+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 12

Thread: Live vs Recorded sound

  1. #1
    Join Date: Sep 2013

    Location: North Island New Zealand

    Posts: 1,757
    I'm Chris.

    Default Live vs Recorded sound

    About 55 years ago , audio manufacturer Acoustic Research in tandem with Dynaco held public demonstrations comparing live sound to
    recorded sound. It is documented here: http://www.classicspeakerpages.net/I...-in-listening/

    Should it, or could it, happen again ?

  2. #2
    Join Date: Mar 2017

    Location: Seaford UK

    Posts: 1,861
    I'm Dennis.

    Default

    In about '73 at the then "Sondex" EXHIBITION IN London Spendor did a cross fade between a live guitarist and their then new BC1s. It was pretty good but the BC1s could not provide the level required and distortion was audible.

  3. #3
    Join Date: Sep 2013

    Location: North Island New Zealand

    Posts: 1,757
    I'm Chris.

    Default

    Hi Dennis
    Spencer and Dorothy what a great team they were. They would have though I am sure used the experience to further improve the BC1. AR and Dynaco went to considerable trouble to use the best source and replay equipment

    Here from the article about the 10pi speaker tests " Any shortcomings that were revealed would naturally be attributed to the speakers, even if some other link in the chain were actually at fault. I was surprised (and relieved!) when the demo was a smash success. As it proceeded, there were times when it was impossible to distinguish between the tape and Neil’s playing. As my ears became acclimated, I could pick up a slight "boxy" coloration to the snare drum that occasionally betrayed the recorded source, but overall—very impressive. I felt strangely vindicated. My thoughts were along the lines of, "Aha! What do all you AR skeptics say now!"

    For me, this demo was particularly fascinating because I am a jazz drummer, intimately familiar with all the nuances of playing, the mechanics of the drumset, the variations in sound that can be elicited from the drums and cymbals depending on how and where they’re struck, etc."

  4. #4
    Join Date: Jan 2009

    Location: Essex

    Posts: 31,850
    I'm openingabottleofwine.

    Default

    I can remember at an audio show, Quad were demonstrating their 66 system electronics with the 63 speakers. They were playing some clarinet music. About halfway through the demonstration they faded out the music and at the same time a clarinettist took over playing live. Quad were hoping no-one would be able to hear the difference.

    Sadly the difference was obvious - no way could you confuse the two.

    I think the problem with such live vs. recorded demonstrations is the recording includes the acoustic of the performance. To do the job properly one would need to record a soloist playing in the same acoustic as that of the demonstration.
    Barry

  5. #5
    Join Date: Aug 2009

    Location: Staffordshire, England

    Posts: 37,779
    I'm Martin.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Barry View Post
    I can remember at an audio show, Quad were demonstrating their 66 system electronics with the 63 speakers. They were playing some clarinet music. About halfway through the demonstration they faded out the music and at the same time a clarinettist took over playing live. Quad were hoping no-one would be able to hear the difference.

    Sadly the difference was obvious - no way could you confuse the two.

    I think the problem with such live vs. recorded demonstrations is the recording includes the acoustic of the performance. To do the job properly one would need to record a soloist playing in the same acoustic as that of the demonstration.
    Assuming your recording mics could capture everything identically to how we would hear it if we were there live. But they can't. If someone invented the perfect mic then live/recorded would be worth comparing. Can't see how it could be done though. A recording is always going to be a facsimile. But I think, as it is, it is possible to be fooled with a recording of a single instrument, very carefully recorded and replayed to the highest standard.
    Current Lash Up:

    TEAC VRDS 701T > Sony TAE1000ESD > Krell KSA50S > JM Labs Focal Electra 926.

  6. #6
    Join Date: Jan 2019

    Location: Kent UK

    Posts: 409
    I'm Martin.

    Default Live vs Recorded sound

    https://www.avforums.com/threads/the...lenge.2272449/

    £270k system demo later this year vs Steinway model D grand piano in concert hall in Warsaw.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

  7. #7
    Join Date: Feb 2010

    Location: Moved to frozen north, beyond Inverness

    Posts: 2,602
    I'm Dave.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Discopants View Post
    https://www.avforums.com/threads/the...lenge.2272449/

    £270k system demo later this year vs Steinway model D grand piano in concert hall in Warsaw.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
    A few points.

    1. If the replay is done in a hall similar to a concert hall (which is the case here) a recording of a single instrument - in this case a piano - might sound rather like a similar instrument played live in that hall or a similar one.

    2. Restricting the "test" to only a piano is not going to give the effect of a much larger orchestra or band.

    3. Even if the results are reasonably good in the hall, it does not follow automatically that such good results will be possible in a domestic environment - unless of course one's home has a concert hall within it.
    Dave

  8. #8
    Join Date: Feb 2013

    Location: Suffolk

    Posts: 1,986
    I'm guy.

    Default

    ^^^ well put
    LP12, Ittok (black), DV10X5, NVA Phono 2 (twin supply), NVAP50, Art Audio Quintet 15w power amp, NVA LS5 cable, Rega Ela mk1's.
    Sony CDP XB930.

  9. #9
    Join Date: Mar 2017

    Location: Seaford UK

    Posts: 1,861
    I'm Dennis.

    Default

    The piano will experience two sets of acoustic; playing room and listening room.

  10. #10
    Join Date: Jan 2009

    Location: Essex

    Posts: 31,850
    I'm openingabottleofwine.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pharos View Post
    The piano will experience two sets of acoustic; playing room and listening room.
    Agreed. Even if the same venue is used for both the recording and playback (with the piano removed for the playback), the recording will contain the 'acoustic' of the venue and on replay the listener will be presented with the acoustic twice: that recorded and that on replay.



    Many years ago, in 1954 Gilbert Briggs of Wharfedale gave a live vs. recorded demonstration at the Festival Hall in London. There were several Wharfedale models on demonstration (one of which I think was the SFB3 sand filled baffle design), using Quad amplification (22 with paralleled Quad II power amplifiers: a maximum of 60W), and a Garrard 301 TT with a Ferranti ribbon pickup (mono only; which gives an idea of the 'state of the art' at that time).



    The audience were presented with a small group of players and pianist, interdispersed with LP replay (presumably with the players 'miming' along). Remarkably the audience, for the large part, were unable to tell the difference; and secondly concert hall levels of volume could apparently be achieved with no more than 60W of amplifier power.

    I'm not sure that were such a demonstration be held today it would be as successful.
    Barry

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •