AudioCircle
Industry Circles => Bryston Limited => Topic started by: James Tanner on 15 Jun 2019, 04:33 pm
-
HI Folks,
Lets say 3 of us go to an non-amplified concert of the Boston Pops and then we go to each of the 3 individuals homes and listen to their sound system.
Would we agree which of the 3 systems sounded more like the real experience in the concert hall?
james
-
For me, no.
-
For me, no.
Why not?
james
-
Hey!
Here's my $0.02USD on this. The answer is no. What you hear at the concert hall with your own ears is not the same as what the mics picked up. Although, the recording technology we have today is pretty amazing. But it can't pick up everything your ears hear at the concert hall, also the mics are not at the same spot as you were at the concert also.
I've heard Anna Netrebko at the Met Opera, and when I put on her CD on my system, I know is her singing, I can hear the music, the hall and etc. But there's still something that's different about it.
So, at home I'm hearing what the mic(s) heard at the concert hall. Still a well recorded one can still captors most of the fundamental sounds, and the emotional aspect of the performance enough to be reproduce at home. And with that I do enjoy Anna's voice on CD enough to reminded me of her singing live at the Lincoln Center but not 100% like being there though.
Buddy
-
Why not?
james
I think that each individual has a different musical hearing. We do not necessarily hear the music in the same way as another so a consensus seems impossible to me.
-
Why not?
james
I think it's because everyone focuses on different aspects of the system's performance and sound reproduction. When our audio club visits different owner's homes and we listen to different systems, seems like everyone is focusing on different things. Some fixate on whether everything from middle C on down sounds real and powerful. Some fixate on sound staging and sense of air surrounding instruments and performers. For others, it's dynamics and sense of scale. Some want to hear the chest, throat, sinuses, and teeth of the singers reproduced with proper contribution to the overall vocal performance. I could go on and on, but we know what I'm talking about. We all hear the same things, but our "hierarchies of audio reality" are different.
-
Hey!
Here's my $0.02USD on this. The answer is no. What you hear at the concert hall with your own ears is not the same as what the mics picked up. Although, the recording technology we have today is pretty amazing. But it can't pick up everything your ears hear at the concert hall, also the mics are not at the same spot as you were at the concert also.
I've heard Anna Netrebko at the Met Opera, and when I put on her CD on my system, I know is her singing, I can hear the music, the hall and etc. But there's still something that's different about it.
So, at home I'm hearing what the mic(s) heard at the concert hall. Still a well recorded one can still captors most of the fundamental sounds, and the emotional aspect of the performance enough to be reproduce at home. And with that I do enjoy Anna's voice on CD enough to reminded me of her singing live at the Lincoln Center but not 100% like being there though.
Buddy
Agree. The mic'ed recording is always a different perspective than a given location in the hall.
No two systems in our home environment will sound the same. Some folks have SET electronics with very sensitive speakers, while others may have monitors with one or more subwoofers. Still others will have large floor standing speakers with large power amps. Additionally, some of the modern SS amps have built DSP/SHARC logic used in creating the audio signal.
Given all this, it's simply not possible to get the systems to sound like live. However, with a large room, the right type of speakers and amps, it's possible to get close to the actual sound, but close is as good as one can get.
-
Hi Folks,
I am not asking if it sounds the same as the concert hall. I am asking would the 3 of us agree that system 1 sounded more like the concert hall than system 2 or 3.
Photon ... would you as a listener not 'focus' or 'fixate' on the the same things in the concert hall? For example from middle C on down or the scale or the dynamics as you suggest - how did that sound in the concert hall and how does it sound on the 3 systems.
In other words I guess what I am saying is no matter what our 'preference' the comparison between the concert hall and the 3 systems would still have validity.
james
-
I think it's because everyone focuses on different aspects of the system's performance and sound reproduction. When our audio club visits different owner's homes and we listen to different systems, seems like everyone is focusing on different things. Some fixate on whether everything from middle C on down sounds real and powerful. Some fixate on sound staging and sense of air surrounding instruments and performers. For others, it's dynamics and sense of scale. Some want to hear the chest, throat, sinuses, and teeth of the singers reproduced with proper contribution to the overall vocal performance. I could go on and on, but we know what I'm talking about. We all hear the same things, but our "hierarchies of audio reality" are different.
This! :thumb:
-
Hi Folks,
I am not asking if it sounds the same as the concert hall. I am asking would the 3 of us agree that system 1 sounded more like the concert hall than system 2 or 3.
Photon ... would you as a listener not 'focus' or 'fixate' on the the same things in the concert hall? For example from middle C on down or the scale or the dynamics as you suggest - how did that sound in the concert hall and how does it sound on the 3 systems.
