Real vs Hi-FI

[Tony L]

I've never really considered reproducing live music to be something that an audio system can achieve. The first thing to grasp is that the master tape does not contain live music. It is always altered or manipulated to some extent, and in most cases assembled from the ground up in an entirely different manner. As such there is nothing to 'recreate' aside from the main monitor sound in the control room or mastering room. I'd like to hear what the musicians heard when it was created / mixed - the thing they signed-off for release. In a lot of respects it's why I seem to have settled on a big old pair of Tannoys driven by a Quad amp - it's the rig I heard the most when I used to regularly visit studios.

 

[Take5]

I've never really considered reproducing live music to be something that an audio system can achieve.

My thought exactly.

Hi fi will NEVER reproduce live music.

For me, it is two different versions of the same thing. Both valid and enjoyable.

 

[Julf]

The only reference you have is the file, record whatever, all you can hope to do is reproduce that as faithfully as possible.

R'amen!

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

I think I agree with most of the previous comments. There is no real comparison between real music, played live, and a reproduction of the performance on a HiFi system.

It’s the main reason why I think the ‘transparency’ brigade are barking up the wrong tree. Transparency is a laudable aim, but it's just a starting point. Essentially, what I want my hifi to do for me is to help me recreate the feelings I felt when I heard the music live (assuming I heard it live in the first place). I don’t much care how accurate it actually is, but if the concert made me want to dance, or laugh, or cry, then if my system makes me want to do those things too, it’ll do for me. Conversely, if I sit in front of the system and I’m impressed, but not actually engaged with the music, then it’s not doing what I want.

Of course, 99.9% of my music is from events where I didn’t attend the concert, or there wasn’t a concert or any opportunity to hear it live. So all I can go on in those cases is whether, when listening to the recording, it makes me want to dance, or laugh, or cry, etc. Anybody know how you measure that?

 

[YNWOAN]

I've never really considered reproducing live music to be something that an audio system can achieve. The first thing to grasp is that the master tape does not contain live music. It is always altered or manipulated to some extent, and in most cases assembled from the ground up in an entirely different manner. As such there is nothing to 'recreate' aside from the main monitor sound in the control room or mastering room. I'd like to hear what the musicians heard when it was created / mixed - the thing they signed-off for release.

Yes, I agree with all of that .

 

[Paul R]

Essentially, what I want my hifi to do for me is to help me recreate the feelings I felt when I heard the music live (assuming I heard it live in the first place).

You don't want a 'hifi' as such. It would save a lot of noise if you (and some others) could grasp this fact and stop polluting debates where the tacit assumption is of accuracy to the recording being the starting point.

Paul

 

[Purité Audio]

I think I agree with most of the previous comments. There is no real comparison between real music, played live, and a reproduction of the performance on a HiFi system.

It’s the main reason why I think the ‘transparency’ brigade are barking up the wrong tree. Transparency is a laudable aim, but it's just a starting point. Essentially, what I want my hifi to do for me is to help me recreate the feelings I felt when I heard the music live (assuming I heard it live in the first place). I don’t much care how accurate it actually is, but if the concert made me want to dance, or laugh, or cry, then if my system makes me want to do those things too, it’ll do for me. Conversely, if I sit in front of the system and I’m impressed, but not actually engaged with the music, then it’s not doing what I want.

Of course, 99.9% of my music is from events where I didn’t attend the concert, or there wasn’t a concert or any opportunity to hear it live. So all I can go on in those cases is whether, when listening to the recording, it makes me want to dance, or laugh, or cry, etc. Anybody know how you measure that?

The HiFi just reproduces the file, the emotion comes from you.
Keith.

 

[S-Man]

I find that some live albums are reproduced by my system as a fairly convincing replica of the actual event. The biggest problem, for me, is that the crowd are behind the band (or perhaps I'm backstage?). To achieve this the system must be reasonably accurate and have a wide bandwidth and high dynamic range.

Of course we can argue all day about what a "fairly convincing replica" means.

 

[poppop]

Interesting this as I was at Joe Bonamassa in Aberdeen last night - wonderful.

However, its many years since being at this type of event and I would agree with lots that's been said. Guitar solos(electric & acoustic) were great, but vocals got lost and bass woolly. Compared to his ripped cd's not hi fi - which I guess is the point many are making.

If I hadn't needed to be in work today I would have gone to the Playhouse(Edinburgh) tonight to hear if the "room" would sound different. The AEC is an aircraft hanger but I had assumed that with todays technology this could be tamed/nullified?

I recall Ted Nugent in Newcastle city hall getting on for 40 years ago, and thinking that the sound was better - but that will be an age thing!! "WangDang SweetPoontang"

Steve.

 

[Julf]

Essentially, what I want my hifi to do for me is to help me recreate the feelings I felt when I heard the music live (assuming I heard it live in the first place). I don’t much care how accurate it actually is, but if the concert made me want to dance, or laugh, or cry, then if my system makes me want to do those things too, it’ll do for me. Conversely, if I sit in front of the system and I’m impressed, but not actually engaged with the music, then it’s not doing what I want.

I assume you have invested in an equalizer and a reverb unit?

 

[Mescalito]

Interesting this as I was at Joe Bonamassa in Aberdeen last night - wonderful.

However, its many years since being at this type of event and I would agree with lots that's been said. Guitar solos(electric & acoustic) were great, but vocals got lost and bass woolly. Compared to his ripped cd's not hi fi - which I guess is the point many are making.

