What is the Single Ended Triode thing?

[les24preludes]

I think you are missing the point here. Some of us know what real live music sounds like. So when we hear it we know instantly whether it is live or not. It is not about a flat frequency response or any other measurements. It is about whether "we" perceive it to be real and live. Our ears and our brains are very good at this when we know what to listen for, or when our ears are trained to hear minute changes.

I agree with this. The very first experiments in psychology in Germany were about perception, and established that humans have very finely tuned auditory perception. If you've ever played in an orchestra you'll know how important micro-details are. Tuning, tone, relative volume are all fundamentals of performance. Orchestral musicians pay thousands and thousands for their instruments, and that's all about micro variance in tone. Flat frequency response is a technical requirement, but since the majority of the musical instrument ranges are well within the scope of a good hi-fi system, "realism" as in "sounds as close as possible to live acoustic instruments" is more a matter of tone and tonality. Yes, a bad audio engineer can compromise the live sounds, but it's usually pretty clear which are the good recordings. You have to put some trust in the major labels to use competent engineers, and some like Jan-Erik Kongshaug for ECM are/were superbly gifted. He was an excellent guitarist and understood live sound very well.

 

[gez]

I think you are missing the point here. Some of us know what real live music sounds like. So when we hear it we know instantly whether it is live or not. It is not about a flat frequency response or any other measurements. It is about whether "we" perceive it to be real and live. Our ears and our brains are very good at this when we know what to listen for, or when our ears are trained to hear minute changes.

I have to agree with this actually. My belief is that it's about the dynamic envelope. Even when the tone/timbre (whatever you want to call it) has been significantly altered from the sound of the instrument in immediate proximity (i mean in the same room, not ear to the snare drum), you can still tell it's a live instrument being played rather than a persons system. True even when the live performance is being reinforced.

Of course there are occasions when our brains get fooled and it transpires it is in fact a system playing a recording, but in the main I would agree that our brains are very good at knowing when what we're listening to is a real instrument being played live.

 

[gez]

I agree with this. The very first experiments in psychology in Germany were about perception, and established that humans have very finely tuned auditory perception. If you've ever played in an orchestra you'll know how important micro-details are. Tuning, tone, relative volume are all fundamentals of performance. Orchestral musicians pay thousands and thousands for their instruments, and that's all about micro variance in tone. Flat frequency response is a technical requirement, but since the majority of the musical instrument ranges are well within the scope of a good hi-fi system, "realism" as in "sounds as close as possible to live acoustic instruments" is more a matter of tone and tonality. Yes, a bad audio engineer can compromise the live sounds, but it's usually pretty clear which are the good recordings. You have to put some trust in the major labels to use competent engineers, and some like Jan-Erik Kongshaug for ECM are/were superbly gifted. He was an excellent guitarist and understood live sound very well.

There's a gulf of difference depending on Genre on if the musicians want the recording to sound "like the live instrument" or not. I'd fully expect Jazz/Classical musicians (and their studio engineers etc) to have that wish/requirement. But when it comes to other Genres such as Rock/Pop/Hip Hop all bets are off. Pink Floyd are a classic example of a set of musicians for whom the sounds their instruments were able to make directly was just the very begining of the artistic process and the sounds that ended up on the album were deliberately very very different from what came out of Dave Gilmours speakers (for example) in the studio.

NB: I'm only talking about actual traditional physical instruments, not even thinking about purely electronic instruments that can be made to produce any sound you wish.

 

[les24preludes]

I would agree that our brains are very good at knowing when what we're listening to is a real instrument being played live.

One obvious factor is that in a compact domestic room you are very unlikely to be listening at actual live volumes, so some degree of realism is going to be compromised. I've never ever heard a replay of a jazz drumkit that sounds like the real thing, having played bass onstage right next to one for 20 years or so. I probably don't expect to either unless it's through massive full range ribbon speakers or some such esoteric thing. What is possible is to recognise e.g. a snare drum as a "realistic" but scaled down version of the live sound. And then it mostly comes back down to tone, plus dynamics in the case of percussion instruments.

