Realism Check

[artto]

Years ago when I lived in Seattle my x-wife drugg me to see a live ballet. This was back in my heavy metal days and wanted no part of some ballet. 

Well she took me to see Tchaikovsky's Nutcraker performed by the Seattle Symphony Orchestra..... talk about a realism check... The show was great the music unreal even for this 24 year old head banger!!! 

Well the next day I went out and hunted for the best recording of the Nutcracker I could find at the time. I found a recording done by the London Symphony Orchestra. I was great recording imho, on the back of the CD it had a warning that speaker damage my occur. It gave two exact times on the CD when caution should be taken with the volume. Well after reading that I knew that was the CD for me lol lol.

I still have this CD and it sounds great on my LaScala's....but It's still not a "live" show. hmmm come to think of it i haven't played that in years.....might have to dig it out...

 

MKP :-)

 

That was similar to my first experience with live classical music.

 

My then girlfriend (now married 41) went to see the Chicago Symphony Orchestra. We were in the first row. Having played in many rock bands already, I was totally blown away by not only how loud it was, but the shear scale, depth and tone of the sound.

 

Needless to say, I had to go out and by some kind of classical recording and came across Holst's Planets, LA Philharmonic, Zubin Mehta conducting. I put this on my Thorens TD-160 turntable (B&O SP12 pickup), Crown IC150 preamp, Crown D60 & JBL L100 in my bedroom and was completely so disappointed. I figured the speakers needed more room and wider placement. To my mother's dismay I moved the whole system out to the living room. The result? I was even MORE disappointed. The Crown D60 quickly ran out of steam in the larger room.

 

The quest was ON!!!! 

Edited August 16, 2015 by artto

[joshnich]

 

My best friend and fellow audiophile went up north to a museum. They had an old fashioned (mechanical roll type) reproducing piano from the 20's. They had a roll that featured George Gershwin performing a piano duet with himself using this device, obviously performing his own composition. He said he was blown away by how great it sounded. Just like he was right there doing it long after his death.

 

This same friend has a CD recording of the same work transcribed digitally to a modern Yamaha Grand and recorded with modern microphones. He said the recording played back on his system sucked compared to listening the the original reproducing piano.

 

I can see why PWK advocated going out to listen to live acoustic instruments (in his case, symphony orchestras).

 

The best our audio systems can do is give us an ILLUSION of the real thing, but it's not even close.

 

So I can admire PWK's goal of trying to get as close as possible to the "real thing," which is a live acoustic performance and NOT comparison to another speaker.

 

Last year I had a friend over to listen to my gear MAC + LaScala.

 

He is a professional musician who has played A list and performed in large arenas, he is also a voice over for ads you have seen and is a voice and piano teacher.

 

He impression listening to George Winston was that my rig sounded exactly like sitting on the bench of a grand piano when you are playing the instrument. Where the mic is positioned does effect the recording. Anyway, the reproduction blew him away, he is no Winston but did buy December on vinyl and Cd after leaving my house.

 

Female voice is also hard to reproduce, and easy to know if it's natural.

 

Ronstadt Skylark is always a good fast test for a system even though she likes the reverb.

 

Noemi Wolfs, formerly Hooverphonic, is always a good test, I have to figure out how to download this one since it's not available for purchase. My Keyboard friend believes both the piano player and Wolfs are A list, which in fact they are.

 

 

Pretty sure Piano requires lots of ready power reserves with vertical rises and decays.

Sorry I cannot agree. A stereo system no matter how advanced and hi end, cannot reproduce the sound and presence of a real piano. The combination of percussive qualities and the natural decay of notes are apparently too complex for reproduction. I'm sure your friend is a fabulous musician but I am also sure he is mistaken and perhaps inclined to hyperbole.

