- Joined
- Oct 25, 2019
- Messages
- 11,123
- Likes
- 14,797
I honestly don't know what to make of this video. What I will say is, I preferred the opening act to the main event.
I need to rephrase that: Any reproduction will only sound as good as the original did. Now imagine a 20 piece big band playing an 30m2 room. Sure, you could put each instrument in a box and mic it, and then reproduce boxed instrument sound with added room reverb - that might work but I would not want that.I don't see this as necessarily being true.
If you can produce the correct soundfield at someone's ears they could hear a much larger space. It might not visually fit in the room, but close your eyes and you could hear a huge space in a small room.
I love live music, I bet you do too. Even though I would like my home system to replicate that experience, my system seems to be missing something. So here go some questions for you:
Part 1: Is that "Live" sound a key reference against which an ambitious system should be judged?
Part 2: How is an actual "Live" performance different, in a technical sense, from what most home systems can reproduce?
Part 3: Is "Live" sound even worth chasing? What happens when the dog catches the car?
Exactly what I am after is sound the captures that "live" element, that "live" tone, spl, effortlessness and that "live" silence. Most of the concerts that I go to are in smaller venues that have excellent sounding rooms, such as TheSpace in Evanston, Il. I've seen quite a few concerts there and at other venues which include Christian McBride, Stanley Clarke, Victor Wooten, Tab Benoit, Kermit Ruffins...seen Larry carlton, Diana Krall, Clayton-Hamilton jazz orchestra Maynard Ferguson, etc, etc. Each of them had awesome sound and many/most were supplemented with amplification, with the exception of Maynard Ferguson.
(That sound is exactly what my goal is. What I've found is that it's advantageous to have drivers that are low distortion and capable of playing high spl. These two things together aid in not only the dynamics of the musical passages, but gives you an effortless tone during the micro and macro passages)overall tone.
With this goal of capturing "live" music and of "live" tonal qualities for the instrument, it doesn't matter if it's a soft whisper of a vocal, pluck of the bass, blast of the cornet, acoustic or 6l6 amplified guitar...these are qualities that I'm after. (Christian McBride - gettin' to it or Jeff Hamilton - Studio4) I'll throw some Larry Carlton (4 hands, One heart) or Russell Malone and I'm after all those intimate live qualities. But within that same context, putting on Joe Bonamassa - A New Day Yesterday Live is an example of a nice big rock recording that sounds appropriate if cranked up. But many speaker systems start to break down and can't play high 90's or greater than 100db cleanly, making these high spl levels completely off-putting and many times intolerable.
No matter if it's live music or a studio recording some of our labels are doing a fantastic job at bringing us a "live" type recording. Once I started down the path of trying to get live type instrument tone, dynamics, effortlessness, I really stopped feeling like I wanted to upgrade so much. I will say that not everyone wants to be in the same room as a trumpet, trombone, drum set, piano or even a single singer, I do. I like a good live recording, and a system that portrays instruments in a live manner. I also don't mind listening to an amplified bass and commenting that it sounds like the guy uses a GK bass head, or that a guitarist has a nice el34 sounding head. While true, you can't always pick that out...sometimes you can. Clean, clear, low distortion, dynamics within the confines of overall tone will also get you distinct imaging and set a soundstage. Although it may not get you that surreal staging that I had with some of my earlier systems. But, I'm not after that any more. I suppose we should all get to know our preferences and chase what it is that we like. For me, it's that live type sound and qualities of real instruments.
cheers,
Dan
I'm no expert, but I think what you are chasing is the same as most here. A system thats as close to source as possible- being clean, clear and low distortion. Isnt that just high fidelity- regardless of whether the source is a live recording or a full studio made record?
Is "Live" Sound the Gold Standard for Audio? Why? Why Not?
Possibly, just possibly, the finest recording ever made in the contemporary music genre.Funny you should mention Joe Jackson as his 1984 mastered direct-to-digital live recording Body and Soul is one of the finest recorded examples of a live rock band playing
Possibly, just possibly, the finest recording ever made in the contemporary music genre.
But only in the original 1984 edition. The later re-master made a real dog's breakfast out of this object of beauty.
Pretty sure the lossless services use the '97 remaster as I have the CD I bought in '84 without the added compression to compare to.Anyone have a clue how you find the actual provenance of the versions on any of the streaming services- I'm less than confident any are what they purport to be unless relatively recent releases. Never see any catalog numbers etc
In the general sense, not a clue but if you work out a way of sending me the first track I can certainly tell whether it's the original or re-master. I also seem to remember that Track 3 (I think) on the re-master has some rather audible unpleasant clicks.Anyone have a clue how you find the actual provenance of the versions
You are not talking to someone competent to do such trickery. Regardless, it's the copy I have access toIn the general sense, not a clue but if you work out a way of sending me the first track I can certainly tell whether it's the original or re-master. I also seem to remember that Track 3 (I think) on the re-master has some rather audible unpleasant clicks.
Pretty sure the lossless services use the '97 remaster as I have the CD I bought in '84 without the added compression to compare to.
Then I shall have to enjoy it for what it is, not what it could or should be .
Forgive me, but how can everything be too loud in the mix? Everything louder than everything else? You may be mistaken as to which album you recall. The blue album containing Steppin‘ Out (Night and Day) had an entirely different sound, not particularly noteworthy.Everything is too high in the mix
Forgive me, but how can everything be too loud in the mix? Everything louder than everything else? You may be mistaken as to which album you recall. The blue album containing Steppin‘ Out (Night and Day) had an entirely different sound, not particularly noteworthy.
Body & Soul is certainly not one of those records touted to audiopiles as ‘totally-live-in-one-take-direct-to-whatever’. It may be, to some extent, but so were many records in 1984. It certainly was recorded to mutitrack and extensively post-produced, albeit with a gentle touch and the microphones are a lot further from the instruments than is typical for the genre.
FWIW I think the mix, the production, the playing, is true artifice; a masterful example of recording as an art form in itself.
“Body & Soul” is not a ‘live album’ in the capture of a live performance sense; it is very much a studio production. It has as much ‘acoustic space’ as one could wish for, on music of this genre; this album is renowned for it.My default "best live album…"
“Body & Soul” is not a ‘live album’ in the capture of a live performance sense; it is very much a studio production. It has as much ‘acoustic space’ as one could wish for, on music of this genre; this album is renowned for it.
Are you certain you were listening to “Body & Soul” as opposed to “Night & Day”? Steppin’ Out (mentioned by you) is on the latter.
Don't get too overwhelmed by this concept. It was made with a different approach compared with most records of its generation but it remains, nonetheless, a highly produced multitrack recording.but instead a live recording