Author Topic: Rock or Classical  (Read 15324 times)

Offline richidoo

  • Out Of My Speaker Cabinet
  • ******
  • Posts: 11144
Rock or Classical
« on: November 10, 2009, 06:03:28 PM »
I can see why a lot of you guys like pop and rock music, modern "jazz" etc over classical. It is compressed, so you can adjust the volume to a tighter range, and adjust it to match the background noise and acoustic tolerance of your room. Less acoustic treatment, and less accurate amps are needed to get enjoyment when the music has a tighter dynamic range.

Tonight I listened to last years' grammy winning Sugarland CD, an awesome record. Punchy, raw, pure, intense, redneck lyrics and great vocal interpretation, I got a lot of chills. Then I switched to Tchaikovski violin piano duo on audiophile label. Now I could the fridge, kids, echo, etc. In the headphones the classical duet blows away the Sugarland for deep musical hypnosis and satisfaction.  Because the rock is compressed, it can be played louder average volume, so it blocks out the noise and acoustic problems, until I turn it up too loud, but even then it peaks more gently than an uncompressed flute.

Uncompressed classical music has such large dynamic swings you have to ride the VC to be able to hear the softs and to keep it from overloading the room with the louds. Amps and speakers also have a tougher job to retain consistent sound at louder and softer levels. Acoustic distortion % increases exponentially with the volume level. A quiet controlled reflection room would have less problem than a plain room. Few audiophiles treat their rooms. Is that why they like compressed music? I have to admit, I have been listening to lot more rock lately ever since Carl played some Clutch for me.  ;)  It works better in my room, and most of it that's not top40 I have never heard, so it's a new horizon to explore.

Classical also requires absolute tonal reproduction cuz the instrument sounds either right or wrong. Easy to find fault in a violin on a cheap SS amp and aluminum dome tweeter, and easy to hear small differences when the system changes. Rock deliberately tweaks the sound of guitar and voices to make the recording sound "better" or "unique," so if playback is a little off you never know it cuz there's no absolute reference.  There is no correct electric guitar sound. Good is good enough - whatever.

Classical recording tries to capture the art like a photo while a rock recording is the art like a painting. These are the extremes of a continuum into which all recorded music fits - be it closer to one end or the other. Even purist classical has hall reverb and electronic coloring, too much rosin or bad mic selection, or heavenly reverb of a choir or organ. And rock records usually do sound like real people singing with real guitars so it is not total tonal chaos. But I think some bands aim for chaos....  Like these new pop records with voices controlled by the synth?

What do you think about the differences between rock versus classical recordings?

Bigfish8

  • Guest
Re: Rock or Classical
« Reply #1 on: November 10, 2009, 06:21:56 PM »
Unfortunately, I listen to every type of music except Rap and Classical but I enjoyed reading your comments.  There is another thread that is a discussion about live concerts.   Do you think that Classical recordings do a better job of capturing a live-like concert than does Rock Recordings?  I have attended a few jazz and rock concerts and I don't feel many rock or jazz recording exhibit the same life-like energy   as you experience at a concert.  Of course one big difference is the volume levels at a rock concert are ear damaging!

Ken

Offline richidoo

  • Out Of My Speaker Cabinet
  • ******
  • Posts: 11144
Re: Rock or Classical
« Reply #2 on: November 10, 2009, 06:53:56 PM »
Ken, live rock recordings usually capture more of the onstage life-like feel than what is heard over the PA by  the audience. Indestructible 120dB horn speakers driven by 20kW class B amps are not exactly "lit from within" hifi quality.  Often the live rock recordings are more purist recordings of the band than their studio recordings where there is immense pressure to pump publishing money out of the ground. The live records can be looser, because the songs are already hits. A live sound engineer or location recordist will have a completely different goal than the pop producer in the studio.

Classical recordings can capture a lot of the feeling of a live concert, but it is still only 50% of the life. A couple records came out this year, recorded on audiophile label, which were recorded a just couple days after I attended the same concert in the same hall. It feels different, not as exciting as the natural sound in your ear and the spirit of the music in the air, but I can hear so much more information. It is night and day. The mics floating above the band closer to the musicians hear so much more information, with so much less low freq problems as when sitting close to the floor, even in ideal row 6 seats.

