[Early B.]

And I'm bold enough to go beyond what Tyson just said -- lots of live music really sucks and sounds better when recorded in a studio.

How many times have you gone to a concert and heard one of your favorite songs and said to yourself, "I prefer the recorded version"?  Not only are the vocals clearer on the recording, but they aren't being drowned out by the music, the bass isn't boomy, and the sound isn't running together like diarrhea. You ain't there to hear high-quality music. Even most live recordings suck.  So, yeah, when audiophiles say they want to hear music in their living room as though it's live, it sounds like something you're supposed to say, but don't be delusional about it.

 

[abomwell]

[quote author=Tyson link=topic=179784.msg1889810#msg1889810 d

Hifi is the same way - it can show you wondrous things, some of which will never exist outside a recording studio creation.  That's not something to lament, it's something to celebrate.
[/quote]

Thanks, that's great perspective, Tyson! My motivation is not to curse the darkness, so to speak, but to learn how things work.

[Daryl Zero]

And I'm bold enough to go beyond what Tyson just said -- lots of live music really sucks and sounds better when recorded in a studio.

How many times have you gone to a concert and heard one of your favorite songs and said to yourself, "I prefer the recorded version"?  Not only are the vocals clearer on the recording, but they aren't being drowned out by the music, the bass isn't boomy, and the sound isn't running together like diarrhea. You ain't there to hear high-quality music. Even most live recordings suck.  So, yeah, when audiophiles say they want to hear music in their living room as though it's live, it sounds like something you're supposed to say, but don't be delusional about it.

That has happened but more often (this is off topic a bit) the performance and performers amaze me and it isn't just about the music but the creativity.

In doing some live stuff, getting things right is really hard. It is also a lot harder than people think to play and sing at the same time or to remember all of the words or to hit certain things when the elements are against you.

Live stuff is much better now with in the ear phones so that you can actually hear yourself. When I did some concerts, you just had floor monitors and usually they sucked so you really couldn't hear what the heck you were doing especially if you were singing.

The thing that amazes me sometimes the most is watching and listening to clips of the Beatles or other bands who didn't even have floor monitors and had girls screaming at them. They couldn't hear anything and yet they still sounded as well as they could have possibly done even without good PAs.

Tyson hit a point which is that movies don't really look real but you can lose yourself in them and for a couple of hours buy into a good movie with great visuals/audio and/or acting/stories. The same is true with recorded music. You can just let yourself fall into it and, unlike live music, you're not dealing with a drunk lady in the row in front of you trying to sing every song or the two guys trying to hit on a girl to your left, the cigarette smoke behind you or even worrying about how you're going to get up for work tomorrow.

Music in your home can transport you, heal you or just make you happy for a little while.

[Desertpilot]

...
Hifi is the same way - it can show you wondrous things, some of which will never exist outside a recording studio creation.  That's not something to lament, it's something to celebrate.

I think it's even better than studio creations.  Our current state of the art in classical music recording, mixing & mastering is, in my opinion, phenomenal.  TRPTK (Brendon Heinst) for solo instruments and ensembles is terrific.  Soundmirror  (Mark Donahue), Challenge Classics (Bert van der Wolf), Channel Classics (Jared Sachs) are all superb at recording orchestral performances.  Sound Liaison (Frans de Rond) is doing a fabulous job with jazz and blues.  Music reproduction today is reaching levels unheard of just a decade ago.

I too have attended many live performances, Tanglewood in MA, the Fox theater in Atlanta, GA, plus many others.  True, it's an exciting and rewarding experience.  But, for the cost of a ticket to one show, I can buy a couple dozen high resolution SACDs or downloads and enjoy the concert multiple times.  I am quite happy I am alive to enjoy the sonic fidelity available to me.

Marcus

[Tyson]

I think it's even better than studio creations.  Our current state of the art in classical music recording, mixing & mastering is, in my opinion, phenomenal.  TRPTK (Brendon Heinst) for solo instruments and ensembles is terrific.  Soundmirror  (Mark Donahue), Challenge Classics (Bert van der Wolf), Channel Classics (Jared Sachs) are all superb at recording orchestral performances.  Sound Liaison (Frans de Rond) is doing a fabulous job with jazz and blues.  Music reproduction today is reaching levels unheard of just a decade ago.

