Musical, clinical, dry...(speakers)

[sfellini]

The speaker and gear I want is the one which sounds the most like actual music when the system is translating bits from a CD, or the translation of motion on an LP.

What if the recording (ie the source) is poorly done? Should your system still

make it sound like music? And if it does, what will it do to a recording that

was done right to begin with? Do you want your system to sound like

"actual music", or have it sound like the recording?

I don't think you can have it both ways.

I'd love to respond, but since you addressed Mark will button it. I look forward to his reply.

Dave

Well, you have responded. So feel free... :-).

[merkin]

Back to wine. If my wine taste leathery and horsey I guess I didn't wash my hands after I got done cleaning out the stable.

So do you get leathery and horsey flavor by adding the sweat from under the saddle when you are done riding?

[kev313]

 The speaker and gear I want is the one which sounds the most like actual music when the system is translating bits from a CD, or the translation of motion on an LP.

What if the recording (ie the source) is poorly done?  Should your system still

make it sound like music?  And if it does, what will it do to a recording that

was done right to begin with?   Do you want your system to sound like

"actual music", or have it sound like the recording?

 

I don't think you can have it both ways.

 

You'd have to first define "poor recording" - but I assume you don't mean it had sour notes, or sloppy performance, but rather was badly engineered. In the latter case, there's no help for that, obviously. 

And then how can one ever judge the accuracy of a speaker? Accurate to the original recording? Accurate to "live music"? Live music from where? At the end of the 2007 CSO season I had the opportunity to hear Beethoven's Ninth on 2 different evenings. Once from my regular seat - lower box four rows up, right side 4 seats off the middle of the aisle. The second evening was from middle of the floor - literally smack in the middle of the house, ground floor. Same performers, same music, way WAY different sounds. What is the reality against which this "accuracy" is judged?

[kev313]

 Kev--

I used to say this, but people never got it: Hold the CD up to your ear and tell me what you hear? 

Har har. Wait...time alignment?

[dtel]

It's all relative, there has never been any recording on any format that sounds exactly like the live event . IMO

Or is it nothing can reproduce it ?

[wallflower]

I've heard both the aforementioned Wilson Audio and B&W speakers, both in good demo rooms with arguably excellent electronics, and neither sounded like they reproduced anything close to "live" music.

"Audiophiles" are listening for something different than the reference sound Coyote is referring to. I suspect if "audiophiles" would plop themselves down in more live venues they'd quickly realize what real instruments (and voices) sound like rather than their misperception of what they ought to sound like.

[Mallette]

The speaker and gear I want is the one which sounds the most like actual music when the system is translating bits from a CD, or the translation of motion on an LP.

What if the recording (ie the source) is poorly done? Should your system still

make it sound like music? And if it does, what will it do to a recording that

was done right to begin with? Do you want your system to sound like

"actual music", or have it sound like the recording?

I don't think you can have it both ways.

You'd have to first define "poor recording" - but I assume you don't mean it had sour notes, or sloppy performance, but rather was badly engineered. In the latter case, there's no help for that, obviously.

Yeppum. If your system makes crap sound like heavenly harmony, it is by definition inaccurate.

Dave

[Mallette]

The speaker and gear I want is the one which sounds the most like actual music when the system is translating bits from a CD, or the translation of motion on an LP.

What if the recording (ie the source) is poorly done? Should your system still

make it sound like music? And if it does, what will it do to a recording that

was done right to begin with? Do you want your system to sound like

"actual music", or have it sound like the recording?

I don't think you can have it both ways.

You'd have to first define "poor recording" - but I assume you don't mean it had sour notes, or sloppy performance, but rather was badly engineered. In the latter case, there's no help for that, obviously.

Yeppum. If your system makes crap sound like heavenly harmony, it is by definition inaccurate.

