Your Views on the The listening Experience

Interesting question Syd

We probably should be voting for the first option if we're true to the spirit of the music.

But; the reality is that the live sound is often pretty dire and if I'm honest, I'm looking for the clean, and controlled sound of the recording studio.

You've got me wondering why; because there's nothing like the buzz of a live gig.

Maybe I don't want to try to replicate that sound at home for some reason?

If I have to pick one probably closest would be 1.
But most of my music have little to do with *live* experience. ( eletronica /ambient chill )

Very little acoustic muisc are played here so, I tend to look for a system that can capture an 'attitude' ( does it groove? ) of the music. And something that can create a scene I can step into.

I've been to many live concerts and every now and then we attend classical. I have no desire to recreate that in my living room.

The point 2: irrelevant for me. No way you'll know the benchmark so can't compare to 'em anyways. Plus, many things are scrwed up in mastering process realistically.

The point 3: Bass-O-matic '76 music.. hmm.. not for me.

You've got it wrong. All of your choices focus on philosophies of reproduction, not listening. What I am after is to get a buzz from listening, some kind of emotional and/or sensory thing that makes me happy. I guess the closest to that is the live experience, but what I am talking about is really quite different.

--Eric

For sake of this academic discussion, one could argue that the most faithful reproduction of the intent of the master tapes would give you the live buzz or the heavily layered studio production or the...
Leave it to the mixing and mastering folks to provide you with the intent of the artists and the production people.
If you want the "live" experience, get yourself a set of JBL Eons, crank them up and go for it. Live is SO sloppy compared to the studio, it is about capturing a mood or a moment. That's it's appeal. Getting the closest you can to the mixed and mastered "final" product will, for sake of this academic discussion, give you the best representation of the performance, live or otherwise.
Everyone's mileage will vary, academic mode off.
David

I'm somewhere between #2 and #3. I have a few pop albums that are poorly recorded but the musical message can still be retrieved by my brain and heart if the compression and harshness isn't (over)emphasised. Having said that, I wouldn't want an anodyne reproductive system to kill the dynamic/depth delights of a decent recording.

One of the reasons why I like Densen amplification to pass the signal from my Naim CD player to my speakers is that it does so by retrieving the musical essential captured by my venerable Naim source, and at the same time makes it listenable through my speakers - the pitch, rhythm and timing, and all that makes music listening enjoyable is captured above and beyond what may be *wrong* with the recording.

Having said that, well-set up all-Naim systems can achieve the same objective if hierarchical balance is maintained including that where preamps are upgraded ahead of power amps.

I don't go for #1 for the simple reason that live but non-acoustic recordings sound shite and tend to have no real musical merit.

To me a decent studio recording always gives a better insight into the best a band can offer than a take on their live performance; if you want to hear them live then you'd be best spending the £30 quid on attending their concert and getting a seat or spot close to the front row.

So-called "live recordings" are annoying not just because the noise from the crowd gets in the way of you hearing the band playing.



Regards,

Steve.

[This message was edited by Steven Toy on MONDAY 16 February 2004 at 05:39.]

Thanks for all the feedback guys.

It's interesting to know how you all view the reproduction of music in the home as it gives insight to the merits of, say, one piece of equipment which some love and others couldn't live with.

Yours in Music

Syd

Number 1

OK my vote went for number one.

Then I read the above comments.

And I realised that a good orchestra in the NEC or the RAH was part of what I had in mind. But without the the guy behind me coughing and wheezing, or the old trout unwrapping sweeties and giving a running commentary to her friend......etc

I also realised that a good rock band in a decent hall was part of what I had in mind. But without the inevitable distortion because the amplification and loudspeakers aren't up the job, or the lead signer is on some kind of dope to help cope with stage-fright.....etc

So I simply want my hifi to sound like the PERFECT live performance....with the audience filtered out......or something along those lines.

cheers

Don

I'd go for realism, although this is not the same as the live sound of course. So I suppose it's creating an image.

Am I alone in thinking that every upgrade I made was (a) worthwhile for studio recordings but (b) by far an even greater difference with live recordings? I listened to nothing "heavier" than Aretha Franklin, Marvin Gaye, Eric Clapton; the effect is much greater even with some jazz and classical music IMO. Perhaps more demanding stuff will give other results?

I caught myself listening to the Sunday mass through my tuner more than once after an upgrade (I suppose a lot of people do this every Sunday, only I never do, it's just that the "reality" of the broadcast amazed me and got me listening)... Hmm, should churches promote Naim? Should they use part of their state subsidies to get the price of a 552 down so we have better equipment and are more inclined to tune to their broadcasted Sunday masses? Of course they could also keep their funds for charity and leave us dreaming that heaven is full of 552's... probably the better choice!

Anyway, I think Naim is really good in all things "live" (which for me is the best proof that 'soundstage' is not was makes a live recording "live" through your speakers). That being said, I'd actually vote for option nr. 3: harshness makes me turn down the volume after some minutes of listening, and (for all it's worth) it's precisely the improved absence of harshness (especially with live recordings) which made me most appreciate my Naim upgrades.

Carl

I pretty much have to go with Eric's ideas, because all three optoins have flaws. Option 1 - the "live experience" is not always desireable because there are often differences in the goals of a "live" versus a "studio" recording. Option 2 - "accurate reprorduction" makes some degree of sense, but it is rather soul-less and round earth - if I am using the term correctly. Option 3 is certainly flawed, because I am certain that there are instances in musical compositions and performances when the GOAL is to sound HARSH, either melodically, harmonically, or tonally. Eliminating the angry scream of a guitar, or the harshness of a cymbal, or the squeek of John Coltraine's sax would change what the artist is trying to convey.

I read "accurate" as conveying the intent of the performers and producers. After all, let's hope that they are sitting in on the mixing session and approving of the final product.
If the gtr is not angry enough, they'll fix it so it is, etc.
David

Hi Lads

Perhaps I should have stated that all the above types of system sound are all compromises in one way or another. The Live Experience is at times rough and ready, instrumentally at times harsh and unforgiving, but 99% of the times it is bloody exciting. Like being at a good live concert.It gets me up to boogie about the floor, air guitar thrashing or imaginary conductors baton going nineteen to the dozen. That's why I have a sistem which does that but I always aspire to improve on it. More speed and dynamics.

The second system type is one I could probably live with but with reservations as it seems to major on the round earth attributes like a perfectly flat frequency response and 3D soundstage with at least a mile to the right and left and the back wall disappearing over the horizon. I think I would get anal about whether or not I could pick out every individual voice in a choir, every single violin or every click of a plectrum on string or pick guard, and loose the message in the music Just too clinical at times but on the right material it can also be exciting.

The last system type sound I can't abide (totally unreal, unexciting and unfortuanately it appears to be the expectation of a lot of non audiophiles as to what a good HI FI system is about) and unfortunately I've been there (Rega 3,AT cart,Audiolab amp,MA 352s) and it languished for years just not being played very often. The Rega and MAs were fine in their own right but I think the Audiolab was the real culprit. Just too smooth for it's own good.


Thanks again for all the feedback.

Yours in Music

Syd

I ask only for the best possible illusion of reality whatever the material. I detest 'live' performance rock recordings and simply don't buy them or listen to them.

The sense of being able to reach out and touch the illusion is the only thing that makes it worthwhile for me.

Imagary is (and has always been) a very high priority in my enjoyment of music. Without it the sense of 'being there' is completely lost.

Oddly, I have never heard a demo (or heard anything at a hifi show) that throws up a believable image.

It is always an enormous relief to get home and enjoy the presence of the performers & the liquid warmth of the sound. Instead of having to constantly move my head about. Desperately searching for the singer, guitar, bass or drums above the incredibly awful 'boom and tizz'.

Smooth no. Believable? Absolutely!

Nime

Everyone has the right to be wrong.