[bob]

For those of you who believe in the notion of live music as a
reference for evaluating audio gear, I'd ask the following question:

I know the sound of my Yamaha classical guitar in my living room. I
also know the sound of John Williams' Smallwood in Zankel Hall. So
which of those sounds should be my reference, if I am using a
recording of John Williams to evaluate audio gear in my living room?

I don't mean this as a rhetorical question. I'm really interested to
see the answers here.

bob

[dave a]

On 5/15/2010 4:47 PM, bob wrote:
For those of you who believe in the notion of live music as a
reference for evaluating audio gear, I'd ask the following question:

I know the sound of my Yamaha classical guitar in my living room. I
also know the sound of John Williams' Smallwood in Zankel Hall. So
which of those sounds should be my reference, if I am using a
recording of John Williams to evaluate audio gear in my living room?

I don't mean this as a rhetorical question. I'm really interested to
see the answers here.

bob


It really doesn't seem to matter, it's your system and you can compare
it to whatever you want. If you really want an apples to apples
comparison, I suppose you could set your system up in Zankel Hall and
invite John Williams to play the same pieces as you have on a recording.

[Audio Empire]

On Sat, 15 May 2010 16:47:28 -0700, bob wrote
(in article ):

For those of you who believe in the notion of live music as a
reference for evaluating audio gear, I'd ask the following question:

I know the sound of my Yamaha classical guitar in my living room. I
also know the sound of John Williams' Smallwood in Zankel Hall. So
which of those sounds should be my reference, if I am using a
recording of John Williams to evaluate audio gear in my living room?

I don't mean this as a rhetorical question. I'm really interested to
see the answers here.

bob


Actually, The only real way to do it would be to record your Yamaha in your
listening room with good equipment and then listen to THAT recording Played
back vs you playing it live. Even this is a mere approximation, because when
you record your guitar in your own listening room, you are adding the room
acoustics into the equation TWICE; once when you record it and once when you
play that recording back. Ideally, you should play your guitar in an anechoic
environment such as outdoors on calm day. Then, when you play it back, the
room is superimposed over the guitar only once, on playback. Ditto when you
play the guitar in the room yourself.

The notion of the "sound of real music played in a real space" is actually
more than somewhat of a paradox and is usually not possible to replicate as
part of a test except under ideal circumstances. If you use the John Williams
recording, you are relying on your aural memory of what Williams sounds like
live playing in the same hall in which the recording was used. Not only is
your aural memory less than fully reliable, if the recording wasn't made from
a similar perspective to the one you heard him from, live, then it's not even
an accurate representation of what you remember when you heard Williams play
in Zankel Hall.

OTOH, many people do build-up, over time, a general idea of the difference
between live and "canned" music to the point that they can differentiate the
former from the latter quite easily. When someone hears a stereo system
recreate a facsimile of live music in a listening environment that approaches
his general aural impression of the sound of real music (and assuming that
such an accurate recreation is his goal), then he will believe that he is on
the right track. The illusion of reality and palpability is there, and, in
the real world, that's about all that can be hoped for.

[Scott[_6_]]

On May 15, 4:47=A0pm, bob wrote:
For those of you who believe in the notion of live music as a
reference for evaluating audio gear, I'd ask the following question:

I know the sound of my Yamaha classical guitar in my living room. I
also know the sound of John Williams' Smallwood in Zankel Hall. So
which of those sounds should be my reference, if I am using a
recording of John Williams to evaluate audio gear in my living room?

I don't mean this as a rhetorical question. I'm really interested to
see the answers here.

bob

When pondering the question of live music as a reference for playback
in very general terms it's really not so simple as picking one version
of live sound over another. First you have to consider *why* choose
live sound as a reference. Then you have to consider what is "live
sound."

Now to your specific question. *If* your one and only priority is an
accurate illusion of that original event then the answer would be the
actual sound of John William's guitar in that hall is a better
reference than your guitar in your living room. It does not matter
that your equipment is in your living room. The idea is for the aural
illusion to take you to the original venue of the recording.

[Harry Lavo]

"Audio Empire" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 15 May 2010 16:47:28 -0700, bob wrote
(in article ):

For those of you who believe in the notion of live music as a
reference for evaluating audio gear, I'd ask the following question:

I know the sound of my Yamaha classical guitar in my living room. I
also know the sound of John Williams' Smallwood in Zankel Hall. So
which of those sounds should be my reference, if I am using a
recording of John Williams to evaluate audio gear in my living room?

I don't mean this as a rhetorical question. I'm really interested to
see the answers here.

bob


Actually, The only real way to do it would be to record your Yamaha in
your
listening room with good equipment and then listen to THAT recording
Played
back vs you playing it live. Even this is a mere approximation, because
when
you record your guitar in your own listening room, you are adding the room
acoustics into the equation TWICE; once when you record it and once when
you
play that recording back. Ideally, you should play your guitar in an
anechoic
environment such as outdoors on calm day. Then, when you play it back, the
room is superimposed over the guitar only once, on playback. Ditto when
you
play the guitar in the room yourself.

Absolutely correct. A PITA but the only way to do it.


The notion of the "sound of real music played in a real space" is actually
more than somewhat of a paradox and is usually not possible to replicate
as
part of a test except under ideal circumstances. If you use the John
Williams
recording, you are relying on your aural memory of what Williams sounds
like
live playing in the same hall in which the recording was used. Not only is
your aural memory less than fully reliable, if the recording wasn't made
from
a similar perspective to the one you heard him from, live, then it's not
even
an accurate representation of what you remember when you heard Williams
play
in Zankel Hall.

OTOH, many people do build-up, over time, a general idea of the difference
between live and "canned" music to the point that they can differentiate
the
former from the latter quite easily. When someone hears a stereo system
recreate a facsimile of live music in a listening environment that
approaches
his general aural impression of the sound of real music (and assuming that
such an accurate recreation is his goal), then he will believe that he is
on
the right track. The illusion of reality and palpability is there, and, in
the real world, that's about all that can be hoped for.


Absolutely correct, and the most cogent explanation I have seen of how we
audiophiles who honor "the sound of live music" in construction of our
systems tend to do it. I have built and evolved my system over the last
35-40 years using this principle both for purchase and tweaking, and have
never had to discard a piece of gear because it ultimately failed the
"sustained appreciation" test. Prior to that I went through a decade (early
'6o's to early '70's) of chasing the ever-evolving high-fidelity scene based
on publications, and turnover was rampant. It was this experience and
development of philosophy stemming from considerable exposure to live while
doing semi-pro recording, that bonded Harry Pearson and I when we met, just
as he was planning to start "The Abso!ute Sound" back in '74.

[Ed Seedhouse[_2_]]

On May 15, 4:47=A0pm, bob wrote:
I know the sound of my Yamaha classical guitar in my living room.

You do? But "the sound" of a particular guitar does not actually
exist! There are in fact many "sounds" of your guitar in your room,
depending on whether you stand or sit and where you do either, and
also upon whether you are playing it or listening to someone else
playing it.

I have done the experiment and I know that my personal guitar in my
room sounds hugely different when I sit behind it and play than it
does when someone else plays it and I listen to them, even if we both
only pluck a single note.

