[Rob Babcock]

I think it helps to remember what setting 10 to 15ft. away from a Jazz quartet
sounds like. There is no shortage of detail or texture, and no seperation between the two halves of your brain,this a complete listening experience.
In my opinion that is the goal we should be striving toward in home music reproduction. I am quite happy with the progress I have made in this direction with my own system but this has required patronizing manufacturers that are out of the main stream of audio and also have the goal of bringing back it alive instead
of DOA.
Scotty

You are assuming the microphones and recorder are recording the same live event you are hearing but they are not. I can hear the spit in the throat of a singer on a recording but I seldom hear that in a live venue. Do you?

How can you be sure that the shear amount of detail isn't unnatural?



The goal is flawed and pointless to even begin to obtain.

I think you make sure that detail isn't unnatural by doing just what he advocates- listen.  And when you listen to music on your stereo, let the sound of live music be your reference.

BTW, to me the big thing that many audiophiles obsess over that's basically imaginary is imaging.  How many recordings do you have where you can basically locate every instrument to within millimeters?  I've been to many live performances in some great venues and I've never heard that in any of them.  That hyper-separation seems to me to be an artifact created by 2CH stereo, not something captured by the recording process.

Certainly mics work differently than ears.  It's actually amazing that recordings sound as good as they do, given all the contortions the music must go thru to pass thru the whole chain.  It sort of reminds me of the transporter system in Star Trek!   Imagine dropping an aged filet into the grinder, sending it to another state and reassembling the burger back into a steak again.   That's what we're up against.

And, man, when it works it works so good!

[warnerwh]

Musicality is whatever YOU think it is. If you enjoy the music that's all that matters. If you don't then you need to fix something. If there's a small problem somewhere often times you can improve that area.

Once you improve that area then you'll no doubt hear another weakness you can improve on. This can last for several decades   There's alot of us here who buy gear every so often, often being the key word.

In the end it's an enjoyable hobby as long as you enjoy your system's sound. The upgraditis fever is very contagious.  Experimentation is fun. You can learn new things that you didn't expect as I recently have even after 35 years in the hobby.  It's also very safe compared to say car racing. I used to think it was an inexpensive hobby. It can get very expensive.

In the end though musicality is whatever you think it is, not anybody else.

[Daygloworange]

That hyper-separation seems to me to be an artifact created by 2CH stereo, not something captured by the recording process.

Yes, you can do it by combining ambient miking ( the ensemble in a hall ) then spot miking ( soloist only ) with a proper pattern microphone, then blend in the spot mic with the ensemble mics and you have a 2 channel recording where the featured soloist is a little more prominent and has more presence because the spot mike sound hasn't been softened by early reflections.
Thereby altering the sound that one would hear if they were sitting in the hall.
Good example.

Cheers

 

[95bcwh]

No wonder the sound coming out from my speakers is sometimes better than live performance....

That hyper-separation seems to me to be an artifact created by 2CH stereo, not something captured by the recording process.

Yes, you can do it by combining ambient miking ( the ensemble in a hall ) then spot miking ( soloist only ) with a proper pattern microphone, then blend in the spot mic with the ensemble mics and you have a 2 channel recording where the featured soloist is a little more prominent and has more presence because the spot mike sound hasn't been softened by early reflections.
Thereby altering the sound as it might be heard by someone sitting in the hall.
Good example.

Cheers

 

[Daygloworange]

Musicality is whatever YOU think it is. If you enjoy the music that's all that matters. If you don't then you need to fix something. If there's a small problem somewhere often times you can improve that area.

If it sounds good to your ears, then it's good sound to your ears.

In the end though musicality is whatever you think it is, not anybody else.

If it sounds good, then it is good.

No wonder the sound coming out from my speakers is sometimes better than live performance....

That is the intent, it's not always successful.    ( see above )



Cheers

[Rob Babcock]

Pop music is arguably better sounding thru a good audio system than it is "live."  I use quotations because some music never really exists outside of the studio.  Take Thom Yorke's superb "The Eraser," for instance.  He sampled some Radioheads songs, plus peiced together various bits in the studio, then added his vocals.  I'm not sure how he plays them live, if he does.  Probably loops & samples that he sings over.  Perhaps you can't improve on his raw vocal track, but I'm not so sure- many singers have tons of effects applied to their voices to make them sound presentable.  I think Ashly Simpson demonstrates that well enough.  

