On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 19:10:47 -0700, Harry Lavo wrote
(in article <ftuef70qmk@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>):
> "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".
I agree, absolutely.
>
> 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.....
It's really a lot like piloting a ****p blindfolded. One has no idea where
one
is going. If one follows one's instincts and prejudices about direction or
"accurate" sound, one will end up sailing in circles. Without a reference
it
becomes a matter of "if it feels good, do it". and that leads nowhere
either
in listening to or manufacturing of audio equipment. There must be a
reference and the only one that I know is the sound of real, live acoustic
music played in real space.
|