In other words I guess what I am saying is no matter what our 'preference' the comparison between the concert hall and the 3 systems would still have validity.
james
Understood. :)
I’m not sure one would focus on the same thing at a concert vs a home audio system. And even if we did, a live concert is such a different experience, I would think that experience would influence what we hear/perceive. No?
I can easily see a situation where none of the 3 systems sounds more like the real thing even though they all sound different.
-
Like Saturn94, I think the experience of being at a live performance is quite different from sitting at home listening and we react differently. The live theater is an immersive experience and we tend to shut off the part of our hypercritical nitpicking audio brains that is more prone to kick in at home. The live music venue is stimulating all of our senses, the home listening experience tends to focus more on hearing only because the rest of the environmental stimuli we're experiencing is familiar.
I will say when I close my eyes at a live acoustic musical concert, I am always amazed at how even the best systems I've ever heard sound quite different from a seat in a theater. The mix of direct vs. reflected/ambient sound is so different in a large theater vs. even the best acoustically treated smaller home room listening environment. Instrumental timbre, dynamics, etc. can be reproduced well with the best of today's equipment, but the way a live orchestra interacts with a theater sounds quite different from a miked recording of the same.
-
I think in many cases, listeners would agree. However, in many cases, they would not. In the latter cases, I lean towards @Photon46's view of this. Different listeners notice different things, and their systems may each have their own areas of best accuracy. To pick something really simple, system A may reproduce the bass drum and tubas most accurately, while system B may reproduce violin most accurately, and C gives the best soundstage.
If listeners A, B, and C's priorities in audio align with the performance of their systems, each may consider her own system most accurate.
I will add that since a recording usually offers a markedly different dynamic picture, perspective, and tonal balance from a live event, one is comparing fundamentally different things. So, is an orange, a tangerine, or a sour apple closest to a lime?
Does that make sense?
-
HI Folks,
Lets say 3 of us go to an non-amplified concert of the Boston Pops and then we go to each of the 3 individuals homes and listen to their sound system.
Would we agree which of the 3 systems sounded more like the real experience in the concert hall?
james
A good question I think, and one that seems somehow to be misunderstood by the majority of respondents, interestingly.
I would think that no matter how differently each of us perceive sound, and I have to presume we 'hear' differently, beyond the differences caused by the varying acoustics of individual pinnae and ear canals, we would still be inclined to choose the system that most accurately reproduced the sound of the actual concert, including the reproduction of the acoustic of the hall in which it was recorded.
If, through skillful design of listening acoustic and playback equipment, an identical soundfield was achieved I would think it likely that everyone would find this most like the real experience, auditory memory allowing, regardless of what they were perceiving in terms of frequency response, dynamics, distortion spacial realism, etc.
It's also worth mentioning that, as is often said, the room is a major player in the sonic experience and speakers that attempt to remove the influence of the room, such as most of the Gradients, the Dutch and Dutch 8C monitors and some line arrays are more likely to reproduce the sound of the orchestra and the hall, making the listening room less of a factor in the overall sound.
-
And then there is a the proud papa syndrome where we each (perhaps should) prefer our own system that we've assembled and become accustomed to. Naturally a $10,000 system properly setup should objectively sound better than a $100 radio.
-
HI Folks,
Lets say 3 of us go to an non-amplified concert of the Boston Pops and then we go to each of the 3 individuals homes and listen to their sound system.
Would we agree which of the 3 systems sounded more like the real experience in the concert hall?
james
Most likely no, for two reasons:
1. at a live event (if it is something you enjoy), all senses are excited which inevitably means an emotional reaction to the music. All of us react differently to this.
2. and perhaps more importantly, human hearing is particularly difficult to assess because it is adaptive to different volume levels in different ways with different people. A live concert would certainly mean listening to music in a loud manner and we would perceive this volume differently. So, if our mutual experience at the actual event is different, there is no way our memory of it will somehow be the same after the event has ended.
Cheers!
Antun
-
Absolutely no agreement.
1. Auditory memory is very brief.
2. Human hearing is always colored by past experiences (emotions, etc etc).
3. Does it matter? (As long as the musik moves me, what another person "hears" is not any of my concern).
-
"Would we agree which of the 3 systems sounded more like the real experience in the concert hall"?
I suspect the answer is no....why? my experience has been that people's brains are attuned to different things...for example, I automatically focus in on pianos and trumpets...not sure why. My brother is sensitive to bass. A buddy of ours is all about volume. Therefore, it is likely that we could hear all three systems....and I prefer system one because of how it does pianos....while you prefer system two because of how it present snare drums.
My point being that our overall opinion will be influenced by our preferences and how we hear them presented.
-
Since you clarified the question, I'm going to say that "it's possible" that the group could agree on a single system. Based on my experience, the system that provides the best overall low frequency response in the given environment will be the system judged to be the closest. This is in reference to providing the deepest and most accurate low frequency response. This is not the "enhanced mid-bass boom" some folks like, but rather, the bass that makes a stand up non electric (acoustic) bass sound accurate. An accurate low frequency response seems to enhance the entire frequency spectrum.