Offline JLM

  • Obsessively Audiophilic
  • ****
  • Posts: 282
Re: Rock or Classical
« Reply #3 on: November 11, 2009, 02:46:19 AM »
Since very little rock is un-amplified you are only comparing your system/room to theirs (hardly a fair comparison).  So there isn't much meaning in applying the concept of hi-fidelity to rock.  But in my old man way of thinking, your system should help take out much of excess distortions that 120 dB playback, PA horns, arena acoustics, etc. that is present (even purposely added) to rock.

This isn't to say that classical doesn't have challenges comparing live to what you can hear at home.  Hard to reproduce hall effects in a residential sized room and the typical classical miking techniques of locating them above the violins will always skew what you hear live versus from the recording.  And of course the dynamic range of classical is a challenge.

Its been my opinion that most audiophiles spend way too much on equipment for the given room they listen in.  Even if you have the ideal room, if you have to share it there are only so many hours in the day that you can use it exclusively for audio (unless everyone else is out of the house and you're a stay at home guy).  That is the first key to having a dedicated audio room.  The second is to dedicate yourself to audio within the room (and not turn it into a multi-purpose man cave).  If you can get a decent room size and correct proportions, achieving good isolation and acoustics is relatively easy.

Certainly rock has much more audience interaction and so good live rock recordings have good "energy" compared to studio work or any classical recording.  Classical is much more cerebral and inner focused. And restricted dynamic range helps "sell" rock in noisy settings or where background music is the goal (car, elevators).

Actually I compare rock to classical in terms of history.  Try hearing Bach as a rocker in his day (he was an animal!).  And I reverse your analogy richidoo.  I see classical more like a painting, with depth, texture, and overtones while rock is normally like a photoshopped image.

My music collection is split between classical (baroque is a favorite), jazz (I'll admit lots of old man small ensembles), and pop/latin.  (The pop is mostly stuff from the 50's/60's and the latin genre is from the 60's/70's with lots of jazz tones.)

Offline bmr3hc

  • Certifiable
  • ***
  • Posts: 168
Re: Rock or Classical
« Reply #4 on: November 11, 2009, 03:57:07 AM »
I like classical music more for the sense of hearing "real" instruments that can be older than dirt and still sound way better than anything else! The few classical artists that have I met, are not the usual. They are so in love with the music and the instrument they play, that they are indeed on a different level. One of my all time favorite recording is Ravels' Bolero. I always feel I am there watching the whole scene unfold. Of course there are a lot of old men who love it for different reasons.   
"If music be the food of love, play on."  Shakespeare

Offline Carlman

  • Audio Neurotic
  • *****
  • Posts: 3037
Re: Rock or Classical
« Reply #5 on: November 11, 2009, 05:55:19 AM »
I think the reproduction quality of various types of music lends well to analogies to visual media.. Photographs vs. paintings, interesting..  but there are many levels of 'in between'... and it's not consistent. 

Rich's choices of classical music are likely close to an original painting.  Many of my choices of rock are like a pretty good reproduction of a painting, but not the real thing... and some actually are originals.. Live and untouched.

Then there is some classical that just sounds blatty and hard and like it was recorded by someone with no recording talent/budget/whatever.  That's like news print.  Then there's punk.. always recorded like shit to piss everyone off.. Is that noisy video?  Same with hair bands and generic hard rock.. purposefully distorted and compressed.. not a photo but overly processed video.. hence the video craze in the 80's and 90's.  The music didn't stand alone, it needed visualization.. but that's a digression.

In any case, I think you find the music you love and then find the best possible recording of it.  If that can't be done, you find the best possible equipment match to what you like to hear.  That touches on your point, Rich.. where I think you're saying Rock music is most likely to sound best due its 'easy-to-crank' nature.  There are very little lulls or nuance... but then, that might be because you're new to that type of music. 

There is a lot going on in Clutch, and in other rock.. and I would liken that to mountain bike riding.. what?!  It's like being on a really rocky, bumpy ride but you still need fine motor skills.  You have to listen into the music.. and often there's something new (and unexpected) each time.

-C
I really enjoy listening to music.

