[Brian Cheney]

What does live music sound like?  More importantly, what does it sound like in your home listening environment?  And how close does your system come to recreating that sound, assuming you know what it is?

These are fundamental questions for audiophiles, and in my 30 years as a sound engineer I really haven't had adequate answers, until yesterday's meeting of the Norcal audio lovers at ribbonspeakers.net's house.  His much-praised (by visitors) setup consists of an ATI bass amp, Pathos MK III integrated for mid and trebles, the TRL modded Sony DVD/SACD player, a (visiting) JVC turntable, Stan Warren IC's and speaker wire, and the latest RM 30C CDWG speakers.

When I arrived I thought the sound was on the warm side, pleasant but too smooth.  In the course of making adjustments I relied as usual on familar program material and my memory of the sound of live voices and instruments heard elsewhere and elsewhen.  I have a lot of experience there and am quite smug about my audio memory. 

Still, halfway through the tuning process, listening to comments from the 5 other listeners in the room, I had an idea and directed our host, JimR, to fetch his guitar.  When I importuned a second member to stand between the speakers and sing the lyrics performed on a live male-voice-and-guitar
CD we were auditioning, what I heard startled me.

The live guitar was both fuller and mellower than the recorded instrument, the live voice less edgy and better balanced.  Fortunately there were many adjustments available in the system, including bass level, bass damping, and mid and treble levels from continuously variable Lpads.  The RM 30C is a neutrally voiced speaker and with its Constant Directivity waveguide, provides 180 degress of perfectly even dispersion full-range.
By having the live voice and instrument repeatedly alternate with their recorded counterparts, I could make 1/10dB adjustments to the three frequency bands (and 1/100g adjustments to the moving mass of the passive radiators, changing their Q in very small increments) until all present agreed we had matched the live sound as closely as the exigencies of recording and playback permitted.

When I was done, subsequent albums we played sounded as good as the one used for comparison with live sound in the room.  The ultimate proof of success was a recording of the Beethoven 9th, when orchestra, chorus, and four soloists were reproduced with stunning fidelity and impact, unstrained and transparent even at high playback levels.

Moral: if you want your system to sound its best, it needs to be both linear, ideally dispersed, and very flexible in setup.  Then, hire a band!

[lonewolfny42]

Excellent !!! 

[Zheeeem]

Uh.  Well yes and no.  It is unlikely that I will ever have the LSO over to play in my small-ish listening room.  And, last I looked, Duke Ellington was still dead.

The analogy you're making isn't quite right.  If I'm listening to Bruno and the Columbians, I want it to sound like Bruno and The Columbians in the studio they recorded things in.  (Actually, I probably don't, since studios are not necessarily the best place for live listening.)  OK.  Let's say it's a live recording.  I want it to sound like that group in that venue, right?  This means that I ought to go out and listen to live music a lot.  Good advice!  But it also means that I'm probably never going to get this aspect of playback "right" since it means that my music memory needs to be perfect (even assuming I'm listening to recordings made at venues I regularly habituate, which is sometimes the case).

I agree that having the occasional odd instrument in one's listening room can be useful - probably in a relatively gross sense (does a recorded guitar sound anything like a real guitar???).  But I tend to rely on my sense of whether the sound is euphonically pleasing more than anything else - especially WRT the question - "Is this euphonically pleasing in the same sorts of ways a live performance is euphonically pleasing?"

Actually, I never use the word "euphonically" around the house.  My behaviour is already disturbing enough to my spousal unit.

But you're more than welcome to grab an accordian and stop by chez Willis to tune up my system!

[Brian Cheney]

Hey, it worked.  When we were done voice, instruments and venue of different recordings were clearly audible.  The system was as good a residential sound as I've ever heard and proved faithful to a wide variety of music.

I should point out that the Beethoven 9th cleared the room.  Classical does not have the following among audiophiles it should enjoy.

[woodsyi]

My behaviour is already disturbing enough to my spousal unit.

