What does Music sound like to YOU?

[dodger]

Greetings:

As it has come up in the $40,000.00 post, what does music sound like to you.

As we add in the wood, bracing and finish effects on a violin, what are we left with?

More importantly, as we move toward perfection to your ears - how do you perceive music?

Take into account type, placement of microphone(s), amplifier(s), cables, Mixing board, outboard pieces of equipment, i.e., processers, companders, compressers, flangers, hurricanes, synthesizers, tubes, SS, tape brand used, monitors used, digital, analog.

Having had the pleasure of recording the Eastman Shool of Music String Quartet, Keyboard Quintet and the Rochester Philharmonic, I was always amazed at the different tonalities, timbre and volumes of each different instrument.

So I change my question to the theoretics: If each instrument can sound so different and the recording depending on number, quality and placement of microphones, how can we expect our system to recreate ALL of the differences?

Win dodger

[Chris Robinson]

----------------

On 9/8/2003 2:50:53 PM dodger wrote:

So I change my question to the theoretics: If each instrument can sound so different and the recording depending on number, quality and placement of microphones, how can we expect our system to recreate ALL of the differences?

Win dodger

----------------

I don't know. That's why I bring my Bose headphones on the plane and try to pass the time while sucking down nips in coach.

Joking aside, my ears are not what they used to be. I love the FEEL of great music and the emotions that stir within. That's about it ... SET gave me the real emotional thrill of the music, and JFL SET raised it an order of magnitude.

However, when I see ole Jeff or Leo listening to music and their descriptions of what they're hearing, I realize that I'm little more than a partially deaf dolt.

[dubai2000]

Surely you are not Chris, otherwise you couldn't appreciate your amps .

But I think the answer to Win's question is that no matter how 'good' a system to reproduce music might be, it still isn't the real thing but a copy. I am always amazed when I walk through our neighbourhood and hear someone playing trumpet or piano. Even from outside their grounds one can hear that this is 'live' and not a recorded sound. I suppose it's a combination of lacking dynamics and gear/room limitations which prevent a copy from being really similar to the original. I still remember how impressed I was by the sheer volume of sound a trained baritone can produce when you are sitting next to him on stage. And IMO this is no question of SET or PP. So all in all we are dealing with a copy - all there is for us is trying to get close (within the limits of budget/room etc.) - and that is already pretty difficult as many recent posts show .

Wolfram

[dodger]

----------------

On 9/8/2003 2:57:25 PM Chris Robinson wrote:

----------------

On 9/8/2003 2:50:53 PM dodger wrote:

So I change my question to the theoretics: If each instrument can sound so different and the recording depending on number, quality and placement of microphones, how can we expect our system to recreate ALL of the differences?

Win dodger

----------------

I don't know. That's why I bring my Bose headphones on the plane and try to pass the time while sucking down nips in coach.

Joking aside, my ears are not what they used to be. I love the FEEL of great music and the emotions that stir within. That's about it ... SET gave me the real emotional thrill of the music, and JFL SET raised it an order of magnitude.

However, when I see ole Jeff or Leo listening to music and their descriptions of what they're hearing, I realize that I'm little more than a partially deaf dolt.

----------------

Greetings Chris:

I do not believe you are a partially deaf dolt. If you were, you'd have a car radio with a 12 volt battery hooked up sitting on top your 13" screen tv with your eight tracks piled up next to them.

As you say it you can feel and from your words, you notice a difference with Amplifiers.

So, listen to the words Jeff uses, their context, where he describes something to be. Imagination and vocabulary contribute to the passion and description. It then contributes to knowledge.

Don't sell yourself short, nor set yourself up to be knocked down.

Tonight, sit and listen to Imagine and then I'm just Watching the Wheels go Round, bring that spark in, eyes closed, ears open.

Win dodger

[No Disc]

Interesting question.

I do recall reading the wall of sound experiment whereby a live ensemble played music in a large room with one wall of an arrary of microphones. On the other side of the wall was a large array of speakers, one for each microphone.

While I don't believe any recording took place, as it was a live feed, the results were impressive although not practical.

Perhaps in the future there will be other more direct forms of recording a live event such as recording the brain impulses of an actual listener, and playing those impulses back to the audience. Something like what was portrayed in the 1983 movie "Brainstorm." Fiction for sure, but interesting in concept.

- tb

[Mallette]

I am in a class with Chris, with rapid fall off after 12k. Probably dolt, too, but that's another story.

However, having well used my good hearing days in audio engineering and critical listening, I still hear or percieve things younger folks don't.

Like Dodger, I've recorded many live performances of very subtle mixtures of material, musicians, instruments, and space. These stick in my brain very clearly and when I replay at home I am far more amazed at the ability of fine equipment to recreate those experiences than I am at the deficiencies. I think many audiophiles development hyper awareness of equipment issues due to not being able to A-B (even after the fact) the actual event and the recorded version.