Offline JLM

  • Obsessively Audiophilic
  • ****
  • Posts: 282
Re: Rock or Classical
« Reply #6 on: November 11, 2009, 06:41:49 AM »
It is very hard to stereotype rock.  There is obviously some very well produced rock and some that fuse/crossover with all sorts of other genres.  Then there is chick rock, bubble gum rock, and the like.   :roll:

Offline richidoo

  • Out Of My Speaker Cabinet
  • ******
  • Posts: 11144
Re: Rock or Classical
« Reply #7 on: November 11, 2009, 07:04:58 AM »
Not just easy to crank, but easy to turn down and use a cheaper system in a worse acoustic and still get the reward. I think that's the crux of my question. Rock is easier to reproduce, because it is deliberately encoded with excitement cues separate from the music, so it can sound exciting and loud even when it's soft. It thrills with less energy. Classical thrill comes from harmonic sophistication and dynamic subtlety. These require stereo horsepower, which is expensive. iPod can get a big part of the value of a rock tune into the head without riding the VC.

My OP was not a diatribe on which music is better than the other. The kind of rock is irrelevant, all compressed popular genres are similar in their ease of consumption. I am interested to know if anyone has experienced the same difficulty making classical music sound as good as rock or any modern pop/jazz production with compression. It is more of a technical question about hifi, but it necessarily has artistic strings attached since we aren't supposed to pick music for its compatibility with our hifi system, but we do. I love all music types, but I notice big differences and I see problems in reproducing one over the other. My 10W amps have no problem with rock, but they struggle with the harmonic complexity of symphonies played at the same level or even softer than the simpler rock. On rock I don't hear any echo in my room, on classical it is obvious.

I listen to a classical radio station run by an audiophile who has modded her processors for sound quality, but the compression does take a lot of fun out of it. But rock is designed from the beginning to be compressed, so compression is part of the art. It is a sound that we are used to and expect. Classical is not created with compression in mind, so ladling it on afterward so car passengers can hear it better is a negative.

Offline rollo

  • Industry Participant
  • *
  • Posts: 6982
  • Rollo Audio - Home demo the only way to know
Re: Rock or Classical
« Reply #8 on: November 11, 2009, 10:34:17 AM »
Has anyone  heard the Rock reissues from Classic records ? These were totally remastered from the original analog  master tapes.
    Just so you know Jazz and Classical are the main stay with some occasional rock. Now lets take the Aqualung or Who LPS. They will change ones mind about rock recordings NO compression. I own many copies including the famed Mobile Fidelity which was out classed by the Classic issue. The Creedance and Zeppelin reissues from Acoustic Sounds are killer as well.  Have you experienced their 45 series. Oh my what ya waiting for. If your a rock fan these are must haves.
    If you can find some of your favorites on these labels and have the original recording compare them. The difference is statling. 


charles
   
contact me  at rollo14@verizon.net or visit us on Facebook
Lamm Industries - Aqua Acoustic, Formula & La Scala DAC- INNUOS  - Rethm - Kuzma - QLN - Audio Hungary Qualiton - Fritz speakers -Gigawatt -Vinnie Rossi,TWL, Swiss Cables, Merason DAC.

Offline JLM

  • Obsessively Audiophilic
  • ****
  • Posts: 282
Re: Rock or Classical
« Reply #9 on: November 12, 2009, 02:29:33 AM »
Ah, you're writing of dynamics.

Yes, drum sets of nearly any genre will do as a start into the challenges of dynamics.  I've found that higher efficiency speakers are the most dynamic, but unfortunately add lots of colorations (mostly via non-elastic compression of the air being moved and pressure induced cabinet distortions typical of horn loadings). 

An audio truth that I've learned is the need to have sufficient power gain to maintain a "commanding grip" on the speakers.  You must be able to reach 105 - 110 dB in room in order to achieve completely detailed presentation with realistic dynamics and full soundstage.  The audiophile experience (not background music) requires this IMO.

At the end of the day, there is no substitute for displacement and power.  Big speakers (garage sized cabinets with lots of drivers and reinforced cabinet walls or concrete bass horns) and "grown-up amps if you want to realistically reproduce dynamics while covering the full musical frequency range without colorations.

Bigfish8

  • Guest
Re: Rock or Classical
« Reply #10 on: November 12, 2009, 04:26:59 AM »
You must be able to reach 105 - 110 dB in room in order to achieve completely detailed presentation with realistic dynamics and full soundstage.

