Comparison of Painting and Music

[bumpy]

Although I have a pretty impressive system I never cease to be amazed how much enjoyment I can get from music played on the car radio or a simple transistor radio. Equally there are those that get immense enjoyment from fairly modest systems.

So here is a theory that helps me to explain it, and I draw comparisons with paintings.

The modest system can paint a beautiful 'picture' of the music. Its very often just the interpretation of a scene referred to as artistic licence. It can lack fine detail, but replaces it by an opportunity for the viewers brain to fill in the details with its own emotional interpretation. With a great picture like this, you can stand for ages seeing fresh images within the whole and imagining what's going on. Its very attraction comes from allowing the viewer (listener) to interpret it as they wish. Just remember the members of the public that stand for an eternity in front of a work of art in the galleries

The high res, high fidelity system paints a picture to be admired for its lifelike presentation of sound stage, frequency extremes, resolution and tonal values, and is much more akin to an 'HD photographic' painting. For many that's more impressive than the performance from a modest system, but it leaves less opportunity for creative imagination by the brain, already presenting the whole picture in stark detail. Although some may see this as a weakness, for me the emotion comes now, not from imagination, but by finally hearing the emotion in the music that the performer placed there for us.

[Pharos]

As a system increases in resolution so does the retrieval of information, and hence the artist's intentions, but there is a limit to what is expressed and performed, much of which many/most systems can retrieve.

Going beyond that point a system becomes 'forensic', which may be of interest to mixers and masterers, and Hi-Fi fanatic nutcases, but his can detract from the artistic message.

For me my Hi-Fi is iconically representative of my general stance in life; I want to perceive the realities.

[dave2010]

For me my Hi-Fi is iconically representative of my general stance in life; I want to perceive the realities.If you were to get involved (I don't know whether you are, or not ...) in making/producing recordings, you might spot that recordings are almost never, in any sensible way, "realistic". Just as with photographs, which are imperfect renditions of scenes, people, events - but which can be manipulated, live sounds are very different from recorded ones.

There can be approximations to "realism" - for example, if one wears headphones, and has either a live microphone linked, or a recording made in an appropriate environment, and then someone says something over your left shoulder - and you turn around to discover that the "person" is actually in the recording.

However, a lot of music recordings are highly manipulated, so really don't represent "realism" at all.

[Light Dependant Resistor]

A lot of recordings too are so realistic it is a work of art how they were recorded. It is timing errors that are leading you to think of imperfections. If the timing errors are properly addressed,
realism then comes in to focus. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j71NrNMx2rU

[Pharos]

If you were to get involved (I don't know whether you are, or not ...) in making/producing recordings, you might spot that recordings are almost never, in any sensible way, "realistic". Just as with photographs, which are imperfect renditions of scenes, people, events - but which can be manipulated, live sounds are very different from recorded ones.

There can be approximations to "realism" - for example, if one wears headphones, and has either a live microphone linked, or a recording made in an appropriate environment, and then someone says something over your left shoulder - and you turn around to discover that the "person" is actually in the recording.

However, a lot of music recordings are highly manipulated, so really don't represent "realism" at all.

What I meant was that I want my system to be as faithful to the listed to source as possible, but I accept that all recordings are a facsimile, surely no one would really suggest that what we hear cannot be distinguished form an original event. I just do not want a further layer of displacement way from what is recorded.

However, a lot of music recordings are highly manipulated, so really don't represent "realism" at all.[/QUOTE]

[Light Dependant Resistor]

What I meant was that I want my system to be as faithful to the listed to source as possible, but I accept that all recordings are a facsimile, surely no one would really suggest that what we hear cannot be distinguished form an original event. I just do not want a further layer of displacement way from what is recorded.

However, a lot of music recordings are highly manipulated, so really don't represent "realism" at all.[/QUOTE]

Where you might sit at a concert, is unlikely to be as good as where microphones are located. A good engineer will locate the recording device for minimal loss. in this regard
what is captured at the time of recording can be better, than if you attended the concert.

Companding where used provides ability to capture at the time of recording the full dynamic range. It is interesting to observe that today's replay equipment is still behind the ability of
what was recorded over 40 years ago. In this way recordings are moments preserved, until we use equipment capable of releasing, what these recordings actually contain.

If we look at some truly outstanding recordings lets say Mercury label https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_Records
or in more modern times the Sheffield label. , our palette of appreciating recordings would include
some information about the engineer too. Bill Schnee comes to mind, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Schnee

[anthonyTD]

Music can be heard from many sources, on good equipment, and not so good, but its the music that makes you want to listen, its the music that creates emotional reactions in us, therefore, you could be in your car, listening to the radio, in your garden, doing some weeding, down the garage messing with your car, etc, etc, and a song will be heard that will stir up memories, and emotions that can take you back to a place in your life of great happiness, or extreme sadness, and it can be so profound that for a few moments, your back there, and that's the power of music, no matter what its heard on, its all about the music, for me, most days i wake up, and i put on some tunes on my old 1950's jukebox, and although its performance is far from HI Fidelity, its good enough for me to connect with' and enjoy what's being played.
Although I have a pretty impressive system I never cease to be amazed how much enjoyment I can get from music played on the car radio or a simple transistor radio. Equally there are those that get immense enjoyment from fairly modest systems.

So here is a theory that helps me to explain it, and I draw comparisons with paintings.