As a devotee of absolutely minimal microphones, 95% of the time two for stereo, four for surround, I believe that less mics means less aural confusion and more realism. Whatever the benefits of multiple mics in acoustic music, IMOH the loss of "thereness" cancels them.

I will admit to occasional use of a piano mic, as piano somehow seems to receed beyond the original experience in recording.

However, I NEVER normalize, process, EQ or anything else. Again, it always takes away more than it brings to the table. If it needs it, it wasn't done right in the first place.

Dave

[dodger]

----------------

On 9/8/2003 3:46:14 PM Mallett wrote:

I am in a class with Chris, with rapid fall off after 12k. Probably dolt, too, but that's another story.

However, having well used my good hearing days in audio engineering and critical listening, I still hear or percieve things younger folks don't.

Like Dodger, I've recorded many live performances of very subtle mixtures of material, musicians, instruments, and space. These stick in my brain very clearly and when I replay at home I am far more amazed at the ability of fine equipment to recreate those experiences than I am at the deficiencies. I think many audiophiles development hyper awareness of equipment issues due to not being able to A-B (even after the fact) the actual event and the recorded version.

As a devotee of absolutely minimal microphones, 95% of the time two for stereo, four for surround, I believe that less mics means less aural confusion and more realism. Whatever the benefits of multiple mics in acoustic music, IMOH the loss of "thereness" cancels them.

I will admit to occasional use of a piano mic, as piano somehow seems to receed beyond the original experience in recording.

However, I NEVER normalize, process, EQ or anything else. Again, it always takes away more than it brings to the table. If it needs it, it wasn't done right in the first place.

Dave

----------------

Greetings:

A minimalist for microphones. A pleasure to hear.

Recording the Philharmonic with four (4) microphones, one (1) placed away from the source to pick up natural ambience gave an incredible soundstage. Thus eliminating need for artificial processing or adding ambiance/reverberations and use of natural reflection.

The Eastman School of Music has an incredible list of classes, seminars and degrees. One (1) being Recording and Engineering with all pertinent segments covered properly

Win dodger

[Mallette]

My signature on another list is "Why only two mics? Well, I've only got two ears."

I am working on my surround sound coincident mic system, and plan to isomic by putting a piece of double-sided Sonex between them. Then, I plan to try a "cross" of same isolating all four.

Should be fun.

Dave

[ygmn]

How do we know what I hear is what you hear?

Or does a whopper taste the same to everyone?

Hard to measure opinion....

[Mallette]

What YOU hear is all wrong. ;-)

Seriously, I am amazed at the variety of hornheads I've been exposed to that hear pretty much the same things under the same conditions.

In one A/B test at my house, it was 100% agreement from folks ranging from about 17 to 50's, and completely different tastes. And we are talking subtle stuff here, not something really easy.

There is no accounting for or explaining taste in music...but reproduction quality and fidelity are amazingly similar in seasoned audiophiles, at least in my experience.

Dave

[mobile homeless]

Chris, I think TUBE amps in general gave you that emotional link to the music, not just SET. At least that is how I remember it. SET amplifiers have the potential to bring it a bit closer to real breath reality at times, but the emotion of listening on a good tube amp, even of the vintage variety actually connects you with the music as well as any.

I think SET is great and have put a lot of time extolling its virtues. But a good PP amp can provides a lot of magic and soul as well. And there is a certain grunt and drive quality to an excellent PP that is just a tad missing in the SET option. Most of it is there, but there is just a tad bit less of that drive that a really good PP can give you. On the whole, however, I agree that a quality SET amp brings that see-thru, uber-real quality that I have not heard in even the most deft push pull amps. This difference is lost on some but once heard, it's hard to forget. It still remains the closets thing to live that I have heard with a spooky transparency that drops almost all the electronic artifacts. PP always seems to sound just a bit more like an electronic device and does not have the ultimate in intimacy compared to SET amps. STill, they have their positive traits.

Dodger's question is a difficult one. I think even the best systems have trouble doing everything for all types of music. But some come amazingly close. A lot of systems excel at louder levels but dont fully bloom at low levels, as you need to bring volume to open them up. Hell, just reproducing the piano in its full glory is a bastard for 98% of all systems. Rock & Roll is relatively EASY in comparison.

kh

[Mallette]

>Hell, just reproducing the piano in its full glory is a bastard for 98% of all systems.

If you think it's a bastard for repro, try recording one. It's the rock many of us crack up on.

Dave

[Allan Songer]

Funny you should say that Rock & Roll is easy. Rock sounds TERRIBLE on my system, or maybe the system is so good it shows how TERRIBLE most rock and pop music is! Anyway, screaming electric guitars sound WAY better on my Tannoy Monitor Golds---WAY WAY better! In fact, if I were a big fan of Rock or Rap music, I would probably dump the Cornwalls in favor of the Tannoys. No kidding.

I think this shows that I have built my system around my musical tastes. I listen to live jazz about 5-7 times a month, sometimes even more often and tell you what, my system sounds as close to live small ensemble jazz as any I've heard.

