Heretical view on the importance of high end replay.

[OldSkool]

I've been listening to a lot of "live" recordings of artists on Youtube recently. Playing back in HD quality though external DAC the sound quality can be superb and much better than typical commercial releases, a couple of good examples here:

Jussef Kamaal (Jazz/funk trio):

Colin Hay (from Men at Work)

These sound absolutely sublime on my system and very much the "performers playing in my room" experience.

 

[gordon]

I've seen six of the bands you've named

MBV - you made me realise (Holocaust section) is something else live

the first time i saw the was at the i-beam on haight st. in sf, summer of 1988. It was a monday night, and it was the last night that a friend of mine was visiting from out of town. Nothing was going on, so we went up the street to get a slice of pizza and a beer. Saw a band was playing at the i-beam and went in. There probably 30 people at most in the audience. I was completely blown away.

 

[RJohan]

It’s a fundamental misconception to even compare live music to recorded music. They are different things experienced in different ways, particularly in pop/rock/contemporary styles. Orchestral and classical music is a bit different as recorded music was a novelty introduced late in cultural development, but even there the pursuance of a live performance experience in a recording is a fool’s errand.

When it comes to pop/rock/etc. I can only agree.

For me the reference for rock sound isn't a live gig, though. It's when my pals various bands rehersed and I was in the middle of it (sometimes sitting in on guitar, rather badly). A chord struck through a 4*12 Marshall hits you in the guts, the (unamplified) hi-hat soars your ears, a Hammond through a Leslie on full distorsion...
But mic-ed out through a PA the magic goes away, it's just mushy and flat.

Studio recordings sounds very different from anything live and can't be compared. It's HiFi, not the real thing. Doesn't make it bad though, just different.

 

[RJohan]

Live radio used to be the best source apart from direct cut a long time ago

Agree.

 

[the caretaker]

When it comes to pop/rock/etc. I can only agree.

For me the reference for rock sound isn't a live gig, though. It's when my pals various bands rehersed and I was in the middle of it (sometimes sitting in on guitar, rather badly). A chord struck through a 4*12 Marshall hits you in the guts, the (unamplified) hi-hat soars your ears, a Hammond through a Leslie on full distorsion...
But mic-ed out through a PA the magic goes away, it's just mushy and flat.

Studio recordings sounds very different from anything live and can't be compared. It's HiFi, not the real thing. Doesn't make it bad though, just different.

I worked for someone who used to produce thin lizzy and he showed his studio and I told him of my interest in hifi..and i said the thing what bothers a lot of hifi fans is what we listen to on our resolving systems, is it similar to what was actually recorded in the studio? So he kindly played something and it sounded really loud over driven noise! Hahaha...very nice bloke with a good sense of humour!

 

[the caretaker]

Agree.

I dont ever remember that? Radio was ok , vinyl was better and reel to reel was and still is king! in my opinion.

 

[Octavian]

Almost all recordings are no-where near representing a live experience.

The more perfect the repay of recordings, the more the inadequacy of the recording becomes apparent ...

Therefore what you need is a simple replay system that conveys with clarity the balance of Musial lines as much as is possible with the recording in question.

The exception is the live radio relay, which can on occasion present a really good presentation.

Hence my simple replay for recordings: Good enough. And my much superior replay for radio.

Just two pence worth. George

Live experience is not the reference. Recording is the actual work of art. Recordings are like movies, which are not meant to be just filmed live theatre performances.

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

Music is like smell - it can transport you to a place or time in an instant. It can also be a mind altering or mood altering experience. I’m not too fussed about whether my system accurately reproduces the live gig experience, or faithfully reproduces the recording, provided it gets me to generate the sort of physical and emotional response I had to the live event.

I like recordings of live performances because you often get a sense of atmosphere that’s missing from studio albums, but also, I think the performers feed off the audience, and on a good night this can really raise the level of a musical event.

 

[Miss Ariel]

Music is like smell - it can transport you to a place or time in an instant. It can also be a mind altering or mood altering experience. I’m not too fussed about whether my system accurately reproduces the live gig experience, or faithfully reproduces the recording, provided it gets me to generate the sort of physical and emotional response I had to the live event.

I like recordings of live performances because you often get a sense of atmosphere that’s missing from studio albums, but also, I think the performers feed off the audience, and on a good night this can really raise the level of a musical event.

Agree.I love the crowd roar and vocalist introductions between songs and the way the live recording has been mixed.I think a good system will definately take you there much more with seperation of instruments in the mix.

 

[Colin L]

Music is like smell - it can transport you to a place or time in an instant. It can also be a mind altering or mood altering experience. I’m not too fussed about whether my system accurately reproduces the live gig experience, or faithfully reproduces the recording, provided it gets me to generate the sort of physical and emotional response I had to the live event.

