Live music - how can you tell?

[Rodrigo de Sá]

See Titian's masterly post at:

http://forum.hifichoice.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=5827

Cheers.

 

[michaelab]

A superb post indeed! I will ask titian if I can reproduce it here...

EDIT: Indeed I can, so here it is:

Originally poted by Titian on HFC
This thread was created to continue a discussion between me and RdS about ââ'¬Å"true soundââ'¬Â or realism and atmosphere in music and in reproduction systems.

This is a long post so I will first list the table of contents so that you can decide to stop your reading now or not.

List of contents
- Preface
- Sound propagation: instrument characteristics (classical, jazz and pop..)
- Ambience, music halls
- Awareness of music quality
- Sound reproduction systems (HiFi quality, high-end quality, philosophy, new ways)
- conclusion




Preface
These notes are the result of my analyzing mostly classical music in live concerts and comparing it with what is reproduced with HiFi / high-end systems. I also had lots of discussions with a person who makes high-end loudspeakers and had made preamplifiers and power amplifiers. These discussions (sometimes 3 times in a week) helped me to be even more aware of small technical details in the music and in the high-end components. I would like to emphasize that I am not a professional in this field and that I haven't studied music nor electronics therefore don't take my statements as facts, but only as a base for any discussion concerning them.

Sound propagation and ââ'¬Å"Airââ'¬Â
The biggest frustration I had, was when I was listening to any kind of music system after coming back from a live concert of classical music. That feeling, which I had since over 25 years, made be much more aware on how I percept the sound. I suppose that's why since I was 14 I always tried to get the ââ'¬Å"bestââ'¬Â place at the free concerts at the radio station. Later on I could afford only a student ticket but I nearly always found away to stand in front of a column at a very good position.
When I am in a symphonic concert and close my eyes and concentrate not on the music itself but on the sound (what a pity to throw away a concert like that), I notice that I don't hear all single instruments crystal clear neither do I hear every instrument clear. I hear an amalgamation of all instruments but nevertheless I can hear definitively where each instrument group are. I can also hear some instruments clearer than others and this in my opinion because the propagation of the sound is different for every instrument. Not only that but it is different depending also on which note some instruments play.
When I hear a trumpet the sound comes to me quite sharp and clear. The sound of a horn instead is for me much less sharp but fills the space of the hall much more than a trumpet and therefore it isn't so clear lo localize. Adding all these characteristics together gives a very complex image, which I expect a music system should be able to reproduce.

When there are only a few instruments playing, the image is quite simple and therefore IMO a lot of systems can reproduce it quite well. An exception is the organ because the instrument it self is more complex. It can have at the same time different kinds of sound propagation, depending on the note and the registration. But the problem of an organ is that it is very powerful and mostly played in a huge place. The music fills all the spaces before it arrives to the audience.
In the music, which is made through electronic components, the sound propagation depends on the equipment used, which are mostly very powerful amplifiers and directional loudspeakers. The sound propagation is the same type for all involved instruments. The resulting sound image is much more simple and therefore easier to reproduce.

I feel also another difference between the sound of a horn and a trumpet and that is while the sound of the trumpet is for me much more ââ'¬Å"physicalââ'¬Â, concentrated, dense, the sound of a horn is much more ââ'¬Å"airyââ'¬Â. I would say something such as a difference between an oil painting and an airbrush one.
Also in the homogeneous sound of the orchestra, I notice the air between the instruments, mostly around those instruments which sound is not so direct.

Ambience, music hall
Again when I am sitting in front of the orchestra I don't only hear music that comes directly from the orchestra but also from the side and from the back: Actually from everywhere. Also the characteristic of the material of the concert hall has influence in the propagation of the music. This is what I and some other people call ambience. The ambience makes you have the feeling to be completely inside (wrapped up) the music. Organ music is an example of one only instrument that creates an enormous ambience because of its power, its special kind of propagation and because of the place where it's played in (mostly churches).
I supposed that a few decades ago, some engineers wanted to give this feeling by inventing the quadriphony. But this wasn't the answer to the problem because the characteristic not only of the loudspeakers but also of the rest of the system was directional. Also today they are many approaches to create in a cheap way the ambience.
If they will succeed only the future will say.
The problem with the ambience is that you can easily confuse it with unclear music. Very often when I hear systems of dealers and we discuss what we hear they are very concerned about the clearness. So clear that you have the feeling to be two meters away from every instrument: totally not as in the concert hall, but certainly very good for any kind of electronic music. Actually so good that it sounds better than in a live concert, since over there the quality of the equipments is less good that the one at home! The digital recording system with Cds and dvd goes totally in this direction.
If a system should reproduce a symphonic music like in the concert hall, it has to be on one side very accurate to be able to give sharpness to those instruments, which really reproduce a sharp sound, but on the other side the system should also reproduce totally the ambience.

