Audio Note Video- Pointless Comparison!

[southall-1998]

TBH! The man's Cello sounds far more vivid, full and emotional than that silly 'uppity' level AN system.

The AN system sounds like an ''every day'' usual Hi-Fi system in comparison. Even through my decent headphones I can hear this.

I simply couldn't bloody care how accurate that AN system sounds. Or, how high quality the components/parts are etc.

This is of course, just my own opinion.

S.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uYMDsvPat5E

[Macca]

Why would you spend God knows how much money (must be £50K there at least) and then stick a big armchair right in front of one of the speakers?

[User211]

I caught MBL doing the same thing at Munich 2011.

The video doesn't show the cello through the MBL system unfortunately. It did work quite well. Better than a pair of AN/Es can manage in terms of accuracy of sound but then the cost is, er, Xtreme here (see what I did there:D).


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ye67sCNpQNs

[southall-1998]

I caught MBL doing the same thing at Munich 2011.

The video doesn't show the cello through the MBL system unfortunately. It did work quite well. Better than a pair of AN/Es can manage in terms of accuracy of sound but then the cost is, er, Xtreme here (see what I did there:D).


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ye67sCNpQNs

Even those daft MBL's won't come close to that Cello's realism!

S.

[User211]

Even those daft MBL's won't come close to that Cello's realism!

S.

It was better than you might think, though. I was quite impressed.

The MBLs would have been closer to the cello playing only one speaker, though, I think.

[southall-1998]

Any decent unamplified instrument. Will sound far more natural and emotional over any system. Be it budget or top flight! Both will sound fake, compared to the real thing.

Each to their own!

S.

[southall-1998]

Why would you spend God knows how much money (must be £50K there at least) and then stick a big armchair right in front of one of the speakers?


I think those mono's are the AN Ongaku's. Cost approx 100k :rolleyes:

Edit: That fellow's Cello no doubt cost soooooo much cheaper. Must be around 3-5k. Sounds far superior too :D

S.

[Macca]

I think those mono's are the AN Ongaku's. Cost approx 100k :rolleyes:

S.

Gaku-On, according to this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1K2dhYRh5E which are a mere $163,000 a pair (and that's heavily discounted! https://www.higherfi.com/amplifiers/gaku-on-monoblocks)

Speakers are cheapo efforts, only $12,000.

[southall-1998]

Audio Note is without a question. one of the most biggest rip-offs out there.

But, I do slightly favour the much more affordable Oto SE & Meishu.

S.

[farflungstar]

Whilst I agree that my An-e SPX speakers don't appear to represent value for money there is no arguing that they are incredibly transparent and musical.

Obviously a live event cannot be reproduced 100% by anything other than the instrument or the band - but isn't that the pursuit of this 'hobby' - to reproduce it as accurately as technology permits - or why don't we just make do with Amstrads from the 80's?
Adey

Sent from my Aquaris E4.5 using Tapatalk

[southall-1998]

I agree, that a system should be both enjoyable and musical!

But as always, each to their own.

S.

[Spectral Morn]

That's a pretty typical AV Showrooms video, show report, equipment review.

I think that particular musician was playing in the Audio Note rooms at various shows and AV Showrooms use his (among others) music to review gear. They have a copyright agreement with a couple of musicians who permit their music to be played and they get publicity in return - thus AVS avoid having videos pulled off You tube.

Frankly I am sick of hearing this choice in their videos, to the point now I watch for a minute then fast forward through or move on to the next video.

Peter is an acquired taste too as a presenter, bit like Marmite.

No audio system can reproduce a musical instrument fully, but assuming the recording was a good one, hearing the musician live before does give insights into some aspects of things, so not a total waste of time.

[Macca]

The aim of hi-fi is to accurately reproduce the recording of the instrument, not the instrument. A subtle but important difference.

As for Audionote it is one of my favourite of the crazy money brands in that it is always sweet and pleasant to listen to. The 'speakers in the corners' thing is just wrong, though.

[southall-1998]

The aim of hi-fi is to accurately reproduce the recording of the instrument, not the instrument. A subtle but important difference.

As for Audionote it is one of my favourite of the crazy money brands in that it is always sweet and pleasant to listen to. The 'speakers in the corners' thing is just wrong, though.


