Moderators dtel Posted September 15, 2015 Moderators Share Posted September 15, 2015 Music lover only, and I can prove it. I have not changed any settings, electronics or speakers in years but have listened to plenty of music. My choice of speakers are the one's playing, not necessarily the best I have. Yeah, no offence, you like music and a great sound system. But that said, really what would be the point of a great stereo system or home theater if you didn't enjoy the media. Having a system that produce "waves" or "tones" at precise frequencies mean nothing to me. Its like talking about a great guitar player. Sure they can move their fingers very fast but are they musical? To me the media and sound system is all in one big group used to get music, with compromises at every turn, if it isn't musical you might as well just play tones and waves. Your right I have heard many sound systems like everyone here and even the best no matter cost it can't compare to live music, not even close, I don't care what system they claim to have it's still is not even close. Some say go listen to as much live music as you can, I agree with that, but don't be surprised when you get home and can not get that same sound. imo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rivernuggets Posted September 15, 2015 Share Posted September 15, 2015 Good conversation. Lately (few years now) I have been spending more money on gear than new music. I want to get back the other way and having difficulty. Being a music lover got me to pursue better sound. Just need to pendulum back. My systems sound very good to me and I should stop. I still consider myself a music lover. Been reduced to tears in my '04, stock stereo Mazda as often as listening at home. Audio Enthusiast over Audiophile. Just seeing the speakers' size with the stereo off people throw Audiophile at me. Audio Enthusiast is more positive and allows acquaintances around me to relax. I have heard many sound systems like everyone here and even the best no matter cost it can't compare to live music, not even close The energy exchanged between the artist/band and audience cannot be aurally recorded. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted September 15, 2015 Author Share Posted September 15, 2015 A nonlinear representation of a signal fed into an equal and opposite nonlinear system will result in a better sound. Rather obtuse situation. You can put an equalizer in an accurate system and do the same thing. Red herring, IMHO. As the system you describe would sound bad on the majority of recordings it's pointless. Dave 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vindeville Posted September 15, 2015 Share Posted September 15, 2015 how about being an "audio enthusiast" That covers it all I think If I drill down I am a music lover with an obsession with loudspeakers. I buy and listen to a ton of music but it must sound convincing for me to fall in and really enjoy. A great recording I cant stop listening to lately is " Junior Wells live at Theresa's". Not a technically great recording but man o man I am there in that club when I listen. Without the mighty Klipschorns or some other great horn system I don't think it would be the same. It all goes hand in hand right? I'll bet this kinda describes or rings true with many here on this forum. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vindeville Posted September 15, 2015 Share Posted September 15, 2015 (edited) dtel, I saw Jimmy Vaughn in a smallish venue over this past winter...Lou Ann Barton was with him. What a great show. When I got home I listened to several cds covering much of the material they did at the concert. You are correct that it cant be the same in your home but I was extremely happy with the comparison none the less. We are lucky that as humans our audio recall abilities are not wonderful in many ways as well I think. I can be tricked pretty consistently into really enjoying a recording as if I were there on my system and that's really the whole point and the fun in it all. Edited September 15, 2015 by vindeville 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted September 15, 2015 Author Share Posted September 15, 2015 What makes a POS recording a POS? 1. What's the criteria? 2. What's the instrument to measure it? 3. How do we even know what the engineers did? If he boosted some bass by 12dBs, is that automatically bad? Or only bad if it sounds bad on my speaker? What if he corrected performance mistakes and thereby created a performance which the artist never tendered? An artificial performance! Good or POS? 4. Wouldn't we have to know what the engineers did to judge POS? If not, and it is only up to reach " speaker + brain " then how meaningful is the judgment? 5. WHERE IS GROUND ZERO? WHAT IS THE REFERENCE? Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk That is an easy question for those who are music generalists, even easier for those of us who record location performances. The only truly "engineered" recordings are those that are artificial in nature so the result is good when they say it is. But for location recording of an acoustic space/time event the judgment is much easier and could almost be reduced to a formula: Accuracy=artifacts from recording equipment+errors in microphone placement For the playback chain: Accuracy=delta from original signal+artifacts from playback chain I am including the entire chain of recording equipment from microphone to storage in that. In playback, I am including everything in that chain including the media, so "delta from original" means any change at all in the original stored signal including digital transcoding, digital to analog conversion, etc. "Playback chain" includes everything from retrieving the signal to it reaching your ears, including the environment. Some things, such as environment, can be, for all practical purposes, eliminated. That is, a surround recording made in accordance with the methodology I use for SoundCube and played back through 4 equidistant speakers in a reasonably normal listening room will, for all intents and purposes, overwhelm room issues. Having tested this on myself and others I am confident of that. In practical application, the above simply means that I judge accurate playback by listening to a recording of an acoustic space/time event where I am familiar with the instruments used in the space the event took place. This may be because I recorded the event myself or because it is a venue with which I have a great deal of listening experience over many years...say, the Cathedral of St. John the Devine or Avery Fishier Hall. Anything I hear that deviates from what I would hear if standing in the space the microphones were at the time of the actual event constitutes an inaccuracy. This carries over to engineered recordings in that if all the above is met, then DSOTM or Devo will sound as good as it is capable of sounding on an accurate system. That's as far as one can go with "accuracy" in engineered recordings as few of us will ever hear them in the room they were created in. Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Naseum Posted September 15, 2015 Share Posted September 15, 2015 I see. I think what you are saying is that the engineer who made the recording will know when it's reproduced correctly. In this light, which makes sense now, my best bet would be a set of studio monitors that are commonly used by record engineers. In thinking of trying a popular one called JBL LSR 308. http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/feb14/articles/jbl-3-series.htm There are dozens of brands that are similar, and all have small woofers and a tweeter. Prices vary.That might solve the problem of "hear what they hear. " This would be at least the kind of sound engineers finalize recordings with. You hear what they hear! The larger version is about $600 a pair, which leaves me wondering about speakers costing $200,000 made by Dave Wilson? What would that listener get that isn't in the studio monitor? Well yes, I know about the prestige, but what is he hearing, that's not in the monitor? It looks like something else is afoot. My first guess is that the bigger expense is adding baroque flourish to the stripped down studio sound. Then there is the issue of simply bad mastering/engineering. Surely, some guys/gals are better than others!? Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators dtel Posted September 15, 2015 Moderators Share Posted September 15, 2015 (edited) Good conversation. Lately (few years now) I have been spending more money on gear than new music. I want to get back the other way and having difficulty. Being a music lover got me to pursue better sound. Just need to pendulum back. My systems sound very good to me and I should stop. I still consider myself a music lover. Been reduced to tears in my '04, stock stereo Mazda as often as listening at home. Audio Enthusiast over Audiophile. Just seeing the speakers' size with the stereo off people throw Audiophile at me. Audio Enthusiast is more positive and allows acquaintances around me to relax. I have heard many sound systems like everyone here and even the best no matter cost it can't compare to live music, not even close The energy exchanged between the artist/band and audience cannot be aurally recorded. Very true, I think it's a lot of things that make live music so much better. dtel, I saw Jimmy Vaughn in a smallish venue over this past winter...Lou Ann Barton was with him. What a great show. When I got home I listened to several cds covering much of the material they did at the concert. You are correct that it cant be the same in your home but I was extremely happy with the comparison none the less. We are lucky that as humans our audio recall abilities are not wonderful in many ways as well I think. I can be tricked into pretty consistently really enjoying a recording as if I were there on my system and that's the whole point and the fun in it all. Sometimes I can t wait to get home and settle in to a great recording. Jimmy Vaughn would be great to see live, would have loved to seen his brother. With shows like this it seems to be more than just the energy in the room. Just guessing it's how everything is separated also, each performer has there own electronics separate from each other, it may go through the same speakers in the end but I really think this helps with better definition and punch to separate each sound. Please someone who does this kind of sound work help me understand this, I have always felt this had a big part in why live sounds so much different, a part of it at least. This is not to say you can't have a really good sound at home, it always just seems to be missing something. I have to say the size (Not Volume) of speakers does seem to help some but it's still not like live. Dave may know the answer to some of this since he does recordings, and Michael since he does mixing live music, does some of this sound benefit from all the different channels and separation at least until the mixing board and speakers ? It's not all just the energy and being in the room with the performers, there's more to it than that. imo Edited