[tbrooke]

I was thinkng about Brian's post about comparing live sound versus reproduced while I have been tweaking my 626r's using the fairly recent Keith Jarrett at Carnegie Hall CD. I have heard piano in Carnegie Hall but it has been a while and I have it sounding pretty good but it is still not there. This seems like a good CD to work with because it sounds like a good recording to me and I have heard that piano can be difficult to reproduce. I was wondering if anyone else has been playing this CD. If I close my eyes I still don't quite feel like I'm at Carnegie Hall but it may be that reproduced sound can never get you there (otherwise why have live concerts) . Any thoughts?

Tom

[John Casler]

I was thinkng about Brian's post about comparing live sound versus reproduced while I have been tweaking my 626r's using the fairly recent Keith Jarrett at Carnegie Hall CD. I have heard piano in Carnegie Hall but it has been a while and I have it sounding pretty good but it is still not there. This seems like a good CD to work with because it sounds like a good recording to me and I have heard that piano can be difficult to reproduce. I was wondering if anyone else has been playing this CD. If I close my eyes I still don't quite feel like I'm at Carnegie Hall but it may be that reproduced sound can never get you there (otherwise why have live concerts) . Any thoughts?

Tom

Hi Tom,

Most of the difference, one hears from live to recording is the room you are listening in.

If you were listening in a "highly" damped room at least to the level of the engineering studio, you would be much closer.

But because, you are hearing the "reflections" and overtones of the piano recorded in one room, and then another "group" of "reflections" and overtones, of the reproduction room, the sound will never be as "the real thing".

I have a "highly damped room, and listen extremely nearfeild, and it it much closer to the ideal.

If you were to "record" the piano "in you room" and then play back the recording, you would find it almost exact, but with highly different overlays (from recorded and reproduced spaces) it is always a journey "toward" the reality of the original.

[warnerwh]

One problem with a recorded event is microphones. If you ever heard the old Stereophile cd where Gordon Holt talks and changes microphones during the discussion you'd know what I mean. He used maybe 8 or 10 high quality microphones. The sound of his voice sounded different through the different microphones. In other words mikes color the sound.

Being as a microphone is a transducer it's probably pretty difficult to make one that is perfect but I really don't know if the microphone technology has gotten better either. I'll never forget how much different Gordon's voice sounded. There's no way you could tell which one resembled his real voice the most.

As John stated above though a realistic portrayal of a live event can be had. In my room it's pretty amazing as it's fully treated and I also listen at 9' which is about as close to the RM 40's as I think is conducive to good blending. The reality of the sonics is stunning. There's no reason to upgrade my speakers as I honestly can't imagine the sound getting much better if at all in my room.

The waveguides could possibly be icing on the cake as at least in theory the wide and even dispersion would be superior. It's kind of hard thinking my system really needs nothing to be perfectly enjoyable because I'm having withdrawals as I'm used to buying something "that I really need You should see the look on my wife's face when I say that.