Yes, aren't we all are aware of that :rolleyes:

I absolutely detest this. When people say, ''my system can reproduce the feeling/experience, as if the bloody band are vividly performing in front me'', or ''playing in my room'' etc. Another one I can't stand is, ''sitting in the mixing room with the engineer''.... What a load of nonsense!

But I do accept that we all perceive things differently.

In my opinion a Hi-Fi system. Is just a slightly more sophisticated version of a midi system. Nothing more, or less.

Edit: It's also the rip-off prices that makes me cringe!!

S.

[Macca]

Yes, aren't we all are aware of that :rolleyes:

.

Well no, I don't think so. Which is why you get people as you have described who claim 'my benchmark for hi fi is live music.'

[Infinitely Baffled]

I think that expecting recorded/reproduced music to sound like a live performance is simply asking too much - no matter what the system is or what it costs. It is only ever going to create an approximation of the "real" musical sound. But, subconsciously I suppose, we suspend our disbelief and enjoy it for what it is - a musical event in its own right. And very enjoyable it is too, if we have managed to assemble a playback system that makes the sort of sound we like. It's a bit like going to the theatre: you know that you are not watching real characters living out actual and true events on stage. It's an illusion, but one that we willingly consent to participate in. And no harm in that, because good theatre can be a very enriching artistic experience, even though it is not "real". And so can listening to recorded music.
IB.

[southall-1998]

I think that expecting recorded/reproduced music to sound like a live performance is simply asking too much - no matter what the system is or what it costs. It is only ever going to create an approximation of the "real" musical sound. But, subconsciously I suppose, we suspend our disbelief and enjoy it for what it is - a musical event in its own right. And very enjoyable it is too, if we have managed to assemble a playback system that makes the sort of sound we like. It's a bit like going to the theatre: you know that you are not watching real characters living out actual and true events on stage. It's an illusion, but one that we willingly consent to participate in. And no harm in that, because good theatre can be a very enriching artistic experience, even though it is not "real". And so can listening to recorded music.
IB.


Decent post, Gary. Yes, I agree!

S.

[Arkless Electronics]

I was present at one of the B&W live V recorded demos in the early 80's where they had an employee name of George Hooley play the clarinet between the speakers and then they would switch over to a R2R recording of the same bloke playing the same clarinet at random points in the demo. It was most impressive. Out of a room of about 25 people there was only myself and 3 others who claimed to be able to tell the difference between live and recorded.

[Infinitely Baffled]

That's worrying. There's no way I could be fooled by my system into thinking there was eg. a string quartet in the next room. Maybe it's nowhere near as capable a setup as I like to imagine. Whatever - I'm not starting again!

Thinking about it, it is probably no co-incidence that these real vs recording comparisons are done with a single instrument (aside from the difficulty of cramming an 8-piece ensemble into a demonstration room). It is in fact believable that a good system could make a decent fist out of replicating the sound of a single instrument. Imagine a solitary acoustic guitar, or indeed a clarinet. With nothing else to disturb the acoustic and the musical presentation, I can believe that might come across very well. What would more difficult, though, would be to keep up the standard of the deception as you add more and more instruments and/or voices. It is hard to imagine any system recreating a genuinely convincing sound of the Duke Ellington Orchestra, Loose Tubes, or a Mahler symphony. Maybe it is simply "scale" that a system, no matter how good, would never get right. That, plus the incremental complexity of layering instruments and harmonies and textures on top of each other without them becoming a sort of homogenous wall of sound. I know hi-fi critics and reviewers all talk about that being what good systems can do, but only up to a point, surely? With large scale music, I'm always aware that I'm listening to a facsimile.

Am I on my own here ...?
IB.

[struth]

Not sure I want a string quartet in me room with me anyway. Thats why Ive got the stereo. Ive heard a few recordings that have come very close with say a solo player/singer with calm backing and felt them in room but only occasionally

[danilo]

I think that expecting recorded/reproduced music to sound like a live performance is simply asking too much - no matter what the system is or what it costs. It is only ever going to create an approximation of the "real" musical sound. But, subconsciously I suppose, we suspend our disbelief and enjoy it for what it is - a musical event in its own right. And very enjoyable it is too, if we have managed to assemble a playback system that makes the sort of sound we like. It's a bit like going to the theatre: you know that you are not watching real characters living out actual and true events on stage. It's an illusion, but one that we willingly consent to participate in. And no harm in that, because good theatre can be a very enriching artistic experience, even though it is not "real". And so can listening to recorded music.
IB.