When I move two or three feet my guitar sounds obviously different.
If I put the guitar on my lap and pluck a single note, then lay my
instrument across the chair and pluck that same note while standing in
front of it, or hand it to a friend who plucks that same note at the
same volume, still all three sound very different, and quite obviously
so. No "golden ears" needed to hear that difference, believe me!

Indeed, if your "knowlege" of your guitar's sound is based upon the
sound you hear while playing it then I would say you actually know
very little about it's "sound" at all.

The differences are easily audible and also easily measurable. There
is no single "sound of live music in a live space" and there never
was. Trying to create a system that reproduces this non existent
single "sound" is therefore a futility.

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article , bob
wrote:

For those of you who believe in the notion of live music as a
reference for evaluating audio gear, I'd ask the following question:

I know the sound of my Yamaha classical guitar in my living room. I
also know the sound of John Williams' Smallwood in Zankel Hall. So
which of those sounds should be my reference, if I am using a
recording of John Williams to evaluate audio gear in my living room?

I don't mean this as a rhetorical question. I'm really interested to
see the answers here.

bob

If the recording is of JW in Zankel, I want to hear something that
reminds me of that event. I don't want to hear something that sounds
more like your Yamaha. I also don't want to hear JW sound like he's in
some hall other than Zankel. If I'm listening to a studio recording, I
want to at least hear JW's Greg Smallwood guitar, and not something that
sounds like a Yamaha, a Delarue, or a Connor. And I want to hear
whether the top is cedar or spruce (ideally, if it is spruce, whether it
is sitka, adirondack, etc.). I want to hear the space where it was
recorded, not the sound of the instruments/players/singers in my room.
I want to be "transported" to that space.

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article ,
Ed Seedhouse wrote:

On May 15, 4:47*pm, bob wrote:
I know the sound of my Yamaha classical guitar in my living room.

You do? But "the sound" of a particular guitar does not actually
exist! There are in fact many "sounds" of your guitar in your room,
depending on whether you stand or sit and where you do either, and
also upon whether you are playing it or listening to someone else
playing it.

Yes, but my Baranik (for example) should never sound like a Taylor, and
the system that diminishes the differences between those two differences
is not the one that I want.

The differences are easily audible and also easily measurable. There
is no single "sound of live music in a live space" and there never
was. Trying to create a system that reproduces this non existent
single "sound" is therefore a futility.

Of course. I, for one, am not speaking of a "single sound". But any
recording or system produces sound that is not possible (i.e. the
Baranik sounding like a Taylor or the Vienna Philharmonic trombones
sounding like they are playing small-bore instruments) is beyond
annoying.

[Harry Lavo]

"Ed Seedhouse" wrote in message
...
On May 15, 4:47 pm, bob wrote:
I know the sound of my Yamaha classical guitar in my living room.

You do? But "the sound" of a particular guitar does not actually
exist! There are in fact many "sounds" of your guitar in your room,
depending on whether you stand or sit and where you do either, and
also upon whether you are playing it or listening to someone else
playing it.

I have done the experiment and I know that my personal guitar in my
room sounds hugely different when I sit behind it and play than it
does when someone else plays it and I listen to them, even if we both
only pluck a single note.

When I move two or three feet my guitar sounds obviously different.
If I put the guitar on my lap and pluck a single note, then lay my
instrument across the chair and pluck that same note while standing in
front of it, or hand it to a friend who plucks that same note at the
same volume, still all three sound very different, and quite obviously
so. No "golden ears" needed to hear that difference, believe me!

Indeed, if your "knowlege" of your guitar's sound is based upon the
sound you hear while playing it then I would say you actually know
very little about it's "sound" at all.

The differences are easily audible and also easily measurable. There
is no single "sound of live music in a live space" and there never
was. Trying to create a system that reproduces this non existent
single "sound" is therefore a futility.

I am sure Jenn knows that as do I and others who use live music as a
reference. When you are exposed to enough live music in a range of venues,
you learn to appreciate what make live sound sound live. And then you look
to recreate a resemblance of that in your home system over a range of well
recorded music. Audio Empire expained it well in a better post here just a
short while ago.

[Ed Seedhouse[_2_]]

On May 16, 7:10=A0pm, "Harry Lavo" wrote:

I am sure Jenn knows that as do I and others who use live music as a
reference. =A0

Well, that is a claim you make. But I notice that, as you seem so
often to do, you provide nothing that I can recognize as evidence.

It is of course evident that no sound reproduction system made by
humans can yet capture the full experience of single guitar played in
a room, let alone the power of a symphony in full flight.

And yet a simple combination of a mass produced media player and in
ear monitors whose total cost is well under a grand (and a Canadian
grand at that), can convey, for example, the Mahler second to me in a
way that moves and shakes my soul. And I'm not even a believer.

[Arny Krueger]

"bob" wrote in message


For those of you who believe in the notion of live music
as a reference for evaluating audio gear, I'd ask the
following question:

I know the sound of my Yamaha classical guitar in my
living room.

Probably, only when you are playing it.

I also know the sound of John Williams'
Smallwood in Zankel Hall.

No doubt a vastly different sound.

So which of those sounds should
be my reference, if I am using a recording of John
Williams to evaluate audio gear in my living room?

What is the recording of?

Is it the recording of the sound of John Williams' Smallwood in Zankel Hall?

Then use that sound as your reference.

Is the sound of my Yamaha classical guitar in my living room from the
viewpoint of the person playing?

Then use that sound as your reference.

[Ed Seedhouse[_2_]]

On May 16, 3:45=A0pm, Jenn wrote:

You do? =A0But "the sound" of a particular guitar does not actually
exist! =A0

Yes, but my Baranik (for example) should never sound like a Taylor, and
the system that diminishes the differences between those two differences
is not the one that I want.

Well, but if they were both recorded in different venues perhaps those
venues influence their sound to an audience such that the difference
is blurred. In such a case an accurate recording of either should
also make them sound similar.

There
is no single "sound of live music in a live space" and there never
was. =A0

Of course. =A0I, for one, am not speaking of a "single sound". =A0

Well then perhaps you should not speak of things as if their were such
a sound. I am pretty sure you have done that, but perhaps my memory
deceives me.

But any
recording or system produces sound that is not possible (i.e. the
Baranik sounding like a Taylor or the Vienna Philharmonic trombones
sounding like they are playing small-bore instruments) is beyond
annoying.

We agree in wanting a certain degree of "realism". But I am hugely
satisfied by the Bernstein Mahler second, played with an iPod classic
through Sennheizer IE8 phones. We cannot call that "realistic" in
any way, really. I don't want the New York Philharmonic Orchestra
playing inside my head even if they would fit!

But the organ entry in the finale shakes my body, mind and soul
nevertheless. The beauty of the strings is palpable, and the even the
"image" is satisfying even though I believe it is multi miced and
multi tracked. To me, the musical essence of the performance seems to
come through and that's all I can ask really for.

The sound of "real" music played in a "real" space I will leave to
others to spend their fortunes on.