Dave

PS - You can say that again. []

[BillH2121]

It has always seemed to me that the purpose of recordings and the audio equipment that plays the recordings is to reproduce or "document" the artistic event. The "art" is the original performance - whether in a studio, concert hall, local bar, wherever. While there may be an "art" involved in the recording process, or producing great audio equipment, etc, the underlying art that is of the most importance is the musical performance. Were we discussing a different medium, i.e., painting or sculpture, there would be no need for the recording or playback equipment - we would simply visit the gallery and view the artist's creation in its original form. Unfortunately, with a temporal medium such as music, we simply cannot do that. Equipment, whether recording or playback, that changes the performance changes the artist's creation. Would you put a filter over a Monet painting to emphasize certain colors to create a "better" effect? I would hope not. When a musician performs in a certain venue, he accepts the conditions (echoes, dead spots, etc) and his performance is done with that compromise in mind. The recording process involves another compromise that, again., the artist, may accept and have some say over. Our personal choices of audio equipment add an additional layer of compromsie over which the artist surely has no control. Accuracy is truth - each step in the recording and playback chain takes us further from that original performance that we seek to recreate. To the extent our audio equipment changes the sound of the original performance, we have added an additonal "performer" that was not meant to be there.

[Coytee]

Since "accuracy is truth" there has to be an independently repeatable methodology, otherwise truth is just an opinion, isn't it?

Interesting... I'll admit that when I read your above comment (and the associated CD's with it) the first thought through my head was... "well, aren't the 'audiophile' (with the fancy words & descriptions) doing the same thing? Perhaps not... but that's kind of my take on it. Meaning... take those same CD's and put it through the two speaker brands mentioned in the beginning.... which one is now the reference standard for those same CD's? I wonder if the reference standard can change depending on which CD is in... then how can it really be the reference standard?

Another take is, how can Coke and Diet Sprite be a reference standard of the same catagory?

Furthermore...regarding the comments about leathery wine & such... I'm not a wine person, but it seems to me that each sip of wine is of itself, an 'original' experience. We however, are talking about a reproduction of an event so in the case of wine... each sip is "reality" but reality in the recorded world is what happened when the note was first made, no?

I realize that if made in the studio, you then have additional influences of all the gyrations the signal might go through from string pluck to mixer board etc.. then to CD or LP creation.

[BillH2121]

It has always seemed to me that the purpose of recordings and the audio equipment that plays the recordings is to reproduce or "document" the artistic event. The "art" is the original performance - whether in a studio, concert hall, local bar, wherever. While there may be an "art" involved in the recording process, or producing great audio equipment, etc, the underlying art that is of the most importance is the musical performance. Were we discussing a different medium, i.e., painting or sculpture, there would be no need for the recording or playback equipment - we would simply visit the gallery and view the artist's creation in its original form. Unfortunately, with a temporal medium such as music, we simply cannot do that. Equipment, whether recording or playback, that changes the performance changes the artist's creation. Would you put a filter over a Monet painting to emphasize certain colors to create a "better" effect? I would hope not. When a musician performs in a certain venue, he accepts the conditions (echoes, dead spots, etc) and his performance is done with that compromise in mind. The recording process involves another compromise that, again., the artist, may accept and have some say over. Our personal choices of audio equipment add an additional layer of compromsie over which the artist surely has no control. Accuracy is truth - each step in the recording and playback chain takes us further from that original performance that we seek to recreate. To the extent our audio equipment changes the sound of the original performance, we have added an additonal "performer" that was not meant to be there.

Which of the following CDs is "accurate," and how do you make the determination?

"Gustav Holst: The Planets", Op 32 by Gustav Holst, André Previn, and Royal Philharmonic Orchestra

"Blue" by Mitchell, Joni (Audio CD - Oct 25, 1990)

"Birth of the Cool," by Davis, Miles (Audio CD - Jan 9, 2001)

"Led Zeppelin II," by Led Zeppelin (Audio CD - Jun 21, 1994)

Since "accuracy is truth" there has to be an independently repeatable methodology, otherwise truth is just an opinion, isn't it?

I can never know which of those recordings is accurate unless I attended the actual performance and possess a perfect memory - not a likely combination for me. The state of accuracy I'm talking about is a theoretical state of perfection that can probably never exist with this hobby - in which the reproduction is an exact replication of the original. What I can do is rely upon my experience and memory as a performing musician to recall what instruments actually sound like in live performance and strive to obtain equipment and recordings that recreate, at the least to me, accurate sounds of various instruments. I should hear the ping of sticks on cymbals, the "thud" of a bass drum, the shimmer of a violin playing in its upper register, etc, etc. But I will never know if the recording is an accurate reproduction of the actual performance - that's one of the things that makes this hobbly so fascinating and maddening - its governed by subjective response with few reference points to "truth". We all hear what we hear but that doesn't mean that's what the artist meant for us to hear.

