless of our position on live vs recorded music and the state of the art or recording and reproduction technology, we will support all of the arts this new year and on.  Let’s do are part to assure the performing and visual arts flourish healthy. I wish all health and happiness for the new year. 

Sorry. My aged not so nimble fingers anymore and spell check always get me into typo errors -  ecstasy of art, no extract -  I will strive not to strive.

Live performance is a lot like cooking meals from scratch. It can be really really good if you know what you’re doing. Although these days frozen food, ie. Recorded music, is potentially better with all types of technology available and often is. But there still are a lot of crappy frozen meals out there - too much salt and chemicals intended to make things taste better but they really don’t.

 

 

roxy54, the issue is not in-your face or laid-back perspectives.  These are crude ways of describing the musical experience.  Music is a form of communication in addition to being a visceral experience.  If one wants just visceral pleasure, any way it is experienced is OK.  But if one views music as additionally about communication, then information retrieval is of major importance.  Objective measurement shows severe roll off of high freq with greater distance.  At all freq, there is loss of information, but short wavelengths of HF are affected more through absorption with greater distance, and smearing from acoustics.  Tonal balance is skewed towards bass freq with loss of higher freq harmonic overtones.  Try sitting at different locations at an unamplified concert.  If you have a ticket for row 20, move to the 10th, 5th and ultimately 1st rows to confirm that subjective and objective findings correlate.  Closeup reveals much more musical information as shown by the written score.

Followup on fleschler's points, I find the best way to simulate the life experience at home is with live broadcasts with a large screen video and detailed audio system.  Well-mixed sound preserves detail of all instruments even if some of the natural spatial aspects are sacrificed.  Camera closeups highlight individual players, and that helps to hear their contribution to the blend of the ensemble.

I believe this very subject is the purpose of Princeton's Bacch projects, which have been commercialized by Theoretica. I am only just starting to look into this (and maybe it comes to nothing), but will be spending a lot of time researching Bacch.....and be a visitor to their booth at Axpona

Pfreix posted this on another thread, if you have 45 minutes....I think it's an important video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xq48klNJ8i0