Arrogance Personified.

[venkatcr]

I was quite shocked when I read the article, and then did a double take when I read the posting date. But some of the replies and comments are hilarious or apt - as you want it.

It's the Real Thing! | Stereophile.com

Cheers

 

[arj]

yeah, i hear he was arrogant all right thats what defined him to his death along which his knowledge and being one of the biggest proponents of the DBT as well .
But if you can cast aside the veneer, what he says is true , that live un-amplified is the only comparison you can ever have for a high end system.
Unfortunately not remotely possible for many of us who listen to Rock/Pop/Vocals and hence may only be relevant to classical

 

[shafic]

+1, That's why the "thedel" (search) is going on!!

If you come home with the feeling that you really prefer the sound of your system, you may be a lost cause. If, on the other hand, you feel that what you heard is what you want to hear at home, you're with us, we're with you, and we can share a common goal

 

[Bharathram]

Unfortunately not remotely possible for many of us who listen to Rock/Pop/Vocals and hence may only be relevant to classical

In my view its applicable only for people who listen to organic music ( orchestrals, ensembles). Other genres are predominantly processed music. Hence the argument doesn't apply..

 

[greenhorn]

I paid a ton of money to attend an actual orchestra in concert, and it was pathetic. My stereo setup was cheaper than the money i paid for the ticket, and it sounds vastly better

I'm not blowing my money on any more concerts. I like my music home made

 

[asliarun]

In my humble opinion, the real question is - are we listening to music in our homes the way the artists wanted us to listen? Different artists use different techniques to accomplish their goals - and give a lot of thought to how their voices and instruments sound in the venue, how their amplification and processing changes the sound etc.

Heck,most studio albums have a unique sound in themselves, that has nothing to do with how it sounds in a live concert. In fact, artists have most control in the studio.

If the artist hasn't given enough thought to the eventual sound in a given venue or a given studio recording, it is a poor reflection on the artist, not on the listener or the listener's audio reproduction equipment. It is the equivalent of a good painting being badly framed and badly lit in an exhibition.

So I find it puzzling that "true music" and music as an art expression is being defined in this exceedingly narrow and one dimensional manner.

 

[Srinath_seshadri]

I paid a ton of money to attend an actual orchestra in concert, and it was pathetic. My stereo setup was cheaper than the money i paid for the ticket, and it sounds vastly better

I'm not blowing my money on any more concerts. I like my music home made

+1, and it depends on the Idiots next to you too. They may be idiots who yell and scream whenever some instrument has a solo, and they go insane. Like they never heard that instrument before.
Cool.
Srinath.

 

[Fillmore]

I totally agree with one of the guys comments in the post.

Sitting and watching a live performance gives you the effect you get sitting 100's of meters away from the instruments.
(Depending on your seat)
Whereas a recording of the event captures the sounds of each instrument just couple of feet away from them. i.e. You don't listen a few feet away from the piano lid or flying 3 ft above the violist or 1ft in front of the drum.

So in a live concert you don't capture the detail of each instrument rather you get a holistic view of all the instruments from a large distance and this would potentially drown out all the finer low sounding instruments.

So in effect a recording replayed on a Hi End system should sound better than the live performance cause you are getting an up close sound reproduction of each and every instrument which would not be possible in a live performance.

 

[BLASTO]

In my humble opinion, the real question is - are we listening to music in our homes the way the artists wanted us to listen? Different artists use different techniques to accomplish their goals - and give a lot of thought to how their voices and instruments sound in the venue, how their amplification and processing changes the sound etc.

My question is - are we listening to music in the live performances itself the way the artists wanted us to listen in the first place?

The artist being on the stage will be the only person who will not be able to hear him perform in the audience. He has no clue what transpires to te audience's ears.

Alternatively, recorded music is one which he can review and refine endlessly until he feels he has got it right.

Isn't it?

 

[Bharathram]

My question is - are we listening to music in the live performances itself the way the artists wanted us to listen in the first place?

The artist being on the stage will be the only person who will not be able to hear him perform in the audience. He has no clue what transpires to te audience's ears.

Nice one...very true. Very few artists actually care about this. I know Floyd is one

 

[asliarun]

My question is - are we listening to music in the live performances itself the way the artists wanted us to listen in the first place?

The artist being on the stage will be the only person who will not be able to hear him perform in the audience. He has no clue what transpires to te audience's ears.

Alternatively, recorded music is one which he can review and refine endlessly until he feels he has got it right.

Isn't it?