[Audio Empire]

On Sun, 16 May 2010 11:38:14 -0700, Harry Lavo wrote
(in article ):

[quoted text deleted -- deb]

Absolutely correct, and the most cogent explanation I have seen of how we
audiophiles who honor "the sound of live music" in construction of our
systems tend to do it. I have built and evolved my system over the last
35-40 years using this principle both for purchase and tweaking, and have
never had to discard a piece of gear because it ultimately failed the
"sustained appreciation" test. Prior to that I went through a decade (early
'6o's to early '70's) of chasing the ever-evolving high-fidelity scene based
on publications, and turnover was rampant. It was this experience and
development of philosophy stemming from considerable exposure to live while
doing semi-pro recording, that bonded Harry Pearson and I when we met, just
as he was planning to start "The Abso!ute Sound" back in '74.



My journey is somewhat similar. With my engineering background, I started out
being very, very skeptical of subjective testing methodology. An acquaintance
turned me on to the sound that "high-end" audio could achieve, in the late
1970's. It was then that I realized that the 0.00000000000001% (yes, I'm
using hyperbole) distortion advertised by Crown for my then current I-150,
meant nothing and that an Audio Research TUBED SP-3 and a pair of Audio
Research TUBED 60 Watt monoblocks sounded so much better than did my
Harman-Kardon Citation-12, that I started to re-think this objectivist
measuring vs subjectivist listening debate all over again. I suppose that I'm
about half-and-half now. I use my engineering background to tell me that the
reason why no DBT of speaker cables and interconnects has ever found any
difference between any properly made cables, regardless of price and that the
reason why there is so little difference between DACs and CD players and
preamps and power amps these days is because the industry has gotten so good
at designing and executing them. But I do maintain, that in spite of digital
quantization theory, higher sampling rates and bit depths do produce audibly
superior recordings and that SACD does sound better than regular CD. I say
this because I can hear it. So I guess that puts me in the middle. Rigorous
bias-controlled evaluations for some things and long-term listening for
others.

[Arny Krueger]

"Audio Empire" wrote in message


With my engineering
background, I started out being very, very skeptical of
subjective testing methodology. An acquaintance turned me
on to the sound that "high-end" audio could achieve, in
the late 1970's. It was then that I realized that the
0.00000000000001% (yes, I'm using hyperbole) distortion
advertised by Crown for my then current I-150, meant
nothing and that an Audio Research TUBED SP-3 and a pair
of Audio Research TUBED 60 Watt monoblocks sounded so
much better than did my Harman-Kardon Citation-12, that I
started to re-think this objectivist measuring vs
subjectivist listening debate all over again.

The phase "sounded so much better" here no doubt refers to listening
evaluations that were done in the usual style of the day, which did not
involve level-matching, objective proof of performance tests, or any other
formal controls of relevant variables.

Based on what my associates and I learned in the mid-late 1970s, actual
formal control over relevant variables often led to listening tests that
produced vastly different results.

For example, objective proof of performance tests often found sample
differences and undocumented performance variations due to such uncontrolled
varaibles as the condition of the tubes in tubed equipment. It wasn't until
we started doing frequency response tests with real-world loads that we
discovered that much tubed equipment was signficantly non-flat in the normal
audible range, while SS equipment tended to perform far more predictably. Of
course the equipment sounded different, but why prefer equipment with
undocumented and context-dependent frequency response variations?

The effects of personal bias is not to be discounted. Once formal controls
were in place to ensure that the actual performance of the equipment and
listeners matched our earlier naive expectations, we discovered that many
otherwise unexplanable audible differences simply ceased to exist.

[Harry Lavo]

"Ed Seedhouse" wrote in message
...
On May 16, 7:10=A0pm, "Harry Lavo" wrote:

I am sure Jenn knows that as do I and others who use live music as a
reference. =A0

Well, that is a claim you make. But I notice that, as you seem so
often to do, you provide nothing that I can recognize as evidence.

It is of course evident that no sound reproduction system made by
humans can yet capture the full experience of single guitar played in
a room, let alone the power of a symphony in full flight.

And yet a simple combination of a mass produced media player and in
ear monitors whose total cost is well under a grand (and a Canadian
grand at that), can convey, for example, the Mahler second to me in a
way that moves and shakes my soul. And I'm not even a believer.


I am glad the music moves your soul.

But my system does the same.....and it is an in-room system lovingly
assembled from excellent but used components, whose ultimate goal is to
reproduce that symphony with the sense of heft and surround and
hall-ambience of the original...and it comes remarkably close to meeting
that goal when I want it to.

It will also reproduce Louis's voice or Mile's trumpet right there in the
room for me if I wish it to.

That didn't happen by accident....it evolved from a sure sense of what music
sounds like live, and careful choice of components and enough knowledge of
both recording technique and room acoustics to create the system. The
latter is part of what this hobby of hi-fidelity is all about.

The goal is the same....you like earbuds....I hate them. Go enjoy.

[Audio Empire]

On Mon, 17 May 2010 07:07:21 -0700, Ed Seedhouse wrote
(in article ):

On May 16, 7:10=A0pm, "Harry Lavo" wrote:

I am sure Jenn knows that as do I and others who use live music as a
reference. =A0

Well, that is a claim you make. But I notice that, as you seem so
often to do, you provide nothing that I can recognize as evidence.

It is of course evident that no sound reproduction system made by
humans can yet capture the full experience of single guitar played in
a room, let alone the power of a symphony in full flight.

That's the truth. I have a theory that it has a lot to do with the fact that
a stereo system, no matter how good, simply cannot move enough air to produce
the palpable result that says " Live music being played here". I remember,
clearly, walking a down Bourbon street in New Orleans one hot May night many
years ago. As I passed each open door to this night spot and that, I could
tell which was playing live music and which was playing a jukebox just by
passing by. I didn't have to even go in. I could say Live music here, not
live here, Live here etc. all the way down the street. There probably are
other factors at work as well, but I believe that the way live music
pressurizes the space in which it is played is a large part of the reason why
canned music can be instantly recognized.

[Harry Lavo]

"Audio Empire" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 17 May 2010 07:07:21 -0700, Ed Seedhouse wrote
(in article ):

On May 16, 7:10=A0pm, "Harry Lavo" wrote:

I am sure Jenn knows that as do I and others who use live music as a
reference. =A0

Well, that is a claim you make. But I notice that, as you seem so
often to do, you provide nothing that I can recognize as evidence.

It is of course evident that no sound reproduction system made by
humans can yet capture the full experience of single guitar played in
a room, let alone the power of a symphony in full flight.

That's the truth. I have a theory that it has a lot to do with the fact
that
a stereo system, no matter how good, simply cannot move enough air to
produce
the palpable result that says " Live music being played here". I remember,
clearly, walking a down Bourbon street in New Orleans one hot May night
many
years ago. As I passed each open door to this night spot and that, I could
tell which was playing live music and which was playing a jukebox just by
passing by. I didn't have to even go in. I could say Live music here, not
live here, Live here etc. all the way down the street. There probably are
other factors at work as well, but I believe that the way live music
pressurizes the space in which it is played is a large part of the reason
why
canned music can be instantly recognized.

Which is also why five full-range speakers like my Thiels can pressurize a
moderate-sized room at home, such that it subjectively promotes the
equivalent of an orchestra live in the hall. I think if you truly love
classical music and care about reproducing it in your home, you need this
type of system to approach the sound of live. (There I go again, promoting
divorce! :-) )

[Ed Seedhouse[_2_]]

On May 17, 10:55=A0am, "Harry Lavo" wrote:
"Ed Seedhouse" wrote in message

...