Nonsense :-) This is why God gave us single malts, aged brandy even decent wine can suffice.
A few moderate servings, whilst comfortable in one's listening rooms...and it's astounding how real it can all seem.
That said I noted last year of a friends' home theatre /audio room where with the added visuals of an entire wall as screen, the you are there Illusion is surprisingly passable.. even before 'drinkies'

[Arkless Electronics]

That's worrying. There's no way I could be fooled by my system into thinking there was eg. a string quartet in the next room. Maybe it's nowhere near as capable a setup as I like to imagine. Whatever - I'm not starting again!

Thinking about it, it is probably no co-incidence that these real vs recording comparisons are done with a single instrument (aside from the difficulty of cramming an 8-piece ensemble into a demonstration room). It is in fact believable that a good system could make a decent fist out of replicating the sound of a single instrument. Imagine a solitary acoustic guitar, or indeed a clarinet. With nothing else to disturb the acoustic and the musical presentation, I can believe that might come across very well. What would more difficult, though, would be to keep up the standard of the deception as you add more and more instruments and/or voices. It is hard to imagine any system recreating a genuinely convincing sound of the Duke Ellington Orchestra, Loose Tubes, or a Mahler symphony. Maybe it is simply "scale" that a system, no matter how good, would never get right. That, plus the incremental complexity of layering instruments and harmonies and textures on top of each other without them becoming a sort of homogenous wall of sound. I know hi-fi critics and reviewers all talk about that being what good systems can do, but only up to a point, surely? With large scale music, I'm always aware that I'm listening to a facsimile.

Am I on my own here ...?
IB.

More "worryingly" Wharfdale did live V recorded demos against (IIRC) an orchestra using mono gear and in the 50's, in large halls and to great acclaim... many participants reporting no difference between live and recorded!

I can only comment that the B&W demo was impressive and it was indeed very difficult to hear much difference when just a solo clarinet was the source.

I reckon "expectation bias" has a lot to answer for....

[User211]

That's worrying. There's no way I could be fooled by my system into thinking there was eg. a string quartet in the next room. Maybe it's nowhere near as capable a setup as I like to imagine. Whatever - I'm not starting again!

Thinking about it, it is probably no co-incidence that these real vs recording comparisons are done with a single instrument (aside from the difficulty of cramming an 8-piece ensemble into a demonstration room). It is in fact believable that a good system could make a decent fist out of replicating the sound of a single instrument. Imagine a solitary acoustic guitar, or indeed a clarinet. With nothing else to disturb the acoustic and the musical presentation, I can believe that might come across very well. What would more difficult, though, would be to keep up the standard of the deception as you add more and more instruments and/or voices. It is hard to imagine any system recreating a genuinely convincing sound of the Duke Ellington Orchestra, Loose Tubes, or a Mahler symphony. Maybe it is simply "scale" that a system, no matter how good, would never get right. That, plus the incremental complexity of layering instruments and harmonies and textures on top of each other without them becoming a sort of homogenous wall of sound. I know hi-fi critics and reviewers all talk about that being what good systems can do, but only up to a point, surely? With large scale music, I'm always aware that I'm listening to a facsimile.

Am I on my own here ...?
IB.

No. I agree.

I also think that diploes and "semi-omnis" like MBLs are very good at reproducing solo instrument recordings as they radiate sound much more like a real instrument i.e. all over the place.

The other point I always make is when I record myself on the acoustic guitar, and I crank the volume above normal replay levels, is that you can hear far more than you could using the original instrument. An audio microscope, if you like. IMHO a cranked acoustic recording sounds a lot more impressive on my system than the real thing.

