Lemon string Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 I thought this was a good read. http://www.stereophile.com/content/its-real-thing I had a couple conversations recently that touched on similar questions so I guess it seemed timely in light of such discourse. though I'd share it with you all. Cheers 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Morbius Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 Very well said, in my estimation. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ceptorman Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 I'm searching the Palladium's website now, it's a performing arts center in Carmel Indiana, supposed to be one of the finest acoustical rooms on the planet. Thanks for the article, excellent read. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebes Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 Yes and no. Yes for building a system that accurately reproduces un-amplified sound, you'd should be exposed to live orchestral music in a great acoustic auditorium, or un-miked string instruments, say a string band, in a small acoustically good venue. However, most music we listen to is amplified, miked, mixed or other wise fooled around with in hundreds of various ways. You can hit a club, or live concert venue for pop music a zillion times and it's going to sound different almost every time. Why? Because of the way the bands, singers, mixers, and concert venues sound., So what do yo do? Buy good components, listen and tweak and rely on the best judgement of yours and friends ears to arrive at your own conclusions. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris A Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 Thanks - that's pretty much a problem in this pastime, I've found. Another article that I found yesterday that's very similar to the one that you linked to above: http://www.kenrockwell.com/audio/audiophile.htm ...and a review of a local Dallas Symphony concert in a not-so-perfect concert hall: https://community.klipsch.com/index.php?/topic/117181-the-pwk-no-bs-tribute-thread/?p=1584781 Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thaddeus Smith Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 what's interesting is that I'm pursuing a system that provides a pleasant music listening experience across multiple genres. The concept of trying to replicate un-amplified orchestral music in my room never even crosses my mind. so that excludes me from acceptance in the "hi-fi" club? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
russ69 Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 Yes and no. Yes for building a system that accurately reproduces un-amplified sound, you'd should be exposed to live orchestral music in a great acoustic auditorium, or un-miked string instruments, say a string band, in a small acoustically good venue. However, most music we listen to is amplified, miked, mixed or other wise fooled around with in hundreds of various ways. You can hit a club, or live concert venue for pop music a zillion times and it's going to sound different almost every time. Why? Because of the way the bands, singers, mixers, and concert venues sound., So what do yo do? Buy good components, listen and tweak and rely on the best judgement of yours and friends ears to arrive at your own conclusions. I agree with Thebes. In my 40 plus years of Hi-FI, I have never walked into a listening room and thought; "Geeze that sounds just like the philharmonic orchestra, right there in my room". It never happened and never will. I play recorded music on my system, that's what it does. It doesn't create a live orchestra and it is not designed to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paducah Home Theater Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 Even though the core concept is true, personally I thought the writer came across as being a pompous ***. I have played my fair share of Beethoven and Bach, plus played several instruments of the brass/string/wind variety, yet I simply don't care for live orchestra music nowadays, and am not about to study up and spend a ton trying to reproduce it, but I am in fact surprised at the amount of people who simply don't seem to know what a good acoustic guitar in a good venue sounds like in person so I have to agree with the general concept. I think the general idea applies to amplified rock music too though. For example, blasting bass guitar riffs through some mushy subs just isn't how it sounds live, you can lose the nuances of a tube amp along with the harmonics. Sending crunchy and blues'ey electric guitar riffs to small bookshelves with no strong low midrange isn't typically how it sounds like live, that stuff is very heavy on the low midrange. Boosting super low frequencies but not 60-100 hz isn't how a good kick drum sounds live, 60 is what thumps your chest. Playing cymbals and hi-hats through speakers with a really bright and airy top end is definitely not what it sounds like live. Running the sound of an aggressive under-saddle ribbon pickup through mild and lazy soft dome tweeters isn't what it sounds like live. People do this all the time though and think it sounds great. That doesn't make it correct. Orchestra halls aren't exactly the only good sounding live venues either. I mean, do you know what things sound like in the balcony of the Ryman Auditorium? I do, it's awesome. Why is reproducing the unamplified