No I am not a professional musician but I did make a living as a piano technician - fancy name for a piano tuner. I tuned and rebuilt pianos so I know and feel what a real piano delivers. My current personal piano is a 6'10" schimmel - and no stereo can reproduce its sound. I would say the same about any other acoustic instrument. It is a complete leap of faith to think that you are listening to anything close to the real thing - no matter how advanced or expensive your system is.

To add to the issue.... What we are trying to reproduce or think we are reproducing for the most part never actually was performed. George Gershwin piano rolls not withstanding ! (Btw great performances and pretty cool to be able to hear his interpretation of his works! )

Please read " Perfecting Sound Forever" by Greg Milner for more insight into the recording arts and exactly what your system is reproducing. Hint - it's not real performances!

Josh

Edited August 17, 2015 by joshnich

[Islander]

Pretty sure Piano requires lots of ready power reserves with vertical rises and decays.

Sorry I cannot agree. A stereo system no matter how advanced and hi end, can reproduce the sound and presence of a real piano. The combination of percussive qualities and the natural decay of notes is apparently too complex for reproduction.

Josh

In your second sentence, "A stereo system..., can reproduce the sound...", do you actually mean "can NOT reproduce the sound"?

There seems to be some contradiction in there.

Edited August 17, 2015 by Islander

[garyrc]

I agree, it's never quite like the real thing, but:

 

Piano technicians -- and piano players --  both sit quite close to the piano(!)    I wonder if piano sound would sound more real if one were sitting equally close to a fine speaker?  If a recording of a piano from 10 feet (or in my case 16 feet) from the speakers sounded just like a piano from a few feet away, wouldn't that be a kind of distortion?

 

Also, isn't what we call very high fidelity reproduction fidelity to the imagined original?

 

To further complicate matters, the same disks (and 15 ips tapes, in the old days) sound different to me at different times, from the same seat, in the same room, with the same equipment.  I've never been quite sure whether that is an effect of my moods, or those of my equipment.

[Islander]

I agree with Chris A about there not being as much separation between instruments at a live performance as there is in a recording.  The recording engineer uses lots of carefully placed mikes to allow us to hear every instrument clearly, which is great, but it's not what you hear when you're sitting in your seat in the concert hall.

 

Many of the old recordings used a single mike, hung above the performers.  It was mono, but sometimes it can give a better sense of hearing a live show, since it allows more of the room ambience and background sounds to be picked up than a modern close-miked setup will.

 

As for how much it costs to get really realistic "you-are-there" sound, even the $600,000 MAGICO Ultimate 3 system doesn't quite do it.  On a few particularly good recordings, it can come very close to making you think you're in front of live performers, but that's it.  We can hardly expect our systems that cost less than average cars, on average, to magically transport our ears to live shows.

 

http://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/magico-ultimate-iii-horn-loaded-loudspeaker/

 

http://magico.net/product/ultimate.php

[Bubo]

 

 

My best friend and fellow audiophile went up north to a museum. They had an old fashioned (mechanical roll type) reproducing piano from the 20's. They had a roll that featured George Gershwin performing a piano duet with himself using this device, obviously performing his own composition. He said he was blown away by how great it sounded. Just like he was right there doing it long after his death.

 

This same friend has a CD recording of the same work transcribed digitally to a modern Yamaha Grand and recorded with modern microphones. He said the recording played back on his system sucked compared to listening the the original reproducing piano.

 

I can see why PWK advocated going out to listen to live acoustic instruments (in his case, symphony orchestras).

 

The best our audio systems can do is give us an ILLUSION of the real thing, but it's not even close.

 

So I can admire PWK's goal of trying to get as close as possible to the "real thing," which is a live acoustic performance and NOT comparison to another speaker.

 

Last year I had a friend over to listen to my gear MAC + LaScala.

 

He is a professional musician who has played A list and performed in large arenas, he is also a voice over for ads you have seen and is a voice and piano teacher.

 

He impression listening to George Winston was that my rig sounded exactly like sitting on the bench of a grand piano when you are playing the instrument. Where the mic is positioned does effect the recording. Anyway, the reproduction blew him away, he is no Winston but did buy December on vinyl and Cd after leaving my house.