I am not an authority, but I do know from a few examples that good rock bands do obsess about the sound at any given venue. They fine tune their mixing and amplification for hours until they get it "just right". They also have monitors on stage that give them feedback on how their live show is sounding to the audience.

But yes, they ultimately do not really know how their audience is listening, perceiving, and interacting with their musical performance.

In fact, even unamplified classical music is most likely played in a venue that is conducive to it. Like the Greek style amphitheaters. And they are designed structurally to amplify the music.. Like a big giant horn.

So why pretend that only unamplified music is the holy grail, when you take the refuge of the venue to provide you with natural amplification??

 

[Shivam]

I was quite shocked when I read the article, and then did a double take when I read the posting date. But some of the replies and comments are hilarious or apt - as you want it.

It's the Real Thing! | Stereophile.com

Cheers

Interesting article though quite arrogantly written.
I am afraid but I agree to most of his points.

(Poor fellow must be turning in his grave knowing that people still criticize him.)

 

[Nikhil]

Just came across this interesting discussion so apologize for resurrecting an old thread but it's worth talking more about.

Gordon Holt's article was written back in 1980 and that has to be taken into context. Today we hear almost by default how live concerts are the gold standard (and the further argument that all we can get in our rooms is the sound engineered in the studio etc.) Back then hifi sound dominated the musical scene. The scenario he describes is exactly what it was - people would comment on how much better music sounded on their music systems than live music, etc.

Even today I occasionally come across people who have no idea what real sound is like. I happened to be near an accident recently and the sound was that of a tyres squealing followed by a dull thud. That's it. A similar accident on a movie would not be possible without some ground shaking rumble and the appropriate electronic shock wave. This just doesn't happen in reality.

The live music recording equivalent is close mic -ing. Microphones are placed right at the instrument and pick up all kinds of sounds like hands moving over guitar frets etc. At first it's attractive but after a while you find yourself deep in audiophile dust. Live music has none of all this and usually has flaws. Some instruments dominate while some get subdued by another. That's the part which makes it live!

Whatever we may think of the Holt's tone in that article - I think he succeeded in re-aligning the way we listen to audio. Truly a pioneer in the world of music appreciation.

 

[Thad E Ginathom]

If only live concerts were all that they are made out to be.

Taken month by month, there are many months during which, over the past few years, I have heard far more music live than I have listened to at home. There are sadly few concerts of which the recording, had there been one, would not have sounded better on my humble systems at home.

Whilst that is in the world of carnatic classical, in halls with dubious acoustics and engineers who do not deserve the name, even the western-classical world of orchestras and acoustic music in professional auditoria is full of complaints about acoustics. They started in on London's Royal Festival Hall, of world fame, as soon as it was opened.

I wish, I wish and I hope, but mostly in vain, that Chennai's sabhas would catch on to the idea of sound reinforcement rather than amplification, and emply able people using decent (not necessarily expensive) equipment. It is mostly not going to happen.

So why do I spend so much time in those halls? Everybody knows: the experience of a live performance is nothing like that of listening at home. From the music to the social life. I cannot chat with the musicians after listening to a CD, nor do they make up the concert as they go, and decide to perform a different piece each time.

It certainly is not sound quality that gets me out there, and I certainly do not want my hifi to sound like that!

yeah, i hear he was arrogant all right thats what defined him to his death along which his knowledge and being one of the biggest proponents of the DBT as well .

... ... ...

His article on the dishonesty of sighted testing is absolutely seminal for many, the irony is that, apparently, to the delight of Mr Atkinson and co, he never actually used double-blind testing himself.

 

[sidvee]

So why do I spend so much time in those halls? Everybody knows: the experience of a live performance is nothing like that of listening at home. From the music to the social life. I cannot chat with the musicians after listening to a CD, nor do they make up the concert as they go, and decide to perform a different piece each time.

It certainly is not sound quality that gets me out there, and I certainly do not want my hifi to sound like that!

Well said Thad. There are so many aspects that differentiate live music from home play back, that is not sq dependent. Just like traveling to Australia to watch India playing the WC vs watching the match in HD on tata Sky. 2 different worlds entirely. Nothing can beat the live experience while at-the same time nothing can beat the comfort of home.
Cheers,
Sid

 

[arj]

If only live concerts were all that they are made out to be.

true..and how much of music one listens to could actually be heard live even if one wanted to

 

[reubensm]

Well, having being trained from small, to look at both sides of a perspective, the author may a point or two, to make here.

