PDA

View Full Version : What's on the Record/CD/DVD?



DaveK
12-07-2009, 12:53
Hi all,
Hope this doesn't ruffle too many feathers but I like debate (NOTE 'debate' not 'argument'), even if I'm not qualified to take part. One can learn a lot by listening to experts discuss/debate their varying opinions. So, taking advantage of my well understood naivete and the generally friendly atmosphere that prevails on this forum I ask the following question: -
I have read many many posts on this forum in which the poster claims that certain pieces of kit, or combinations of various pieces of kit, (often to be found in their own set-ups :) ), more faithfully reproduce what is on the record, CD or DVD. In almost all cases the only person/people who really know what is there are not available for comment or confirmation, so how does the poster claim to be privy to that fact to the exclusion of everyone else?
Surely what is on the recording is what is on the recording, no more and no less.
Let me try and draw an analogy: -
Take wine as an example. Get together a collection of wine experts and let them taste a variety of wines. They might all generally agree which wines were good and which were bad, but they would not definitely agree on all the subtleties and nuances of each wine. Some of them may even claim to know what the vintner was aiming for when he blended and bottled the wine but I wonder how many the vintner would agree with. What is in the bottle is what is in the bottle, no more and no less. If you like it and others don't, or vice versa, what does it matter. As members of this forum we rarely claim to have superior tastes in music than other members, so why do we sometimes claim to have superior knowledge of what is on the record, CD or DVD? - discuss.
Cheers,

Barry
12-07-2009, 15:04
Hi Dave,

First of all let me say, I approve of the return to your original avatar. Everyone should be allowed to grow old disgracefully!

I am no expert at all, but like you, am suspicious of claims or opinions made about items of kit. Usually, it is the manufacturer who makes these claims, which to some extent is understandable, but more troubling are the claims made by users of those items.

There is a tacit understanding in all the postings made in AoS that the phrase ‘in my honest opinion’ or IMHO is liberally applied and taken as read.

So to bring everyone down to earth let me start by saying (IMHO) that:

There is not an audio reproduction system in existence, anywhere in the world today, that completely reproduces the experience of concert attendance.

There, that should start a few replies. But let me expand on my statement. In order to approach the achievement of the complete illusion of being at a concert, the entire audio chain, from microphone through to the loudspeakers in your listening room, has an enormous job to do. We are nowhere near there. At the moment all systems do is provide enough information to trigger certain memories, built up over a lifetime of hearing, to provide an illusion of hearing live music (or speech or birdsong or whatever) – the brain fills in the gaps, and can filter out distractions (provided they are constant, such as background noise).

To provide the complete illusion, the system has to convey the audio signal without distortion, has to be able to achieve a realistic dynamic range, has to provide sufficient stereo information so that the listener can picture three dimensional musicians (stereo comes from the Greek στερεόϛ solid) sitting within a physical environment, whose size and furnishing can also be discerned from the ‘recording’ (or from the radio programme if this is a live transmission). There are in addition a host of other requirements such as the accurate portrayal of the leading edge of the audio transient that is the start of the note (virtually all music, with the possible exception of electronic music, is transient) and the ability to hear how the note decays – basically how the notes start and stop. This is vital to the providing the sense of pace, rhythm and timing (known as PRAT) that allows one to ‘follow the tune’ and, perhaps, sense ‘how’ the musician is playing.

Phew – that’s a tall order and I haven’t mentioned micro-dynamics, a sort of cocktail party effect, where one can follow the playing of a quiet instrument, when it is accompanied by other much louder instruments. (Well that’s my understanding of micro-dynamics.)

To recap then, no system can do all of these things with complete success, and this where the great variety and combinations of audio items arise. Because we are all different, we place different priorities on those aspects of music reproduction (the ‘triggers’) that are important to us. We all hear (and see) differently.

Now all this has strayed somewhat from your question – ‘How can we say that that a certain item of equipment allows the more faithful reproduction of LP, CD, DVD etc.’. Well, we can’t. The only recording that we can use to make this observation is a recording of a live event that we have personally attended. So, do these exclude studio recordings? No, not necessarily, thanks to our aural memory, we have built up a picture of what various instruments sound like and how the voice of various singers, sound. This picture has been built up from a variety of sources: hopefully live experience; listening to the radio; as well as from tapes and other less ephemeral sources. But if we are careful we can perhaps say that ‘IMHO’ a change of a certain item of equipment will, to our ears, bring about an improvement in the achievement of the illusion we are all trying to achieve. The important word here is fidelity, which coming from the Latin fides, means faithful. Faithful to what? – well to some it means to the spirit or soul of music; but we are now entering ontological or teleological realms of discussion here.

Trust this is sufficient to start the ball rolling, contentious perhaps, opinionated – I hope not, just remember the ‘IHMO’s.

Regards

Mike
12-07-2009, 15:38
There is not an audio reproduction system in existence, anywhere in the world today, that completely reproduces the experience of concert attendance.

There, that should start a few replies.

Well, here's my reply....

I Agree! :)

Spectral Morn
12-07-2009, 15:46
Hi Barry


IMHO I agree with every thing you have written.

