Refreshing AAs

[Deang]

Heck, there are all sorts of studies that indicate recordings sound better than the actual live sound.

Sometimes -- it depends on the recording, right?

standardize studio and playback acoustics....they already do it with movies and the results are great. But alas, it would never go anywhere because the audiophools are more about the emotional adventure/exploration than actually enjoying the art for what it is. I guess we'll just have to stick to overcompressed nonsense because it's the only thing that translates well.

For the genre of music I enjoy, I'm pretty much stuck with substandard recordings. If you want to stay with art thing, then I can only say most recording engineers are using crayons and don't know the first thing about laying strokes down on a canvas. Apparently, most either don't care much about what we hear, or don't know all that much about how we hear. Now, if standardization brought something to the table that was actually pleasing to listen to, like a quality work of art brings to the eye for example -- then I'm all for it. However, we have what we have, and what I'm interested in is having a positive listening experience by being drawn into the music. What point is there in sitting down in front of your system and saying, "Man, that sounds terrible, oh well, I guess that's the way the ol'e artist in the studio wanted me to hear it -- so I might as well sit back and enjoy it."

Too bad "audiophile" has become such a nasty word around here. Most of them have pretty good sounding systems -- the kind that do a good job of salvaging the bad art practiced in the recording studio. There's not much worse out there than listening to a system that exasperates every problem in the recording chain.

[DrWho]

Yes, I know you're fond of statistics and to my recollection I know of

two studies with a live band and speakers playing a recording of the

same band behind a screen and people were asked to pick out the better

sounding of the two. One of them was actually posted on this forum so

maybe someone will chime in with it. I know you're going to claim the

low number of people tested isn't sufficient to make a broad claim

(which I agree with), but that is why I said "indicate" []

My comment was also made in light of a huge quantity of reviews

claiming bands sound better on recordings. This of course isn't the

case all the time and there are a lot of other factors involved, but it

certainly lines up with my personal experiences with well accomplished

musicians.

[colterphoto1]

I suppose the recording are 'better' if you include the overdubs, multitracking, computer driven boards, massive effects processing, controlled room acoustics and mic placement etc.

The same band in a true live situation has to deal with single takes, no multitracking, live mixing, limited effects, feedback, heat, humidity, drunks throwing bottles, raspy throats from hours on the bus and too much substances on the road, etc.

Yeah, I'd say most bands sound better recorded. But there is an immediacy to the live event that is more thrilling. It's the danger element of walking the tightwire without a net, taking an extended solo into foreign keys, the interplay of audience and performer, the energy level and relationships between band members (who might not even see each other in a studio setting).

My point is that in order to better appreciate what our sound reproduction systems are, in some aspect, trying to emulate, the listener should become educated about the sound of real acoustic drums, the scream coming from a Marshall stack, of overloaded tubes in a Hammond B3 sweating away stage right, the nuances of a flute or female voice. One must have some experience with these in a 'live' setting in order to truly appreciate them in one's own listening environment.

Or not. I don't really care anymore.

Or am I just getting carpel tunnel for the fun of it?

[DrWho]

I totally agree that live music is way more fun, but I don't think recorded music is trying to emulate that same atmosphere. Perhaps it should? We've got surround sound covered, so throw in holographic waitresses and special cups that stimulate the taste buds...sounds a bit sci-fi though. And for the expense you could sooner just see the live show [] Now if only we could get a live show with all the same 'quality' as the recordings...

[colterphoto1]

Milli Vanilli

[Deang]

I've seen/heard some live performances that no system/recording I've heard even remotely comes close too.

Gentle Giant at the UD Arena in Dayton, Ohio

Judas Priest at Hara Arena in Dayton, Ohio

Asia at Hara

ELP at Hara

Styx at Hara

Ted Nugent at Hara

Van Halen at Hara

Journey at Hara

The Moody Blues at the Nutter Center in Fairborn, Ohio

Pink Floyd at Cleveland Stadium

I'm talking sweet and clean -- major goose bump kind of sound. I can still hear Nugent doing Great White Buffalo as he's running across the top of his literal wall of Marshall stacks.

[PrestonTom]

I wanted to extend the perspective on this "live music" thing.

Much of what is being mentioned regards performances that are heavily amplified and in venues that were not specifically designed for musical performance. I had a wonderful opportunity last year to go to a Mozart concert ( 250th bitrthday is this year) in London. There was no amplification and the hall sounded wonderful. This is the way music should be enjoyed. On quality recordings: 1) the musicians play simultaneously, 2) there is little or no compression, 3) the sound is not "augmented" and 4) there is a natural balance that reflects the instrument & locations as they were intended.

In my humble opinion this is how a system or components (amps, spaekers, room treatment, crossovers, etc) should be evaluated. The idea that recorded music should sound "better" simply indicates, I feel, that the original performances & recordings are flawed (for a variety of reasons).

Remember the Heyser review of the Klipschorns, he related that at first the bass seemed weak until he compared it actual recordings of environmental sounds. Then he concluded that it was absolutely accurate. That was a noteworthy observation. We have all heard human voices and various unamplified musical instruments. Now listen to a decently recorded opera, choral music, orchestra, chamber ensemble. Many will comment that there is not enough bass, or it is not "loud" enough etc. The honest truth is that is the way it supposed to sound.

I guess what I am suggesting is to "demo" your various stereo acquistions with music that does NOT have an overlay of distortion from amplification, or deteroration from a bad performance venue, or gimmicks from a recording engineer. Such carefully recorded work does exist, although much of it seems to be restricted to Classical and some jazz (not all of it, but certainly much of it). It really is a more revealing source.

This was not meant to insult anyone's taste in music. But I feel strongly that the source should simply capture the instruments and hall and leave out the rest. Let the audio system reveal the original recording, but use a good recording.

-Tom

[3dzapper]

Sometimes, late at night as I listen to some quieter types of accustical music, I feel that the weakest link between the artist and my ears is the microphone. I know this because each recording is different. Some sound like wow, I'm there! While others have a "speaker" sound between us. Like amplified accustical music in a club. If it were my system it would be there constantly and consistantly.

It may well be the mic amp, tape machine or mixing console for all I know. I just pretend to be listening in a pub without the clamour.[8]

Rick

[Daddy Dee]

I just pretend to be listening in a pub without the clamour.[8]

Rick

Yeh, I do the same thing. I even love the recordings with the clinking of glass and silverware in the background.

[soundbound]

.

[DrWho]

Sounds like y'all have wierd listening tastes []

I was just visiting a friend from church who has Vienna Acoustics whatever huge big mains and he was commenting on my music listening...I'm the punk teenage that likes a good muscle car - loud and powerful. Eventually I'll grow up and learn to appreciate the slower gentler rides of the rich yuppy cars. But until then.... []

[colterphoto1]

Yeh, I do the same thing. I even love the recordings with the clinking of glass and silverware in the background.

That kind of thing broke up a perfectly good Deep Purple at one point! David Coverdale insisted on those background party noises on a song called 'What's Going on Here'. It was one of the reasons Ritchie Blackmore left the band!