I too have attended many live performances, Tanglewood in MA, the Fox theater in Atlanta, GA, plus many others.  True, it's an exciting and rewarding experience.  But, for the cost of a ticket to one show, I can buy a couple dozen high resolution SACDs or downloads and enjoy the concert multiple times.  I am quite happy I am alive to enjoy the sonic fidelity available to me.

Marcus

Agreed!!  Especially in Classical, it's not just the very highest end recordings that have advanced over a decade (or 2) ago.  Pretty much ALL classical recordings nowadays range from 'good' to 'very good'.  And a few are 'phenomenal' as you rightly notate.

[Daryl Zero]

So I'm sitting here listening to the Bad Bad Hats' Walkman album and cranking it up a bit because I want to be sure about the tube amp I have. Guitar, bass, some sparse keys, vocals and drums. The guitar and bass sound like they are live. The drums and vocals not as much. The keys are far back in the mix as filler so I can't speak to that. The drums are processed and don't really sound like real drums. The vocals are good but a bit flat in dimension. Trying both triode and ultralinear modes.

[Russell Dawkins]

I think the main culprit is inadequate headroom both in amplification and speaker drivers.

I believe that popular thought as to appropriate headroom is around 20 dB shy of actual needs.

Both of the times I was been (briefly, like for half a second) fooled into thinking I was hearing real instruments tend to support this. The first was a demo recording of a drum kit played through a Phase Linear 700 and a pair of AR LSTs (in around 1973), and the second (in around 1993) was a recording of Ben Webster playing saxophone reproduced by a pair of Carver Silver Sevens (350 tube WPC) driving a pair of Carver Amazings. The first note snapped my head around. Improbable as it would have been, I thought he was there...
In both cases there was a lot of power available and a lot of drivers in the speaker so as not to be overloaded. The AR LSTs have 4 dome mids and 4 dome tweeters. The Amazings have a 4' long ribbon covering the mids and highs and 4 12" OB bass drivers—88dB sensitivity but very high power handling.

They say in car engines there is no substitute for cubes; I think in music reproduction, similarly, there is no substitute for headroom. 20-25dB headroom should be the starting point; the rest is refinement.

[Letitroll98]

I tried to say that on page one Russell.  The difference between live and recorded is dynamic range, or headroom as you say it.  We can buy enough amplifier power, most of us don't, but it's possible.  However very few home speakers offer enough dynamic range to recreate live music.  It isn't some phase anomaly or something else, put 1500 watts per channel and PA speakers in your home and it will sound live.  And you won't like it.  There's a reason why we like our delicaly detailed amps and speakers that throw an expansive soundstage, that's what sounds better in the home.

[Tyson]

I think the main culprit is inadequate headroom both in amplification and speaker drivers.

I believe that popular thought as to appropriate headroom is around 20 dB shy of actual needs.

Both of the times I was been (briefly, like for half a second) fooled into thinking I was hearing real instruments tend to support this. The first was a demo recording of a drum kit played through a Phase Linear 700 and a pair of AR LSTs (in around 1973), and the second (in around 1993) was a recording of Ben Webster playing saxophone reproduced by a pair of Carver Silver Sevens (350 tube WPC) driving a pair of Carver Amazings. The first note snapped my head around. Improbable as it would have been, I thought he was there...
In both cases there was a lot of power available and a lot of drivers in the speaker so as not to be overloaded. The AR LSTs have 4 dome mids and 4 dome tweeters. The Amazings have a 4' long ribbon covering the mids and highs and 4 12" OB bass drivers—88dB sensitivity but very high power handling.

They say in car engines there is no substitute for cubes; I think in music reproduction, similarly, there is no substitute for headroom. 20-25dB headroom should be the starting point; the rest is refinement.

I think this is part of the reason Line Array speakers sound so good, when they are done well.  Lots of drivers moving in unison.  They are complicated to design and easy to screw up.  But when you hear one that's really well designed, man those are game-changers.  And it's not just the headroom.  The sound literally propagates through the room in a more efficient way.  So the amount of energy lost between the speaker and the listening position is about half what you get with a conventional speaker.  That also makes the 'jump factor' go way up. 

[abomwell]

Tyson, would you put the big Maggie's and , perhaps, Sander's ESL speakers in the line array category!