[mobile homeless]

Actually, Rock can sound good on the CW but it ALL depends on two things: 1. The recording 2. the gear pushing them. I have a ton of rock recordings of all types as you know. Some of it sounds stellar on the CW but there are certain rock recordings that are horrid. IT really does depend. The PP EL-84 and EL-34 amps tend to mesh with rock a bit better to me. I havent heard a 6L6 amp on my CW yet.

BTW, there are some GREAT rock recordings, even if filled with distortion!

I wouldnt go so far to say that the CW are dreadful with rock. But it does seem the most suited to vinyl, tubes, and jazz. STill, if they didnt play rock, I wouldnt own them since that is a huge part of my collection.

I will say that if rock is ALL i listened to, I might side with other options besides any of the Heritage Klipsch.

kh

[Mallette]

I listen to significant rock on my system. In fact, Midnight Oil "Diesel and Dust" is the one CD I use to completely pin people to the wall. K'horns sound to me like I WISH live rock concerts did.

Dave

[bkrop]

If a tree falls in a forest, and no one is there to here it, does it still make a sound?

[mobile homeless]

All I was saying is I might agree with Allan that if one ONLY listens to rock, especially a lot of the horribly recorded rock, than the Heritage Klipsch mid/top is not always the best thing at hand, especially if listening to poor digital on top of that. That being said, I think rock CAN and DOES sound great but it really depends on the recordings and system. I sometimes dont know how people here listen to regular SS receivers to high decibels rock on Heritage speakers, yet there are MANY here that do. Actually, I dont like hardly ANY SS amp on Heritage at high volumes. Perhaps one grows sensitive to this type of sound. Mediocre solid state on Heritage is a lesson in hell. I think the LaScala is probably the worst offender in this sect but it's only a hunch. Give them the best amps for what you listen to and you will be rewarded.

kh

[Daddy Dee]

This question is hard to answer, but I know it when I hear it. Mobile is right on it about piano being so hard to reproduce adequately. I had been surprised, but should not have been, that it was a Liz Story recording that turned out to be my reference on tubes. I had never heard a particular passage undistorted, even with the 200b until after playing the CD on the Njoe Tjoebs.

There is something about tubes that is indeed magic, and to my ears, even more magic with SET. When I was curious enough to check out SET I'd laughed saying that O.K. now I want to get emotionally involved with my music. It is indeed amazing. I'm not sure what all is happening now when I listen, even with some high frequency hearing loss, but what is it when the relaxation comes?.. eyes just close as if falling asleep, but in something like wakeful bliss. It seems this is one of the things for which we are designed. Tubes and Klipsch is a definite complement to the design. Soul soothing. Heart dancing.

Thanks for the post Win.

Dee

[dodger]

Greetings:

You are welcome Dee.

I find it interesting regarding comments about digital. When first coming out, it was to be perfection. Now I see ads for signal processers that will give your digital that warm analog sound, or those that want to give a tube sound to digital.

The Cornwall IIs are a great all music speaker, IMHO.

They have the ability to punch you in the gut and give you smelling salts in the quieter passages.

Depending on your equipment, they can be finely detailed, swift enough to cover bass properly.

On the subject of recording, I like purity. One way I mic Guitars, Bass Guitars and Hammond Organ with Leslies is to use a good Cardoid patterned mic, keep it about eight (8) inches away from the amplifier but about two (2) to three (3) inches above the center of the speaker aiming about ninety degrees to the left.

Keeping the microphone parallel to the cabinet helps to eliminate the "dry" sound and give it life.

For piano I use a two (2) mic system. Piano top fully open, one mic bwtween the center and high strings, slightly parallel placed by the curve slightly toward the hammers. The second mic has to have definition and is placed on the bass hand side on a boom aimed down toward the 2/3 from the front of the piano. For the bass, I prefer an electret, uni directional, the high a cardoid or if using an electret about one (1) foot above the strings aimed down a little more facing the top.

It's a shame that people hear such a difference between Jazz and rock recordings, the Engineer should be competent enough to do equal justice to both. And keep the bass drum mic at least 2/3 of the way outside of the drum.

Win dodger

[JBryan]

I listen to most rock music at 95+dB; orchestral music at 90-95dB; jazz at 85-90dB and so on trying to mimic how the music is actually presented in the real world. My goal is to create the illusion that the musicians are performing for me - not necessarily in the room and ultimately, the audio system and the room should just disappear. Much to my wife's chagrine, I can't keep myself from playing rock at very high levels.

For a real aural treat, get a Reprise "pink label" copy of Jimi Hendrix's 'Axis, Bold as Love' in mono or the Classic records reissue, also in mono and turn the volume up to where you'd expect Hendrix would play (or as loud as you can stand - whichever comes first). The LP oozes with warm, beautiful distortion and some great licks from a fellow who knew what a Stratocaster should sound like. Just an awe-inspiring experience and a view into the recording gear and engineers at their best and just before the fall into all-SS recording (my opinion). Have fun, Bryan