This of course assumes that the 3 speakers in question measure somewhat similar from 80 Hz on up, which many better quality speakers can achieve.
-
I would think that no matter how differently each of us perceive sound, and I have to presume we 'hear' differently, beyond the differences caused by the varying acoustics of individual pinnae and ear canals, we would still be inclined to choose the system that most accurately reproduced the sound of the actual concert, including the reproduction of the acoustic of the hall in which it was recorded.
It's entirely possible such a consensus could be reached I suppose. It would be interesting to conduct this test with non-audiophile concert goers and audiophiles to see if there's any statistical difference in how people hear these differences.
-
3 audiophiles agree on anything?
No.
-
3 audiophiles agree on anything?
No.
:wave: :rotflmao:
-
Why is the live sound in a concert hall the standard?
I play many instruments, for the most part I feel the correct
sound from my guitar, or my sax, or my harmonica, or my mandolin, or
almost any instrument is when I play in my treated listening room.
Most halls are bowls, designed to throw the music (sound) away from the
playing area into the seated area....this doesnt sound anything like natural
when your playing or seated next to someone playing. Even when practicing
with a band, orchestra, etc.....the room you practice in isnt a hall.
So why isnt the goal a more intimate interaction?.......I bet the system comparison
would be better suited and more revealing by comparing live and recorded
instruments from in your listening space, rather than a venue.
-
Why is the live sound in a concert hall the standard?
So why isnt the goal a more intimate interaction?.......I bet the system comparison
would be better suited and more revealing by comparing live and recorded
instruments from in your listening space, rather than a venue.
Depends on the type of music and number of musicians. Something like an acoustic guitarist and a vocalist would be fine in a small space and small groups are generally recorded in more intimate spaces (unless it's a live recording of a concert.) ECM, Water Lilly Acoustics, and Newvelle Records come to mind as outstanding examples of reference level recordings in smaller spaces. However, even a chamber trio of pianist, cello, and violin are loud and easily overload a small room on loud passages. I think we really need a large space to let an orchestra perform. I'm curious about your statement regarding orchestras not practicing in a hall. All our area university orchestras rehearse in large theater spaces and the professional orchestras I've been familiar with do the same.
You do raise an interesting point about the different perspectives of musicians vs. audience in terms of experiencing music. I've heard more than one professional musician say they have no interest in recordings and audio because their aural perspective as a performer is so different from the audiences (or recording microphones.)
-
3 audiophiles agree on anything?
No.
:thumb:
-
Hey!
Here's my $0.02USD on this. The answer is no. What you hear at the concert hall with your own ears is not the same as what the mics picked up. Although, the recording technology we have today is pretty amazing. But it can't pick up everything your ears hear at the concert hall, also the mics are not at the same spot as you were at the concert also.
I've heard Anna Netrebko at the Met Opera, and when I put on her CD on my system, I know is her singing, I can hear the music, the hall and etc. But there's still something that's different about it.
So, at home I'm hearing what the mic(s) heard at the concert hall. Still a well recorded one can still captors most of the fundamental sounds, and the emotional aspect of the performance enough to be reproduce at home. And with that I do enjoy Anna's voice on CD enough to reminded me of her singing live at the Lincoln Center but not 100% like being there though.
Buddy
Buddy, what you don't hear in the concert hall is stereo and imaging. :o I'll take my Bryston rig over a live concert any day. :D
-
Buddy, what you don't hear in the concert hall is stereo and imaging. :o I'll take my Bryston rig over a live concert any day. :D
Amen to that. Don't understand why many consider live concerts the "gold standard" for audio gear performance. Lots of noise, grunge, germs, and steel (pun?) at live concerts. I prefer my cozy listening room any day, with noise-free recordings.
cheers, bud.
-
Buddy, what you don't hear in the concert hall is stereo and imaging. :o I'll take my Bryston rig over a live concert any day. :D
Amen to that. Don't understand why many consider live concerts the "gold standard" for audio gear performance. Lots of noise, grunge, germs, and steel (pun?) at live concerts. I prefer my cozy listening room any day, with noise-free recordings.
cheers, bud.
Hey!
I have two ears and they working fine. So, I do hear in stereo at the concert hall. When I go to the Met Opera at the Lincoln Center, I usually sit up in the Balcony in the center, I like it up there because it actually sound better than down in the orchestra seat and of course it is cheaper up there too! And I can track where the direction of where each sound coming from.
Anyway, I'm surprised to see that you two would rather stay home than go hear your favorite singer/artists perform live? Wow! You guys are truly an audiophile :bowdown: As much as I like and enjoy my system, I will never turn down a chance to see Anna or any of my favorite artists perform live... yes, with all the noise, grunge, germs and all!!!! OK, I'm going to leave this post now.