The modest system can paint a beautiful 'picture' of the music. Its very often just the interpretation of a scene referred to as artistic licence. It can lack fine detail, but replaces it by an opportunity for the viewers brain to fill in the details with its own emotional interpretation. With a great picture like this, you can stand for ages seeing fresh images within the whole and imagining what's going on. Its very attraction comes from allowing the viewer (listener) to interpret it as they wish. Just remember the members of the public that stand for an eternity in front of a work of art in the galleries

The high res, high fidelity system paints a picture to be admired for its lifelike presentation of sound stage, frequency extremes, resolution and tonal values, and is much more akin to an 'HD photographic' painting. For many that's more impressive than the performance from a modest system, but it leaves less opportunity for creative imagination by the brain, already presenting the whole picture in stark detail. Although some may see this as a weakness, for me the emotion comes now, not from imagination, but by finally hearing the emotion in the music that the performer placed there for us.

[Barry]

Music can be heard from many sources, on good equipment, and not so good, but its the music that makes you want to listen, its the music that creates emotional reactions in us, therefore, you could be in your car, listening to the radio, in your garden, doing some weeding, down the garage messing with your car, etc, etc, and a song will be heard that will stir up memories, and emotions that can take you back to a place in your life of great happiness, or extreme sadness, and it can be so profound that for a few moments, your back there, and that's the power of music, no matter what its heard on, its all about the music, for me, most days i wake up, and i put on some tunes on my old 1950's jukebox, and although its performance is far from HI Fidelity, its good enough for me to connect with' and enjoy what's being played.

Nail - head! :)

That is more or less what I said in another thread about 'High Fidelity': that one can be moved emotionally hearing something on a cheap transistor radio, just as powerfully as if you heard it on an audio system costing thousands of pounds.

[JRead]

Hello Barry, Hello Athony and Hello all

To amplify your comments


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMrS9_4XyYI

To quote Lisa Alkana;
"There are good singers, there are great singers -- and then there's Billie Holiday"

And as Geoffrey Smith said on JRR "Worra rekerd" and "Don't you just wish you'd been there" [edit] in 1937.

Sounds great on my FH3's

Cheers - J

[Macca]

What I meant was that I want my system to be as faithful to the listed to source as possible, but I accept that all recordings are a facsimile, surely no one would really suggest that what we hear cannot be distinguished form an original event. I just do not want a further layer of displacement way from what is recorded.

However, a lot of music recordings are highly manipulated, so really don't represent "realism" at all.

But they do! How many enthusiasts say that their reference is live music and 'the sound of real instruments'? Lots. But hi-fidelity replay is about fidelity to the recording, not to the events that were recorded. An important distinction that is missed by many.

I see a lot of people including so called 'professional reviewers' banging on about how many live events they attend and how that gives them an insight into how playback should sound. When in fact it is completely irrelevant.

[Pharos]

Yes Martin, two distinctly separate processes.

The sound engineers and producers are trying to get and effect, and with live events probably to replicate what they hear as best they can, but our side, the replay should get as close as possible to what is on the recording.

Dave, I have been involved professionally in sound recording, and as an amateur since 1970.

[Lawrence001]

But they do! How many enthusiasts say that their reference is live music and 'the sound of real instruments'? Lots. But hi-fidelity replay is about fidelity to the recording, not to the events that were recorded. An important distinction that is missed by many.

I see a lot of people including so called 'professional reviewers' banging on about how many live events they attend and how that gives them an insight into how playback should sound. When in fact it is completely irrelevant.Yes if you build a system that makes an accurate studio recording sound like a live event it must have all sorts of colourations, not necessarily bad ones mind you.

[Macca]

Yes if you build a system that makes an accurate studio recording sound like a live event it must have all sorts of colourations, not necessarily bad ones mind you.

Not necessarily, no. But if you add the same colour to every recording you run the risk of making some recordings unlistenable. It's clear from reading forums that this is an issue because many people complain about poor recording quality when (professionally made) recordings that are so poor they cannot be enjoyed are pretty much non-existent.

On the other hand absolute accuracy to every recording is impossible due to the 'Circle Of Confusion' https://seanolive.blogspot.com/2009/10/audios-circle-of-confusion.html

However it is possible to put a system together, without spending big money, that will prioritise the sound of the recording over the sound of the equipment - to an acceptable degree at least.

In terms of comparing this to a painting, you would not go into an art gallery to appreciate the paintings and keep your sunglasses on. Or your tinted lenses. I mean you could but you would hardly be appreciating the work as the artist intended. Likewise the gallery would not put paintings behind coloured glass. No art lover would want that.

There's a tendency amongst the arch-subjectivist to over-simplify - 'If it sounds good to me then it is good.' Which prima face seems reasonable but the problem is what recording sounds good? There's such a variation in recording styles and presentation. What sounds good with Laura Marling will not necessarily sound good with Motorhead.

If you have only a few recordings all in the same vein that's not a problem. But the vast majority of us have hundreds, or thousands of recordings of many different types of music, recorded years apart, in different studios, with different equipment, with different producers all adding their own flavour.

To put together a system that does justice to them all requires a little more appreciation of how audio replay works than 'sounds good to me.' Of course you may stumble on the solution by happy accident, or you may have many years experience of trying many different types of equipment and get a feel for it that way. But that is to take the long way round.

[Pharos]

I cannot see any validity in any argument against trying to reproduce accurately what is on the recording.

[struth]

thats fine if your replay system approximates the one where the music disc was set up initially, or it will not perhaps sound right and may need tweaked. then there is the; everyone hears differently too, and need assistance to get the most from your music..

[Macca]

thats fine if your replay system approximates the one where the music disc was set up initially, or it will not perhaps sound right and may need tweaked. then there is the; everyone hears differently too, and need assistance to get the most from your music..

The first is an insurmountable problem, although not as big a problem as you might think. See the link in my previous post. The second is generally not true although you will always get some outliers. Even then the fix would be to adjust frequency response rather than adding colouration via distortion, which is only going to make the problem worse.