Musical Expectations

[viren bakhshi]

Hi,

A lot of the agonized auditioning of audio equipment that goes on is brought about by our musical expectations. What satisfies us, or what can even attempt to satisfy us. Do we really know, do we have an idea of what can - or are we groping in the dark?

Here are some comments of visitors to the recent RMAF 2014 show:
Gary Dahl:
"What I heard sounded to me as if there were serious peaks somewhere in the 1-2 kHz region. The string sound was hard and shrill. This wasn't a subtle issue; it drove both Lynn and me from the room in seconds.

"I can't be sure of what was wrong (recording, electronics, speakers, room, etc.), because all I could hear was the end result. My point wasn't to guess at the cause; it wasn't my problem to solve. My main concern was that this was a demonstration by the the exhibitor for a TAS reviewer, which would lead me to expect that the system would be shown off at its best. It's scary to imagine that anyone actually thinks that's what orchestral instruments really sound like."

Lynn Olson:
"Yup, you got that right. Part of the reason that recordings, and some of the gear, from the Fifties sounds the way it does is that people back then went to a lot more live concerts, and played music at home with friends.

"Karna remembers friends coming over and playing music on the piano in the parlor, and she played clarinet in the high school band.

"When people hear live music several times a week, even cheap 5-tube table radios have to be balanced so they are musically acceptable, and the same applies to recordings made in that era. By modern standards, they were technically limited, but people expected recordings to sound like live music."

Well, that is a very good way of achieving that expectation - go listen to live music, and try to replicate that in your home audio system.

No dearth of music around - try out the upcoming Jazz Utsav, for instance.

Viren

 

[Shivam]

I don't feel that this can be done in India. Most of the concerts and music festivals that I have been to in India have live music being amplified through heavily clipping amplifiers with distorting speakers. Sometimes there is an excess of mid-level bass. Most of the classical music that I have heard live is played in halls with very poor acoustics.

Compare this to philharmonic halls of most European countries where the orchestra (especially for opera or symphonies) played is usually without any amplification and the acoustics are a subtle signature of the venue. Sometimes when amplification is used, it is almost transparent.

I find sitting with even an average musician or a learning musician, more satisfying than attending concerts in India. When I hear these learners, I get the feel of the true sound of the instrument (un-amplified) which I can then compare to my system at home.

 

[Ambio]

+1 to Shivam. Try to enjoy music rather than recreating the live sound. It is simply not practical to recreate live sound in your room. They are of different scales. If you are happy with vocals and strings than it is possible to get closer.

I do enjoy bhajans because it brings back my childhood memory. Some are pretty real when played in your room. Almost like you are singing with them. The one thing really differentiate live sound and hifi (stereo) is the lack of ambiance and 3D.

 

[GeorgeO]

On a visit to Nashville a few years ago, I got to tour the hall where the Nashville Symphony performs. This was built a few years ago and cost "just" $600 million!
I had the privilege of attending a concert there that evening, and the acoustics were excellent. Live music in this kind of environment is going to take a while to come to India. In the meantime we make do with what we have.

 

[arj]

Hi,

A lot of the agonized auditioning of audio equipment that goes on is brought about by our musical expectations. What satisfies us, or what can even attempt to satisfy us. Do we really know, do we have an idea of what can - or are we groping in the dark?

The answer to the above is no..Most of us dont (me included) as we reach an approximation of what we want and try to find happiness. So we are groping in the dark with a candle which lights up some areas but many others remain hidden

In the end no home system no matter what you do will never replicate live music. it will always tend to approximate what each of us assumes is live based on our individual experiences...And our experiences (and hence expectations) are all different since we all hear very differently when we talk in terms of technical measurements..
So what i might hear as natural in the 2-4 khz (because my hearing is down 10dB there) may be bright for someone else who might just be 0.5dB down there.

From what I could figure out, I am not sure if measurements of all Harmonics is possible today ?)..but would love to see that for different systems ! since thats what changes the timbre of sound and differentiates one instrument from the other even though they are at the same fundamental frequency.

so 3 people sitting in the same spot for the same system will hear differently ... But there are some things which will be constant..a feeling of naturalness of sound (approximated) that come only with a combination of several factors including Tone/Timber (Fundamental frequencies + All harmonics) and Timing (eg ability of all the transducers to reproduce the sound in sync with the signal etc) and Micro/Macro dynamics..and many more not all of which i would know

 

[Ambio]

..In the end no home system no matter what you do will never replicate live music. ...

You will never get live sound with stereo. That's the reason I gave up stereo for ambiophonics long time ago. To get live sound they first need to be recorded and played back binaurally. The room reverberation time and the loudness level hinders you recreating live sound in your room. Stereophonic will never replicate live sound and whatever 3D -soundstage and depth described in stereo, it is laughable when you compare them to live sound.

Stereo is an illusion. A concept that is fundamentally wrong. We have adapted to them but it is not necessarily correct.

 

[arj]

You will never get live sound with stereo. That's the reason I gave up stereo long time ago. To get live sound they first need to be recorded and played back binaurally. The room reverberation time and the loudness level hinders you recreating live sound in your room. Stereophonic will never replicate live sound and whatever 3D -soundstage and depth described in stereo, it is laughable when you compare them to live sound.

Stereo is an illusion. A concept that is fundamentally wrong. We have adapted to them but it is not necessarily correct.