However in my perspective, how one likes to listen and enjoy music is something very personal. Live music without amplification may not appeal to many, definitely not to me. I recall good old dad listening to music, he just could not be without fiddling with the amplifier panel at least twice through a track Whenever I used to ask him why he is doing this, he would say that he is trying to re-create live music playing. And yes, for the record, both of us have listened to a variety of un-amplified music back in the day.

 

[Fantastic]

I think GJH was trying to make a point and his 'jest' seems to be lost on some.
Very unlikely that he was really putting down people.

I liked the post ......

" During the intermission, I told the conductor that the imaging would be much better if he put half of the musicians on the right side and the other in on the left side. I explained the "phantom" center that would be created, so no musicians are needed in the center. He just didn't have time to rearrange everyone, but thanked me for the advice.

As I bared to sit through this experience, I made another discovery: There was no type of room correction electronics! Ha! No wonder it all sounded bland. The music was NOT being digitized and adjusted by something like Audyssey or Trinnov! All the musicians should have been put in another room and recorded. Then it should have been played back in the concert hall on a good two channel system with room correction software. I don't think I'll be spending any more money on concerts until they can make this improvement.

At the very end, I invited the conductor to my residence. I figured he would never know how to fine tune his musicians if her had never heard a fine audiophile system. "................

Trust you got what the poster was humorously trying to say. Wonderful !

Most people ( especially "audiophiles" !) WANT a hi-fi system to sound like what THEY want it to be ! They might know what the real thing sounds like but they want it the way they LIKE it ! NOTHING wrong with that . It's a personal thing.

I like nice snappy kettle drums and tight deep bass . If a live musical performance didn't have that I'd be disappointed !
I remember listening to a live jazz group ( from Israel ) WITH amplification , up close in a large hall. The sound was incredible . The snap and power of the bass and drums couldn't be replicated at home. They had a battery of 18 inch drivers with power amplification to match. It was 'electronic' . but I couldn't match it at home with my 12 inch drivers !
They also sold their CD at the venue and I had it 'autographed'. Why? because everyone else was doing that ! I also asked them about the mastering engineer and they said the recording was done at one of the best European studio's.
At home it never sounded ANYTHING like the live performance though it was 'amplified too'. Of course there were many variables and I didn't expect it to sound like the show. Problem was it didn't sound ANYTHING close to the show !

Bottom line is , select your home system to sound like what YOU want it to be. Never mind if it isn't like the 'real thing'. If you like it and others don't, it's still the BEST system for you !

Now put on your favourite music on your favourite system and achieve Nirvana. Your Nirvana doesn't have to be like someone else's Nirvana !
Enjoy !

 

[venkatcr]

To a large extent, I think we all have to understand that live music and recorded music will be different. They can never meet. Ideally we should train our ears to understand the difference and appreciate both. And, I strongly believe, what you hear for the first time and appreciate is what leaves a lasting impression on your brain. You constantly try to re-hear the same sound. And most times in vain.

A case in point. I saw the movie Heropanti and just passed over the songs. Then one day I got a CD and heard it on my music system. The songs impressed me so much that I saw the movie again to see and hear it with a new eye and ear combination. But I felt that the HT system could not recreate the magic of the two channel system. The difference were small and subtle, but my brain refused to accept the even the tiny quantum of differences.

A few years ago, Chennai used to have folk music and dance careening through the streets in January. This was a wonderful occasion to hear varied instruments including large drums. Though the drums were loud, what I liked was the way the sound died immediately. No echo, no reverberation. THAT has now become my benchmark for any system. The frequency does not matter to me. What matters is that the sound must die instantly and not push itself into the next sound pattern.

I strongly believe that our mind does play tricks with our senses.

At my club, I always try to see if we can tinker with the sound system to set it at the best possible position. Many times, when the audience is small, I insist that the music be played without amplification. Many artists are shocked by this, and I was wondering why. Recently when we got a wonderful sitar player from Mumbai (SOHAM MUNIM), I realised the amplification system was critical to his performance. He used a highly sensitive sensor stuck to his sitar for playing what he called the sympathetic strings. And that changed the way the music sounded. Even though the audience was small, we had to install a 4000 watts amplification system with a high end mixer to satisfy him. The actual amplification was lees than 50 watts, but the system had the power to pick up every nuance of the sitar and the accompanying tabla.

Though I am not familiar with it, I do believe hard rock artists use amplification system to actually distort sound. No rock artists can ever work without amplification.

Street music may be the last bastion of music without electronics.

Cheers

 

[keith_correa]

If you play your 2 channel rig on the streets, I'm 90% sure you will experience the same sonic experience that you have with live street musicians.