 

Female voice is also hard to reproduce, and easy to know if it's natural.

 

Ronstadt Skylark is always a good fast test for a system even though she likes the reverb.

 

Noemi Wolfs, formerly Hooverphonic, is always a good test, I have to figure out how to download this one since it's not available for purchase. My Keyboard friend believes both the piano player and Wolfs are A list, which in fact they are.

 

 

Pretty sure Piano requires lots of ready power reserves with vertical rises and decays.

Sorry I cannot agree. A stereo system no matter how advanced and hi end, cannot reproduce the sound and presence of a real piano. The combination of percussive qualities and the natural decay of notes are apparently too complex for reproduction. I'm sure your friend is a fabulous musician but I am also sure he is mistaken and perhaps inclined to hyperbole.

No I am not a professional musician but I did make a living as a piano technician - fancy name for a piano tuner. I tuned and rebuilt pianos so I know and feel what a real piano delivers. My current personal piano is a 6'10" schimmel - and no stereo can reproduce its sound. I would say the same about any other acoustic instrument. It is a complete leap of faith to think that you are listening to anything close to the real thing - no matter how advanced or expensive your system is.

To add to the issue.... What we are trying to reproduce or think we are reproducing for the most part never actually was performed. George Gershwin piano rolls not withstanding ! (Btw great performances and pretty cool to be able to hear his interpretation of his works! )

Please read " Perfecting Sound Forever" by Greg Milner for more insight into the recording arts and exactly what your system is reproducing. Hint - it's not real performances!

Josh

 

 

It would be fun to record a piano in studio, and play back scales, then go back and forth with good studio monitors.

[Paducah Home Theater]

I agree with an earlier post that PWK must have meant acoustic live sound...........the sound of the instrument being played right in front of you with no amplification.

Everybody acts like amplified music is null and void for this kind of test but I disagree. With guitars it is very much still an issue. You simply cannot reproduce the sound of a guitar on a good tube amp with a stereo. Same thing with bass, the growl of an Ampeg, Mesa Boogie, or Gallien Krueger amp can't be reproduced correctly. As far as that goes, I don't know that kick drums that are piped through a pro audio setup could be reproduced properly either. As was previously mentioned, the best you can hope for is an illusion, it's the same effect as if you had compared a piano or violin with a recording of either. The only thing that you're missing with amped instruments is a baseline where you know that all guitars sound the same. That's not going to happen, but if you're around them enough, you will know what the punch and fullness sounds like on a tube amp and that's pretty universal.

[Chris A]

I don't know that kick drums that are piped through a pro audio setup could be reproduced properly either. As was previously mentioned, the best you can hope for is an illusion,

 

I don't believe that my earlier post carried the message well:

 

Of the 4500+ tracks that I've remastered to date (one at a time, by hand), none...none...have faithfully retained the recorded frequency response of kick drum frequencies without re-equalization (attenuation) and overall "spectral shaping" of the music track...from 20 Hz to 20 kHz..  I now refer to the process of fixing this as "unmastering" the tracks. 

 

See this article to understand the magnitude of the problem...and how to fix it.

 

It isn't the speakers or the recording quality: it's the mastering processes which screw up all of the music so that it no longer sounds like real life.  This includes all music genres including classical. This includes all formats including digital, vinyl, and analog tape.  The only music that isn't screwed up are the tracks that non-professional individuals personally recorded live - just as PWK did in the late 1950s and early 1960s.

 

Once you unmaster your recordings, they get very close to real life during playback if you have loudspeakers and amplifying/decoding electronics that faithfully reproduce what is on the tracks.