sound of an orchestra hall the only goal worthy of their writing? I want to reproduce how Rodrigo y Gabriela sounded at the Ryman. Why exactly does that make me unworthy of buying their magazine? Ironically, if we set our system up so that it sounds exactly like what a good rock band in a good venue sounds like live, these guys would dismiss us as a lost cause seeking a fantasy-fulfilment system. Perhaps instead of isolating and shaming people with a passive-aggressive superiority complex'ish tone while actively persuading people to cancel their subscription if they don't fit in to the cool kids club, they could realize that different people like different sounds with different music, and try to help people be HAPPY, not be exactly like the writers as if they joined an exclusive club, which actually sounds more like a cult that has strict rules. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muel Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 I think the closer you get your room and system to be able to reproduce the unamplified sound of an orchestra the better it is going to sound for ANY kind of music. The goal is to take your room out of the equation as much as possible so all the music can come through and arrive at your ears sounding like it did if you had been sitting at whatever venue. That information (sound of the venue) is already in the recording... we just have to let it out (without screwing it up). I thought some of their comments were tongue in cheek but perhaps not... I'm happier believing there was some sarcasm there. I've heard some great music at some great venues and great music at bad venues that I would never wish to replicate. I know that I can get my own setup closer... I've heard it before. I still have a lot of work to do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris A Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 In my 40 plus years of Hi-FI, I have never walked into a listening room and thought; "Geeze that sounds just like the philharmonic orchestra, right there in my room". That's too bad... personally I thought the writer came across as being a pompous ***. Which writer--J. Gordon Holt? On that count, you may be right. The article is a turnabout for him, I believe, since the person that is described in this PWK article could have been that very same fellow, but many years earlier: https://community.klipsch.com/index.php?app=core&module=attach§ion=attach&attach_id=69383 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris A Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 (edited) Orchestra halls aren't exactly the only good sounding live venues either. I mean, do you know what things sound like in the balcony of the Ryman Auditorium? I do, it's awesome. Why is reproducing the unamplified sound of an orchestra hall the only goal worthy of their writing? I want to reproduce how Rodrigo y Gabriela sounded at the Ryman. Why exactly does that make me unworthy of buying their magazine? Ironically, if we set our system up so that it sounds exactly like what a good rock band in a good venue sounds like live, these guys would dismiss us as a lost cause seeking a fantasy-fulfillment system. Perhaps instead of isolating and shaming people with a passive-aggressive superiority complex'ish tone while actively persuading people to cancel their subscription if they don't fit in to the cool kids club, they could realize that different people like different sounds with different music, and try to help people be HAPPY, not be exactly like the writers as if they joined an exclusive club, which actually sounds more like a cult that has strict rules. Perhaps the idea is that a sound reproduction system should faithfully reproduce that which is on the recording - nothing more, nothing less. I believe that the real problems start when audiophiles want things to "sound better [or different] than the source material itself". That is the root of all this thrashing, IMHO. Edited October 23, 2014 by Chris A 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paducah Home Theater Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 (edited) Of course back in 1980, amplified rock concerts probably sounded horrendous compared to what is possible today, and a live orchestra really was the only way to accurately judge things. Edited October 23, 2014 by MetropolisLakeOutfitters 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
babadono Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 russ69, on 23 Oct 2014 - 10:45 AM, said: In my 40 plus years of Hi-FI, I have never walked into a listening room and thought; "Geeze that sounds just like the philharmonic orchestra, right there in my room". That's too bad... +1 or is it +10? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