[Macca]

Thinking about it, it is probably no co-incidence that these real vs recording comparisons are done with a single instrument (aside from the difficulty of cramming an 8-piece ensemble into a demonstration room). It is in fact believable that a good system could make a decent fist out of replicating the sound of a single instrument. Imagine a solitary acoustic guitar, or indeed a clarinet. With nothing else to disturb the acoustic and the musical presentation, I can believe that might come across very well. What would more difficult, though, would be to keep up the standard of the deception as you add more and more instruments and/or voices. It is hard to imagine any system recreating a genuinely convincing sound of the Duke Ellington Orchestra, Loose Tubes, or a Mahler symphony. Maybe it is simply "scale" that a system, no matter how good, would never get right. That, plus the incremental complexity of layering instruments and harmonies and textures on top of each other without them becoming a sort of homogenous wall of sound. I know hi-fi critics and reviewers all talk about that being what good systems can do, but only up to a point, surely? With large scale music, I'm always aware that I'm listening to a facsimile.

Am I on my own here ...?
IB.

I think it is certainly possible to do it up to the level of a string quartet or a jazz trio, something like that. Assuming you had some set up where the performers were visible and the kit wasn't I think QUAD did this years ago having the quartet mime to the playback and this fooled a lot of the attendees.

A full orchestra or big band, bit more difficult. Would need some very big (and good) speakers and a lot of power. It would also depend on how you recorded them, and this is the crux of the problem in that in making the recording you are of necessity changing the sound from true, no matter how good the playback system you can't fix that.

The argument only applies to acoustic, unamplified music anyway. When it comes to rock and pop music that is always amplified live so how can it be any sort of benchmark? Most home hi-fi is better quality than the PA systems used. FWIW the systems I have heard where their owners claim to represent a 'live' sound for rock and pop generally sound rough with anything but the smoothest, most audiophile recordings, which they just manage to make less boring to listen to.

Outside of this narrow band of music the blame for the poor sound is placed at the feet of 'bad recordings' or the alternative excuse 'That is what it is supposed to sound like, it's rock music so it shouldn't sound pleasing to the ears.' I don't generally find it too hard to discriminate between distortion from the instruments in the recording and the distortion the system is adding, don't know if this is the case for others in general but clearly not the case for some. Or it is but they live in denial.

In short, and I'm taking about rock/pop/amplified instrument music here - if a system makes a polished studio recording sound like the band playing live, it's a fail on the fidelity front. Something like Dire Straits or the Eagles a good test here but there are a lot of other mainstream recordings you could use. My own theory is that the distortion gives that 'live' feel. Some may prefer that but it isn't correct and it will make some less polished recordings unlistenable. For the illusion of reality you need low noise (of all types) as well, and that is the bit that is difficult and expensive to achieve. Consequently 'spicing up' the sound in the amplification stage and only playing simple, audiophile recordings is the easy way to fool people into thinking mediocre kit is good because it 'sounds like the performers are right there in the room'.

This is very common at hi-fi shows and demos. Going for a demo it is fatal to take your 'best' recordings along, take something old that was knocked out quickly and with what they had lying around, if the system can't make a decent fist of that then forget it. Personally I use a 'Best Of' Sam & Dave CD for this. These tunes are not in any way badly recorded in terms of technique but the limitations of the recording will easily show up any system that is trying to fake it, whereas your Michael Hedges or Mary Black (or whoever) CD won't.

Sorry, bit of a tl;dr there.

[RothwellAudio]

I think there's a general misconception that the music people buy is a recording of a performance that took place sometime, somewhere. As far as classical music goes there will be some truth in that, but for the majority of the music sold - ie pop/rock - that's a very long way from the truth. For example, a drum kit might have a dozen mics on it, most of which are only two or three inches from the drum heads - or even inside if it's a bass drum. Each mic might be EQed and compressed to get the desired sound. And the kit might be recorded to a click track and guide vocal. The rest of "the band" don't get recorded until later.

Anyway, the point is that the music is constructed bit by bit in a studio and any comparison with "a live performance" is meaningless.

[Infinitely Baffled]

Yes, I agree with the previous two posts. This argument becomes impossible to handle unless we are talking about acoustically produced sounds that are intended to be listened to in a purely acoustic environment. If the sound itself has no existence other than as an electrical signal, which has to be interpreted through electrical equipment, then it's impossible to say what the sound is that you are meant to hear. There is, in effect, no definitive sound to reproduce through your system.
IB.