Why doesn’t reproduced music sound like the real thing?

[JonFo]

Not to be a snob or anything, but amplified popular music cannot be a live reference IMO. What is the reference in this case? The amps? The mixing board? The speaker stack? In this belief I concur with many others in that unamplified music played in an acoustic space, thanks HP, is the only valid reference for reproduced sound.

Risabet, I agree. I was jsut responding to anothers comments about concerts vs recordings.

My personal reference is solo grand piano.
I grew up in home with a Steinway grand played by a Julliard grad concert pianist. So it's pretty well fixed in my mind

I've never been fooled into thinking there actually was a piano in the room, but the ML's (+the IB sub) are the only speakers to even come close to delviering.

 

[tonepub]

Not to be a snob or anything, but amplified popular music cannot be a live reference IMO. What is the reference in this case? The amps? The mixing board? The speaker stack? In this belief I concur with many others in that unamplified music played in an acoustic space, thanks HP, is the only valid reference for reproduced sound.

You are absolutely right.

The only way I find popular music (that is well recorded) as any kind of reference, is just the fact that there are records that I've heard on hundreds of different components and what I'm listening for is the change from my reference setup.

But in the end to judge tonal accuracy, acoustic music is the only real reference, or if you have vocal recordings that you know intimately. Either way it's still pretty tricky.

 

[Bernard]

Not to be a snob or anything, but amplified popular music cannot be a live reference IMO. What is the reference in this case? The amps? The mixing board? The speaker stack? In this belief I concur with many others in that unamplified music played in an acoustic space, thanks HP, is the only valid reference for reproduced sound.

I agree with you completely, but just to be the Devil's Advocate, people who claim that you can use popular, amplified music as a reference have stated that you do not know what, for example, a violin you are listening to really sounds like, i.e. a Stradivarius sounds different from a Guarnerius. Based upon that, they claim that any type of music can be used as a reference.

And yes, they tend to think of us as snobs

BTW would you take it one step further and say that the source has to be analog ?

 

[TomDac]

I've seen my share of live concerts... Rock/Pop is almost always dependant on the sound engineers and the acoustics of the venue. Sometimes even then I am disappointed, but not by the sound, but because the songs I know and love don't sound like the records...

As a rule of thumb, I never go to a live concert expecting to be amazed at the sound quality.. I go because I like the artist and music. IF the sound quality, etc is good, I walk away with a very memorable evening. If not, I still had fun.

I almost never go to large venues to see bands anymore. There are exceptions, of course.. Depeche Mode at Shoreline Ampitheater, Coldplay at Shoreline and Elton John at San Jose Arena come to mind... I really prefer to be in a small venue with an up and coming band (Keane, Dishwalla, Days of The New) or a band in it's golden years (THE TUBES, Howard Jones, ABC)

I think the only concert I ever was really disappointed in was the Ramones at San Diego State Ampitheater because Joey Ramone's vocals were drowned out by the bass guitar.

Although I'm not a fan of classical music, I sure would like to someday go to the symphony. I imagine they pay alot more attention to what the quality of the sound the audience hears than they do at a rock concert.

 

[tonepub]

I agree with you completely, but just to be the Devil's Advocate, people who claim that you can use popular, amplified music as a reference have stated that you do not know what, for example, a violin you are listening to really sounds like, i.e. a Stradivarius sounds different from a Guarnerius. Based upon that, they claim that any type of music can be used as a reference.

And yes, they tend to think of us as snobs

BTW would you take it one step further and say that the source has to be analog ?

Analog and digital are both handicapped to some extent. It really depends on the recording and mastering qualities of either. Both can sound great, Analog more often than not has more tonal richness, but the rotational problems with analog playback (speed errors, rumble and wow and flutter) can sometimes take it's toll on acoustic instruments as well.

So many of todays modern analog releases are still recorded 24 bit/96k at conception, you are rarely getting a full analog recording anyway, even if you are buying vinyl.

When I sat in on the mastering session for the Tom Petty
"Highway Companion" LP with Steve Hoffman and Kevin Gray,
TP's engineer told us that even though he had a 2" analog master
there with him, is was transferred from a 24/96 multitrack master....

 

[Bernard]

Although I'm not a fan of classical music, I sure would like to someday go to the symphony. I imagine they pay alot more attention to what the quality of the sound the audience hears than they do at a rock concert.

Wasn't it the SF Symphony Orchestra that had a billboard (or something similar) that said, "Speakers ? We don't need no stinking speakers" ?

