What is "Real"?

[hjames]

I moved the following three posts from another thread as they seemed to be their own topic and worthy of discussion... Can hifi speakers recreate music in our homes and what is the goal?

Widget


No - the basis of the music is what real LIVE music sounds like - no club bent music, not PA horn music, but classical music in a hall or auditorium.
Acoustic blues in a small club, Scottish music in a small hall with pipes and the human voice ...
If you are not using real music as the basis of your samples, you just missed the point.

Ducatista47 - you really don't get it, and I am very sure you don't have a pair of E2 in your living room, also I guess you never even had the opportunity to audition the E2 speakers?

This is not about club-bass, SPL, car audio boom-bas ..

This is about music. And many writers on this thread obviously don't care about music, but their tech-stuff.

What matters most to me are the music I listen to, and my speakers are the tool that transform an electric signal into a signal I can HEAR.

The music are in some way or another - a message from the artist.

I very seldom listen to gangsta or hip-hop, but it happens now and then as we actually have a few hip-hop artist in Denmark who (or their producers), succeeds very well in making fabulous sound landscapes. Especially one of my records have a very dark and dirty story, and to illustrate the darkness in the telling, a lot of very LF from Electric bass + synth are added to the tracks. LF not only to be heard but also felt. I am not asking for bud-kickers to place inside the sofa, and this has nothing to do with club-bass or gangsta style bass.

But the vey much LF info in the music is part of the message from the artist. I don't get that message without my EXtensions. E2 is a bright performer and without my EXtensions the presentation of this specific records are TOO bright. Or similar to a painter painting in color white on a white background. I don't get the whole picture before the painter starts painting his white colors on a dark background. I don't get the whole message from the artist without my EXtensions. Lucky me managed to build the EXtensions my self, but what about the many E2 owners out there who suffers from LF as I did? I can build them a system similar to mine, but it would be better if JBL offered a complete package (said before), with same exterior as the E2.

You mentioned something about STAX Electrostatic headphones sound quality? If thats the issue - forget the E2 system that takes advantages of pressure loading the listening room with the ups and down sides that follows this technique, and go for an open baffle bass system. That will give you an quality bass resolution on par with the STAX - but you will need a VERY large room for a VERY large system in order to equal SPL from E2. But if you got that opportunity, you end up above E2 LF reproduction by a far margin.

Kind regards

Henrik, DynaMax
www.dynamax.dk

[hsosdrum]

heather james wrote: "the basis of the music is what real LIVE music sounds like - no club bent [sic] music, not PA horn music, but classical music in a hall or auditorium. Acoustic blues in a small club, Scottish music in a small hall with pipes and the human voice ... If you are not using real music as the basis of your samples, you just missed the point."

Exactly who made you the final arbiter of what is and isn't "real" music for anyone besides yourself? Les Paul and Mary Ford made recordings that could never be performed as a "live" acoustic event (you'd have to clone Ford nine times just to get the vocals). After 1966 The Beatles intentionally made recordings that could not be performed live. Stockhausen and Cage (amongst many others) wrote purely electronic pieces of music that don't even exist as acoustic events until they are reproduced by loudspeakers. Yet none of this is "real" music and can't be used to judge the accuracy of an audio reproduction system? Why not? Oh yes, because none of us can know what the original event sounded like.

OK, let's try something here: Think of your favorite music that you use for speaker evaluation - the music that fits all of the criteria you list above. The stuff that you know so well; the REAL music. Now honestly answer the following question: Were you present at the recording session? No? Then how could you possibly know what it is supposed to sound like? If you weren't there you're just guessing, and if your guess about how a particular acoustic blues event that you didn't attend sounded is valid for judging the reproduction accuracy of an audio system then my guess about how a particular Moog synthesizer recording is supposed to sound is just as valid for making the same judgement. (Maybe more valid, since I've played Moogs as far back as 1973.)

Wait, you say, the answer is "yes, I was there at the recording session." OK, were you standing with your ears next to the microphines? Anyone here who has made recordings of acoustic events knows how big a sonic difference can result from moving a microphone as little as a few inches. Again, unless your ears were where the mics were you can't know what the event actually sounded like. You may know what it sounded like to you, sitting in the audience several yards away, but that's not what the mics heard (unless they happened to have been an X/Y configuration positioned directly over your head).