Awareness of the music
Everybody has listened to music in his life and music is part of everybody's life. The music industry knows that and is trying to extend their turnover by bringing more and more cheaper stuff in the market (DVD for less than 40£!). Everything is just becoming a junk: buy and throwaway. The online music store (Apple) which is going to be followed soon by other companies) is a typical example in which direction we are going. Stay at home, just download the song you like (ignore the others in the album, as if they were less good) and consume until you are fed up with it then delete it from the hard disk. About the quality of the music there is no concern at all, important is that it doesn't use so much space). The fact is that there are less and less people who are really concerned about any quality at all. The awareness of music is disappearing also in the world of the classical music where so many instruments have to harmonically coexist and build a symphony of sound. How many people find time today to sit down and hear concentrated to music. With this I am not saying that the enjoying of music depends on the awareness of the true sound of music. Music you can enjoyed with any kind of audio systems, cheap or expensive especially if you already know the piece of music. When you instead hear something for the first time, there is a greater possibility that you like it when played live or by a good system than with a cheap one. But if you are interested in having a system that can reproduce a ââ'¬Å"true soundââ'¬Â then you should need a certain awareness of music.

Sound reproduction systems and recordings
If someone is aware about sound propagation or how music sounds in a concert hall and aims the same quality at home, then he gets into serious trouble to find anything that can do that (again I am talking about classical music). Nearly every sound reproduction equipment was created to give maximum clearness and definition possible for that category but very ,very few are constructed in order to reproduce the ambience. This can be done only when the unit is made with that concept in mind from the beginning on. Phono sections or preamplifiers which have IC in the first stage cannot have ambience. All kinds of plastic eliminate ambience. Particular attention has to be kept for the wires, capacitors and resistors used. Very high quality of wires are used or even double wirering (two different type of wires) in some critical points. Capacitors and resistors used are not only very expensive, but also selected (same principle as for tubes) because not all capacitors / resistors of the same type sound the same. Multicaps capacitors are used and special attention is done for isolation.
A unit like this can easily cost much more than others but it has this characteristic that makes the difference in the reproduction of classical music. On the other hand there are lots of equally expensive units, which don't have ambience.
The quality of recordings is very different one from the other. When something doesn't sound so good, we very often give immediately the fault on the recordings' quality without even considering that our system doesn't even read and reproduce accurately what's recorded. It is of course true that no system can reproduce something that is not recorded.

Conclusion
If somebody wants to have a system that can reproduce a ââ'¬Å"true soundââ'¬Â for classical music he first should be aware of the music characteristics of an orchestra and each instrument. Visiting frequently live concerts and concentrating on the sound propagation is very important. Playing an instrument doesn't help for the knowledge of the true music because the music propagates away from the instrument (centre). The sound that the interpreter hears has different characteristics that the listener.
To be able to reproduce the ââ'¬Å"true soundââ'¬Â the listener needs to hear the music at a concert level which is loud enough to have problems with the neighbour or with the ââ'¬Å"sweet other halfââ'¬Â. Also a special room (not necessarily huge) is recommendable.
The costs for a system that can reproduce something near the ââ'¬Å"true soundââ'¬Â is huge but that doesn't mean that the more a system costs, more it can reproduce that sound better.
But as conclusion I must say that luckily to love music or to have pleasure for music one doesn't need a good system. There is nothing better than live performances independently from whatever system one has.

Michael.

 

[lowrider]

"Ambience" is fairly well achieved with a good surround system and DPLII... :MILD:

 

[ilockyer]

Originally posted by timpy
There's usually someone standing on your foot, it's too loud, and your beers been spilt all over your front at least 3 times.

That and the people chatting noisily through the whole show about their friends sad lives/diy/what beer to go and get/how long before the end they should leave to avoid traffic. I can't understand why people pay good £ to go to a show and talk about this stuff. At least at loud rock gigs you don't hear them!

 

[Rodrigo de Sá]

In answer to Titian, I wrote the following:

Titian:

As you know from my previous post (at the other thread), I completely agree with you.

TRUE SOUND AND HIFI

I'll try to state the differences between reproduced and real acoustic sound. For that I'll use an analogy.

Most of us remember the old days of MS-DOS. First there was CGA, then EGA and after that VGA. The SuperVGA followed and now we have even greater resolutions. The same is true with printers: the old day 150dpi printers were awful, and then came the 300 dpi, now 600 dpi seems to be the standard. But compare that with a magazine, where they use 2400 dpi linotrons and even the 1200 dpi looks dirty and unclear.