I like recordings of live performances because you often get a sense of atmosphere that’s missing from studio albums, but also, I think the performers feed off the audience, and on a good night this can really raise the level of a musical event.

I too find that many of my favourite recordings are live, or recorded with an live-like ambience. It helps that one of my speakers main attributes is giving energy and dynamism to music, which makes it sounds more real.

Listening on a radio (or in the car) or on a very simple system, plays the tunes and not much more than that. A 2D experience and, for me, it doesn’t create the experience of live music or a performance.

I am constantly amazed at how performance and musically relevant information well-recorded music has buried in the digits (or groove if you like that kind of thing). Improving my system has been an onion-like peeling back of the layers. I’m listening to Nik Bartsch at the moment and sound of clarinet, the breathing, the reverberation and decay and the sound of the studio ambience all contribute to the impression of listening to a real performance, not a recording.

 

[George J]

What a lovely collection of replies!

Of course I posted from the classical music perspective and I really do appreciate that recordings of other genres like pop are not aiming for a representation of a live performance. It is not something I had given much thought to, but I do understand that the recording as released is in many cases the objective piece of art and any subsequent live performance will try to recreate what was done in the studio.

Of course that is exactly the opposite of the classical scenario, though some late twentieth century "art music" works in a similar way with composers like Stockhausen. This type of music does not attract me, though I have tried to understand it. That was a very long time ago now!

Thanks for all your replies, the range being a nice way to broaden my mind and and help me to grasp the varying view-points. All fascinating, but also, for me, educational.

I am looking forward to attending a classical music concert again. Hopefully this year.

Best wishes from George

 

[camverton]

I find that it depends on the type of music. The visceral experience of a rock concert may be all but impossible to reproduce but classical, particularly small scale, can be reproduced in such a way that we experience a convincing illusion of of the original performance. Talk of recording being the work of art then becomes rather sad!

If I listen to a string quartet here on a decent recording it is very difficult to not believe that I am having a personal recital in my own home. The gold standard is how convincing is the reproduction of the original performance, the recording being an intermediary element. I have found this is very dependant on the speaker and how it is set up to make use of the room. Concentrating too much on the measured sound rather than the ability of the system to convey the original performance may be why some have to settle for merely reproducing a recording rather than the music contained on it.

Of course, there is nothing wrong with wanting to analyse a recording but for me it is about having a convincing illusion of the original music in my home. I have tried a number of speakers over the past couple of years in my quest to recreate the original sound and many speakers, including supposedly finest measuring, are good at sounding like hifi but very few were good at sounding like the original performance.

Anyway, the above is my experience and is, to an extent, dependant on genre and recording quality.

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

What a lovely collection of replies!

Of course I posted from the classical music perspective and I really do appreciate that recordings of other genres like pop are not aiming for a representation of a live performance. It is not something I had given much thought to, but I do understand that the recording as released is in many cases the objective piece of art and any subsequent live performance will try to recreate what was done in the studio.

Of course that is exactly the opposite of the classical scenario...

Not entirely, George, I’d argue. You could view live gigs of a new album as an opportunity for ‘interpretation’ in much the same way as the classical genre. Also, we know that Chopin seldom performed his work the same each time, he introduced flourishes or more significant changes; we have less evidence for other composers, but to assume there is one ‘Ur-score’ which is sacrosanct, is arguably unjustified. So bands will play versions live which differ from the recording, sometimes markedly so. So while you can view the album recording as the ‘artwork of record’ (pun intended) I think you’re on less secure ground with your view that any subsequent live performance will try to recreate what was done in the studio.

 

[George J]

I am an innocent abroad really. Trained to regard the text as the starting point, sacrosanct if you like, from which you deviate at your own peril.

Composer performances are quite something! Certainly we have evidence from recordings that even the fastidious Edward Elgar would perform his own music differently each time, though no doubt within the leeway offered by the printed text.

So if I assume that pop groups would aim to recreate the studio recording that is because of conditioning rather than being an assertion! I have a tape of the Mandella Concert at Wembley in 1988 where Dire Straits round-up their previous most famous songs in performances that deviate wildly from the studio recordings. I rather like that old tape recording, now safely digitised and in iTunes, for the undoubted atmosphere, rather than the actual performances being particularly good. It is patchy in parts! Some of it goes rather too slowly for the good of the music in my view, but that does not matter. It was a fantastic event, and makes for enjoyable listening. That is the main thing in my view.

Best wishes from George

 

[dweezil]

Always thought it seemed very difficult to produce a great live performance, been to a few but i've also walked out of a few.

There are so many constraints live and it's seriously expensive to do a big show well.