[BillH2121]

^^^^

Actually, I think that we are in agreement in most respects - my primary point is that because of the art form at issue (music) and its inherent differences from other forms such as painting, scuplture, literature, etc, we have trouble agreeing as listeners regarding what the original artwork actually is (due to all the subjective consideration you mention above). Further, every layer of "interference" with the artwork, such as recording and reproduction moves us further away from what that original is or was. However, I do think that it is important to consider what the artist wanted you to hear - I can tell you from experience that that in the mixing and recording process certain things get buried or magnified or altered in some way that affects the final product and ultimate vision the artist wanted to present. I also agree with you about the specialized language that we use in our hobby to describe things - that was the point of my earlier post regarding "terms of art". Every group develops this specialized language to describe in richer detail their experience (i.e. wine tasters, cigar smokers, cinema critics). Lastly, I guess my other point was that to the extent every speaker has limitations that in some way alter the sound sought to be reproduced, it cannot be said to be "accurate". Does fewer limitations equal more accuracy - I don't know - I'll leave that to the more technically knowledgeable people on this Board like yourself to consider - I'm just not sure that "clinical" is bad if it results in a sound more like, than unlike, the actual performance.

[Don Richard]

Since "accuracy is truth" there has to be an independently repeatable methodology, otherwise truth is just an opinion, isn't it?

Interesting... I'll admit that when I read your above comment (and the associated CD's with it) the first thought through my head was... "well, aren't the 'audiophile' (with the fancy words & descriptions) doing the same thing? Perhaps not... but that's kind of my take on it. Meaning... take those same CD's and put it through the two speaker brands mentioned in the beginning.... which one is now the reference standard for those same CD's? I wonder if the reference standard can change depending on which CD is in... then how can it really be the reference standard?

Another take is, how can Coke and Diet Sprite be a reference standard of the same catagory?

Furthermore...regarding the comments about leathery wine & such... I'm not a wine person, but it seems to me that each sip of wine is of itself, an 'original' experience. We however, are talking about a reproduction of an event so in the case of wine... each sip is "reality" but reality in the recorded world is what happened when the note was first made, no?

I realize that if made in the studio, you then have additional influences of all the gyrations the signal might go through from string pluck to mixer board etc.. then to CD or LP creation.

Richard---

Now you are getting there. The "musical reality" was a guy playing his violin in some 3D space and the listener who heard it at that moment. Whatever happens AFTER that such as using mics to convert pressure to electricity and storing it for later processing and then on to a disc, is NOT THE MUSIC. What is on that disc has never been heard as a musical event - - only an electrical event later on in the mixing room. And unless you have that room, with those speakers and gear, you will not hear what the mixer put on that CD - period. And whatever IS on that disc, is NOT the 3D reality of the guy bowing his violin in a space. Where does that leave you?

We should all remember the famous demonstration when Paul Klipsch had Khorns behind the curtain with a symphony orchestra in front. When the musicians put down their instruments in the middle of the performance, walked away, and the curtain was raised revealing the sound source the people were astonished.

Thats good enough for me!

Don

[DrWho]

Since when was the sole goal of any recording to capture a live event exactly as it happened?!? []

[BillH2121]

Since when was the sole goal of any recording to capture a live event exactly as it happened?!?

You may have to elaborate some - I don't know if its a sole goal, but people generally don't buy a cd or album based on who the recording engineer is - they look to the artist and want to hear the artistic creation envisioned by the artist. I agree that may involve a collaborative effort between musician and recording engineer (think George Martin and the Beatles). But regardless, the performance is the event - it is the art. Is what you're saying that the recording is the art, after numerous takes and edits, etc., and not the performance. I agree, that may be a compelling argument in many cases - its a good point.

[Jay481985]

I've heard both the aforementioned Wilson Audio and B&W speakers, both in good demo rooms with arguably excellent electronics, and neither sounded like they reproduced anything close to "live" music.

I've never heard any speaker yet sound like live acoustic music.

I have heard some live classical music at some terrible venues and I thought my RF-83 playing the cd version sounded much more appealing then the poorly treated room.