But, you say "the recording sounds just as I remember the event sounding." OK, but what about the rest of the audience? If the recording sounds right to you it can't possibly sound right to the patron who sat in the balcony, or to someone sitting in the back (or front) row. Each audience member hears a different acoustic event that is created by a unique combination of direct sounds from the instruments and reflections from walls and other surfaces that occurs at their seat. The notion that any particular recording of an acoustic event can be so accurate that it can serve as a useful evaluation tool for every single person who was in attendance during its recording is absurd; the physics of acoustic events simply put the lie to that notion.

The recordings that are the most useful to anyone for judging the accuracy of an audio reproduction system are the ones that they are most familiar with; these should be the same ones they will be listening to on the system for their own enjoyment. If I listen to music with lots of energy between 25Hz and 50Hz then I would be smart indeed to use such music during my evaluation of loudspeakers. Scottish music in a small hall with human voice? If that's the kind of music you will listen to then you absolutely should use it in your evaluations of loudspeakers. (I do not listen to that type of music, so such a recording would be of limited use to me.) However, I do listen to lots and lots of rock music and I know what a Gibson SG guitar playing through a vintage Marshall stack sounds like (of course, with all the controls on the amp and guitar turned all the way up), so it makes much more sense for me to use recordings of that type of music as tools for evaluation. (BTW, a Gibson playing through a Marshall is just as much an acoustic instrument as is a Haynes flute, a 9' Steinway grand or my Ludwig drumkit with Zildjian cymbals - no difference, except that it's WAY more difficult to get a good recording of the Gibson/Marshall running on 10.)

All loudspeakers create a presentation of the signal they're being fed; what you're hearing is an electro-mechanical interperetation of an electronic signal. Each and every speaker's interperetation is different. Those that are the product of a talented designer (such as Greg Timbers) will reflect the preferences of their designer to one degree or another. Nothing wrong with that; after all, this audio stuff is as much art as it is science. But the fact remains that because all speakers are at their hearts interpereters, even the best are only accurate to a degree. Because of this, no single recording (or type of recording) will ever sound right on every speaker -- it'll only sound right on the speakers whose interperetations you like.

[hjames]

I made me the arbiter of what is and isn't real music in my house ... Sure, I own some of those NOVELTY records of Les Paul and Mary Ford,
and some Tangerine Dream, and lots of other music that (mostly) exists only in the realm or electronics or artificial studios ...
And yes, I've seen TDream live a number of times, saw Morton Subotnick too. Its fun stuff!

And I've gone to dance in clubs downtown with some pretty loud Club sonics ... but I would no more consider those DJ EQed tracks
to be real music than I did Les pauls multitrack wonders. Its fun, but ultimately junk food for the ears. Just like the overdriven bass in dance clubs -
that pounding bass is junk food for the body. Zilch used to take about fake but fun bass - he was just being honest about it.

But if you have a market for folks who want to add subs to $60k pairs of speakers, why, you go for it and ignore our comments here.
We are obviously not the market for such things ... more power to you, and good luck with your sales.
But I think its a bit crass and in bad taste to tell the developers of the original speakers that they are wrong ...

heather james wrote: "the basis of the music is what real LIVE music sounds like - no club bent [sic] music, not PA horn music, but classical music in a hall or auditorium. Acoustic blues in a small club, Scottish music in a small hall with pipes and the human voice ... If you are not using real music as the basis of your samples, you just missed the point."

Exactly who made you the final arbiter of what is and isn't "real" music for anyone besides yourself? Les Paul and Mary Ford made recordings that could never be performed as a "live" acoustic event (you'd have to clone Ford nine times just to get the vocals). After 1966 The Beatles intentionally made recordings that could not be performed live. Stockhausen and Cage (amongst many others) wrote purely electronic pieces of music that don't even exist as acoustic events until they are reproduced by loudspeakers. Yet none of this is "real" music and can't be used to judge the accuracy of an audio reproduction system? Why not? Oh yes, because none of us can know what the original event sounded like.

[Horn Fanatic]

I moved the following three posts from another thread as they seemed to be their own topic and worthy of discussion... Can hifi speakers recreate music in our homes and what is the goal?

Widget


No - the basis of the music is what real LIVE music sounds like - no club bent music, not PA horn music, but classical music in a hall or auditorium.
Acoustic blues in a small club, Scottish music in a small hall with pipes and the human voice ...
If you are not using real music as the basis of your samples, you just missed the point.