Given a week or two in studio i'd hope that the result would be as close to target as possible.

Having said that i've seen Raja Ram do a cd set, sounded good but could have pushed play and sat down; in contrast a full set on stage with 20 musicians was a bit chaotic but fabulous theatre and sound.

You won't reproduce any good live performance without a fairly decent system ime.

 

[davidjt]

If I listen to a string quartet here on a decent recording it is very difficult to not believe that I am having a personal recital in my own home..... I have found this is very dependant on the speaker and how it is set up to make use of the room........ I have tried a number of speakers over the past couple of years in my quest to recreate the original sound and many speakers, including supposedly finest measuring, are good at sounding like hifi but very few were good at sounding like the original performance.

It may be (at least partly) due to my particular circumstances, but this sums up the way in which a few hundred quids worth of LX-minis out-perform Focal Micro Utopia BEs or Linn Majik 140s in my living room. The conventional system in the bedroom is pleasant to listen to: the main one is in a different league altogether.

 

[Tony L]

One thing that has quietly amused me over recent years is the realisation I’d actually be perfectly content with something very close to my very first hi-fi system. This was a GL75, 33/303 and JR149s back in the late ‘70s. I’d just swap the GL75 for my TD-124, the 33 for my Verdier valve preamp and that system is actually superb! I’d obviously add digital replay to it too.

I came to the conclusion a couple of decades ago now that I’m just not chasing that edge of the seat hyper-detail or tight forward exaggerated rhythm thing that a lot of audiophiles seem to crave. I just don’t like that sound at all and now find it distracts me from exploring new music. Basically I want a system that gets right out of the way, not one that draws attention to itself or its failings, let alone sucks you down into a load of cyclical AB comparisons. My main system is very large and powerful sounding, big Tannoys do scale like very few speakers regardless of cost, but they do it in an easy non-analytical way that doesn't fling every unnecessary detail in your face, it is a big easy natural sound and works great at low levels. The JR149s or LS3/5As do a similar thing, but smaller and closer! I could live perfectly happily with any of them. The irony is this realisation has come at precisely that point in life when I’m financially a little more comfortable and could “upgrade” anything I wanted to! I just don’t want to, I’ve lost that ‘bug’, so I’m buying loads of new music, which I suspect is far more enjoyable!

 

[Jim Audiomisc]

Jazz and classical is obviously an entirely different thing, this (at its best) is an acoustic music. No one is shrieking through a horrible boxy or boomy PA system, the only amplification there a lovely valve guitar amp, the Leslie connected to a B3 or whatever. This can be captured convincingly with good recording techniques and replayed at home. This I want.

That also tends to be my main yardstick. In effect, "Radio 3 brings it home" including a really convincing stereo image which matches my impression of going to the kind of concert being broadcast in that venue.

That this also makes The Shadows sound good is a welcome bonus.

 

[camverton]

One thing that has quietly amused me over recent years is the realisation I’d actually be perfectly content with something very close to my very first hi-fi system. This was a GL75, 33/303 and JR149s back in the late ‘70s. I’d just swap the GL75 for my TD-124, the 33 for my Verdier valve preamp and that system is actually superb! I’d obviously add digital replay to it too.

I came to the conclusion a couple of decades ago now that I’m just not chasing that edge of the seat hyper-detail or tight forward exaggerated rhythm thing that a lot of audiophiles seem to crave. I just don’t like that sound at all and now find it distracts me from exploring new music. Basically I want a system that gets right out of the way, not one that draws attention to itself or its failings, let alone sucks you down into a load of cyclical AB comparisons. My main system is very large and powerful sounding, big Tannoys do scale like very few speakers regardless of cost, but they do it in a way that doesn't fling unnecessary detail in your face, it is a big easy natural sound and sounds great at low levels. The JR149s or LS3/5As do a very similar thing, but smaller and closer! I could live perfectly happily with any of them. The irony is this realisation has come at precisely that point in life when I’m financially fairly comfortable and could “upgrade” anything I wanted to! I don’t want to, so I’m buying loads of new music, which I suspect is far more fun!

How I agree. For me the best hifi is effectively invisible and just leaves the music. So much hifi can sound impressive in its own right but not necessarily in service of the music.

 

[Jim Audiomisc]

Of course that is exactly the opposite of the classical scenario, though some late twentieth century "art music" works in a similar way with composers like Stockhausen. This type of music does not attract me, though I have tried to understand it.

On that, I'm with Beecham. 8-] I try to avoid stepping in it.

Ditto for the Boulez school of slide-rule 'music'. Pleased we can now say "It was the future, once..." Then leave it rattling its dustbin as we walk away....

When I want maths, I do maths. When I want music, I choose music.