I'm with gez above that electronic music is another thing. I listen to a lot of electronic music and I'm a big fan of it. I just don't use it for evaluating a system. I do find, though, that when acoustic instruments sound right then electronic music sounds good too. That's just a personal take on it and I wouldn't like to defend that view too seriously.

 

[tuga]

Orchestral musicians pay thousands and thousands for their instruments, and that's all about micro variance in tone. Flat frequency response is a technical requirement, but since the majority of the musical instrument ranges are well within the scope of a good hi-fi system, "realism" as in "sounds as close as possible to live acoustic instruments" is more a matter of tone and tonality.

Instruments produce sound/music.
Audio equipment reproduce recorded sound/music.
If the recording accurately capture the timbre of an instrument then it will sound more realistic if accurately reproduced.

Which image of a forest will look more realistic, one captured with a disposable '90s film camera printed with a 3-colour '90s inkjet on office paper or the one made with a contemporary medium format Hasselblad and printed on glossy paper with a pro lab Lambda?

 

[tuga]

One obvious factor is that in a compact domestic room you are very unlikely to be listening at actual live volumes, so some degree of realism is going to be compromised. I've never ever heard a replay of a jazz drumkit that sounds like the real thing, having played bass onstage right next to one for 20 years or so. I probably don't expect to either unless it's through massive full range ribbon speakers or some such esoteric thing. What is possible is to recognise e.g. a snare drum as a "realistic" but scaled down version of the live sound. And then it mostly comes back down to tone, plus dynamics in the case of percussion instruments.

Like I said earlier, tonality, or better still timbre, is expressed by frequency response, dynamic range, impulse response and clarity/resolution.
Flat frequency response will guarantee accurate tonality if pursued at all stages of the recording and playback chain.
I agree that the room is also a limiting factor.

I'm with gez above that electronic music is another thing. I listen to a lot of electronic music and I'm a big fan of it. I just don't use it for evaluating a system. I do find, though, that when acoustic instruments sound right then electronic music sounds good too. That's just a personal take on it and I wouldn't like to defend that view too seriously.

Any music which consists of a mix of close-miked takes is another thing. In most cases it's not supposed to mimmick, to recreate reality.

 

[les24preludes]

Instruments produce sound/music. Audio equipment reproduce recorded sound/music.
If the recording accurately capture the timbre of an instrument then it will sound more realistic if accurately reproduced.

Not that simple at all - all recording and playback involves altering the signal. Nothing is perfect. So in the real world you juggle the elements that you want to have reproduced in a way that prioritises the values you espouse for the way music sounds.

Don't forget that a very clever cartoon can be a more convincing likeness of a personality than a dull photo. The brain prioritises what it needs to. We do this all the time as a natural human process because our brains can only cope in a limited way with streaming information in real time.

 

[tuga]

Not that simple at all - all recording and playback involves altering the signal. Nothing is perfect. So in the real world you juggle the elements that you want to have reproduced in a way that prioritises the values you espouse for the way music sounds.

Don't forget that a very clever cartoon can be a more convincing likeness of a personality than a dull photo. The brain prioritises what it needs to. We do this all the time as a natural human process because our brains can only cope in a limited way with streaming information in real time.

Even in those circunstances where a clever cartoon is more convincing than a photo an accurate reproduction will guarantee it's best viewing.

 

[tuga]

I am not saying that an 'euphonic' system can't provoke a more intense/exciting/emotional listening experience for some audiophiles. Maybe that's what people mean by 'realism' or 'musical'...

 

[ssimon]

I am not saying that an 'euphonic' system can't provoke a more intense/exciting/emotional listening experience for some audiophiles. Maybe that's what people mean by 'realism' or 'musical'...

No