Live Concert in your listening room.

[rollo]

so you think your system is Dynamic, has tone and harmonic structure. Oh yeah. Know any musicians? have one or two come over and play in your listening room. You will be amazed at the difference. Especially if they can play a cut from a CD you are familiar with.
     Not trying to burst your bubble , just trying to make you hear real live instuments within your acoustic enviorment. This will help you in achieving a more natural presentation with your system.
      If you have the Balls to do so with your friends present you will know how close or not you really are. Have fun and report back as to your experience.


  rollo

[richidoo]

As a trumpeter, I have sat in the middle of orchestras and jazz bands and not only heard but felt the sound go through my body. My first experience shook me and I will never forget it. I had played in school bands for  years, and they were OK, but just kids. At 15 I was already committed to being a musician and this was my first rehearsal in the HS jazz band, state champions for years. The director called up Maleguena by Bill Holman, a Kenton tune recorded a few years before.  When the bass started ad drums and bones, the powerful sound was overwhelming. I was standing 4 feet behind the drums and bass and 15 feet from the bone section which was all HS seniors, and all very strong players. It was one of the most pleasureable and exciting experiences I have ever had, on par with newborn children, getting married and assorted other unmentionables. Later as a soloist, feeling the combo playing loudly all around me while I improvised was another total immersion experience.

The stereo can never duplicate those feelings, but aside from those experiences, the stereo is the closest thing, especially in a town and an era where such intense music is hard to come by. My experience with live music explains my preference for an upclose, live and realistic presentation. Detail turns me on, because I remember hearing spit on my frontman partners reed and the ride cymbal a few feet from my head. I still record bands with amateur recording gear, but Earthworks mics and high res sound card produce an electron microscope amount of detail that I crave. My clients nearly always prefer smooth commercial sound and I have to peel off the detail with compression and EQ, but at least I have the masters for my own enjoyment.

Last summer, I recorded a string quartet in my living room. The stereo was in there too. The 2 sets of stereo mics were placed about 4 feet in front of the listening position. After we recorded, I mixed up something rough for playback and the band sat on the couch to listen back. They weren't thrilled with their performance (musicians rarely ever are) but they kept commenting on how realistic it sounded, as if there was a real band playing right in front of them. To me it was far from reailistic, but they had no experience with full range high end audio system, so it was a fun ride. A week later after listening at home they wanted the violins tone emasculated and reverb cranked to make it sound like a commercial CD. Since then I have upgraded amps, cables and acoustics dramatically. To me recorded music is just starting to sound realistic on good recordings.

When I see comments by professional reviewers and forum contributors about how silly it is to spend money on audio cables and ultra high end components I realize how we all not only have different tastes in music and presentation, but we also very different goals that we wish to achieve with our audio systems. Unfortunately, my goals require more expensive tools to achieve lifelike performances, and if I can meet the goals, I judge the price worth it. My reference point for system accuracy is my memory of years of playing alongside acoustic instruments in jazz bands and classical orchestras. When I was playing and getting my live detail fix everynight from the band, I could live comfortably with a decent boom box just to hear the notes and study the music. Easy and fast rewinding was far more important then! Actually I still insist on a digital player being able to quickly access the END of the song as easily as the beginning. The best, usually expensive brands can rewind through the gap. Does anyone else care about this? hahaha I was surprised to find that the SB could do this, with a little extra care.

So now I think the system is pretty close to my goal, but the room acoustics add a layer of distortion that takes away from the realistic presentation. The dead box was a way to see whether recorded ambience is enough to satisfy without the added ring of the listening room. I found that it was enough for me, and detail was enhanced as well. But I don't think I can ever fit the Legacys in there! 

Whoops, trying to avoid long rants, but this one was fun.
Thanks rollo!
Rich

[bpape]

I too am a musician for many many years.  I know the sound in the band, behind the band, in front of the band, at the board, in the audience, etc.  There aren't a lot of things that trip my trigger - when I hear it, I buy it.

