What do you listen for in music?

[tones]

I've been to plenty of classical performances in my life, from solo piano to string quartets to big orchestras and choirs performing works such as Beethoven's 9th and Brahms' Requiem in a variety of locations, and I have never heard imaging like it occurs in recorded music. At best it is very vague by comparison, nothing like the pinpoint placing that can be heard on some hifi. When was the last time you heard someone say of a live performance, "Wow, that imaging was awesome"?

My point is that I find imaging to be a completely non-essential element when enjoying music. Stereo is just an effect after all, and can in fact interfere with music when not properly implemented. Every mono record I have ever heard has not suffered for the lack of any 'soundstage'.

I agree entirely with this. As someone who's an almost exclusively classical listener, I feel that it's the overall effect that counts. Classical music comes over as a whole piece, not as a collection of easily-discernible individual instruments, and I'd hate it if it did. It's sufficient to be able to hear that the double basses are over there somewhere, and the brass and woodwind roughly there and there respectively. The fact that you can't hear that the first violin is there exactly matters not one iota.

 

[ditton]

So the answer is 'depends on the type of music'. In orchestrations, its the orchestrated effect that matters; in small jazz combos, the individual contributions matter more and are 'placed' in the presentation.

Just as with Holst 'Planets', so I would expect Miles' Kind of Blue is in the collections of most folk (or it ought to be), so suggest you try playing a couple of tracks from each and report what you thought you were listening for.

 

[titian]

I agree entirely with this. As someone who's an almost exclusively classical listener, I feel that it's the overall effect that counts. Classical music comes over as a whole piece, not as a collection of easily-discernible individual instruments, and I'd hate it if it did. It's sufficient to be able to hear that the double basses are over there somewhere, and the brass and woodwind roughly there and there respectively. The fact that you can't hear that the first violin is there exactly matters not one iota.

Yes Tones you are someone like me who's an almost exclusively classical listener. There is a question, which I wanted to ask you ages ago but always got forgotten: how often do you go to live concerts? And how often are you sitting in the best rows (5-8)?
The positioning of every instrument is in classical music very important because it gives at last that overall effect that you so much like. Otherwise why would conductors take care where the instrument groups are? Why are sometimes the second violins on the right just for an example. If each individual wouldn't count then why bother having in the best orchestras all professional players? Why should Abbado cares of putting together an orchestra where every player could be (or is) a solist?
When you are sitting in the front rows you maybe can't hear every violon seperately as an individual but if you carefully hear (normally one doesn't because one is more interested in the overall harmony) you can notice the first violins are not just one, neither two or three but different violins with different sound characteristics. And if one is out of tune you notice it and know more or less where it comes from.
There are very many orchestral pieces (I would nearly dare say all of them) where there isn't always from the beginning to the end a compacted orchestra playing. Very often there are instruments which take the overhand for a couple of bars. In live concerts these instruments appear very clearly (heard from the best seats) and you are very conscious where they come from. The fact that they appear in different positions on the stage gives a certain sense of interest, awareness and can make the composition very exciting, interesting and also lifely. Without that imaging, you might get the feeling that the orchestra is playing in a small box and everything is quite "flat" unless you know the music and therefore your brain reelaborates the sound for your best pleasure.
That's also why you can still enjoy music like that.

The point you have to consider of imaging in a life concert is IMO, that further you are from the orchestra less you get of it. In weak acoustical places you would also have the same problems. Since mostly one hears music at home where no acoustic treatment was done or at concert hall in the cheaper seats, a lot of people are anyway used to hear music with poor imaging.

On the other hand they are infact recordings where every instrument are heard as if they were a few meters away. This may be liked from several listeners because "everything seems so clear") and is been considered as more dynamic, lively. Maybe I consider this as a show-effect. This tries to overcome for my feelings the very poor imaging capabilities of lot of normal Hifi-Systems.

Mr.C:
the fact that in live concerts you are not concerned of imaging ("Wow, that imaging was awesome") is IMO because it appears in a natural way. You are not even aware of it because it is normal: yes the instruments are there, I see them, what's wrong?
On many Hifi-Systems the imaging doesn't sound natural, you are aware of the Hifi-System and of the two loudspeakers. It might sound great but still not "normal" therefore you are aware of it.
But be careful: not being bother of it or not being aware of it doesn't mean that it isn't there.

