"Sonnova" <sonnova@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:ftt3pv01a7d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 19:09:38 -0700, bob wrote
> (in article <ftrq120pd2@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>):
>
>> On Apr 12, 5:42 pm, Sonnova <sonn...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>
>>> Sigh! I really don't think you guys understand the context. NOTHING
>>> sounds
>>> like a live trumpet (for instance). It always sounds like a live
>>> trumpet -in
>>> any venue, under any conditions.
>>
>> If you mean, in a particular venue, under particular conditions, then
>> I agree.
>
> No, I mean ALWAYS. A trumpet NEVER sounds like a saxophone or a violin,
or
> a
> piano or even a coronet. It always sounds like a trumpet and if one
knows
> what a live trumpet sounds like one will always recognize it regardless
of
> venue or circumstance - even blindfolded, one will recognize it.
>>
>>> A recorded and reproduced trumpet always
>>> sounds like a recorded and reproduced trumpet. It never sounds like a
>>> real
>>> trumpet. If you know what a live trumpet sounds like, irrespective of
>>> where
>>> you hear it, you will always recognize it as a live trumpet and the
>>> finest
>>> stereo system will never fool you for long. This is what makes live
>>> music
>>> played in real space the absolute reference.
>>
>> I think we just disagree on what constitutes an absolute reference. As
>> Arny notes, a reference is a fixed standard. "The sound of a live
>> trumpet" is not that. "The sound of this trumpet played by these lips
>> in this hall, filled to capacity, from this seat" would be an absolute
>> reference. But that's not a very useful reference if you're trying to
>> decide which of two speakers sounds "more like live."
>
> I disagree. A trumpet sounds like a trumpet and a live one sounds
> different
> than the same trumpet played by the same lips through an audio system.
>>
>>> Audio will be perfect when a
>>> stereo system can play back a trumpet in the same room where it was
>>> recorded
>>> and listeners cannot tell the real thing from the play-back. By
>>> definition,
>>> that makes the live trumpet the absolute reference. It's what the
stereo
>>> system is trying to recreate (in this case).
>>
>> I've never participated in an experiment like that. You have, a long
>> time ago. I'd be interested to know whether there have been any more
>> formal experiments along those lines--i.e., live instrument vs.
>> anechoic recording of same.
>>
>> But it's my experience that the dead giveaway of a recording isn't the
>> timbre of the instrument (i.e., "the sound of a live trumpet") but the
>> messed-up spatial cues of a recording (two-channel in particular).
>> Inevitably what you're hearing is the combination of the room it was
>> recorded in and the room you're listening in. And there's absolutely
>> no standard for what that ought to sound like.
>
> There is a certain characteristic to a live trumpet; the way it moves
the
> air
> in the room, the attack, the very "blatiness" of the thing (that's the
> best
> description that I can come-up with) that cannot be captured by a
> recording
> and certainly cannot be reproduced by any audio system I've ever heard,
> and
> I've heard some pretty fancy ones.
>>
>>>> It's really a subjective standard, based (let us hope) on objective
>>>> experiences. And being subjective, it is subject to a whole lot of
>>>> influences (including, ironically, our experiences of recorded
>>>> music!).
>>>
>>> The biggest obstacle to using live music as the absolute reference is
>>> human
>>> aural memory. It's not that good and is easily corrupted by personal
>>> listening biases.
>>
>> That is definitely an obstacle. It's why I argued earlier that what we
>> really do is construct our own mental image of what live music "ought"
>> to sound like, and compare what we hear to that. The fact that such an
>> image is highly mutable confounds the process greatly.
>
> That's true and is the reason why I advocate listening to as much live
> music
> as possible. I'm lucky, I record live ensembles several times a week and
> therefore am exposed to the sound of real acoustic instruments played in
> real
> space (The rehearsal halls at Stanford University have excellent
> acoustics.
> Recordings made there can be first rate).
FWIW, I did this for ten years back in the '70's .... mostly chamber
music,
but also some orcestral, chorus, jazz, and acoustic folk/pop/rock. I have
made the same argument, and believe that live sound is the absolute
reference. Many of us who accept this as the standard have built really
fine, musically accurate and musically satisfying systems withou objective
testing, abx, or any other measure than how close does it come to
reproducing "live".
More arguably, I would argue that those who don't accept this as a
standard
(or don't have the live acoustic music experience to fruitfully use it)
are
more likely to pursue the dead-ends that exist in high-end audio.....the
"boy, that sounds more revealing" crowd who then six months later decide
that piece of gear really sounds too bright, or thin, or.....
|