On May 16, 7:10=3DA0pm, "Harry Lavo" wrote:

I am sure Jenn knows that as do I and others who use live music as a
reference. =3DA0

Well, that is a claim you make. =A0But I notice that, as you seem so
often to do, you provide nothing that I can recognize as evidence.

It is of course evident that no sound reproduction system made by
humans can yet capture the full experience of single guitar played in
a room, let alone the power of a symphony in full flight.

And yet a simple combination of a mass produced media player and in
ear monitors whose total cost is well under a grand (and a Canadian
grand at that), can convey, for example, the Mahler second to me in a
way that moves and shakes my soul. =A0 And I'm not even a believer.

I am glad the music moves your soul.
But my system does the same.....and it is an in-room system lovingly
assembled from excellent but used components, whose ultimate goal is to
reproduce that symphony with the sense of heft and surround and
hall-ambience of the original...and it comes remarkably close to meeting
that goal when I want it to.

But I bet it set you back a good deal more than a thousand bucks.

It will also reproduce Louis's voice or Mile's trumpet right there in the
room for me if I wish it to.

Well, my less than two thousand dollar home system will do that quite
well.

That didn't happen by accident.

Are you implying that mine did? Well, I use entirely different
methods and I don't think the results I get are any accident, either.

The goal is the same....you like earbuds....I hate them. =A0Go enjoy.

Well, technically, the IE8s are not "earbuds", they are "in ear
monitors". What comes with the iPod are earbuds, and the ones mine
came with sounded pretty bad. I wonder why you use that particular
word?

The "in ear monitor" experience with my setup is not entirely
satisfactory. Sticking things in my ear is not a pleasurable
experience, and it was mostly luck that one of the eight different
earpieces works well in my ears. There are other things about them I
don't like but the sonic experience overcomes these problems, at least
when I am out and about.

For pure sonics the IE8s win by a good margin over my home system.
But I would never watch a movie or listen to the radio with them. My
home system with the speakers I use provides a good enough experience
on it's own so that I don't bother with the IEs at home. Yet it also
is quite cheap, consisting mainly of a $200 blue-ray player, a $400 A/
V receiver and a pair of speakers from a large and well known
manufacturer that cost around $900 when I bought them five years ago
and a $300 subwoofer with an 8" driver. It is certainly by no means
state of the art in any way, but it can do most of what the IE8s do so
far as playing good music that moves. And it can give me an
experience with the Mahler second that approaches but does not quite
reach the level of the IE8s.

I bought the speakers site unseen and with no listening at all. In
fact the salesperson at the local high end emporium wanted to drag
them out of the box and play them for me before I bought, but I didn't
let him. I relied on the reputation of the company at that time as a
good firm that I believed excellent speakers using a sound engineering
approach. Turned out I was entirely right about this set of speakers
and I am still delighted with their performance half a decade on.

But I would not call that system "high end". The IE8's with the iPod
on the other hand, are definitely a high end experience for me and my
particular set of ears.

[Stager]

I know the sound of my Yamaha classical guitar in my living room. I
also know the sound of John Williams' Smallwood in Zankel Hall. So
which of those sounds should be my reference, if I am using a
recording of John Williams to evaluate audio gear in my living room?
...
First, the way you hear your own (unamplified) guitar when you play it
is completely different from how someone else hears it; you will get much
more bass from the vibrations from the instrument touching your body,
and the mids and highs will project away from you from the sound hole,
not unlike the bell of a trumpet.

If you actually heard John Williams playing, again, unamplified, at Zankel Hall
or anywhere else, you would be hearing the sound of his instrument and
the sound of the room, and only if you had a system which could reproduce
both, no matter how linear or free from distortion it is, could you duplicate
or nearly duplicate the experience. The directionality and depth as well as the
tone have to be reproduced correctly. Stereo speakers, even when carefully
matched and in phase, even when you are sitting dead center, have difficulty
placing a solo artist in a believable center position. And the walls and ceiling
of the original space are flattened in front of you. There is some merit to
surround systems but they are rarely done right.

I believe the single most important aspect of a good home system is its ability
to project a center image as accurately as possible. The rest of the soundstage is
secondary. When listening to an old mono recording of Segovia, for example, he
should sound like he is in front of you, not playing a 10 ft. wide guitar across your
speakers. One the most annoying things about many jazz recordings, though
otherwise beautifully recorded, is when the drums are miked in stereo and they
are spread wide across the soundfield, cymbal on the left, high hat on the right,
and everything else a spatial blur in between. I have to switch to mono so that
stupidity doesn't get in the way of enjoying the music.

So is it possible to evaluate your home system with live (unamplified) music as a
reference? Yes, but understand the limitations. If you like what you hear, and the
sound of the instruments has not been mangled in the recording or playing process
and comes through reasonably believable, that's the best you can hope for.

BTW, I consistently find my vinyl far more musically satisfying than anything
digital, but that's another subject.

Marc Stager
Stager Sound Systems
New York City

[Audio Empire]

On Mon, 17 May 2010 14:50:03 -0700, Harry Lavo wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 17 May 2010 07:07:21 -0700, Ed Seedhouse wrote
(in article ):

On May 16, 7:10=A0pm, "Harry Lavo" wrote:

I am sure Jenn knows that as do I and others who use live music as a
reference. =A0

Well, that is a claim you make. But I notice that, as you seem so
often to do, you provide nothing that I can recognize as evidence.

It is of course evident that no sound reproduction system made by
humans can yet capture the full experience of single guitar played in
a room, let alone the power of a symphony in full flight.

That's the truth. I have a theory that it has a lot to do with the fact
that
a stereo system, no matter how good, simply cannot move enough air to
produce
the palpable result that says " Live music being played here". I remember,
clearly, walking a down Bourbon street in New Orleans one hot May night
many
years ago. As I passed each open door to this night spot and that, I could
tell which was playing live music and which was playing a jukebox just by
passing by. I didn't have to even go in. I could say Live music here, not
live here, Live here etc. all the way down the street. There probably are
other factors at work as well, but I believe that the way live music
pressurizes the space in which it is played is a large part of the reason
why
canned music can be instantly recognized.

Which is also why five full-range speakers like my Thiels can pressurize a
moderate-sized room at home, such that it subjectively promotes the
equivalent of an orchestra live in the hall. I think if you truly love
classical music and care about reproducing it in your home, you need this
type of system to approach the sound of live. (There I go again, promoting
divorce! :-) )


Frankly, I've never heard a system that approached the palpability of real,
live music playing in a real space. I've heard impressive systems that sound
more like live music than others, but none that removed that last set of
barriers. I know an old guy (in his high eighties) who has a pair of old
Altec Lansing floor-standing speakers in furniture cabinets. They don't seem
to go very deep, and everything from the midrange up sounds awful (Altec 500
Hz treble horns again. I'd know 'em anywhere) BUT, they pressurize the room
like nothing I've ever heard. They produce the weight and impact of live
music from about 40 Hz to about 500 Hz. Why? Each cabinet has FOUR 15" Altec
Lansing woofers in them - that's EIGHT in all. IOW, they really move some air
within their passband.