Bryan

[Carlman]

Sometimes I play my guitar while listening to music... I blend right in! NOT! haha  But, it has more to do with my lack of skill than the reproduction quality.

I don't think I've met any 'seasoned' audiophile trying to realistically recreate the sound of a live recording in their room.  I've only heard it used as a comparison point.  The best possibility I've heard of is a presentation that provides an emotional or otherwise desirable attachment... whatever that is.  I like to call it a "2nd generation orginal" where the presentation stands on its own, but it's really good and I like it.

[jrebman]

I'm with Carl here.  I just don't think 2 speakers along with sources, amplifiers, and speakers that have limited dynamic range are going to be able to produce anything like the real thing.  I do want to try to get as close to as it as I possibly can, but I've heard some of the highest end systems one can imagine, and the only two things I can say about that is, that it takes an awful lot of money to get to anything truly approximating the live experience, and two, is that it still falls far short of live even after all that money is spent.

There is a chance that there will be one of the highly modified, 15 IPS, R2R decks from The Tape Project and accompanying master tapes at RMAF this year, but if this happens to find it's way to the Audio Federation room with the $250k Marten Design Supremes, you really do need to go hear that -- it will completely change your perspective of what is possible in audio, though the true test would be to have a live string quartet or piano playing the same piece in the room, and I'm pretty sure most will still hear a rather large difference.

If you think about it, with recorded music yu are trying to take all the ambient cues, incredible dynamics and microdynamics, subtle details in instrument voicing, etc. and capture them through 2 3/4" diameter microphone diaphrams, through a lot of wire and amplification and processing (which adds noise, restricts dynamics, can only resolve a finite amount of detail, etc.), and then try to take that now processed, distorted and noisy signal and play it back through amplifiers., more wires, and speakers (that add 10 - 20 % distortion at live concert levels), and it becomes pretty apparent, that as good as technology has become, it still fars pretty far from the mark of the real performance.

It will be interesting to hear how this thing that Rick Schulz is proposing with hard-wired mic -> preamp -> double speed DSD recorder and unedited or processed direct playback on a double speed DSD player will sound like.  My guess is that if done right, it will sound as good or better than the Tape Project Tapes.  And again, if you've not heard these Tape Project tapes on one of their modified players, you should really try to find that at RMAF and give a listen.  I'm sure that no matter what system they are playing on that you will hear something way beyond anything the best redbook, SACD, DVD-A, vinyl, etc. can do.

I heard some of the original prototypes of this stuff, and it just wanted to make me throw my whole system in the trash .  Ok, maybe a bit over the top, but the point remains that this went waaaaay beyond anything else I've heard, regardless of price... yet it was still a recording, and that too was apparent.

<rant over>

-- Jim

[rollo]

Sometimes I play my guitar while listening to music... I blend right in! NOT! haha  But, it has more to do with my lack of skill than the reproduction quality.

I don't think I've met any 'seasoned' audiophile trying to realistically recreate the sound of a live recording in their room.  I've only heard it used as a comparison point.  The best possibility I've heard of is a presentation that provides an emotional or otherwise desirable attachment... whatever that is.  I like to call it a "2nd generation orginal" where the presentation stands on its own, but it's really good and I like it.

Carlman,
               Harry Pearson of the Absolute sound is one example. He likes to sit in the 6th row at Carnegie Hall. He uses this experience to evaluate his system. I have been to his home for a listen and believe me he is quite close. Full Orchestra is almost believeable. No booming bass, just the growl of tympanies and the bite of horns as in real life. Strings are full and sweet and detailed.
              Now put Harry in the last row and we would probably hear a less detailed presentation with muffled bass. A darker sound. The listening position is key to what we hear. Banape keeps talking about moving your listening chair to achieve a different presentation. IMO he is correct.
               For me having my speakers two thrirds into the room and my listening chair approx. the same distance as between the speakers [ nearfield ] with the rear wall approx. 3Ft. behind the listening chair yields an open soundstage with scary depth and imaging. When I move the listening chair to the back wall the presentation changes to a darker less focused sound. If I reverse the setup with the speakers 3 Ft. from the rear wall with two thirds of the room behind me a more focused sound with more detail and less depth comes about.
          Maybe Banape can shed some light as to why this occurs. Well, anyway the live performance will always be my reference to great reproduction of the live event. A live acoustic event is it for me. Sorry to disagree. Just my opinion.

