How close to the real thing?


Recently a friend of mine heard a Chopin concert in a Baptist church. I had told him that I had gone out to RMAF this year and heard some of the latest gear. His comment was that he thinks the best audio systems are only about 5% close to the real thing, especially the sound of a piano, though he admitted he hasn't heard the best of the latest equipment.

That got me thinking as I have been going to the BSO a lot this fall and comparing the sound of my system to live orchestral music. It's hard to put a hard percentage on this kind of thing, but I think the best systems capture a lot more than just 5% of the sound of live music.

What do you think? Are we making progress and how close are we?
peterayer
I can hit 110 db at my listening chair with ease, and the system does not strain to do it (me speakers are 98 db and the amplifiers have 140 watts in class A). In fact at that volume it sounds quite relaxed- you have no idea its making that sound pressure until you try to talk to someone sitting beside you.

So its not 'ear-splitting' bit OTOH the equipment was built specifically to not distort the odd harmonics. That type of distortion (and IM) leads to 'ear-splitting' behaviors.
One guy's 95% is another guy's 5%.

I agree with Peterayer about this. I tried to make the same point in my post on 11/27.

FWIW, I think that the recent discussion about the SPLs of real musical events vs. recorded ones illustrates how audiophiles use different standards for judging how real a system sounds. Consider the following two standards:

1. Maximum undistorted SPL.
2. Headroom.

It seems that several posters use maximum undistorted SPL as a standard (among others presumably) for judging how real a system sounds. For some kinds of music, like rock, that seems totally appropriate.

But, to me, maximum undistorted SPL is a less significant standard than headroom, understood as the DIFFERENCE between the average level and the maximum level. To me, sufficient headroom during playback goes a long way toward making a recorded musical event sound real, even if the system’s maximum undistorted SPL is rather modest. This is partly a consequence of the kind of music I tend to listen to. It is also a consequence of the mental “standards” I use for judging how real a system sounds.

Of course, headroom is largely determined by the recording (both its inherent informational limits and the elective use of compression), but it seems to me that some systems do a better job with dynamic contrasts than others, and that that capability is related to, but not identical with, maximum undistorted SPL.

Both maximum SPL and headroom fall under the general category of "dynamics." But they can have different roles in a listener's perception of how real a system sounds. As an OBJECTIVE standard, maximum undistorted SPL is a critical measure of comparison between real musical events and recorded ones. But, as a SUBJECTIVE standard, it is somewhat less relevant, at least for some listeners.

Bryon
Speaking of dynamics, can someone clarify micro (resolution an speed?) versus macro (grunt and drive?) dynamics? I was also thinking about the issue of high power amps, for some reason, lower power amps usually sound better to me, a pair of tubes per side amp seems to sound better to me than 4 tube per side versions of the same basic circuit, though the wattage is lower, must be some attribute having noting to do with SPLs.
Hello Atmasphere,

I was referring to "Din" not peak db when describing ear splitting. If you are using the typical listening distance of 3M it would require 156 watts to do 110 db, very plausible you are able to do so with 140 watts when factoring headroom.

regards,

Weseixas, in your last response to Atmasphere you acknowledge that 110dB peak is easily attainable at the listening position, which is exactly what my figures were pointing to. My 117dB number was peak, not DIN, average, RMS or anything else. By the way, the level drops 6dB per doubling of distance, not per metre, so 117dB at 1m, 111 at 2m, 105 at 4m. And, that is only one speaker, the stereo setup nominally adds 6dB to those figures, plus the listening space normally is not open; further back, reflections from side and back walls complicate any simple maths.

The end result, as Atmasphere points out, is that well over 110dB PEAK sound at 3m with the right combination of hifi gear is easy to get. To now get that in perspective, a study of the sound levels experienced by members of an orchestra, not the audience(!), playing "heavy" music only momentarily went a db or so over 120dB peak in the worst possible case. Many audio people would suggest orchestral recordings are the hardest to get "right", but from the point of view of the dynamic capabilities of the system it should be no problem at all.

So, why don't orchestral recordings typically do it (sound real)? Again, as I mentioned earlier, the answer is distortion -- the two common ways of reproducing sound both have failings.

The audiophile way: make sure at low levels that the sound is "pure", that is, low levels of unpleasant distortion, but run out of grunt and it starts to compress and fall apart as the volume increases.

The pro way: plenty of grunt from the word go, but the effort has not sufficiently gone into eliminating the subtle mechanisms that inject relatively low level but nasty distortion into the sound, at any volume -- the too frequent PA setup, BIG sound hammering at you, impossible to tolerate for anything but a short period.

(Which, by the way, is why I shudder at the thought of seeing a live show these days: once or twice in my experience the sound people knew what to do, but, as an example, for me Phantom of the Opera at the premier city production was a nightmare, at the end of the evening my ears felt like they had been bludgeoned to death!)

But, there is a third way, as some people have discovered: put together efficient speakers and reasonably powered, high performance amplifiers with a decent level of care and fastidiousness and you should have an excellent chance of getting close to the "real thing".

And, for the people who claim it is all about room treatments and precise positioning of the speakers, in my experience this is wrong too. The ear brain combination is extremely capable and tolerant; if you give your head half a chance by supplying a sufficient amount of CLEAN sound information, then it can decipher what is going on and generate the experience of "being there". What the treatment and positioning thing helps to do, I believe, is to reduce the obviousness and impact of the distortion components in the sound, a sophisticated equivalent to specialised ear plugs.

Finally, I believe firmly in the LIAR (Listening In Another Room) test -- if the system fails this then it certainly won't sound like the "real thing" anywhere ...

Frank