2. misc-audio
  3. 162085-72364

Plus and Minus

Got into a discussion with a few fellow musician audiophiles.  

Issue one:  The fidelity of home playback versus live music.  After much bantering about, it became, 'How can you tell?"  If you didn't hear it live or you don't listen to live music, how can you say your playback system is true to live?  Interesting question.  I put forward, if your monkey bone tells you it is live - then it is live.  After all, who's to say what you hear and what someone else hears is true to live or not.  If you like it - its live to you.

Second issue:  How can you tell if a tweak is positive or negative?  If put it in, did it bring you closer? When you take it out, did it make it worse?  I put forward the notion that if you put it in and listen to it for a bit and then take it out, the question becomes did it take you there or take you away?  After all, you listened to your system without it and you know how it sounded; putting something in changes it (presumably) and only after taking it out can you judge if you really like it or not or are you enamored with it.  On this, there was general agreement.

Lastly, does 'how much you paid' factor into the equation?  That was universally shot down.  There are incredible audio values in a specific piece that belay its cost.  You just gotta hunt them down.  There was agreement that there was a law of diminishing returns.  I put forth the notion that the chase for the best knows no boundary save the wallet.  The smiles and nods were universal on this point.  The law being:  If you can afford it ....

Funny hobby we have.  The monkey bone should guide us and the wallet supporting us; yet, we argue about what each other hears and neither side has the same bone n' wallet.  :-)
128x128keesue
millercarbon's avatar
millercarbon
12,531 posts
 
Recreating live music is a fantasy. What we do instead is, everything has its own sound character. Its not necessary to match exactly the live sound to create the impression of the actual instruments. The system is merely the last link in the whole chain of recording, mastering, duplicating, and finally playing back. Its technically impossible for the last link in the chain to produce something that was never there to begin with. It was lost in the very beginning at the microphone.

What is there are patterns highly recognizable as belonging to certain real live music. Every link in the chain loses, adds, or changes a little something. The components or tweaks that do the least of this are the best. If this is your goal then there is no diminishing returns- I sure haven't seen it-  there is only better and better. 
hilde45's avatar
hilde45
4,974 posts
 
Issue one: I don't understand the need to simulate live music. I mean, that's kind of a Disney World thrill to fool one's senses — "Is it live or recorded?" But isn't the true thrill in connecting with the music, regardless of whether one thinks they're in a perfect simulation or not? I would contend that any hard requirement to be fooled into thinking something is live is a hangup that shows someone cannot "listen through" to the music. Now, an oboe should sound like an oboe, and a guitar like a guitar. But that's just accuracy, not simulation.

Second issue: Not sure I followed this. It seems to say that to evaluate a tweak you need to know how it sounds in and out of the system. This seems to answer itself.

Last issue, the chase for the best has another boundary besides the wallet. And that boundary is when the "chase for the best" becomes obsessive. Once someone has forgotten the music, they no longer know what "the best" is anymore, and so any standards related to actual "audio values" are destroyed. They become Ahab hunting Moby Dick. 
audio2design
1,351 posts
 
Look through your collection. How much of your music is truly live recorded with a single stereo microphone pair and nothing else with no manipulation post recording?

I would say for most people that is close to 0%. Even someone who really seeks this out may be 10%?
millercarbon's avatar
millercarbon
12,531 posts
 
When I first started looking for real high end components it was back in the early 90's and I did like a lot of guys still do and brought my little collection of "reference" CDs with me. Had my little list of sonic attributes to listen for and check off too. All very formulaic and I had it down. 

One day I track down a McCormack DNA1 and its so wonderfully reviewed I'm really excited even though its a long drive. But the dealer made me come in early and I said sure no problem but leave the amp on overnight I don't want it stone cold. Which that is the first thing I see, a stone cold amp! But oh well I have my CDs and my formula and so I start listening. 

Few minutes later I come out of the trance to realize I have forgotten all about my stupid checklist and even better, the reason I forgot is because this amp sounds so freaking organically you are there real! I knew that instant that a) this is the amp for me and b) reference disks and checklists are for the birds. 

From then on its feelings. You guys just have different weird names for it. Really we are talking about the same thing. At least, I think we are....
audio2design
1,351 posts
 
I 100% totally believe you were able to pick the sonic character of an amplifier, with a CD player you were unfamiliar with, with speakers you were unfamiliar with, in a room you were unfamiliar with. Yes, totally 100%.

This is a good example of why the "golden ears" concept is flawed.
More to discover