Obviously the ultimate reference for many of us is how well a system reproduces an unamplified instrument like a violin or piano.  There the best our audio gear can hope for is to not lose too badly.  Under ideal circumstances it may acheive "a draw".  But it shouldn't be able to sound more real than real.

[warnerwh]

Being new to this hobby you may not realize the different sounds possible from a system. We have people who prefer SET amps with whopping outputs of maybe 10 or 20wpc, sometimes less and it's full of second harmonic distortion. Bass is loose, midrange glorious and the treble soft.

You can have single driver speakers that have no crossovers and handle everything from the lowest bass to the top of the treble.  These obviously won't handle as much power as a multi driver system usually and have their drawbacks. 

You can spend 5k on a pair of speakers, both considered excellent, yet they can easily sound very different. Alot of people like Magneplanars which I don't care for but that should mean nothing to the owners of them. Many people think they're the best speakers for the money extant, others don't.

Speaking of drawbacks there's nothing perfect in high end audio. You could spend a million dollars in the perfect acoustical environment and a live performance will still trump it. You can get an excellent facsimile of a live event and one that is extremely enjoyable to YOUR ears. That's the goal I believe for everybody . Just like cars we have our own tastes. Some people like large pickup trucks and others small sports cars for daily drivers. They both have their strengths and weaknesses.

Eliminating all the weaknesses important to you is all that matters.  Only consider important what matters to you.  If you think your system sounds wonderful then it already has "musicality" and "soul". 

[Scotty]

boead,if you don't want reproduce the information on the recording in it's entirety
where do you draw the line and what percentage of information do you
consider the proper amount to throw out. If the music should not sound lifelike what should it sound like. Or what is wrong with reality as sonic gold standard.
Scotty

[Daygloworange]

boead,if you don't want reproduce the information on the recording in it's entirety
where do you draw the line and what percentage of information do you
consider the proper amount to throw out. If the music should not sound lifelike what should it sound like. Or what is wrong with reality as sonic gold standard.
Scotty

There is a phenomenon I'll call hyperrealism that exists in the studio. Basically you can reproduce a performance, but it's a caricature of the performance. I believe that's what he was trying to convey. Again, microphones don't pick up vibrations and sound pressures of the air like the human ear does.

Another analogy: Watching TV, then mucking with the brightness, contrast, sharpness, and color from the standard setting. Your still watching the same movie right? You still get the same message right? Just watching it through rose colored glasses.


Cheers

[boead]

boead,if you don't want reproduce the information on the recording in it's entirety
where do you draw the line and what percentage of information do you
consider the proper amount to throw out. If the music should not sound lifelike what should it sound like. Or what is wrong with reality as sonic gold standard.
Scotty

The problem and the point many hear are making is that it’s entirely impossible to record what is being played. It might sound good but its not good enough. The recording process, especially for live venues, is flawed.
Reality? Well, recordings are far from it. They’re like a painting, it can be a very good and realistic painting – even photographic in nature but it’s still just a copy and can’t come close to the real thing. Even the best photographs can’t come close to the real thing seen by the human eye.
So what’s reality? Certainly NOT a live recording. That being so, you can’t assume that a neutral playback of everything on the disc is what’s real. Like some pointed out, many recordings are compromised/compensated for commercial playback. They have exaggerated highs (detail) and thumping bass and are compressed to sound better for the masses. And the microphones used to record are all very different as others have pointed out.

Season to taste.

[Rob Babcock]

Perhaps, but you'll come a lot closer to fooling people into thinking a music recording is live than you will convincing them a photo is live.

[Daygloworange]

What is reality ????

If you're enjoying listening to a Bach piano concerto.........well..........I hate to tell you..........There are no Bach piano concerto's. Piano's only became the norm after Bach. It was a new instrument and in development at the time. Bach was consulted to try an early prototype, and he didn't like it.

Any Bach piano works are from harpsichord works. It's an interpretation of a harpsichord work. The harpsichord is a plucked instrument, with practically zero dynamics. The note is on, or off. There is no in between. In order to play pianissimo  ( or softly )  the tempo is diminished in order to imply that it is being played softer.

