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
jsalerno277 OP
211 posts
 

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. 

jsalerno277 OP
211 posts
 

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.

emergingsoul
1,183 posts
 

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.

 

 

viber6
2,452 posts
 

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.

vthokie83
907 posts
 

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

More to discover