Tom, I imagine that in your area you are able to hear some mighty fine performances. I would like to hear your reaction to something symphonic that is not too serious....along the lines of "Carmina Burana", which has been used in the soundtracks of lots of movies.

 

[amey01]

Not to be a snob or anything, but amplified popular music cannot be a live reference IMO. What is the reference in this case? The amps? The mixing board? The speaker stack? In this belief I concur with many others in that unamplified music played in an acoustic space, thanks HP, is the only valid reference for reproduced sound.

I don't at all agree. While acoustic music sounds different to music that has been amplified by sound reinforcement equipment, "amplified popular music", when it is live, still sounds live (see my previous posts).

If you walk someone blindfolded into a venue that is playing "amplified popular music", that blindfolded person will *INSTANTLY* be able to tell if it is recorded or live.

That, is the difference I am talking about - that is the difference I wish I could experience on my recordings.........sure, unamplified chamber music such as solo piano sound purer still, but there is a fundamental difference between live and recorded - and it is not the fault of the mixer/amplifier/speakers.

 

[ScottGardner]

Couple more points to think about. Sound reinforcement equipment is just that: ‘Reinforcement’. What this means is that if the main PA were to lose power, you would still hear the guitars, drums, and other instruments. Vocals would be lost completely (except for maybe the stage monitors) and everything else would be much quieter. How much quieter depends a lot on the ‘mix’ and how much ‘reinforcement’ is being used.

One of the most difficult things to get right live is vocals. This is because everything else on stage is competing with them. Guitar amps, drums, even the stage monitors themselves are all picked up by the vocal mics. If you’ve ever wondered why the vocals were buried in the mix it’s because the stage volume is too loud relative to the amount of ‘reinforcement’ taking place.

So, depending on the extent of ‘reinforcement’, instrument dynamics play a key role in the question: ‘is it live or is it Memorex?’ In small clubs this will be a much bigger factor than at a large show primarily because of stage size.

 

[slowGEEZR]

I don't at all agree. While acoustic music sounds different to music that has been amplified by sound reinforcement equipment, "amplified popular music", when it is live, still sounds live (see my previous posts).

If you walk someone blindfolded into a venue that is playing "amplified popular music", that blindfolded person will *INSTANTLY* be able to tell if it is recorded or live.

That, is the difference I am talking about - that is the difference I wish I could experience on my recordings.........sure, unamplified chamber music such as solo piano sound purer still, but there is a fundamental difference between live and recorded - and it is not the fault of the mixer/amplifier/speakers.

Amey, you should check out the McIntosh XRT range of speakers. These come the closest I have heard to sounding like live amplified music.

http://www.mcintoshlabs.com/products/LoudSpeakers.asp

 

[tonepub]

if you want an interesting experiment (but not with your ML's)
take your favorite pair of box speakers, play them in your room and
then take em out in your backyard and listen to the diff.....

 

[sleepysurf]

if you want an interesting experiment (but not with your ML's)
take your favorite pair of box speakers, play them in your room and
then take em out in your backyard and listen to the diff.....

Actually, I've always wanted to try that with my ML's, but too daunting, especially with the Summits! I guess it's like listening in an anechoic chamber. I presume it sounds worse due to lack of any room effects whatsoever. What happens to the "sweet spot"?

 

[Rich]

I had an interesting conversation with a recording engineer from Muscle Shoals the other day. He is a music lover, but not an audiophile. He had some interesting insights on some of these issues. He said that a lot of engineers believe in using some pretty crappy yamaha speakers for mixing -- the idea being that if you can get it to sound good on that setup, then it should sound good on any setup.

He also said he is seriously considering incorporating a subwoofer into his studio monitoring setup. He said that some studios use them and some don't, but that he thought it was probably a good idea to incorporate it so he can hear the information on the recording in the lower frequency range.

He is a serious believer in acoustic treatments, and felt that proper acoustics was one of the most important things to get right in a studio setup. He is not so much into the audiophile-grade equipment and is unfamiliar with most manufacturers advertising in Stereophile and TAS, although he does understand the differences in sound between tube and solid-state equipment and such.

What I found interesting was the disconnect between the quality of the pro gear used in most studios vs. the quality that we audiophiles expect in our gear. Is it any wonder that we can't get a lot of recordings to sound "real" or even great on our systems, when the recordings are made with average quality components? Perhaps the quality of the Mapleshade recordings is a testament to their dedication to using high quality gear and great acoustic spaces in their recordings.