 

[Mr.C]

Mr.C:
the fact that in live concerts you are not concerned of imaging ("Wow, that imaging was awesome") is IMO because it appears in a natural way. You are not even aware of it because it is normal: yes the instruments are there, I see them, what's wrong?
On many Hifi-Systems the imaging doesn't sound natural, you are aware of the Hifi-System and of the two loudspeakers. It might sound great but still not "normal" therefore you are aware of it.
But be careful: not being bother of it or not being aware of it doesn't mean that it isn't there.

I think you've hit the nail on the head titian I suppose that we could differentiate between the natural and the artificial 'image'. I think the reason that I never really think of, or can clearly hear, imaging when I hear live music is because the majority of listening I, and I would think most of us all do, is to recordings. The visual aspect comes into it too, as you say.

 

[titian]

I believe the visual aspect has a big importance in music perception or in any other kind of perception.
It is a big source of distraction. Our brain is overloaded with visual information to be elaborated that it doesn't have time or power to analyze the phono information completely. When closing eyes in a live concert you get so much more aware of details which unfortunately aren't reproduced by common Hifi's. But it is also interesting that lot of information get blended together, sometimes apparently in a confusing way, and therefore we often say that it sounds better at home just because the recordings have being done very close to the instruments.
In pop concerts the eye has much more importance. Everybody expects not only music but a stage performance. People seem to percept the feelings of a performer much easily with the eyes as with the ears. I believe this is because we don't train our ears as we automatically do with our eyes. For example when we meet someone we take much more attention to his facial expression or his body language than his voice.

 

[PeteH]

The reason why we don't hear imaging in live concerts with anywhere near the precision found on many recordings is simply down to acoustics and recording techniques. In a concert hall - yes, even in the 'best seats' - a very large amount of the sound we hear has not come directly from the instruments, rather from reflections from the wall and (especially) the ceiling, hence the sound we hear isn't entirely clearly situated in space. In the vast majority of recordings the microphones are much closer than the typical listening position, which means that the directly received sound predominates. You wouldn't have any problem locating the exact position of a trumpet if your head were three feet from the bell - and in aggressively multi-miked recordings this is effectively what's happening, causing the larger-than-life, unrealistic super-sharp imaging which can be rather distracting. Pop recordings are usually especially guilty of this, with the vocalist's microphone halfway down his or her throat, resulting in a hyper-vivid ultra-close sound.

That said, one of the oft-repeated received wisdoms I find irritating on hifi forums is that "imaging isn't part of the musical message", or similar. Music since the Renaissance and probably before has been written with the space of the performance venue between and around the performers borne in mind and taken advantage of. One has only to attend any antiphonal choral service (central to the Anglican tradition amongst others), where the choir is divided between the sides of the church by the central aisle and musical lines are passed back and forth, to appreciate the importance of a sense of space and dimension. And it doesn't just apply to big choirs or orchestras either - off the top of my head, an example on a smaller scale would be the first movement of Beethoven's Op. 74 Harp string quartet, where Beethoven passes the pizzicati between the members of the group; the rather wonderful effect of the rippling arpeggios moving round the quartet, from which the work takes its nickname, is rendered nonsensical if you can't hear the distance between the players and where they're sitting. Good orchestration has for centuries made use of what in hifi terminology is called a "soundstage"; to suggest it isn't relevant to the "musical experience" is absurd.

 

[pe-zulu]

Not being specially interested in HiFi I visit the HiFi section here only rarely and missed this interesting thread, which rather should be in the music section.

For my part I listen to music (almost exclusively classical) in two ways. Either I listen for overall effect (emotional listening) or for details (analytical listening). I think it is difficult to listen in both ways at the same time, but I can alternate between the two attitudes within a second. I think this situation is rather typical for most listeners.