My spousal unit, too. 

I don't know about having a orchestra on the room, but I try to tune my speakers to sound like live performances from memory.  I specifically use a CD of a performance that I have seen and heard live (same cast and venue) to tune.  I get pretty good replication. 

[TheChairGuy]

Classical does not have the following among audiophiles it should enjoy.

Ha, 'tis true, we did leave as it was being played....but it was also a bit after noon and the chinese food was-a-waiting 

That was a very instructive meeting indeed....the tuning process brought some amazing changes.  Brian took maybe a half a thumbnail of putty from both speakers (cumulatively), twiddled the level controls a scan amount and, in conjunction with Jim/Ribonspeakers guitar and Jim A's voice, we mimic'ed as close as any speaker can.

It was quite an instructive time there on Saturday.

Here's Jim playing and Brian tuning to it in action....

[Brian Cheney]

The experience was worth it, if just to hear clubmember JamesH croon "...my baby got thighs like butter!" while JimR strummed his six string.

[Zheeeem]

I should point out that the Beethoven 9th cleared the room.  Classical does not have the following among audiophiles it should enjoy.

Clearly it was NOT the 1942 Furtwangler.  Or could it have been something you said?  Or did???

I listened to Furty's 9th again over the weekend, and once again was totally enthralled.

[Brian Cheney]

It was the 1963 Karajan, one of the earliest stereo 9ths.  Great performance.

You'd better explain about Furtie.

[Zheeeem]

It was the 1963 Karajan, one of the earliest stereo 9ths.  Great performance.

You'd better explain about Furtie.

Not sure what you mean "explain about Furtie".  His 9th is the best recorded performance of that symphony I've ever heard.  I am swept away every time; goosebumps and all that stuff.

Herbie's '63 is quite nice.  But it does not thrill me.  It is, however, considerably better than his later DDD attempt (the one in the box).  It is maybe the best stereo version, though I've not listened to everything.  And, uhhhhhh, yeah, the sound quality is nicer than the Furtwangler.

One interesting performance for the RM30s is Gergiev's Rite of Spring.  Yes, there are better performances out there (especially Stravinsky's).  But the performance and recording are both so over-the-top that it's outrageously good fun.  (Setting aside for a moment that most normal folks think Igor's music is a discordant mess.)  The 2nd movement is a great equipment workout!

[Brian Cheney]

I'll order the Gergiev.  I have some of his stuff already.

[Berndt]

denise played her violin tonight as an experiment.
BC style.
I'm knackered for sure.
Is it possible to hear a live violin?
BTW, her violin is WAY more expensive than my stereo system.

[Berndt]

I really just want to hear the resin on the strings.

[Berndt]

That super gritty scrub on the strings.
Isn't that a violin?
what to do.

[mfsoa]

Years ago, I read in TAS where HP had an award ceremony at his house, and many of the "top deseigners of the day" were there. There was a violinist there, walking around and playing. All were blown away by the amount of high-frequency energy present, and they said that they would never want to deseign their gear to sound like that!
I know that in my relatively small room, an hour of real trumpet or sax would be painful, these are loud instruments. Or if I were to bring my drumset up from the basement - lookout!

Don't know where I'm going with this (post oral-surgery pain-killer kicking in).

[BobRex]

Ah, the dilemma of a musical instrument; place it in a small room and it's too bright and loud.  Take that same instrument, combine it with a hundred others in a hall and the designers will ask "Where's the tweeter???"  What's a poor speaker designer to do

[avahifi]

Years ago I had a prospect client come for a demo, and he asked me to play a CD he had brought with him.  The CD was of the client playing the violin (and playing it very well indeed).

We listened for a while, he liked what he heard, and then made one more comment, "now I have one other test", and he went back out to his car and brought in the violin!

Oh boy! That was a toughie!  The system didn't do too bad all things considered.  He said, well that is as close as I have heard yet.

We sold him a system.