 

I would also say that the reproduced music equals just about any real life performance for any originally amplified music - such as an electric guitar (which you referred to as a "guitar", above), "bass" (electric bass) or even "drum" (electronic drum) or keyboard (synthesized) if they are amplified by the players before it reaches the ears of the original live audience.  That's what PWK was referring to--it is the most difficult to faithfully reproduce acoustic instrumentation - and pianos, voices, violins/violas/cellos/double bass instruments are the most difficult, along with pipe organs--which typically make the greatest demands on a sound reproduction system.

 

Using a standard of excellence (the "bar", so to speak) in reproduction that is less than a realistic performance of acoustic instrumentation--while it might be interesting to some--to me, it means very little.

 

YMMV.

 

Chris

Edited August 17, 2015 by Chris A

[joshnich]

I would agree that amplified instruments and electrtonic instruments can be reproduced to reflect pretty much the original and I also agree that acoustic instruments are virtually impossible to reproduce.

I find your comments on remastering very interesting and intriguing.
BTW in the aforementioned book on the history of recorded music there is specific passage regarding the recording John Bonhams kick drum that you might find interesting.

 

[Chris A]

I also agree that acoustic instruments are virtually impossible to reproduce.

I didn't say that...

 

I said that it was difficult to do well enough, and represents a high bar by which to judge sound reproduction fidelity.  PWK used that standard and that's why I believe his loudspeakers (Heritage) sound as good as they do.

 

Chris

[AllenTacey]

It seems like most live music now, even orchestral music, is augmented with mics and speakers.  Acoustics of the theater certainly come into play, but I wonder how much we lose by the added amplification and processing of even live performances these days.

akdave most added amplification of orchestral music occurs in a sonically incorrect room where the electronics "highlight" the corrected sound. It is much like me using words to correctly respond. It is a tad off. I have a fully operational 1913 Cheny which is an upright cabinet with the wood horn under the turntable and the horn over the Acrylic LP storage on bottom the sound is accurate, even the first recording of Old Blues Eyes.

 

Digital recordings need to sample over 48,000 per second which at first did not occur. I have a digital recreation of Tchaikovsky's War of 1812 on high quality vinyl which in the cannon section using 75mm brass cannons covers just short of 1/4 inch of space. That is what it took to make a totally correct composition of what that recording needed. Digital sampling held higher than 48,000 cycles, computers these days mostly sample over 96,000, mine does 320,000, digitally reproduced music no longer needs to lack anything sonically. LP vinyl never lack the ability to transcribe all things heard by ear. Saturday I am going to have my ears tuned at a Kid Rock show. I'll check the difference in sound between my two Klipsch speakers. I don't think there is a difference... 

[Islander]

For some reason, my speakers (currently 510 JubScala IIs, previously 510 JubScalas, and regular La Scalas before that, with CT125 tweeters) seem to reproduce acoustic drums more realistically than any other instrument, or instrument set.

 

With a good recording (they're not that common) and suitable (high) volume, I can come close to having the sensation of a live drummer performing in front of me, while the other instruments sound like recordings (okay, very good recordings) of instruments.  The discrepancy between the high realism of the drums and the lower realism of the rest of the band is actually a bit distracting at times.

 

Has anyone else noticed this?

[Chris A]

Pat, it's a difficult subject to respond to this since I've found that any discussion on this subject seems to alienate someone reading it. (YMMV.)

 

Suffice it to say that there is a gulf of difference using different loudspeakers, rooms, electronics, and source music tracks.  I believe what you're saying since I've personally experienced the same thing in my room, but I also believe that there are many people here that haven't experienced it. 

 

That's why I believe that the arguments go on about "you can't reproduce sound in a way that fools the listener into believing that it's the real thing", IMHO.  I know that you can, under certain circumstances, and that those experiences are basically governed by the quality of the music tracks themselves as a limiting variable.

 

Chris

[ClaudeJ1]

With my system, with really good recordings, the most lifelike reproduction seems to be that of drums, with pianos a distant second.  The amps are powerful enough to produce realistic dynamics, and it sometimes sounds like the drum set is right there in front of me, especially when the volume is set pretty high.