[Jay481985]

Back to wine. If my wine taste leathery and horsey I guess I didn't wash my hands after I got done cleaning out the stable.

So do you get leathery and horsey flavor by adding the sweat from under the saddle when you are done riding?

I drink wine a lot, I can usually taste about 5 different tastes usually, which is a far cry from most wine afficinados which can describe more than 30. But its only if you are trying to find flavors do I go out and say, well that tastes like raspberries there or this etc....... But there is usually one base note that does come out. Also I do know what I expect for when I open a bottle of Cabernet Savignon vesus a bottle of Voignier.

[kev313]

Since "accuracy is truth" there has to be an independently repeatable methodology, otherwise truth is just an opinion, isn't it?

Interesting...  I'll admit that when I read your above comment (and the associated CD's with it) the first thought through my head was... "well, aren't the 'audiophile' (with the fancy words & descriptions) doing the same thing?  Perhaps not...  but that's kind of my take on it.  Meaning...  take those same CD's and put it through the two speaker brands mentioned in the beginning....  which one is now the reference standard for those same CD's?  I wonder if the reference standard can change depending on which CD is in...  then how can it really be the reference standard?

Another take is, how can Coke and Diet Sprite be a reference standard of the same catagory? 

Furthermore...regarding the comments about leathery wine & such...  I'm not a wine person, but it seems to me that each sip of wine is of itself, an 'original' experience.  We however, are talking about a reproduction of an event so in the case of wine...  each sip is "reality" but reality in the recorded world is what happened when the note was first made, no? 

I realize that if made in the studio, you then have additional influences of all the gyrations the signal might go through from string pluck to mixer board etc.. then to CD or LP creation. 

 

 

Richard---

Now you are getting there. The "musical reality" was a guy playing his violin in some 3D space and the listener who heard it at that moment. Whatever happens AFTER that such as using mics to convert pressure to electricity and storing it for later processing and then on to a disc, is NOT THE MUSIC. What is on that disc has never been heard as a musical event - - only an electrical event later on in the mixing room. And unless you have that room, with those speakers and gear, you will not hear what the mixer put on that CD - period. And whatever IS on that disc, is NOT the 3D reality of the guy bowing his violin in a space. Where does that leave you? 

 

We should all remember the famous demonstration when Paul Klipsch had Khorns behind the curtain with a symphony orchestra in front. When the musicians put down their instruments in the middle of the performance, walked away, and the curtain was raised revealing the sound source the people were astonished.

Thats good enough for me!

Don

Perhaps, although, for the purposes of this discussion, I suppose the key question would be "Were the Klipschorns playing a recording of THAT orchestra in THAT room?" If not, then perhaps they are not too "accurate" according to your potential example

[DrWho]

Since when was the sole goal of any recording to capture a live event exactly as it happened?!?

You may have to elaborate some - I don't know if its a sole goal, but people generally don't buy a cd or album based on who the recording engineer is - they look to the artist and want to hear the artistic creation envisioned by the artist. I agree that may involve a collaborative effort between musician and recording engineer (think George Martin and the Beatles). But regardless, the performance is the event - it is the art. Is what you're saying that the recording is the art, after numerous takes and edits, etc., and not the performance. I agree, that may be a compelling argument in many cases - its a good point.

Just real quick, I would not claim that the performance and the recording cannot both be art at the same time.

Ultimately, I guess what I'm trying to say is that the recording medium / process allows for the creation of new sounds...just like a picaso would never exist without the canvas.

I also believe that in respect of the artist, that which was originally on the canvas should be the representation of the art....not drawing a mustache (adding "flavorful" distortions) on the Mona Lisa because you think it looks better.

[Mallette]

Mike did not qualify his statement. so one cannot really respond.

Obviously, rock and roll and most music with electric/electronic components cannot be capture "...exactly as it happened" because it did not happen. It is a creation.

However, the job of an engineer in the vast majority of acoustic performances and environments job is, indeed, to capture the moment precisely as experienced by the ears. Big job.

As to the comparisons of live vs. memorex, they go all the way back to the acoustic era. In the 100th anniversery commerations of the phonograph, there is an article describing a curtain live vs. gramophone event in which the audience was unable to tell the difference.

That in itself should demonstrate that listening is, indeed, a learned skill.

Dave