For me true sound (by the way: as both a player and a listener, I think you are right, it is the audience who knows how the instrument sounds, not the player; this may sound crazy but I will explain if requested), I was saying, true sound is totally clear: the outlines of the threads of music are totally clear, as if in a linotron. Even the best hifi stuff I listened to sounded murky, hashy, and, well, dead. As if the true sound was 2400 dpi and the best you can achieve with hifi is a miserly 600 dpi.

This means attacks are clearer, the sound is leaner but true bass is far stronger (most hifi emphasizes upper midbass in order to emulate true bass which is very hard to render - mega watts are necessary, horns, and a really big room). Sound is usually, also, drier. It is richer, more detailed and absolutely uncluttered by distortion (that is the fuzziness of virtually ALL systems I've heard).

So, paradoxically, even if true sound is usually much louder that reproduced sound, it actually doesn't seem so: that is because distortion creates a kind of fake loudness, fatiguing in the long run.

THE RECORDING PROCESS

I don't know the extent of the fault of sound engineers. In pop/rock they usually tune things to sound great in mid-fi systems. But with classical music they really strive to get the picture as close as it gets. That is why they enhance EACH instruments presence (Karajan used glass walls to divide the groups of players and recorded each one in one channel - so there is a long history of trying to get a muddle free sound - something that actually never came true). That is also why the recordings are often brighter than the real sound: the engineers know the public will listen to it at a far lower level, which leads to loss of harmonic detail. The basses are more difficult still, because there is no way you can make a 20Hz tone vibrate in a 6*4*3 room: it will just boom and get you a headache. You see, it needs about ten meters to vibrate, and therefore will get muddled. That is why the midbass is stressed: you get the illusion of true bass without actually having one (I can explain this if anyone is interested).

DIRECTIONALITY

This is one of the greatest problems with recorded music, and I think it will never be tackled. With live music, you have an omni directional source that is strongly propagated (remember, without distortion the tone really needs to be louder) and is reflected by the actual acoustics of the place. So, the same instrument can sound very different according to where you play it. You listen to sound coming mainly from the source (in certain odd acoustics not even that), but it really comes from everywhere and completely surrounds you.

Now if the recording engineer chooses to capture the reflections of sound, he may do it, but it will come across as a directional ambience, which is quite alien to the true effect.

Of course one might try with omni directional speakers. But then, you'd listen to your room's acoustic (usually very dry).

If the multichannel technology develops, we may, eventually, get some of the 'hallo' effect of true music.


CONCLUSION

You can't have the true sound at home. All you can get is an approximation you are comfortable with. For some people it is dynamics (I mean the true sense of the word: from pianissimo to fortissimo); for others it will be tonal accuracy; for others, resolution - the dpi effect.

I personally went for tone accuracy and high resolution. But my system lacks true bass and true dynamics. When it comes to play a string quartet or something of that kind, it is almost as if you were there (with some of the 'buts' I mentioned before). But it can't convey the true sense of a big orchestra or the scale of a true big organ. It gives you a kind of ink drawing of the true thing, black and white and without the density of the real event, accurate nevertheless.

Of course, my room (or my ears) wouldn't stand having a true organ sound. I contemplated the possibility of having a true pipe organ built for my library. But, in terms of sound, I could never dream of getting strong high pitched sounds (very REAL ear damage possibilities) or strong lower pitched ones; as the very low ones MUST be very loud in order to be heard, it couldn't have them, period.

I always though sound must be downscaled by the system. The one that does it better for you is the best for you.

As I said previously I'm writing this in a great hurry, so I'm not even checking spelling or plain senseless parts of what I wrote. But your thread starter was so good I made a question of answering to it in earnest.

 

[michaelab]

RdS - I've done as you suggested and put titian's post here aswell as your reply and deleted the other thread.

Michael.

 

[MO!]

Ah, just what I like. Some nice light reading! Nothing quite like it for helping to fight off a hangover

 

[boxsoft]

Live music tends to be louder, and often tonally screwed up, but it's the lack of extreme compression that enables you to discern "Live vs. Memorex".

-=> Mike Hanson <=-

 

[dominicT]

Originally posted by RdS
In answer to Titian, I wrote the following:

Titian:

As you know from my previous post (at the other thread), I completely agree with you.

TRUE SOUND AND HIFI

I'll try to state the differences between reproduced and real acoustic sound. For that I'll use an analogy.