[Jenn[_5_]]

In article ,
Ed Seedhouse wrote:

On May 16, 3:45*pm, Jenn wrote:

You do? *But "the sound" of a particular guitar does not actually
exist! *

Yes, but my Baranik (for example) should never sound like a Taylor, and
the system that diminishes the differences between those two differences
is not the one that I want.

Well, but if they were both recorded in different venues perhaps those
venues influence their sound to an audience such that the difference
is blurred. In such a case an accurate recording of either should
also make them sound similar.

I can't imagine the acoustical circumstances that would make those two
instruments sound the same!


There
is no single "sound of live music in a live space" and there never
was. *

Of course. *I, for one, am not speaking of a "single sound". *

Well then perhaps you should not speak of things as if their were such
a sound. I am pretty sure you have done that, but perhaps my memory
deceives me.

Yes, it must.

[Arny Krueger[_3_]]

"Audio Empire" wrote in message


I have a theory that it has a lot to do
with the fact that a stereo system, no matter how good,
simply cannot move enough air to produce the palpable
result that says " Live music being played here".

The problem is not the amount of air, it is the details of sound that are
encoded on that air.

The sense of " Live music being played here" is lost during the recording
process, as any experienced live recordist can tell you.

[Harry Lavo[_2_]]

"Audio Empire" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 17 May 2010 14:50:03 -0700, Harry Lavo wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 17 May 2010 07:07:21 -0700, Ed Seedhouse wrote
(in article ):

On May 16, 7:10=A0pm, "Harry Lavo" wrote:

I am sure Jenn knows that as do I and others who use live music as a
reference. =A0

Well, that is a claim you make. But I notice that, as you seem so
often to do, you provide nothing that I can recognize as evidence.

It is of course evident that no sound reproduction system made by
humans can yet capture the full experience of single guitar played in
a room, let alone the power of a symphony in full flight.

That's the truth. I have a theory that it has a lot to do with the fact
that
a stereo system, no matter how good, simply cannot move enough air to
produce
the palpable result that says " Live music being played here". I
remember,
clearly, walking a down Bourbon street in New Orleans one hot May night
many
years ago. As I passed each open door to this night spot and that, I
could
tell which was playing live music and which was playing a jukebox just
by
passing by. I didn't have to even go in. I could say Live music here,
not
live here, Live here etc. all the way down the street. There probably
are
other factors at work as well, but I believe that the way live music
pressurizes the space in which it is played is a large part of the
reason
why
canned music can be instantly recognized.

Which is also why five full-range speakers like my Thiels can pressurize
a
moderate-sized room at home, such that it subjectively promotes the
equivalent of an orchestra live in the hall. I think if you truly love
classical music and care about reproducing it in your home, you need this
type of system to approach the sound of live. (There I go again,
promoting
divorce! :-) )


Frankly, I've never heard a system that approached the palpability of
real,
live music playing in a real space. I've heard impressive systems that
sound
more like live music than others, but none that removed that last set of
barriers. I know an old guy (in his high eighties) who has a pair of old
Altec Lansing floor-standing speakers in furniture cabinets. They don't
seem
to go very deep, and everything from the midrange up sounds awful (Altec
500
Hz treble horns again. I'd know 'em anywhere) BUT, they pressurize the
room
like nothing I've ever heard. They produce the weight and impact of live
music from about 40 Hz to about 500 Hz. Why? Each cabinet has FOUR 15"
Altec
Lansing woofers in them - that's EIGHT in all. IOW, they really move some
air
within their passband.

I didn't say I reached that ideal...I said that it "subjectively promotes
the equivalent". I grew up in a house with a five-foot tall JBL corner
horn with two 15" woofers, so I have some idea of what you are speaking of.
That said, the five Thiels (two 2 2's, three 3.5's) come close....the 2 2's
have usuable response down to 35hz; the 3.5's are equalized and essentially
close to flat down to about 38hz and useful down to 28hz. Two other things
factor in as well; each speaker is driven by a 200wpc monoblock, and the
five full-range speakers in a near perfect ITU spacing around the room boost
bass efficiency by about 3db and also tend to eliminate most obvious room
nodes....so the bass is pretty darn natural sounding, tight and deep.
Finally, the multi-channel preamp is a pure Class A design whose most
distinquishing characteristic is it's complete naturalness on leading edge
percussion transients, so that deep bass transients, drums, and other
percussion when present, have a very life-like presence. And the system as
a whole can deliver the air volume.

[Ed Seedhouse[_2_]]

On May 19, 11:18=A0am, Jenn wrote:

I can't imagine the acoustical circumstances that would make those two
instruments sound the same!

Just because you can't imagine something doesn't mean it can't happen,
though.

In any event given that they are both good instruments and suitable
for the purpose, why should I care whether a given piece of music is
played on one or the other? I don't, for example, purchase CDs
because of the brand of guitar that is played by the artist. Why then
would it be important that my sound system convey the difference
between two brands of guitar given that it is good enough to convey
the intention of the composer as mediated by the performer?

[Audio Empire]

On Wed, 19 May 2010 11:18:17 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in message


I have a theory that it has a lot to do
with the fact that a stereo system, no matter how good,
simply cannot move enough air to produce the palpable
result that says " Live music being played here".

The problem is not the amount of air, it is the details of sound that are
encoded on that air.

I have considered that, but I don't think that's the primary indicator. It
might be secondary or even tertiary to the volume of air moved by real music.
I don't think that walking past an open door of a venue where real music is
being played will reveal much detail, but one certainly will KNOW that the
sound coming through the door is real, live music from even THAT brief
encounter.

The sense of " Live music being played here" is lost during the recording
process, as any experienced live recordist can tell you.

Yes, it certainly is and as an experienced recordist, I'd be the first to
agree with that statement. The best stereo system in the world, a system
capable of moving (almost) as much air as a real orchestra (the old Wilson
Audio WAMM system comes to mind here) still won't sound like live music
because that sense of "palpability" didn't make it through the recording
process, much less through the playback chain.

[Ed Seedhouse[_2_]]

Just to comment generally upon the idea of the "sound of live music"
as a "reference", which is the title of the thread. I believe the
very idea is incoherent.

A reference, in the sense we use the word here, is by definition
something that does not change and is kept handy so other things can
be compared with it.

The sound of live music is not because it changes and can't be kept
handy to compare something with it.

It can certainly be a goal, an ideal to be attained, even if
ultimately unreachable.
But a goal is not a reference, and calling "the sound of live music" a
reference is, to my mind, simple a misuse of the language.

Nothing wrong with bringing the sound of live music into the
discussion in a forum such as this, so far as I can see. Just,
please, don't call it a "reference". It isn't and it can't be.

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article ,
Ed Seedhouse wrote:

On May 19, 11:18*am, Jenn wrote:

I can't imagine the acoustical circumstances that would make those two
instruments sound the same!

Just because you can't imagine something doesn't mean it can't happen,
though.

Well, sure. I can't imagine eating a fresh apple and believing that I
just ate a steak, but I guess that it could happen somehow.


In any event given that they are both good instruments and suitable
for the purpose, why should I care whether a given piece of music is
played on one or the other?