A very simple experiment conducted by Musical Fidelity a few years ago If nothing else showed the kind of power that was required to reproduce a live recording of Piano and Clarinet. Sadly a lot of additional crap came out of this experiment, all aimed at pos/marketing for the MF super chargers. However if we can get past that, the basic findings are correct in so far as very few domestic set ups can reproduce a true live sounding event. I would again IMHO go so far as to say that I don't think the technology exists, be it analogue or digital to either record or replay any live event as it happened. The best we can do is get as close to that as we can, and some technology seems to get closer than others...(thats another discussion, for another thread perhaps)

However I for one do not look for a recreation of a live event in my listening room (way top much of that is too loud and distorted and anyway I always wear earplugs to protect my most valuable asset my ears). I am looking for a reproduction that errs just to the warmer side of things and reproduces the essence and emotion of the music. I like the hi-fi things to...I wont lie, imaging, depth, height, width of image are important things for me and help give clues to the venue/recording studios size etc. But the one thing I know is impossible within my room is a reproduction of a live event, the technology wont allow it and neither will my room. However I am happy with the results. Can it be better yes, but that will require a bigger room for starters.

At some point in the future I hope to make some recordings of a friend playing and singing, just to see just how big the gap exists. I will be using analogue half track, quarter reel to reel tape and a Revox machine. That should be very interesting indeed.


Regards D S D L

DaveK
12-07-2009, 16:36
Hi Dave,

First of all let me say, I approve of the return to your original avatar. Everyone should be allowed to grow old disgracefully!

The only recording that we can use to make this observation is a recording of a live event that we have personally attended. So, do these exclude studio recordings? No, not necessarily, thanks to our aural memory, we have built up a picture of what various instruments sound like and how the voice of various singers, sound.
Regards

Hi Barry,
Thanks for your response and the thoughts on my avatar - I think that I shall have to call it the 'Marmite' avatar as it seems to attract approval and diapproval in equal measure, but no indifference has yet been reported - watch this space now. :)
Forgive me if I got it wrong but I have assocated the bits in Bold above together, that is to say I read it as recalling the sound heard at a live recording and comparing that with the sound emanating from our speakers. If I am correct in this association, if, then the question it raises in my mind is: - "When did you attend a live peformance recording at which the voices and instruments were not augmented by very powerful and sophisticated (capable of manipulation) sound system?":scratch: In other words are we trying to reproduce the NATURAL ORIGINAL basic sound or some anonymous sound engineer's idea of what it should sound like?
To perhaps start another thread running, afficianados of Electronic Music don't have this problem to the same degree - they are trying to reproduce a sound that is not natural to start with and is a product of the same sort of system as that we are using to try and reproduce it - a much simpler task.
If I got it wrong, just ignore me ! :lolsign:
Cheers,

alb
12-07-2009, 17:11
IMHO.
The meddling sound engineers are mainly responsible for the inability of a good setup to get close to the original sound.

Also, would we recognise the original sound if we ever managed to hear it?

Barry
12-07-2009, 17:15
Hi Barry,
Thanks for your response and the thoughts on my avatar - I think that I shall have to call it the 'Marmite' avatar as it seems to attract approval and diapproval in equal measure, but no indifference has yet been reported - watch this space now. :)
Forgive me if I got it wrong but I have assocated the bits in Bold above together, that is to say I read it as recalling the sound heard at a live recording and comparing that with the sound emanating from our speakers. If I am correct in this association, if, then the question it raises in my mind is: - "When did you attend a live peformance recording at which the voices and instruments were not augmented by very powerful and sophisticated (capable of manipulation) sound system?":scratch: In other words are we trying to reproduce the NATURAL ORIGINAL basic sound or some anonymous sound engineer's idea of what it should sound like?
To perhaps start another thread running, afficianados of Electronic Music don't have this problem to the same degree - they are trying to reproduce a sound that is not natural to start with and is a product of the same sort of system as that we are using to try and reproduce it - a much simpler task.
If I got it wrong, just ignore me ! :lolsign:
Cheers,

None of the concerts of classical music I have attended have ever been amplified or augmented. Obviously rock and jazz concerts I have attended have used some amplification. In these cases the use of amplification with electric instruments, the amplifier is part of the instrument and so is an integral part of the sound. The use of amplification for a singer's voice is somewhat more moot. I many case I have been close enough to hear what their unamplified voice sounds like, and where I haven't, my 'memory' of that artist helps me separate the true sound from the augmented one. Not infallible but sufficient.

So what about the recording? Well if you were there and the recording was made my simply miking the performance, from the perspective of someone reasonably close to the stage, then it is quite reasonable to use that recording as a tool to see if a change of equipment has enhanced the illusion of 'being there'. Incidentally, I don't want to hear musicians performing in my listening room, rather I want my equipment to make it sound as if I am at the venue where the recording was made.

If this self same recording was made by taking a feed from the mixing desk used at the performance, then we have another layer imposed and have to rely on the skill of the balancing engineer. Less ideal, but a better tool to assess the change wrought about through equipment change than any old studio recording, unless you were there at the recording session.

Listeners to electronic music, I think have a different agenda - maybe this is best treated as a separate thread.

Regards