THE RECORDING PROCESS

I don't know the extent of the fault of sound engineers. In pop/rock they usually tune things to sound great in mid-fi systems. But with classical music they really strive to get the picture as close as it gets. That is why they enhance EACH instruments presence (Karajan used glass walls to divide the groups of players and recorded each one in one channel - so there is a long history of trying to get a muddle free sound - something that actually never came true). That is also why the recordings are often brighter than the real sound: the engineers know the public will listen to it at a far lower level, which leads to loss of harmonic detail. The basses are more difficult still, because there is no way you can make a 20Hz tone vibrate in a 6*4*3 room: it will just boom and get you a headache. You see, it needs about ten meters to vibrate, and therefore will get muddled. That is why the midbass is stressed: you get the illusion of true bass without actually having one (I can explain this if anyone is interested).


Of course one might try with omni directional speakers. But then, you'd listen to your room's acoustic (usually very dry).

This has not been my experience or the experience of others that I know who are studio engineers. Engineers do mot mix for a midi system. There are so many engineers who are fanatical about the gear and desks that they use to get the absolutely right sound for the album. Yes they are likely to use nearfield monitors and probably they will be cheap yamahas on the basis that if they sound ok on the yamahas then they will sound ok on the radio. It is a bit of a leap, and rather ill-informed to suggest that engineers record pop just for the radio.

I do agree witrh your comment about omni-directional speakers and think that the Shahinians and the German things that Walrus sells are great.

DominicT

 

[Rodrigo de Sá]

Originally posted by dominicT
This has not been my experience or the experience of others that I know who are studio engineers. Engineers do mot mix for a midi system. There are so many engineers who are fanatical about the gear and desks that they use to get the absolutely right sound for the album. Yes they are likely to use nearfield monitors and probably they will be cheap yamahas on the basis that if they sound ok on the yamahas then they will sound ok on the radio. It is a bit of a leap, and rather ill-informed to suggest that engineers record pop just for the radio.

I do agree witrh your comment about omni-directional speakers and think that the Shahinians and the German things that Walrus sells are great.

DominicT

I know the Shahinian pretty well. I had two pairs at home for a couple of weeks. They are great (the Arcs particularly) but I think they are made to sound in an enourmous room - say 12*8*4m, with very beefy amplifiers. That said, they sounded gorgeous with the Jadis SE valve amplifier.

Of course I didn't mean pop music is recorded to be played by midi systems. By mid-fi I mean the rather good Nads, Yamahas and Rotels (I have two subsidiary systems: an all Nad one and a Nad/Yamaha/Rogers one -they sound rather good). But of course, it is not High Fidelity in the sense that a Krell or a Konrad Jonhson or a Lavardin is.

So sorry if I mislead you. In the context-high end 1000 000 000£ Hifh Fi-de-li-ty - even a serious sounding Roksan is considered midfi...

Hifi is a very snobish ladden field... I agree you can have your pleasure with music with a modest system. I often listen to my 'lesser' systems and I am quite contented...

 

[wadia-miester]

RDS I understand you plight only to well, my system's postively midfi and pales in to dust in realation to my brother Martain's hum dinger of a system, however I still have to kick him out, when he visits and I want to go bed , great for impressing the visiting exec's and impressionable calllow hifi guys', although now his new one is :acoustic: pretty spectacular, I still do like the music, and so it appears does he. Tone

 

[themadhippy]

ok heres one to throw into the mix,this evening we had a youth showcase at work,most were singing to backing tracks of various quality,a live band a girl with acustic quitar and a dance troop using commercial cds(must get mezzaneen? who was it by again?wicked bass line on angle)most of yesterday was spent sound checking and rehersing (they still changed the running order with minutes of starting ,a busted raidio mic annd leaving the smoke machine on a fraction too long

) but anyway the diffrence between live and recorded/live was very noticable.
live volume levels were much louder ,drum kit with wana be cozzy powel in charge,whoo know were rocking no distortion ,well apart from when"i wanna be hendrix"adds it,backing tracks with live vocals were quiter,you could tell the difference,sort of lack of energy,but again mostly very lisanable,the girl on accustic guitar was even quiter but nothing was lost,yes we add some help to the quitar,but it didnt need much,the raw cds were exallent especially messaneen

you could tell the diffrence how i dont know answeres on a post card to

 

[HenryT]

Originally posted by themadhippy
must get mezzaneen? who was it by again?

Massive Attack?

 

[themadhippy]

thats the one certainly tested the subs:JOEL:

 

[MO!]

Originally posted by themadhippy
thats the one certainly tested the subs:JOEL:

A song that once you've heard it go realllllyyyyy loooowwwwww, you know how it should/could be sounding on your kit!