Because they sound very different.

I don't, for example, purchase CDs
because of the brand of guitar that is played by the artist.

I don't either.

Why then
would it be important that my sound system convey the difference
between two brands of guitar given that it is good enough to convey
the intention of the composer as mediated by the performer?

Because one of the instruments is capable of conveying the intention of
the composer more clearly than the other, and allows the performer to
add a great deal more nuance to the performance. Then there is the
issue of general quality of tone. Do you not want your audio system to
be able to show the difference between a Stradivarius and a Franz
Mueller?

[Harry Lavo]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Audio Empire" wrote in message


I have a theory that it has a lot to do
with the fact that a stereo system, no matter how good,
simply cannot move enough air to produce the palpable
result that says " Live music being played here".

The problem is not the amount of air, it is the details of sound that are
encoded on that air.

The sense of " Live music being played here" is lost during the recording
process, as any experienced live recordist can tell you.


Simply not true if "purist" mics are used and well placed.

[Harry Lavo]

"Audio Empire" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 19 May 2010 11:18:17 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in message


I have a theory that it has a lot to do
with the fact that a stereo system, no matter how good,
simply cannot move enough air to produce the palpable
result that says " Live music being played here".

The problem is not the amount of air, it is the details of sound that are
encoded on that air.

I have considered that, but I don't think that's the primary indicator. It
might be secondary or even tertiary to the volume of air moved by real
music.
I don't think that walking past an open door of a venue where real music
is
being played will reveal much detail, but one certainly will KNOW that the
sound coming through the door is real, live music from even THAT brief
encounter.

The sense of " Live music being played here" is lost during the
recording
process, as any experienced live recordist can tell you.

Yes, it certainly is and as an experienced recordist, I'd be the first to
agree with that statement. The best stereo system in the world, a system
capable of moving (almost) as much air as a real orchestra (the old Wilson
Audio WAMM system comes to mind here) still won't sound like live music
because that sense of "palpability" didn't make it through the recording
process, much less through the playback chain.

I disagree with this statement. Using high quality professional mics in a
purist configuration it is certainly possible to capture a recording that
sounds real when played on an system capable of simulating the original
room.

And to preclude a flurry of exchanges, I am not arguing that it literally
reproduces the original room, but that it is possible to get close enough
that the human brain can easily suspend disbelief and enjoy it "as if...".

[bob]

On May 19, 5:56=A0pm, Ed Seedhouse wrote:
Just to comment generally upon the idea of the "sound of live music"
as a "reference", which is the title of the thread. =A0I believe the
very idea is incoherent.

A reference, in the sense we use the word here, is by definition
something that does not change and is kept handy so other things can
be compared with it.

The sound of live music is not because it changes and can't be kept
handy to compare something with it.

To take this from a different angle, the "reference" is not "the sound
of live music." The "reference" is our mental construct of what live
music sounds like (or what we think it sounds like) based on our
experiences of live music, be they many or few.

And if the "reference" is subjective and internal, then the problem
isn't only that the "sound of live music" constantly changes. It's
that we, too, constantly change. Human beings are not calibrated test
instruments. To believe that what we think live music sounds like
today will be the same tomorrow is to deny everything we know about
human psychology and subjective experience.

In short, our perception of "the sound of live music" is hedonic, not
sensory. Saying 'this system sounds like live music" is equivalent to
saying, "I like the sound of this system."

The typical audiophile posture--"I've been to hundreds of concerts and
I know what live music sounds like and I'm capable of judging
accurately whether an audio system approaches that sound"--May make
you feel good, but it's entirely unrealistic.

bob

[---MIKE---]

Many years ago I went to showing of Cinerama in Boston. The movie
contained a sound track of an orchestra. It sounded like a live
orchestra was playing.

Even further back, I attended concerts at Carnegie Hall in orchestra
seats as well as the balcony. I also went to concerts in Symphony Hall
in Boston as well as several broadcasts of the NBC Symphony in studio 8H
(some conducted by Toscanini). I remember my first exposure to the
Polka and Fugue from Schwanda played by the NBC Symphony. 8H was a
thrilling venue to hear a concert despite it's reputation as a poor
broadcasting hall. My point is that all these halls sounded different
Comparing a stereo system to live music is impossible since live music
is not consistent.

---MIKE---
In the White Mountains of New Hampshire
(44=B0 15' N - Elevation 1580')

[Audio Empire]

On Wed, 19 May 2010 16:23:02 -0700, Harry Lavo wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 19 May 2010 11:18:17 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in message


I have a theory that it has a lot to do
with the fact that a stereo system, no matter how good,
simply cannot move enough air to produce the palpable
result that says " Live music being played here".

The problem is not the amount of air, it is the details of sound that are
encoded on that air.

I have considered that, but I don't think that's the primary indicator. It
might be secondary or even tertiary to the volume of air moved by real
music.
I don't think that walking past an open door of a venue where real music
is
being played will reveal much detail, but one certainly will KNOW that the
sound coming through the door is real, live music from even THAT brief
encounter.

The sense of " Live music being played here" is lost during the
recording
process, as any experienced live recordist can tell you.

Yes, it certainly is and as an experienced recordist, I'd be the first to
agree with that statement. The best stereo system in the world, a system
capable of moving (almost) as much air as a real orchestra (the old Wilson
Audio WAMM system comes to mind here) still won't sound like live music
because that sense of "palpability" didn't make it through the recording
process, much less through the playback chain.

I disagree with this statement. Using high quality professional mics in a
purist configuration it is certainly possible to capture a recording that
sounds real when played on an system capable of simulating the original
room.

And to preclude a flurry of exchanges, I am not arguing that it literally
reproduces the original room, but that it is possible to get close enough
that the human brain can easily suspend disbelief and enjoy it "as if...".


Well, we're saying two different things aren't we? I'm saying that no
recording (and subsequent reproduction) of a live musical event is going to
fool anyone into thinking that the music coming out of the loudspeakers is
REAL music playing in real space, and you are saying that it can be so close
that the listener can get enough of the sense of real music from that
playback to be able to sit back and enjoy it. I agree with you. I do so
daily. OTOH, I'm never fooled into thinking it's real and even if the best
system on earth were playing in a room as I walked by the open door, I'm not
going to stop dead in my tracks and say "Live music is being played in
there." Yet, I have passed open doors at the CES and at hi-fi shows where
dozens of rooms are playing music on the latest and the greatest of gear and
have still been stopped dead in my tracks when passing a room with a real
string quartet or other small instrumental group playing in it. The thing is,
anybody can tell the difference. It's not just the sole purvey of the
"golden-eared audiophile".

[Audio Empire]

On Wed, 19 May 2010 16:06:27 -0700, Jenn wrote
(in article ):

In article ,
Ed Seedhouse wrote:
=20
On May 19, 11:18=A0am, Jenn wrote:
=20
I can't imagine the acoustical circumstances that would make those tw=
o
instruments sound the same!
=20
Just because you can't imagine something doesn't mean it can't happen,
though.
=20
Well, sure. I can't imagine eating a fresh apple and believing that I=20
just ate a steak, but I guess that it could happen somehow.
=20
=20
In any event given that they are both good instruments and suitable
for the purpose, why should I care whether a given piece of music is
played on one or the other?
=20
Because they sound very different.