Oh, my aching old ears!   :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Ken

Offline Carlman

  • Audio Neurotic
  • *****
  • Posts: 3037
Re: Rock or Classical
« Reply #11 on: November 12, 2009, 05:27:42 AM »
I think you've probably answered your own question but you lean toward loving classical more than rock.  You'd need people who also love classical AND rock to offer valuable opinion.  I'm not such a person. 

I think I would have to take a classical music appreciation class to understand what it is about classical to really enjoy it.  You've played a couple of tracks here that I thought were quite nice.  But just liking something doesn't help me understand what it is I like about it.

So, if you want to give me a primer on classical, I'll make time for it.  I'll be quiet, listen, and even take notes!  Or, recommend a class to take.  I've tried learning to play music and found it extremely difficult teaching myself.  I liken that to learning classical appreciation.  I know I'd like it more if I understood it. 

Anyway, that's a big digression.  Yes, rock's easier to reproduce and has more emotional hooks, and more often than classical.  So, it's like 'bite-size' enjoyment rather than an 8-course meal.

-C
I really enjoy listening to music.

Offline JLM

  • Obsessively Audiophilic
  • ****
  • Posts: 282
Re: Rock or Classical
« Reply #12 on: November 13, 2009, 02:59:38 AM »
Ken,

I tried a speaker/amp combo that would only cleanly/safely reach about 100 dB in room and it sounded fine (like polite dinner guests).  I'm an old fart, so any serious headbanging days are well behind me.  The amp had its problems, so I switched to my current bigger monoblocks that would allow me to reach 108 dB in room.  Now we're cooking.  The polite dinner guests turned into NFL linebackers wearing tuxedos.  Detail and dynamics improved (as did imaging but that might be attributed to going mono).  And of course the speakers are now better protected as "clean" overload is better than receiving a clipped/distorted signal.

I normally listen below 80 dB, but classical can have peaks of 30 dB (a 1,000 fold difference in terms of wattage as the relation between watts and dB of gain is logarithmic).  So it's those nasty peaks that can sneak up and bite.  Rock is typically played much louder but the peaks are only 10 dB (again very hard to generalize rock music).

Years ago I was fascinated with the single ended triode amps and high efficiency speaker route so I picked up a cheap Radio Shack sound pressure meter, which I've found to be quite instructional.  The SET crowd is fairly obsessed with wattage and speaker efficiency as they run only 1 - 8 watts.  Alas the amount of colorations and nearly universal lack of deep bass turned me away from that so romantic, vintage, and simple path.

Offline JLM

  • Obsessively Audiophilic
  • ****
  • Posts: 282
Re: Rock or Classical
« Reply #13 on: November 13, 2009, 03:02:45 AM »
Carl,

It's just as hard to classify classical as it is rock.  Some is easy to handle (harp or guitar solos for example) versus full orchestral performances with choral accompaniment.  Personally I seem to prefer the small ensembles.

Offline BobM

  • Audio Neurotic
  • *****
  • Posts: 3318
Re: Rock or Classical
« Reply #14 on: November 13, 2009, 06:01:32 AM »
Now don't read me wrong; I'm not a fan of over-compression. But some of the totally uncompressed CD's I've heard, usually classical, do have large dynamic swings. I find myself reaching for the volume control to boose the soft passages so I can hear them clearly, then reaching frantically again when the booming starts.

This is the same problem on my home theater, where my wife complains that the loud dynamic stuff is way too loud (it is) if you set the volume so you can hear the voices clearly.

I think dynamics are very impressive and certainly necessary for accurate reproduction, but when I'm listening in my home I sometimes want things a little more balanced out. It makes it more comfortable and enjoyable overall.

I also believe that there is a fundamental difference between live music and reproduced music and I really don't think that live music is the goal we're trying to reach in our home systems. Maybe one optional goal for demonstration or occasional use, but probably not the goal I would use all the time in my home. Don't get me wrong, I would love to hear instruments like I hear them live, but I also like close miking and the stereophonic image and separation, which is not at all like having instruments in your room.
Laugh and the world laughs with you. Cry and you'll have to blow your nose.