September 15, 2015 by dtel 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted September 15, 2015 Author Share Posted September 15, 2015 I think what you are saying is that the engineer who made the recording will know when it's reproduced correctly. I think any well seasoned listener can do so. Let's say you listen to music recorded in the same hall many times. Even if you have not been to that hall you'll eventually get something of a sonic signature for it and know more than you think you might about how a recording that sounds differently was made. I got to know the Meyerson in Dallas pretty well and could pinpoint mike locations within feet when listening to new recordings there, as well as approximate number, etc. I believe good listeners can do the same with engineered music. I'll bet somebody really into Alan Parson's can tell a lot of qualitative differences in various recordings over the years and would have one or more considered the "norm" for quality. Probably more common than "golden ears" in this bunch even amongst those who do not realize how discriminating they have become. Heck, even amongst the Audioholics and Audio Kharma, etc bunch there are many. You can tell them easily by their loud "I can't stand horns, they are SO edgy!" and related. What they mean is they have finally heard some of their recordings as they really are and are blaming the loudspeakers. Right crime, wrongful conviction. Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thaddeus Smith Posted September 15, 2015 Share Posted September 15, 2015 I believe good listeners can do the same with engineered music. I'll bet somebody really into Alan Parson's can tell a lot of qualitative differences in various recordings over the years and would have one or more considered the "norm" for quality. i've listened to about 6 different releases for Tubular Bells and they do all sound different. The 2013 Japanese platinum SHM release is by far my favorite. excellent mix, wonderful dynamic range, etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted September 15, 2015 Author Share Posted September 15, 2015 TB would be one that could vary a LOT given the nature of those sounds. Lots of room for good and bad things to happen there... Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Naseum Posted September 15, 2015 Share Posted September 15, 2015 The great majority of recordings I own were made in various studios, none of which I have ever been inside. Capital Records in Hollywood? The Sound Factory? And so on. A good many don't even have an indication of where they were made. I know that some involved dubbing tracks and performers from multiple studios. This morning I was playing Henry Mancini "Music From Peter Gunn." The only info on the record sleeve is, "Recorded in Hollywood, August 26 and 31, and September 4 and 29, 1958.Produced by Simon Rady. " I like the sound of it. But it's a creation made for playing on a HiFi. It's HiFi music. And, I think that accounts for 99% of the thousands of records and CDs I own. They don't provide any reference standard, it's just a platter for playing on HiFis. You like it or you don't. A guy could play it on those JBL studio monitors, or another guy could play it on a $200,000 Wilson, and they both might like it, or one might not, or whatever. It's just stuff for HiFis. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted September 15, 2015 Author Share Posted September 15, 2015 You are correct about that period, jo56. Command in particular made a mess (both descriptive as well as indicative of the numbers) of incredibly clean, wide range recordings with ping pong sound stages that will drive one insane! The music is incidental to the demonstration of how good they and your system are. I am sure many audiophiles back then absolutely tortured unsuspecting visitors with these. They are engineered, even though originating as an acoustic time/space event. Frankenrecords. Anyway, fact is that there is no way to judge a system by an engineered recording other than whether one likes it or not. High Fidelity, by definition, requires a real event for comparison. You cannot be "faithful" to a synthetic event. That is in no way a criticism, just the way I see it. So many of the albums I love could not be performed as acoustic space/time events. Doesn't make them any less of value. Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
babadono Posted September 15, 2015 Share Posted September 15, 2015 WHY THE PUT DOWN ??? Still waiting to understand this... Dave I think its in reference to post #20 ------I THINK Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZAKO Posted September 15, 2015 Share Posted September 15, 2015 yup !!! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted September 15, 2015 Author Share Posted September 15, 2015 (edited) yup !!! Sheesh, ZAKO...what part of "Snark Patrol" don't you get? Just Michael doing his job. Dave Edited September 15, 2015 by Mallette Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZAKO Posted September 15, 2015 Share Posted September 15, 2015 I,L still keep my back close to the wall... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldtimer Posted September 15, 2015 Share Posted September 15, 2015 Learned that from rudi I'm sure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZAKO Posted September 15, 2015 Share Posted September 15, 2015 RUDI is allways on his knees 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldtimer Posted September 15, 2015 Share Posted September 15, 2015 LOL 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.