Buddy
-
Photon64's answer is the closest to what my experience is with listeners in real life. Different people listen for different things, and end up weighting things differently for how much something sounds like an original. Even when performing controlled DBX tests with the identical setup and environment, people will weight how closely something sounds to the original differently, as well as incorrectly. (Including myself.) I would argue even highly trained professionals that perform critical technical listening every day will not always agree as to how to rate things relative to each other if there is more than one dimension of difference.
-
Hi Folks,
An interesting observation I find when doing audio shows is that if you have a good sound most people agree on that fact. I agree some preferences will occur between what each person considers as BEST at a show but generally the consensus is pretty consistent.
james
-
Amen to that. Don't understand why many consider live concerts the "gold standard" for audio gear performance. Lots of noise, grunge, germs, and steel (pun?) at live concerts. I prefer my cozy listening room any day, with noise-free recordings.
cheers, bud.
What is my true reference for tonality and harmonic structure is a live un - amplified Piano, Violin, Cello, Acoustic Guitar and drum kit. Since I have heard all numerous times my memory of "live" sound is embedded in my brain.
My goal is achieve the tonality, harmonics and Timbre of live. We get close but still no Cigar.
If a system sounds colored to me meaning, bright, dull, non linear, detailed, thin, boomy etc then just not close to the real deal. Have someone play an Acoustic Guitar sitting between your speakers then play a Guitar recording. You will know exactly what I mean.
charles
-
We can go back many years to when a young Floyd Toole did some double blind testing at the NRC Dep't of Physics acoustics lab. Focusing on speakers since they were the weakest link in a typical system and very likely in the majority of exotic ones as well, he found that pretty much everyone, be they audiophiles, musicians, bus drivers, housewives or professors, always recognized and preferred the system with the flattest frequency response, lowest distortion and best dispersion. This was after spending some time listening to different types of music.
We hear everywhere we go with the same ears but an audiophile evaluating the realism of a system will be handicapped by knowing what it is and how good it is or isn't to the best of his knowledge, so that any conclusion drawn will be significantly affected. Sure, it's conceivable that there will be different priorities for different people but I think that generally there would be agreement in favour of the more accurate setup, a Bryston system vs most others, for example. (No, I don't work there but 40 years of great sound has given me a lot of faith in the company. A great deal of affection as well.) For me what seems to work is walking into a room to speak to someone while music is playing. If I'm distracted by what at certain moments sounds like the vocalist is really there, that's a very good sign. One day, I heard Tony Bennet in the room with me but couldn't find him anywhere. It was a Bryston system with the Mini As and I just couldn't go home without them. It was a similar experience with the T-Rex a few months ago, except for the last part. Still trying to work that out.
-
Another issue is "audio memory" can be short or fleeting, and effected by other things such as general mood etc.
-
Hi Folks,
An interesting observation I find when doing audio shows is that if you have a good sound most people agree on that fact. I agree some preferences will occur between what each person considers as BEST at a show but generally the consensus is pretty consistent.
james
I came here to say that the few times I've been listening with fellow philes that we pretty much agree when some characteristic of a system is pointed out. But we each have our own preferences to what we will accept in sound or what part of a system irritates us about it.
-
Another issue is "audio memory" can be short or fleeting, and effected by other things such as general mood etc.
I don't think trained ears do. I did the ITube2 tour in 2018 and just bought a used one. I listened to it and when I reread my review of the various sound options, my earlier review is more or less exactly how I hear it now.
-
It's hard to say. Music (for me) evokes an emotional response and that impacts my memory of the live concert. In turn, that could impact how everyone remembers/responds.
On top of that, there are people who like "bright" sound vs "neutral", etc. That could impact results... the person who favors more up-front treble might "feel" like the brighter system was more authentic, if they had a positive response to the live concert in the first place.
Lots of variables. I think you'd first need three like-minded audiophiles. In that case, then yes, I think the would all agree.
-
I hear differently on different days. No doubt each of us has a unique perspective on our acoustic space.
some nights I hear master tape epiphanies from ancient analog groove technology. I don’t know why everything aligns on certain nights to produce fabulous sonic sensation.... and other nights it’s just really good.
It’s a puzzler.
-
My wife has an interesting set of ears. She has listened to Miles Davis "Aura " CD where all the track are named after colors. 1st time she heard the CD she started guessing the color by track. she got 80% of them correct. I have several systems at home using decent speakers (PMC monitors and PSB status goldi) . The only system she ever comments on is the basement system using klipsch Lascalas. She says "wow" everytime she hears them.
-
I would say that we like different presentations than hearing differently. Some rooms are cozy and warm others bright and cool. Acoustically damped or too reflective can affect my preference.
Then there are live recording venues as well.
charles