[bpape]

Having the speakers that far out in the room means that you basically don't have much if any SBIR issue which can really open things up.  It also provides a MUCH longer delay between anything direct and anything off the front wall.

Sitting in the nearfield also minimizes the impact of the room to your ears. 

All of that said, I wouldn't go quite that far.  I want to be away from the back wall AND have some space behind the speakers.  There are ways to get that same impression with a closer distance to the front wall via treatment. 

Wanna try something interesting?  Put your speakers at 38% of the room length and your seat at 62% of the length.  Sit in the nearfield.  I suspect you'll get a bit of both.

Bryan

[Carlman]

Carlman,
Harry Pearson of the Absolute sound is one example. He likes to sit in the 6th row at Carnegie Hall. He uses this experience to evaluate his system.............................Maybe Banape can shed some light as to why this occurs. Well, anyway the live performance will always be my reference to great reproduction of the live event. A live acoustic event is it for me. Sorry to disagree. Just my opinion.

First, disagree all you want... that's cool... I tried to be careful in what I said... So, I personally still haven't met anyone that is trying to reproduce an exact replica of a live performance in their room.  From the sound of it, Harry is trying to reproduce the sound of 1 particular place (and maybe one type of music?) with his room.  Neat idea.  I guess it's feasible to do that... Unfortunately, I like too wide a variety of music recorded in a wider variety of recording styles and methods... So, it'd be pointless for me to try and do that.  I would imagine the same holds true for many audiophiles that like a variety of music recorded in a variety of ways.  The variables of recording techniques are staggering and the techniques used to record have nothing to do with recreating a live experience.  So, that's why I'm happy with my '2nd generation original'.

-C

[steve]

Although this was a one time comparison experience, I went to the Peoria Symphony and heard Glinka's Overture to Russlan and Ludmilla. (Ithzak Perlman was featured and played in other selections.)

I came home and played my CD version of Glinka, and there was virtually no sonic difference. Just a slight loss in bass and the soundstage was a little closer. I was astounded to say the least, and pleasantly satisfied.

However, I cannot say this for every recording as recordings are of different quality.

[spudco]

I played piano and hammond organ for quite a few years.  I have also chased the the illusion of live sound with conviction and cash.  I have never heard any system that could reproduce either a grand piano or a hammond at any where near normal volume.  It just isn't possible with today's technologies.

After being on stage with a full orchestra, I can only say that you should give it a try sometime - it is beyond amazing!

I worked in pop, blues, rock and jazz groups in the 1970s and even with today's systems, the sound is pale compared to a live venue.

On the otherhand, I still love my stereo.  I even like the highly engineered sound of a well produced recording.  It is different than the live experience, but has still has the power to move my soul and that is what counts to me.

[steve]

I was in the auditorium, although farther back so the volume was not ear splitting, but descent, not overly loud. Right at or in the orchestra, you are correct, no, I am sure I could not get loud enough.

Some inner detail is lost as well when sitting farther back, but I was still well pleased with how close the sound was to live back there. Almost identical. (I used to play in the band in high school, trombone. I also own a violin, and have ready access to a piano.)

I also have the advantage of being able to tweek my entire chain to optimize each component, which the general public can not do.

What system are you using, now and past?

[WEEZ]

Having been a musician in a prior life, I would have to say that even the most sophisticated audio system doesn't come close to the real thing. I don't know how to explain it, but reproduced music will never sound like live. To me it isn't just volume related either. Not sure what it is. Dynamics, maybe part of it.

Good 'live' recordings get the closest. But it's still not the same. The timbre, attack, ambience...it's SO different. Doesn't stop me from trying to get closer to the real thing, though, heh. (Hence...nervosa )

Even a large listening room isn't as large as a club...or concert hall. So the ambience just can't be the same. Interesting topic, guys.