If I want to listen in the analytical way, the artificial sound imaging of many recordings is an advantage, as it facilitates this way of listening, but if I want to listen for the overall effect, the imaging may be a disadvantage, disturbing me by stressing to many details. In the same way the visual impression at a concert may disturb the listening for overall effect. And IMO mono is just as good as stereo, if I want to listen for overall effekt. The only advantage of the stereo in this context may be, that it is more full sounding and seductive.

Half the music I listen to is either piano-, harpsichord- or organ music, and the above mentioned problem doesn't matter as to piano- or harpsichord music, but in the case of organ music too much imaging may be disturbing, as it clearly and audibly leaves you acoustically in a place in the church which doesn't exist.

 

[ChrisPa]

What do you listen for in music ... when listening to hifi?

I've just reread this thread and realise I mis-interpreted the question when it 1st appeared (and then went on holiday).

What do you listen for in music?
So, to answer the question I now realise is being asked.
- Nothing specific
- An overall emotional response; sometimes driven by rhythm, attack; sometimes driven by emotional tugging at the heart strings
- sometimes, just the appreciation of craftsmen at work - especially with live music. For example, I don't think I'd ever sit down and play a recording of traditional irish jigs and reels, but I've had many delightful evenings sitting in an Irish pub listening to a random gathering of musicians producing wonderful and natural music... because they meant it

What do I listen for in music ... when listening to hifi?
The question I wasn't asked...

Natural treble - cymbals and vocal sibilence.
I almost never hear brash cymbals and vocal sibilance with real music in real life. I hear it in nearly every hifi system with nearly every CD. My holy grail

 

[ChrisPa]

I know this was addressed to Tones but

how often do you go to live concerts? And how often are you sitting in the best rows (5-8)?

Quite often. During rehearsals I always try to spend some time sitting in the auditorium, moving to different seats to hear the effect. I usually find that the optimum for larger auditoriums (eg. Bridgewater Hall) is probably row 10-15. Any further forward than that and you're below the stage, and the sound balance and imaging is below optimum for the auditorium.

Let's be honest, the best positioning (to my ears) is somewhere about row 0 - ie a couple of metres behind the conductor. Then it nearly sounds like a hifi recording

The positioning of every instrument is in classical music very important because it gives at last that overall effect that you so much like. Otherwise why would conductors take care where the instrument groups are?

I believe the prime reasons for performer location are volume balance and ensemble.

Volume balance - put simply, the violins are quieter and therefore are put closer to the conductor & audience. Soloists stand at the front of the stage. The brass is louder and therefore put further away. For an omnidirectional sound source, the volume level drops off with 1/(distance^3). I know a trumpet in a concert hall is not omnidirectional - it's got a horn, which is inherently directional and there are reflected sounds coming from all directions - but the principle's the same; put them further back and they won't be so loud

Ensemble - different groups of performers will be expected to produce sounds at the same time and as part of one coherent performance. Put them closer together and it becomes (much) easier for them to adjust to each other for volume, timing and phrasing.

Imaging - having said all that, I believe that Imaging does help the brain make more sense of the whole. The more readily you are able to analyse the musical construction, should you so wish, the better able you are to recombine the parts into a musical whole. Whilst you can do this in mono, there's no doubt that spacial clues make the analysis easier.

When you look at a beautiful/impressive view, it is the view as a whole that has the impact... or the impressive part of the view that has the impact. You can then get further pleasure by looking at the details in the view and appreciating their part in the make-up of the whole - eg. colours, lighting, variations in texture, perspective/relative distance. The view on a hazy day (lack of detail/imaging) can have as much impact as that on a bright clear day - imaging is not essential, but can assist in the analysis and enjoyment.

Mr.C:
the fact that in live concerts you are not concerned of imaging ("Wow, that imaging was awesome") is IMO because it appears in a natural way. You are not even aware of it because it is normal: yes the instruments are there, I see them, what's wrong?

Agreed. Your brain knows that it won't hear transients and detail from (say) a soloist or the woodwind as if they were 1m away, because it's plainly obvious that they are much much further than 1m away.

Furthermore, your brain also (mostly) completely filters out the coughs and rustles from your neighbours in the audience, even though they are at a very high level relative to the signal.

Your brain has some very highly developed filtering and adaptation mechanisms to get the information it most wants/needs under difficult circumstances.