As for the: "Is it live or is it memorex debate," I have never really believed in the notion of a live performance as a reference for recorded music. It is simply impossible to achieve. Mics are not ears. They do not "hear" the same as we do. Cables are not neurons. Mixers are not brains. A recording is never going to perfectly match what your ears would hear in a performance. And remember, we are taking these sounds, transposing them through mics, wires, mixers onto tape or digital, and then reading them off of that and sending the signal through source components, cables, preamps, cables, amps, cables, and speakers.

You are so far removed from the source at that point there is no possibility of ever matching the "real thing." So why even pretend that the real thing is a point of reference? It isn't. A recording is different. So I say just get over it and enjoy the music!

 

[Bernard]

You are so far removed from the source at that point there is no possibility of ever matching the "real thing." So why even pretend that the real thing is a point of reference? It isn't. A recording is different. So I say just get over it and enjoy the music!

It is a given that you will never match the real thing, but the real thing is the only reference you will ever have, and the point of it all is to get as close to it as you possibly can (in this case a country mile may be the closest). That said, I agree with you that you should just get over it and enjoy the music.

 

[amey01]

Mics are not ears. They do not "hear" the same as we do. Cables are not neurons. Mixers are not brains. A recording is never going to perfectly match what your ears would hear in a performance. And remember, we are taking these sounds, transposing them through mics, wires, mixers onto tape or digital, and then reading them off of that and sending the signal through source components, cables, preamps, cables, amps, cables, and speakers.

I don't see how this can hold. Live "amplified" music is going through mics, mixers, wires, etc.

What I may not have made clear in my post #2 regarding my shopping centre experience, I couldn't actually see (nor was I anywhere near) the live ensemble being piped directly into the PA system. All I could hear was the PA speakers (and it sounded magnificient!).

 

[ScottGardner]

...regarding my shopping centre experience, I couldn't actually see (nor was I anywhere near) the live ensemble being piped directly into the PA system. All I could hear was the PA speakers (and it sounded magnificient!).

...I couldn't believe it, and was looking up at the tinny little speakers trying to work out if they'd changed

Were they piping the sound through these small speakers in addition to the PA? If they were I wonder what it sounded like, say, at the other end of the shopping center where the sound was only coming from the tiny speakers.

 

[Rich]

It is a given that you will never match the real thing, but the real thing is the only reference you will ever have, and the point of it all is to get as close to it as you possibly can (in this case a country mile may be the closest).

This is part of what I disagree with -- the idea that we need a reference. Why do I need a "reference" to decide how good a musical recording sounds? Why can't I just listen to the recording and decide for myself if it is pleasing or not? Why must I only like it if it is an actual realistic depiction of a live performance? Who says that it has to be as close to real as possible in order for us to enjoy it? And who says that real is necessarily better? I have heard live performances in my local symphony that don't come anywhere close to the quality of fine recordings of the same performances on my system.

I can look at a photograph of a sunset and enjoy it or not, without trying to decide how realistically it represents an actual sunset. In fact, it may look much better than the actual sunset (with extra contrast and over-saturated colors) albeit less realistic. Why do I need to compare it to the reference of a real sunset in order to enjoy it? Same with recorded music.

 

[amey01]

Were they piping the sound through these small speakers in addition to the PA? If they were I wonder what it sounded like, say, at the other end of the shopping center where the sound was only coming from the tiny speakers.

The other end of the centre is where I was. The only sound I could hear was coming through the tinny little in-ceiling speakers!!

 

[Bernard]

This is part of what I disagree with -- the idea that we need a reference. Why do I need a "reference" to decide how good a musical recording sounds? Why can't I just listen to the recording and decide for myself if it is pleasing or not? Why must I only like it if it is an actual realistic depiction of a live performance? Who says that it has to be as close to real as possible in order for us to enjoy it?

I never at any point said that it has to be as close to real as possible in order for us to enjoy it. Most of the music I listen to is of good performances that are not necessarily well-recorded, i.e. nowhere near any reference.

 

[ScottGardner]

The other end of the centre is where I was. The only sound I could hear was coming through the tinny little in-ceiling speakers!!

I'm going to venture a guess, then, that somehow the unpredictability and imperfection of a live performance has a way of engaging us in ways that a recorded performance can't (at least more than once).

 

[amey01]

I'm going to venture a guess, then, that somehow the unpredictability and imperfection of a live performance has a way of engaging us in ways that a recorded performance can't (at least more than once).

Maybe, but a live recording doesn't sound any better than any other recording, does it?