+1.
imaging is an illusion no doubt. and completely agree to get a live sound you need the right recording and there are only a few of them around and mostly never of the music you really want to listen !
From stereo we made things worse by moving to surround sound

I believe Mono with one speaker was the purest. If only we did not have to worry about imaging and soundstage.but since all our media today is on a flawed setup only option is to make best use of it

 

[Ambio]

..I believe Mono with one speaker was the purest...

Purest because no crosstalk but lacks realism. No soundstage and depth. We all thought 2D television is good enough in the 80s. If you look at old ads of Trinitron colour television - the review talked a lot about the picture quality and 3D image feeling. Compare your 80s colour TV to todays 3D TV. That's the state of stereo sound compared to live sound and audiophiles still beating a dead horse to recreate the live sound with stereo.

 

[arj]

Purest because no crosstalk but lacks realism. No soundstage and depth.

Is'nt that an illusion ?

 

[Ambio]

Is'nt that an illusion ?

According to Gita -YES!

 

[Thad E Ginathom]

I suppose I have to admit to laziness in not experimenting with other methods of listening to music. Ambio's enthusiasm should have been enough to lead lead the way!

But, on the whole I am satisfied with stereo, for all its shortcomings, and even with headphone listening, which adds more.

Whatever we do in our homes, however much money we spend, surely the biggest bottleneck is the recording itself? Earlier generations of "audiophiles," perhaps, were more reasonable about this, in defining High Fidelity as being a true reproduction of the recording, because that is the closest we can get.

 

[arj]

Whatever we do in our homes, however much money we spend, surely the biggest bottleneck is the recording itself? Earlier generations of "audiophiles," perhaps, were more reasonable about this, in defining High Fidelity as being a true reproduction of the recording, because that is the closest we can get.

i think thats what everyone actually does today , irrespective of what they claim
the result cannot be better than the source, and if it is then the system is compromised..aka Bose

Now the discussion on what is "better" is another story

 

[Ambio]

..But, on the whole I am satisfied with stereo, for all its shortcomings, and even with headphone listening, which adds more....

Except for the sound inside your head. Stereo sound is more accurate with headphones because the lack of crosstalk. BTW, Ambiophonics would not work with headphones.

If you like to feel how real 3D sounds like. Please buy Chesky binaural track and listen to them using your headphones. That's how Ambiophonics should sound except the stage is in front and not in your head like headphones.

 

[Ambio]

....the result cannot be better than the source, and if it is then the system is compromised....

A couple of months back, a high end company conducted live solo violin vs recorded playback. They couldn't tell guess correctly.

Recorded replay in concert hall vs live unamplified sound also with the same result that people couldn't tell the difference. I am afraid you are wrong on this one.

 

[Thad E Ginathom]

Not so sure. arj said the result can't be better than the source, and although of course I can't deny any particular experiment, I would expect it to be pretty hard work to make recorded playback identical to the source.

 

[Staxxx]

I hundred percent agree with those that believe the experience of listening in a concert hall is a different pleasure from listening to my music system. In some ways they really cannot replicate and it is therefore unfair to expect the experience I get from hearing an orchestra in a large hall within my 12 x 14 listening space. I have listened to a couple of concerts a week for many years and still enjoyed my audio hobby through the whole time.
However, I do strive to get a good piano sound (both in amplitude - very difficult - and tone) within my listening space. As well as a solo violin with a piano or a solo voice. They can be wonderfully deceiving but I accept and understand the deceit.
And enjoy it too...

 

[arj]

Not so sure. arj said the result can't be better than the source, and although of course I can't deny any particular experiment, I would expect it to be pretty hard work to make recorded playback identical to the source.

Thad if it sounds better..i think i should invest in those speakers and play my songs sung by me on them

 

[Thad E Ginathom]

Live music is far from perfect. Not all concert halls have great acoustics, and that's before we even start on the electronics for amplified music. Oh, and add in the audience behaviour, which is also often far from perfect.

I listen to more music "live" than I do at home*, but, there are far too many occasions on which, if it was just sound quality that I was interested in, I would have been better off at home in front of my modest hifi.



*OK, that might be an exaggeration: I've never added up the hours. There would be weeks and months when it is true, and weeks and months when it would not. And a few weeks, here and there, where I listen to no music at all.

 

[viren bakhshi]

Yes, audiophiles have a tendency to make things complicated - maybe, to fit the language of audio that they have invented.

It really is very simple - stereo sound at home is an illusion all right, but an illusion of a reality. If you haven't sampled the reality, how can you judge the illusion!

You have to get to know the "tone" of real instruments, and the human voice. Hearing them perform in a live space is the only way of becoming familiar with their sound. That is the sound your music system should replicate. If it can't, it's not worth your consideration.

Also, we relate to music through our emotions. Those emotions do come out when you see and hear musicians perform. Some of that feeling you should also experience listening to music at home. If you don't, that system isn't worth it.

Viren

 

[viren bakhshi]

Yes, in India, we really don't have a tradition of harmony, of large ensembles playing together. So, in a way, there was no need for concert halls in the way they developed in the Western countries.

That said, the concept of acoustics was very much alive in India - some of the Mughal architecture points to that. However, in current times, recognition of good acoustics for interior spaces came late to India. Still, there are some good halls, acoustically well designed, where music can be enjoyed. Here are a few in Delhi:
- Stein Auditorium, India Habitat Centre
- Concert Hall, India International Centre
- Kamani Auditorium
- FICCI Auditorium
- Main Hall, Sai Baba Cultural Centre
- Auditorium, Nehru Museum and Library

So, you see, there are enough choices - you just have to seek them out.

Viren