Quality stuff!

 

[Rodrigo de Sá]

Originally posted by wadia-miester
RDS I understand you plight only to well, my system's postively midfi and pales in to dust in realation to my brother Martain's hum dinger of a system, however I still have to kick him out, when he visits and I want to go bed , great for impressing the visiting exec's and impressionable calllow hifi guys', although now his new one is :acoustic: pretty spectacular, I still do like the music, and so it appears does he. Tone

WadiaMonster:

How could a Wadia's based system be midfi? The Belcanto is expensive, too. And what about the Meadowlarks and Valleythrushes? And all that expensive cabling, tubular pneumatic supports and stuff.

Or did you throw all that away, given it to paupers and went Franciscan? (And now have a Rotel based system and a Fiat Punto)?

:notworthy :JOEL:

 

[Rodrigo de Sá]

Mad Hippy:

Interesting considerations. If you look closer, you'll see we say more or less the same. of course I hate mezanine kind of stuff, but that is irrelevant: I'm talking about the difference between live and recorded sound.

Live sound is louder, less distorted and clearer, even when it seems quite low level it is quite loud and clearly heard.

 

[wadia-miester]

Rds, my word most unlike you, I was merely replying to your earlier post in the thread, oh you beastly man .

Rds, wrote in earlier......

By mid-fi I mean the rather good Nads, Yamahas and Rotels (I have two subsidiary systems: an all Nad one and a Nad/Yamaha/Rogers one -they sound rather good). But of course, it is not High Fidelity in the sense that a Krell or a Konrad Jonhson or a Lavardin is.

So sorry if I mislead you. In the context-high end 1000 000 000£ Hifh Fi-de-li-ty - even a serious sounding Roksan is considered midfi...

Hifi is a very snobish ladden field... I agree you can have your pleasure with music with a modest system. I often listen to my 'lesser' systems and I am quite contented...


I was just making a comparision, between my system and my brother's, as in it makes mine sound very Mifi, that was all, oh how words are misconstrood.

Rds continued with .........

How could a Wadia's based system be midfi? The Belcanto is expensive, too. And what about the Meadowlarks and Valleythrushes? And all that expensive cabling, tubular pneumatic supports and stuff.

The entire system, cables and all, was a awful lot less than you think, due to a keen eye for a bargin, and WM's bartering skills.
hope that helps

 

[Rodrigo de Sá]

Originally posted by wadia-miester
Rds, my word most unlike you, I was merely replying to your earlier post in the thread, oh you beastly man .

Rds, wrote in earlier......

By mid-fi I mean the rather good Nads, Yamahas and Rotels (I have two subsidiary systems: an all Nad one and a Nad/Yamaha/Rogers one -they sound rather good). But of course, it is not High Fidelity in the sense that a Krell or a Konrad Jonhson or a Lavardin is.

So sorry if I mislead you. In the context-high end 1000 000 000£ Hifh Fi-de-li-ty - even a serious sounding Roksan is considered midfi...

Hifi is a very snobish ladden field... I agree you can have your pleasure with music with a modest system. I often listen to my 'lesser' systems and I am quite contented...


I was just making a comparision, between my system and my brother's, as in it makes mine sound very Mifi, that was all, oh how words are misconstrood.

Rds continued with .........

How could a Wadia's based system be midfi? The Belcanto is expensive, too. And what about the Meadowlarks and Valleythrushes? And all that expensive cabling, tubular pneumatic supports and stuff.

The entire system, cables and all, was a awful lot less than you think, due to a keen eye for a bargin, and WM's bartering skills.
hope that helps

I understood what you say, Wadia Monster (I hope people will call you that in the future ; besides your signature should be 'the club's authorized pit-bull').

And I agree with you that really high-end is often pure masturbatory activity.

But suppose I buy a super Konrad-Jonhsn and a super Elgar whatever dirt cheap. It will still be high-end. The other fellow may be a high-idiot, but my gear will still be high-end.

And I also agree people waste too much money on hifi. You are a clever fellow, and so you got a lot of expensive gear cheaply. But that doesn't mean your systen is not high-end. Of course, you brother's may be of the masturbatory kind (the impotent Sultan's harem kind of stuff - I don't mean to doubt your brother's manhood - gracious me!! It is an example ).

Anyway, I was just pulling your leg. It sometimes just begs to be pulled .

Your posts enliven this forum. It would be quite morose and dull without your grumbling and strongly coloured opinions. :JPS:

And on top of that you like the Porsches... :MILD:

 

[Rodrigo de Sá]

Bump?

This is a very interesting question. As a matter of fact, I think it is the most important question regarding hifi.