IMHO - No speaker system exists that that can reproduce live music, and that goes for the $30,000 pair of Avalon's I've listened to.

I began playing music in 1966, and did so professionally until 2000. I have sat in the pit, and stood on stage in a fifteen piece band including a five piece horn section, and I have yet to hear a speaker system recreate the tactile feel, or the chills one gets from being in close proximity to that combination, especially a Philharmonic orchestra.

I believe that is where the rubber meets the road, people who have never played a note in their life, telling musicians what is real or not.

H.F.

[Mr. Widget]

So what is the reality in reproduced music?

I think that if you are looking for absolute objectivity you are out of luck... even live acoustic music is impossible to really recreate in absolute terms... I have season tickets for my local symphony... my seat is 10th row center in the orchestra section. Listening to my system at home often sounds very close to this presentation, but when I go to other halls and get less ideal seats the sound varies widely. At the opera, the singers rarely sound as clear or powerful in the live performance as they do in recordings.

For multi-tracked recordings I think the goal is to approximate the sound that the band and producer tried to create... but who knows what that is, short of having them drop by. Even for them the "reality" is variable as they listen on near-field mini monitors as well as much larger systems systems during the recording and mixing.

Ultimately I think the "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" maxim is as accurate here as in visual art. This thread was pealed off from another where the OP here was inspired by a member who prefers a very jacked up frequency response. While it is easy to objectively show that a response like that is certainly far from reality... is it "wrong"? I don't think so. I personally wouldn't want to spend much time listening to it, but it would be fun in short bursts.


Widget

[speakerdave]

I think when playing a recording of acoustic sounds--voice, folk instruments, acoustic jazz (including a drum kit) and classical music-- we may want the recording chain and our playback systems to have a special kind of accuracy that valorizes flat frequency response and low distortion, and sometimes we want it to be good enough to include the acoustic effects of the room it was played in. When listening to music that has already been amplified or passed through any of the possibilities in a recording studio some of the playback requirements may be relaxed, and others may become more important.

But it's all real, and it's all just fine.

[1audiohack]

We made all this stuff! Acoustic and electrified! Even if we're banging on hollow logs with tree branches and singing, its all interpretation. Hell even choosing which log and where to hit it is within the artists scope, as is voice control, or lack of it.

Buy what you want, build what you want, enjoy what you want and for crying out loud, don't expect or hope anyone else will rubber stamp it.

Back to the music.

Barry.

[Mannermusic]

IMHO - No speaker system exists that that can reproduce live music, and that goes for the $30,000 pair of Avalon's I've listened to.

I began playing music in 1966, and did so professionally until 2000. I have sat in the pit, and stood on stage in a fifteen piece band including a five piece horn section, and I have yet to hear a speaker system recreate the tactile feel, or the chills one gets from being in close proximity to that combination, especially a Philharmonic orchestra.

I believe that is where the rubber meets the road, people who have never played a note in their life, telling musicians what is real or not.

H.F.

Bravo. Double bravo! Your ears become conditioned/trained with all those years of practice and playing. Your "hi fi baseline" is permanently impregnated in your brain. My fav in the ancient past was the Kenton band of the late 50s, early 60s. Simply astonishing (I was an amature trumpet player). Chills! Can't be recorded. You nailed it. Mike

[speakerdave]

I think there's a photo of me playing trombone in my junior high marching band. I know THOSE sounds were unreal. Fortunately I've been able to rehabilitate my auditory programming with recordings of Jack Teagarden, JJ Johnson and Kai Winding.

[Mannermusic]

I think there's a photo of me playing trombone in my junior high marching band. I know THOSE sounds were unreal. Fortunately I've been able to rehabilitate my auditory programming with recordings of Jack Teagarden, JJ Johnson and Kai Winding.

Yep, way to go! Wonderful players - best ever, as best I can tell. You never forget it. Makes you sad when you hear schools cutting music programs. Tragic. We were lucky.

[Mr. Widget]

IMHO - No speaker system exists that that can reproduce live music, and that goes for the $30,000 pair of Avalon's I've listened to.

I am not one of the forum members who dislike everything "audiophile", but I would say that cone and dome audiophile speakers like the Avalons can not recreate the visceral impact of live music... and I agree that HiFi is not Live... but the JBL DD66000s, JBL 4350s, Klipschorns, and Altec A7 and it's variants can get really close on the reproduction of the dynamic visceral impact of music. With the exception of the DD66000 these and most other high sensitivity speakers are not very sonically neutral, but that is not always all that important.