Also, all the sustain and damper pedal notations were never there to begin with. They were added when the works were transferred to piano.

Steel strings didn't exist until not to long ago. Stringed instruments used strings made of catgut back then.

The pursuit of perfect authenticity is absolutely futile.....

Cheers

[Soundbitten]

What is "musicality"?

Whatever you decide it to be .

[G Georgopoulos]

Whatever you decide it to be
-------------------------------
thats why i always say listen to audio equipment that way you decide what you like and what is musicality to you given the fact that musicality is abstract and highly complex to define it is very important for music lovers to see the analogy between good wine and music ,in wine making the variations are tremendous so is with music when people are involved with whats musicality both good wine and music require certain recipies that are continuing and evolving

George Georgopoulos

[Daygloworange]

I'd echo that your own tastes, desires and requirements can/do evolve over time.

Cheers

[Rob Babcock]

What is reality ????

If you're enjoying listening to a Bach piano concerto.........well..........I hate to tell you..........There are no Bach piano concerto's. Piano's only became the norm after Bach. It was a new instrument and in development at the time. Bach was consulted to try an early prototype, and he didn't like it.

With all respects, that's rediculous- do you think I could avoid being sued for copyright infringment if I took a Britney Spears song, recorded it with different instruments and called it my own?  That's idiotic- works have transposed for other instruments for centuries, and Bach & his contemporaries did it back then.  You need a lot better argument than that.

[Scotty]

boead,Indicting the recording process as hopelessly flawed and incapable capturing reality does nothing to invalidate my argument for reproducing all of the recorded information possible. All you have done is make a very good argument for purchasing a recording with the least flaws possible. By failing to attempt to reproduce the information in the recording with the maximum fidelity possible you doom yourself to mediocre playback at best and the very real possiblity that you won't recognize a superior recording when one comes along. If progress occurs in the art of recording music you will probably not know it has happened.
If you give up and accept the status quo when it comes the quality of the recording you purchase you also fail to provide any economic incentive for improvement of same.
Scotty

[Daygloworange]

With all respects, that's rediculous- do you think I could avoid being sued for copyright infringment if I took a Britney Spears song, recorded it with different instruments and called it my own?  That's idiotic- works have transposed for other instruments for centuries, and Bach & his contemporaries did it back then.   

Rob Babcock,

I'm not sure what your point is. I'm not claiming anyone is plagiarizing here. It's just a misnomer. Fact is, it's misleading. We are discussing faithfulness in reproducing a musical event. Bach never wrote works for piano. They are transposed yes. They are also transposed for guitar, but they're not called Bach Guitar concerto No.1 in E flat major. Don't you find it ironic?

That's idiotic

What's idiotic?

You need a lot better argument than that.

Who's arguing? What do I need to argue better?

If you give up and accept the status quo when it comes the quality of the recording you purchase you also fail to provide any economic incentive for improvement of same.

I totally agree

Cheers

[Rob Babcock]

Nor do I call his works "piano concertos."  Nor does it really matter if someone else does.  That's a complete straw man- weren't we talking about the recording vs the event?  If so, why compare the recording vs the "original score" if the recording was of something else?  That's Kafka-esque in it's absurdity.  Why did you even bring it up?

Okay, I don't mean that harshly, but why would be expect a speaker to know what instrument the composer originally wrote the work for?   Doesn't it have a hard enough job just doing what it was designed for, ie convert an electrical signal into an acoustic one, preferably one that sounds like music?

[Daygloworange]

Nor do I call his works "piano concertos."

What do you call the recordings sold as " Bach Piano Concerto ****"

That's a complete straw man- weren't we talking about the recording vs the event?

I thought I started that off by saying "What is reality???" What's a straw man? What does that mean exactly?

If so, why compare the recording vs the "original score" if the recording was of something else?  That's Kafka-esque in it's absurdity.

I wasn't comparing the recording vs the original score. We were talking about authenticity and reality. There never were any piano works by Bach. They are presented as if he wrote them while at the instrument, and for the instrument. It's ironic.

I've never heard the term Kafka-esque. And what are you finding absurd?

Why did you even bring it up?

Because it pertains to the evolution of the conversation. It's not like I started talking about how dark I like my toast in the morning.......I really don't get what your whole point is, I'm afraid.

Cheers