Frank Van Alstine

[avahifi]

I should probably note that my idea of a proper playback room is one that is as dead as you can get it (and my demo room is).  So not only the system, but the live violin itself never sounded "too bright".

Frank

[John Casler]

Years ago I had a prospect client come for a demo, and he asked me to play a CD he had brought with him.  The CD was of the client playing the violin (and playing it very well indeed).

We listened for a while, he liked what he heard, and then made one more comment, "now I have one other test", and he went back out to his car and brought in the violin!

Oh boy! That was a toughie!  The system didn't do too bad all things considered.  He said, well that is as close as I have heard yet.

We sold him a system.

Frank Van Alstine

Hi Frank,

That is a good story and does bring up a few salient points.

First off, I too like a playback room to be as dead as possible (meaning I don't want to hear reflected room interaction/distortion)

But, in a situation like that, some might not understand that the experiment could have "backfired".

Here is what I mean.

If someone brings you a recording they made "in their room" which is likely not treated, and you play it back in your dead room, then you will likely hear "their original room" from the recording, which is exactly what you want to hear, reflections of the original room and all.  That is what a live recording is all about.

But, if they then bring a live instrument into your room and listen to it live, it will not have the same "room/live" sounds since it will be playing in a dead room.

However, your room is more like a recording studio, and if you Listen Live, and then make a live recording in your room, and compare that recording made in your room, to LIVE in your room, it should sound exact.

I think you brought up a good point and it just goes to show that SO MUCH, depends on the room, as well as the system.

[Daygloworange]

The live guitar was both fuller and mellower than the recorded instrument, the live voice less edgy and better balanced.  Fortunately there were many adjustments available in the system, including bass level, bass damping, and mid and treble levels from continuously variable Lpads.  The RM 30C is a neutrally voiced speaker and with its Constant Directivity waveguide, provides 180 degress of perfectly even dispersion full-range.
By having the live voice and instrument repeatedly alternate with their recorded counterparts, I could make 1/10dB adjustments to the three frequency bands (and 1/100g adjustments to the moving mass of the passive radiators, changing their Q in very small increments) until all present agreed we had matched the live sound as closely as the exigencies of recording and playback permitted.

I've always employed the method of extrapolation in setting up. There are recordings that I've heard in numerous systems over the years, and that I've determined to be good by extrapolation. Sometimes not in all areas, ( ie: this one has a good drum sound, that one has a great acoustic guitar, the vocals on this one are very lifelike, and particularly, ones with good stereo ambiance, etc...)

And you go back and forth, trying, testing, A/B 'ing, switching, omitting, adding, etc..., in an effort to minimize any specific errors from specific recordings being telegraphed through by virtue of your equipment/ set up choices.

There is a lot of faith that recordings are faithful reproductions of the live event, at a given time, and at a given place. A lot of times, that is simply not the case ( for a multitude of reasons ). A lot of times, it was simply not even the goal. A lot of times the studio is actually damage control, rather than some surgically precise, sterile, neutral invention that can faithfully and convincingly reproduce a past event. ( is it live, or memorex ? )

A lot of times, (most times, actually)) it's a place where events, instruments, performances are altered to sound pleasant, not realistic. ( sometimes not even pleasant )

More often than not, there are compromises made in order to achieve the goals ( and those vary wildly, both the goals, and the compromises )

If the assumption is that, for example, A multi track recording was done in the manner where each instrument is isolated on it's own track, captured and recorded faithfully ,( but not altered )with the aforementioned perfect equipment, and then simply blended together , with the result being a pleasant and paletteable 2 channel recording, the assumption would be wrong almost always.

There is often need for things to be altered for the overall recording to be enjoyable. The ability to use minimal equipment and cut straight to disc has been around for ages, yet, is not done. Because the instance of it producing subjectively good results would be practically nil.

It comes back full circle and becomes a chicken and egg thing. In the end, it ends up being what is subjectively good, not what's exact.

Cheers