Fortunately the human brain is very good at filling in the blanks... smoothing out frequency irregularities or ignoring the lack of dynamic impact in speakers, which allows us to enjoy music reproduction even when it comes pretty short of replicating "reality".

I believe that is where the rubber meets the road, people who have never played a note in their life, telling musicians what is real or not.

I can see the logic in your statement, but in my experience when I used to record music in the studio each musician heard the music from their own perspective... rarely were the horns loud enough in the final mix for the horn players, the bass for the bass player etc... it's all about perspective.


Widget

[hsosdrum]

I worked in the hi-fi industry for nearly 40 years and have listened to thousands (many thousands!) of audio reproduction systems, and I must agree with Horn Fanatic: Absolutely zero of those audio systems ever came close to creating a believable illustion that there were real human musicians playing in the room. I've also been playing live music since I was 12 years old, and have come to accept that the gulf between live and reproduced sound has yet to be crossed.

If your goal is to listen to reproduced sound that is identical to what real, live, flesh-and-blood musicians sound like then be prepared to spend every penny you ever earn, be prepared to dedicate your living space, be prepared to dedicate your life to auditioning, buying, using, selling and replacing different audio components, and be prepared to be ultimately disappointed in what you get. But if what you're after is an illusion that can communicate a lot of the emotion that the artist imbedded into the recording, an illusion that can be captivating, fun and emotionally meaningful, then you're in for a great deal of fun and satisfaction. All you have to do is pick your favorite music and start listening.

[Horn Fanatic]

Bravo. Double bravo! Your ears become conditioned/trained with all those years of practice and playing. Your "hi fi baseline" is permanently impregnated in your brain. My fav in the ancient past was the Kenton band of the late 50s, early 60s. Simply astonishing (I was an amature trumpet player). Chills! Can't be recorded. You nailed it. Mike

Greetings Mike, hsosdrum, and Mr. Widget -

Allow me to explain my tag.

Some years ago I was engaged in a conversation with an audio enthusiast who's expertise was limited to a large JBL sound system he used for Rave parties. We were listening to some orchestral music on a Martin Logan system at a local HiFi shop. I won't go into the details of what I think of Martin-Logan speakers, but to say the least, they sound like broken glass.

He remarked at how real the string section sounded, so I asked him if he had ever listened to a large string section live. His answer was, "no". I then asked him, 'Then how do you know if it sounds real?' Not only did my question fluster him, but his attitude afterward was that of indignation.

H.F.

P.S. Thank you for your input and comments.

[BMWCCA]

If your goal is to listen to reproduced sound that is identical to what real, live, flesh-and-blood musicians sound like then be prepared to spend every penny you ever earn, be prepared to dedicate your living space, be prepared to dedicate your life to auditioning, buying, using, selling and replacing different audio components, and be prepared to be ultimately disappointed in what you get.

In the words of PWK "Bullshit".

I don't spend all my money on Hi-Fi, I live in my living room with my main system and there's a TV there, too. I work 60-hours a week at my profession and listen to music when I have the time. I buy (never sell) many hi-fi components, but I'm far from disappointed. I've listened to music on JBLs longer than you've been in the hi-fi biz. Whether it's on my 030s, my L7s, my L112s, my L96s, or my 4345s, I'm usually enthralled by and involved in the music, the performance, and the recording. I can appreciate better recordings the same way I can appreciate better systems for reproduction. I think we all can say we can appreciate better recordings more the better our systems get.

Again, I'm not disappointed. And I think I can reproduce a concert sound level and realistic soundstage in my living room with my 4345s. I've had professional musicians listen to my system, even sometimes playing their recordings for them. The response from those who play (well) is usually that they've never heard reproduction so faithful to what they think their music should sound like. That's a compliment to my JBLs, my Crown amps, and my Soundcraftsmen front-end components but it's also proof that you can enjoy the music without the Sturm und Drang your comments imply should be necessary.

[RLock]

I am just a novice here, but aren't we at the mercy of whomever did the recording mix? The best I hope for is accurate recreation of the final mix. The motion of a vocal cord is much different than that of a speaker, as goes for strings, woods or whatever sound one wishes to recreate. That being said, "kudos" to those on this site who have worked to recreate the heavenly sounds and for giving us something that sounds damn good because I do no have enough weed and booze to have musician's come over and play my living room.