 

The sound of other instruments is very well reproduced, but the drums are so much more realistic (with the right recordings, some vinyl, some DVD) that it can sometimes be a bit distracting.

Drums have the greatest dynamic range of any acoustic instrument and represent the most demanding test of loudspeakers. Since drums can hit 140 decibel peaks at 1 meter, even a Khorn would require 36 dbWatts of peak power (4,000 unclipped peak watts) to reproduce that.

[Chris A]

Since drums can hit 140 decibel peaks at 1 meter, even a Khorn would require 36 dB Watts of peak power (4,000 unclipped peak watts) to reproduce that.

 

Find a recording that has those dynamics intact for drums.  Even Charly Antolini's Crash is limited to 30 dB of dynamic range...which far exceeds almost any other recording that I've seen.  Crash comes the closest to real life drums that I've heard on my setup.

 

The Tartini multi-channel SACD recording is truly spectacular in terms of realism of orchestral performance: I use it to demonstrate just how compressed virtually all other recordings are and how much it affects the product when the mastering engineers use compression of any sort in terms of destroying "realism" in playback.) 

 

Chris

Edited August 19, 2015 by Chris A

[garyrc]

Even Charly Antolini's Crash is limited to 30 dB of dynamic range...which far exceeds almost any other recording that I've seen.

 

Only 30 dB?  Don't we get much more than that?  I had one of the Mahler symphonies (the 3rd???) that would produce readable peaks of 110 dB on and analog needle R. Shack meter (real peak perhaps 120 dB, since needle balistics suppress peaks?), and, as I recall, the softest part was unreadable on the meter (below 60 dB).  Or do I remember incorrectly?

Edited August 20, 2015 by garyrc

[Don Richard]

 

Even Charly Antolini's Crash is limited to 30 dB of dynamic range...which far exceeds almost any other recording that I've seen.

 

Only 30 dB?  Don't we get much more than that?  I had one of the Mahler symphonies (the 3rd???) that would produce readable peaks of 110 dB on and analog needle R. Shack meter (real peak perhaps 120 dB, since needle balistics suppress peaks?), and, as I recall, the softest part was unreadable on the meter (below 60 dB).  Or do I remember incorrectly?

 

 

Dynamic range is generally understood to mean the "peak to average ratio" within a single track of a recording.

Edited August 20, 2015 by Don Richard

[Islander]

 

With my system, with really good recordings, the most lifelike reproduction seems to be that of drums, with pianos a distant second.  The amps are powerful enough to produce realistic dynamics, and it sometimes sounds like the drum set is right there in front of me, especially when the volume is set pretty high.

 

The sound of other instruments is very well reproduced, but the drums are so much more realistic (with the right recordings, some vinyl, some DVD) that it can sometimes be a bit distracting.

Drums have the greatest dynamic range of any acoustic instrument and represent the most demanding test of loudspeakers. Since drums can hit 140 decibel peaks at 1 meter, even a Khorn would require 36 dbWatts of peak power (4,000 unclipped peak watts) to reproduce that.

 

 

Drums do potentially have a huge dynamic range, from just brushes on the snare to full beating on everything, but I don't think every piece of music will use the full possible range.  It makes sense that the sound system could realistically reproduce some pieces of music very well, but some really loud ones could be beyond its capabilities.  I haven't done thorough testing of lots of music, just noticed that some recordings some pretty close to the real thing when the volume is turned up.

 

My system is in a room that's 18'x19', with an 8' ceiling, is open on one side, with carpeting and furniture.  The floor is concrete.  The windows are the latest type with double-row seals, so the room's noise floor is low.  The distance from speakers to listener is about 11 feet.  Stock La Scala IIs are rated by Klipsch at 105 dB/W/m.  My bi-amped 510 JubScala IIs may be a bit more sensitive than that, since the crossovers are not used, eliminating resistors, transformers, and capacitors from the signal path.  The Dx38 does the job of EQing and time-aligning.  The signal goes straight from the power amps to the drivers, using 8 and 10 gauge cables.