The above response from Ed puzzles me. For instance, to take this questio=
n to=20
the absurd for illustrative purposes, does Ed care whether an Oboe concer=
to=20
is played on an English horn and not an oboe? The idea behind being able =
to=20
discern one instrument (or even one brand of an instrument) from another =
is=20
part and parcel of high-fidelity. It's called getting the harmonic struct=
ure=20
"right" and has to do with overall harmonic and intermodulation distortio=
n,=20
frequency response accuracy, etc. Being able to make decisions about subt=
le=20
differences between instruments is the difference between a table radio a=
nd=20
true hi-fi reproduction. One cares because those differences bring one cl=
oser=20
to the music.=20
=20
I don't, for example, purchase CDs
because of the brand of guitar that is played by the artist.
=20
I don't either.

Why then
would it be important that my sound system convey the difference
between two brands of guitar given that it is good enough to convey
the intention of the composer as mediated by the performer?
=20
Because one of the instruments is capable of conveying the intention of=
=20
the composer more clearly than the other, and allows the performer to=20
add a great deal more nuance to the performance. Then there is the=20
issue of general quality of tone. Do you not want your audio system to=
=20
be able to show the difference between a Stradivarius and a Franz=20
Mueller?

I would think that the answer to that question would be "yes", I do want =
my=20
system to be capable of making those distinctions, even if I'm not person=
ally=20
knowledgeable enough about violins to make that distinction myself. =20

[Audio Empire]

On Wed, 19 May 2010 16:57:14 -0700, bob wrote
(in article ):
snip
The typical audiophile posture--"I've been to hundreds of concerts and
I know what live music sounds like and I'm capable of judging
accurately whether an audio system approaches that sound"--May make
you feel good, but it's entirely unrealistic.

bob

If that's so, then what is the standard? Measurements, for many things
(especially transducers) don't mean much, and even if they did, interpreting
those measurements based on the sound that those measurements represent,
would be very difficult for most people. I can listen to a pair of
loudspeakers, for instance, and say " These sound to me the way I remember
live music sounds", or in my case, being a recordist, "these speakers sound
to me the very similar to my memory of the live performance of this recording
when I recorded it". But I cannot look at a frequency response graph of that
same pair of speakers (without having heard them) and say "Oh, I can tell
from this graph exactly how these speakers sound ", except in a most general
way - I.E. if the graph falls-off like a rock below 80 Hz, I can infer that
these speakers probably don't have much, quantitatively, in the way of bass.
But I couldn't tell from that the quality of the bass it does have. Same with
highs. A graph showing a rising response above 5 KHz might tell me that this
speaker will be quite bright, it won't tell me anything useful beyond that.
So my question remains, what is the arbiter of accuracy in loudspeakers?

[Arny Krueger]

"bob" wrote in message


To take this from a different angle, the "reference" is
not "the sound of live music." The "reference" is our
mental construct of what live music sounds like (or what
we think it sounds like) based on our experiences of live
music, be they many or few.

Eyewitness testimony is well-known to be incredibly flawed. There's no
reason to think that "earwitness" testimony is any better.

And if the "reference" is subjective and internal, then
the problem isn't only that the "sound of live music"
constantly changes. It's that we, too, constantly change.

Anybody who thinks that their perceptions are accurate and unchanging just
doesn't know themselves.

Human beings are not calibrated test instruments. To
believe that what we think live music sounds like today
will be the same tomorrow is to deny everything we know
about human psychology and subjective experience.

The common thread is that many of the people who posture long and often
about their use of the sound of live performances as a reference are often
the same people who deny the dominant effect of percpetual bias on listening
tests.

In short, our perception of "the sound of live music" is
hedonic, not sensory. Saying 'this system sounds like
live music" is equivalent to saying, "I like the sound of
this system."

I think so.

The typical audiophile posture--"I've been to hundreds of
concerts and I know what live music sounds like and I'm
capable of judging accurately whether an audio system
approaches that sound"--May make you feel good, but it's
entirely unrealistic.

I think that all of these unsupportable claims about reproducing the sound
of a live performance needs to be identified for what they are, posturing
and wishfull thinking.

[Arny Krueger]

"Audio Empire" wrote in message

On Wed, 19 May 2010 16:57:14 -0700, bob wrote
(in article ):
snip

The typical audiophile posture--"I've been to hundreds
of concerts and I know what live music sounds like and
I'm capable of judging accurately whether an audio
system approaches that sound"--May make you feel good,
but it's entirely unrealistic.

If that's so, then what is the standard? Measurements,
for many things (especially transducers) don't mean much,

The problem with interpreting the meaning of measurements is the ignorance
of the people who complain about interpreting measurements.

The high end industry including the high end press is no help as a source of
education in this area because they have a vested interest in being able to
control their evaluations to produce the outcomes they think they need to
optimize their business income.

The reality is that sonically transparent amplifiers and music players have
been readily available for reasonable prices for decades. The perceived need
of the high end audio press is to churn the systems of their readership to
keep the advertising dollars coming. A sonically transparent amplifier is a
financial disaster for them, so they keep on denying its existence.

and even if they did, interpreting those measurements
based on the sound that those measurements represent,
would be very difficult for most people.

Is this an autobiographical comment? Isn't this really saying something like
"I can't make heads or tails out of techical tests and since I can't do this
and I think I'm very smart, nobody else can either"?

I can listen to
a pair of loudspeakers, for instance, and say " These
sound to me the way I remember live music sounds", or in
my case, being a recordist, "these speakers sound to me
the very similar to my memory of the live performance of
this recording when I recorded it".

Apparently some people must have great difficulty hearing differences
between recordings and live sound. I've never heard a recording that
impressed me as being anything but a caricature of the live performance. Not
my own, and not anybody elses.

Let's presume that there is a perfect microphone that produces an electrical
signal that could possibly be reproduced in such a way that it was
indistinguishable from live sound. IOW, you could somehow ABX the
electrical signal from this perfect mic and the live performance, and
everybody would be reduced to random guessing.

Anybody who has had free access to a live performance (for example been to a
rehearsal as staff like I do for hour after hour every week) knows that the
sound of music varies a great deal as you wander about the stage and the
hall. This effect is also easy to measure.

It is an immutable law of practical physics that, relativistic ambiguity
about the location of subatomic particles notwithstanding, microphone-sized
objects can only be in one place at a time. That means that no matter where
you put this imaginary perfect microphone, you won't pick up the live
performance as it exists at any and every other place in the room.
Therefore, if you ABX the electrical signal from this perfect mic and the
live performance, every well-trained listener should be able to reliably
detect the audible difference.

In practice, recordings of live performances made with the same high quality
microphones, even matched pairs, are easy to distinguish from each other. A
common example of this is X/Y recording where we derive 2 stereo channels
from a matched pair of microphones whose diaphragms are within a fraction of
inch of each other. Similar results can be obtained with matched pair of
omnidirectional microphones with nominal spacing. You get two different
signals that are easy to ABX.