WEEZ

[richidoo]

I think it is possible to get most of the audible experience of a live performance through a reproduction system. I have had similar experience to Steve, and crave finding those recordings that allow my system to sound that good, but they are very rare. Even Reference Recordings sound a little hifi to me, the soundstage is hyped with several layers of stereo miking mixed together and time adjusted for phase, although it is extremely clear due to his excellent miking technique. Other than being loud, most any amplified concert using stage mics and road worthy speakers sounds terrible compared to the stereo playing the same song from studio recording. Some studio recordings sound superb, much better than live, like Alison Krauss, even though the compression is necessary and obvious. Her records sound better than real to me, better than her standing in my living room with the band playing the music live. It is unrealistic but very enjoyable. True stereo recordings made with SOTA equipment and mic technique can be very convincing on a capable playback rig.

Specialized recording techniques like dummy head recordings played back with headphones are absolutely realistic. I heard a recording of lighting a match in front of the dummies face once with my eyes closed, it was a cruel trick, but rite of passge with these kooks. It made me jump backward and fall off the seat, I thought my face was on fire, I could smell the sulfur, my mind was completely fooled. Another recording they had was a keychain tinkling all around the head. There was no doubt in my mind that there were real keys going around my head, I thought they were just teasing me with eyes closed. Tiny electret condensor mic from hearing aids were inside ears copied in silcone rubber from the builders real ears, and the head was packed with material same density as brain. The guy was writing his masters thesis in acoustics at MIT, and also invented strange electronic instruments to play in our rock band called N-Tet, led by now famous film composer Jamey Sharifi. He recorded the band on several occasions with the head. It was amazingly real, even from portable pro cassette player source and cheap walkman headphones.

I think solo piano sounds realistic on my stereo, even at true volume. We can play some on saturday for anyone curious to hear it. A stereo width control would be helpful, because speakers are 10 feet apart, but it is not very noticable, pianos are big too. The Stereophile Diabelli variations is an exceptional recording. I have some midrange room ring that is the only detractor, my ongoing quest. But piano is not too badly affected by it. Big Band jazz is much harder to get right on the stereo than piano, IMO, and symphony too, although more people are working on that than jazz recordists working on natural sounding jazz recordings.

Big, efficient, low distortion, full range speakers and powerful fast tube amps can sound like live and are only limited by the room acoustics. Cables are essential too, the whole system has to gel. Another challenge is finding recordings that are up to it. I know they're out there, but Gramophone reviews are not 100% accurate about sound quality on the audiophile scale, so a lot of buying and trying with the rare jackpot of finding a perfect recording. Then comes the magic! woohoo!
Rich

[AcidJazz]

I think it is possible to get most of the audible experience of a live performance through a reproduction system.....

Rich

I think so too, afterall many rock/jazz concerts use an electronic system to produce that same 'live concert'. They use bigger and more of everything of course, amps, speakers, wires(maybe not bigger wires, but more wires). The home space is smaller to match our home system, so I don't see why we couldn't at least approach the live experience (reproduction ie.). With enough amp-power, I think we can hit 80-90% of the 'live' experience.

[steve]

I agree that finding a truly great recording that sounds like the live event is fairly rare. And being able to listen to an orchestra selection and playing the same selection on CD a few minutes later is even more rare, at least for me. It would be easy for the CD recording to have been poor. Just good luck that time.

I have had three customers in the past, that either played in orchestras, or had relatives or friends who played in orchestras.

Barry T, from Memphis, has a friend who plays in an orchestra who is absolutely memorized at Barry's system from what Barry tells me. Barry's system consists of a Welbournes Terraplane DRD 300 amp, 11A, Omega speakers, and TT.
Eric lives near Chicago and a third lives in Canada. Don't know their systems though. Too long ago. Each has a different system that seems to do quite excellent jobs.

I guess the point is that progress/improvements in sound are continually being made, which is a good thing.