[Tyson]

Tyson, would you put the big Maggie's and , perhaps, Sander's ESL speakers in the line array category!

Yes, and Apogees too.  I think that's part of why people love those speakers so much.  The only 'downside' of all of them is they are really difficult loads, so you need a really stout amp to drive them.  And even then, you lose out on the liveliness that a high efficiency design brings to the table. 

Danny did a couple of open baffle designs that were full line arrays and also an easy load and fairly efficient.  There was the one for Mockingbird Audio at RMAF about 4 or 5 years ago, which was incredible, and then there was the Line Force he designed around the Neo10 and Neo3 planar magnetic drivers, which is literally the best speaker I've ever heard, and not be a little.  By a lot. 

I wish more manufacturers would come out with high efficiency line arrays, they are actually quite special.  I'm guessing a lot don't because the base costs would make them super expensive.  And they are really visually imposing so WAF is very, very low. 

[Mr. Big]

I think the main culprit is inadequate headroom both in amplification and speaker drivers.

I believe that popular thought as to appropriate headroom is around 20 dB shy of actual needs.

Both of the times I was been (briefly, like for half a second) fooled into thinking I was hearing real instruments tend to support this. The first was a demo recording of a drum kit played through a Phase Linear 700 and a pair of AR LSTs (in around 1973), and the second (in around 1993) was a recording of Ben Webster playing saxophone reproduced by a pair of Carver Silver Sevens (350 tube WPC) driving a pair of Carver Amazings. The first note snapped my head around. Improbable as it would have been, I thought he was there...
In both cases there was a lot of power available and a lot of drivers in the speaker so as not to be overloaded. The AR LSTs have 4 dome mids and 4 dome tweeters. The Amazings have a 4' long ribbon covering the mids and highs and 4 12" OB bass drivers—88dB sensitivity but very high power handling.


They say in car engines there is no substitute for cubes; I think in music reproduction, similarly, there is no substitute for headroom. 20-25dB headroom should be the starting point; the rest is refinement.

Well said. You need a current and watts to really open up speakers even the more high-efficiency ones. The music just flows while the amp has more to give as music becomes more complex and with dynamic swings.

[Mr. Big]

And I'm bold enough to go beyond what Tyson just said -- lots of live music really sucks and sounds better when recorded in a studio.

How many times have you gone to a concert and heard one of your favorite songs and said to yourself, "I prefer the recorded version"?  Not only are the vocals clearer on the recording, but they aren't being drowned out by the music, the bass isn't boomy, and the sound isn't running together like diarrhea. You ain't there to hear high-quality music. Even most live recordings suck.  So, yeah, when audiophiles say they want to hear music in their living room as though it's live, it sounds like something you're supposed to say, but don't be delusional about it.

I've been to many concerts with really talented singers and no record can capture their voice as they sounded live in concert.

[abomwell]

I've been to many concerts with really talented singers and no record can capture their voice as they sounded live in concert.

I think that, at a live concert, the combination of sight and sound can add more enjoyment than just sound alone as when listening to a recording. Recently I've watched a number of classical performances on DVD which sound great until I close my eyes,.  Suddenly performance issues like intonation flaws become more evident.  While watching a concert (or a DVD) the aural and visual senses are divided and critical listening is not as acute as it would be by listening with closed eyes. But it would be likely better enjoyed.

[Mr. Big]

I think that, at a live concert, the combination of sight and sound can add more enjoyment than just sound alone as when listening to a recording. Recently I've watched a number of classical performances on DVD which sound great until I close my eyes,.  Suddenly performance issues like intonation flaws become more evident.  While watching a concert (or a DVD) the aural and visual senses are divided and critical listening is not as acute as it would be by listening with closed eyes. But it would be likely better enjoyed.

Well live back in the day before all the multiplication they do today with electronics, that is different when you had zero, only you and the band. El natural, I head vocals that could hit you in the chest or gentle rise and lower with ease never captured on recordings and back then all vinyl and they were nowhere close, dynamics and tone and color. Still enjoyed the LP's of course but when you heard say, Sinatra, Elvis, Johnny Mathis, Tom Jones, Steppenwolf, Led Zeplin, and other rock acts and 100 others I saw growing up in Cleveland where everyone toured, the LP sound paled.  And when you are not in the lower level the 1st say 15 rows you see little, but you can certainly hear it.