But I cannot look at
a frequency response graph of that same pair of speakers
(without having heard them) and say "Oh, I can tell from
this graph exactly how these speakers sound ", except in
a most general way - I.E. if the graph falls-off like a
rock below 80 Hz, I can infer that these speakers
probably don't have much, quantitatively, in the way of
bass.

We can do a lot better than that. For example I just recounted a blind test
of loudspeakers wherein two vastly different speakers were said by a
distinguished listening panel to be in some sense closely equivalent in
terms of sound quality. I happened to discuss the setup for these listening
tests with someone who was more intimately involved than I last night, as we
drove to and returned from an AES meeting across the state.

It turns out that electrical equalization was used in the evaluations. The
electrical equalization was performed based on an acoustic measuring device
called "Perceptual Transfer Function (PTF) measurement system", which is
further described he

http://www.aes.org/sections/reports/?ID=46

http://www.sae.org/technical/papers/2000-01-0075

http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=9942

http://www.umich.edu/~aessec/clark_04_06.html

The ability of measurements made using the "Perceptual Transfer Function
(PTF) measurement system" to accurately and reliably characterize the
performance of loudspeaker systems is thus validated, as it has been
validated many other ways and at many other times.

There are probably a million or more complex audio systems whose sales price
ranges up into the several thousand dollar range, that were designed with
heavy reference ton "Perceptual Transfer Function (PTF) measurement system"
results, that are in daily use today. They are generally very ranked highly
in consumer opinion testing by respected industry opinon survey
organizations.

[Arny Krueger]

"Audio Empire" wrote in message

On Wed, 19 May 2010 16:23:02 -0700, Harry Lavo wrote
(in article ):

And to preclude a flurry of exchanges, I am not arguing
that it literally reproduces the original room, but that
it is possible to get close enough that the human brain
can easily suspend disbelief and enjoy it "as if...".

Well, we're saying two different things aren't we?

To say the least!

I'm saying that no recording (and subsequent reproduction) of
a live musical event is going to fool anyone into
thinking that the music coming out of the loudspeakers is
REAL music playing in real space,

Agreed. And furthermore, the liveness gets lost at the recording end, so of
course it can't possibly be found at the playback end because it is already
gone.

and you are saying that
it can be so close that the listener can get enough of
the sense of real music from that playback to be able to
sit back and enjoy it. I agree with you.

We had this discussion in the early days of trying to form our ideas about
the "Audible Scene". We concluded that the following criteria can be used to
evaluate the "liveness" of music playback:

1. Speakers Disappear

2. Local Acoustics Not Heard

3. Images Lateral Localization

4. Images Depth Localization

5. Ambience non-Localized

The following relates to the degree to which the liveness of music can be
enjoyed by more than one listener in the room:

6. Freedom of Movement

[Harry Lavo]

"Audio Empire" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 19 May 2010 16:23:02 -0700, Harry Lavo wrote
(in article ):


[quoted text deleted -- deb]

I disagree with this statement. Using high quality professional mics in
a
purist configuration it is certainly possible to capture a recording that
sounds real when played on an system capable of simulating the original
room.

And to preclude a flurry of exchanges, I am not arguing that it literally
reproduces the original room, but that it is possible to get close enough
that the human brain can easily suspend disbelief and enjoy it "as
if...".


Well, we're saying two different things aren't we? I'm saying that no
recording (and subsequent reproduction) of a live musical event is going
to
fool anyone into thinking that the music coming out of the loudspeakers is
REAL music playing in real space, and you are saying that it can be so
close
that the listener can get enough of the sense of real music from that
playback to be able to sit back and enjoy it. I agree with you. I do so
daily. OTOH, I'm never fooled into thinking it's real and even if the best
system on earth were playing in a room as I walked by the open door, I'm
not
going to stop dead in my tracks and say "Live music is being played in
there." Yet, I have passed open doors at the CES and at hi-fi shows where
dozens of rooms are playing music on the latest and the greatest of gear
and
have still been stopped dead in my tracks when passing a room with a real
string quartet or other small instrumental group playing in it. The thing
is,
anybody can tell the difference. It's not just the sole purvey of the
"golden-eared audiophile".

Well, I have had one such situation. In a previous dwelling I had a
dedicated upper-level listen room....oddly shaped with no parallel walls to
speak of, and it was acoustically the most neutral space I've eve had. I
tested certain speakers and certain power amps there. The room was
connected to a second floor hallway by a half-height flight of stairs (it
was a split level) and one of those combinations sounded as real as could be
listening from that hallway (it wasn't pressurization, since it was a small
combo with bass, trumpet or saxaphone, and drums...I suspect it had more to
do with phase coherence and transient attack than pressurization per se
although the bass was well-developed in that room. The other combinations
didn't sound as "real". Guess which combo I chose?

[Audio Empire]

On Wed, 19 May 2010 18:10:55 -0700, MIKE--- wrote
(in article ):

Many years ago I went to showing of Cinerama in Boston. The movie
contained a sound track of an orchestra. It sounded like a live
orchestra was playing.

Even further back, I attended concerts at Carnegie Hall in orchestra
seats as well as the balcony. I also went to concerts in Symphony Hall
in Boston as well as several broadcasts of the NBC Symphony in studio 8H
(some conducted by Toscanini). I remember my first exposure to the
Polka and Fugue from Schwanda played by the NBC Symphony. 8H was a
thrilling venue to hear a concert despite it's reputation as a poor
broadcasting hall. My point is that all these halls sounded different
Comparing a stereo system to live music is impossible since live music
is not consistent.

---MIKE---
In the White Mountains of New Hampshire
(44=B0 15' N - Elevation 1580')

I think that you are missing the point. Comparing stereo systems to live
music does not mean a direct, literal comparison or a comparison of just one
or two remembered performances. It is an aggregate aural memory that each of
us builds-up over time. And it does work. I have acquaintances who are
audiophiles who NEVER listen to live music. Their systems are invariably
overly bright with big, overblown bass (usually centered around about 80 Hz).
There is no sense in telling these people that live music doesn't sound like
this, because they obviously like it. Others I know who listen to a lot of
live music tend to have systems that aren't so bright, because they know that
distance from the source decreases high-frequency energy faster than it does
lower frequency energy and they remember those impressions from their live
music experiences. They also tend to have low frequency presentation that
sounds, actually, a little bass-shy, UNTIL there is some real bass in the
program, then it is there, in just the right proportion. These are gross
observations by the latter group, to be sure, but they show that these
listeners know what real music sounds like and want that sound (as close as
is physically and fiscally possible) in their listening rooms. .

[Arny Krueger]

"Ed Seedhouse" wrote in message


Just to comment generally upon the idea of the "sound of
live music" as a "reference", which is the title of the
thread. I believe the very idea is incoherent.

To say the least!

A reference, in the sense we use the word here, is by
definition something that does not change and is kept
handy so other things can be compared with it.

I can't think of an unhandier reference than live music. You'd have to
package up the musicans, the instruments, and the venue if you wanted to
carry it around with you!

The notion that anybody has a detailed memory of sound that allows them to
use a performance they were at a few decades back as a reference is pretty
incredible.

Finally, when we compare the sound of an audio system to this alleged
magical memory, we use recordings that never ever exactly sounded like the
live performance.

The sound of live music is not because it changes and
can't be kept handy to compare something with it.

Exactly.