babadono Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 Of course back in 1980, amplified rock concerts probably sounded horrendous compared to what is possible today, and a live orchestra really was the only way to accurately judge things. The capabilities have vastly improved. What people do with it, I don't know Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris A Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 (edited) One of the concepts that one gains early in the area of studying signal processing is that the signal never gets better than the source itself (if live) or the recorded master: it always gets worse. It is possible to extract signal from noise (sometimes), but in the process of doing that, degradation of the signal occurs. It's like time: it's an arrow that goes one way. Same thing for recorded sound and images: signal processing always winds up damaging the signal in order to reduce noise or to change the captured image/sound track to make it sound or look different. This is such a simple concept but this is something that I believe escapes almost all "audiophiles" wanting to make their source material sound better. Taking a live feed, digitizing it to 24/96 LPCM (master "tape"), mixing it on a large console (where losses occur, big time), editing the digital mix for preformed and organizationally mandated mastering steps/processes (more losses) then converting perhaps to 16/44.1 (CD) or worse, sending it to a vinyl shop which typically reduces the stereo channels into a "dual monophonic image" with a little stereo in order to get it onto the vinyl so that playback needles won't just out of the groove (especially for mono bass) then apply the 40+dB RIAA curve, then convert to analog. Then a mother is made, etc., etc. Each step represents degradation and usually a big step down at each point on the process. Ever listen to freshly recorded music tracks on your setup with no editing? It's much different, and to my taste, much more desirable (i.e., I can tame the live recording myself at home if I wish to with VST). The problem is, almost everyone buys their music after it's put into a blender...and then fermented a while (i.e., degradation of the vinyl children after thousands of copies are made on less-than-ideal presses. Fine wine...eh? We shouldn't defend these processes, IMHO, but rather to learn to find ways around them...if possible. And don't blame the results of the above processes on your setup, however, since it isn't the cause of the problems. Edited November 20, 2014 by Chris A Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paducah Home Theater Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 (edited) Did they even have recordings that were high quality enough to pull this off back in 1980 even if you had perfect equipment? I was 4 years old at the time of this writing so I have no idea. My dad has told me about high speed tape being used around then before. Surely vinyl wouldn't cut it. That was way before CD's. Edited October 23, 2014 by MetropolisLakeOutfitters Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bubo Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 (edited) Yamaha makes products that have lots of effects that can be used with 6 or 7 speakers to reproduce various concert halls. IMHO the main thing to think about in a typical, I wish I had a bigger and better space for my stereo, room is damping and minimizing reflective surfaces. Book shelves with books, stuffed furniture, carpets or area rugs, heavy curtains for the windows. There is nothing quite as good as open doors and windows from my experience. Spaces with good corners, two of them seem to work well. My 2 cents...... Edited October 23, 2014 by Bubo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris A Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 Did they even have recordings that were high quality enough to pull this off back in 1980 even if you had perfect equipment?...My dad told me about high speed tape being used around then before. Surely vinyl wouldn't cut it. That was way before CD's. Actually CDs have been around since 1982...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_audio_formats Higher speed analog tape (up to 30 IPS) was really very good in all ways except possibly absolute SNR, relative to DSD in the audio passband that was available in the early 1980s in the form of Direct Stream Digital recorders. I've actually got some pretty good recordings from ca. 1962 using high speed analog tape--one of them can be found here. The problem has always been the analog transfer to different analog format (7 1/2 IPS tape or vinyl), which, IMHO has always been significantly inferior to the original recording format, and in those days, each edit or transfer of the incoming source degraded the original recording's SNR by 3 dB or more. Typically, it took seven (7) transfers or edits to get from recorded master to produced commercial record - you do the math. Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark1101 Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 I have to be brutally honest. I HATE classical music, orchestras. I NEVER listen to that stuff and I would simply never use it to gauge what audiophile sound is all about. I'm glad PWK did it all for me and saved me the pain. Sorry..........not for me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paducah Home Theater Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 Yamaha makes products that have lots of effects that can be used with 6 or 7 speakers to reproduce various concert halls. I've heard some of them but I don't like them, seems like it typically means "press this button if you want to kill the sparkly highs and introduce a weird echo effect". About the only effect I've heard that I enjoy is the sports setting on Sony receivers. If you're watching a game, it takes the announcer's dialog and plants it on the center channel, and your other speakers are the roar of the crowd with a little echo. It actually sounds very realistic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.