If I hadn't needed to be in work today I would have gone to the Playhouse(Edinburgh) tonight to hear if the "room" would sound different. The AEC is an aircraft hanger but I had assumed that with todays technology this could be tamed/nullified?

I recall Ted Nugent in Newcastle city hall getting on for 40 years ago, and thinking that the sound was better - but that will be an age thing!! "WangDang SweetPoontang"

Steve.

It always makes me laugh when audiophiles chase artifacts like taut, fast bass.

Bass isn't like that in the real world.

Taut bass normally just means speakers with an inadequate bottom end.


Chris

 

[poppop]

Chris

Not really "chasing" - only an observation that if I listen on "hi fi" I can distinguish notes played on eg bass guitar. Last night it was powerful but a "fuddle"

IF thats down to normal "live" conditions, or a function of the auditorium I have no idea.

All this is ok and that maybe too much hi fi followed by "live" just gives a skewed view of expectations.

Think the important thing is that I would definitely go and see him again!

Steve.

 

[Mescalito]

Chris

Not really "chasing" - only an observation that if I listen on "hi fi" I can distinguish notes played on eg bass guitar. Last night it was powerful but a "fuddle"

IF thats down to normal "live" conditions, or a function of the auditorium I have no idea.

All this is ok and that maybe too much hi fi followed by "live" just gives a skewed view of expectations.

Think the important thing is that I would definitely go and see him again!

Steve.

Taut bass is usually associated with a biggish chunk of direct injection in the recording/live mix.

But iof you listen to say an acoustic bass, it's a boomy bugger.

Chris

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

It would save a lot of noise if you (and some others) could grasp this fact and stop polluting debates where the tacit assumption is of accuracy to the recording being the starting point.

Is this really what you think? It seems a little uncalled-for, particularly in light of my comment that “Transparency is a laudable aim, but it's just a starting point” which was intended to put my remarks (to which you have taken such exception) into their proper context.

Apologies if you really think that my, and others’, contributions are polluting the debate. It seems a surprisingly prejudicial term, after all, it's not much of a debate if you only hear it from one side.

I also think Julf’s response to my post was uncalled for. It seems that some people didn’t take the point I was trying to make. That could be my fault, but actually it’s a moot point, because I won’t debate with people who can’t do so civilly and without demeaning their opponent. That might help with your pollution problem a bit.

 

[Julf]

I also think Julf’s response to my post was uncalled for.

You mean my "I assume you have invested in an equalizer and a reverb unit?" question? It was actually a real question, taking what I thought you were saying to a logical conclusion. My apologies if I have offended you, but I think we also do have to allow for the fact that not everyone here is using their first language (it is my third out of five), and different cultures have different ways to communicate - I currently live in a culture where calling a spade a spade and speaking your mind very directly is the norm. That might seem rude to someone coming from a different culture - especially anglo-saxon culture tends to be very conflict-averse.

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

It certainly didn't read like that to me. It sounded exactly like those arguments that suggest that valve amplifiers are just effects boxes, ie what a reverb unit is. I would have expected you to explain your remarks, or give some context for clarity, if it was a real question whose answer was of interest to you. Put the way it was, it came across very much as a sarcastic retort.

For the record, I have neither equalizer nor reverb unit. I do think that transparency is a valid aim, but pursuit of transparency at the expense of something less tangible, but which nevertheless makes the reproduction more enjoyable, renders the entire exercise sterile.

 

[Paul R]

Is this really what you think? It seems a little uncalled-for, particularly in light of my comment that “Transparency is a laudable aim, but it's just a starting point” which was intended to put my remarks (to which you have taken such exception) into their proper context.

It's only a starting point if you want to go somewhere else. Away from what's actually on the recording.

Apologies if you really think that my, and others’, contributions are polluting the debate. It seems a surprisingly prejudicial term, after all, it's not much of a debate if you only hear it from one side.

Re-read what I wrote.

I also think Julf’s response to my post was uncalled for. It seems that some people didn’t take the point I was trying to make. That could be my fault, but actually it’s a moot point, because I won’t debate with people who can’t do so civilly and without demeaning their opponent. That might help with your pollution problem a bit.

Julf's suggestion would get you further along your chosen path than most other means. Rather better value too. Perhaps you should start an appropriate thread?

Paul

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

...debates where the tacit assumption is of accuracy to the recording being the starting point.

and

It's only a starting point if you want to go somewhere else. Away from what's actually on the recording.

Re-read what I wrote.

OK, I re-read it. These two bits seem to contradict each other. I'm sure they weren't intended to, but I'm sorry, I don't follow your argument in light of what you seem to have said.

I read your first quote as referring to debates about hifi, where the tacit assumption is transparency as the starting point. In other words, everybody tacitly accepts the assumption is that transparency is where you start from in order to achieve hifi.

But then your second comment seems to disparage that view, by saying that it's only a 'starting point' if you intend to depart from it.

Maybe I've misunderstood. In which case, I'd be glad to be set straight.

 

[Paul R]

Starting points of different journeys.

A debate about hi-fi assumes that transparency is the aim, that assumption is a starting point and how to further the aim is the journey, because we really aren't there yet. It's by definition. You've stated you want to go somewhere else, towards creating something based on the recordings you like. I think there are more productive approaches than valve amps and mains cables, but YMMV.

Paul

 

[Joe P]

Pipe organs definitely don't have taut bass. The big pipes make a sound like some sort of ginormous bass blob that devours the room.

Joe