 

The speakers are driven by a pair of dual-mono 500 Wpc Class D amps, so that's 500 watts available to each tweeter and to each woofer.  That's RMS power, according to one test.   I've also seen them rated at 530 watts RMS per channel in another test.  I have not seen a figure for peak power, but it should be somewhat more than the RMS power.  The bass is assisted by a 500 watt RMS (1500 watts peak) sub with a 10" front-firing driver.

 

While I haven't tried to see how loud the system can go (I live in a condo and don't hate my neighbours), you can see that it has the potential to accurately reproduce at least some music played on drums.  2000 unclipped watts would only be 3 dB down from the 4000 watts you mentioned, and the sub helps, too.

 

Sound about right?

[Chris A]

Dynamic range is generally understood to mean the "peak to average ratio" within a single track of a recording.

 

Yes, the DR Database site is using crest factor (peak-to-average) for all its calculations. So the 30 dB number is actually a pretty intense (but maybe not completely without a little compression).  Any compression at all will strongly affect the "liveness" or realism of the music. 

 

When you contrast the above Charley Antolini album with most popular music that's been squashed down to a maximum of 7 dB or less nowadays, you might begin to see why so much music today is considered to be "trashed" by virtually anyone's standard...except apparently record company executives and nervous recording artists thinking that "loudness = record sales" (which, of course, it doesn't, and having no correlation whatsoever). 

 

It isn't that much a secret that mastering engineers have written into their contracts a minimum loudness level per track, equating to a very low dynamic range ceiling of about 6 or even less for popular music...something that record company executives should be hung by their toenails for doing. 

 

Chris

Edited August 20, 2015 by Chris A

[garyrc]

 

 

Even Charly Antolini's Crash is limited to 30 dB of dynamic range...which far exceeds almost any other recording that I've seen.

 

Only 30 dB?  Don't we get much more than that?  I had one of the Mahler symphonies (the 3rd???) that would produce readable peaks of 110 dB on and analog needle R. Shack meter (real peak perhaps 120 dB, since needle balistics suppress peaks?), and, as I recall, the softest part was unreadable on the meter (below 60 dB).  Or do I remember incorrectly?

 

 

Dynamic range is generally understood to mean the "peak to average ratio" within a single track of a recording.

 

 

 

 

Dynamic range is generally understood to mean the "peak to average ratio" within a single track of a recording.

 

Yes, the DR Database site is using crest factor (peak-to-average) for all its calculations. So the 30 dB number is actually a pretty intense (but maybe not completely without a little compression).  Any compression at all will strongly affect the "liveness" or realism of the music. 

 

When you contrast the above Charley Antolini album with most popular music that's been squashed down to a maximum of 7 dB or less nowadays, you might begin to see why so much music today is considered to be "trashed" by virtually anyone's standard...except apparently record company executives and nervous recording artists thinking that "loudness = record sales" (which, of course, it doesn't, and having no correlation whatsoever). 

 

It isn't that much a secret that mastering engineers have written into their contracts a minimum loudness level per track, equating to a very low dynamic range ceiling of about 6 or even less for popular music...something that record company executives should be hung by their toenails for doing. 

 

Chris

 

 

Oh.  I was thinking of peak-to-noise.  I see how the crest factor peak-to-average would make more sense, especially with recordings that don't have many soft parts.  When I used to play in orchestras we were not supposed to wear anything that jingled, just in case it could heard in the very soft spots. 

 

" ... mastering engineers have written into their contracts a minimum loudness level per track ..."  This is revolting!  Have music critics taken up the fight?  I understand that musicians may be caught in a conflict of interest, but do some of them fight this?  Movies display an enormous peak to average ratio!  Thank goodness the disease hasn't infected most of them.

Edited August 21, 2015 by garyrc