Live vs Reproduced Sound - your thoughts?

[goat76]

A speaker radiates sound in a certain way, as does the individual instruments, so to mimic an instrument as truthfully as possible, the recording has to capture the key elements and directions of radiation of an instrument and the speaker has to radiate the recorded sound in a similar way. A basic 3+ way speaker will (probably) never be able to do that due to how it couples to the room acoustically.

I think there are two completely different approaches to reproducing music that need to be considered here, and those are the so-called "you are there" and "they are here".

With the "they are here" approach, which means that you, as the listener, want to emulate the sound of all the musicians' instruments being played in your listening room, you would need a specially built loudspeaker (like the one in the video) for every individual instrument, which emulates every single instrument's natural in-room radiation pattern.

But with the "you are there" approach, which means that you, as the listener, want to emulate the sound of you being at a distance in the audience in the venue where the live performance took place, it's actually no longer a requirement for your loudspeakers at home to be able to emulate every individual instruments' natural in-room radiation patterns, but instead the loudspeakers just have to be able to have a convincing-enough overall radiation pattern to emulate the ensamble of the musicians instruments as a whole, at a distance of sitting in the audience.
How well this approach works is actually somewhat indirectly demonstrated well in the videos you posted, as the recording of the "instrument-radiation-emulating" loudspeaker already sounds pretty natural when listening to a pair of normally sound-radiating stereo speakers at home.

 

[Snarfie]

This subject has occurred in bits and pieces on threads over the years, but I wanted to throw the question out on a dedicated thread:

What are your views on live versus reproduce sound? Can reproduce sound ever seem truly live? If so, how and if not, why not? And do you care at all about any semblance of sonic realism?

I’m interested both in personal impressions - what do you notice most about the difference between live versus reproduced sound?

As well as any technical discussion on the subject.

I understand that lots of people here don’t even seek sonic realism and don’t think it’s generally possible. But I’m interested in those reasons as well.

I’ve always been fascinated by the difference between live versus reproduce sound. I did my own informal live versus reproduced, listening tests, many years ago with various speakers in my room.

But I couldn’t achieve anything scientific. It still felt somewhat illuminating though (when some recordings of an instrument, her voice were compared directly to their live counterpart in the same room, some loudspeakers more than others struck me as sounded closer to the real thing).

Early on in the 90s I had a chance to listen to the big, reference Genesis1 loudspeakers (at lyric hi-fi in New York as I remember).

I was able to sit down all by my lonesome in the big room with these huge beasts and play all sorts of my CDs.

I’ll never forget the impression they made on me with a number of orchestral pieces. I had never experienced high-end speakers producing that combination of realistic scale and imaging, detail and impact.

With my eyes closed the sensation of peering into a life-sized orchestra was more vivid than I had ever experienced. (I was attending live Orchestra performances regularly at that time).

And yet hearing sound reproduction so much closer to the real thing in terms of scale and detail made what was missing jump right out to me: timbral realism. It was missing the colour of the real thing.

I would liken it to experiencing a huge Ansel Adams black and white photograph of an Orchestra. It was so finally detailed I could scan the orchestra for every instrument. But like the black-and-white photograph, it was missing the rich sense of timbral colours I was used to hearing when I would close my eyes and listen at a live symphony.

Another way of putting it: it was like every instrument in the symphony had been replaced by a plastic replica, so even though I could identify each instrument there was this bland, homogenized “ everything is sort of made out of the same plastic material” timbral impression.

I left wondering if this revealed a sort of line in the sand for reproduce the sound. How can a system with a very small number of transducers recreate a sound field that originally involved hundreds of vibrating sources?“Maybe it’s just too much to ask a handful of speaker drivers to reproduce the true range of timbre one hears from real symphonies or real sounds? If the sound is coming from just a few driver materials, then maybe that’s why there is a certain sameness to the sound.”

That made a bit of intuitive sense.

But then it seemed to break down because I realized that, of course our eardrum acts essentially like a speaker driver in reverse; it receives the sum of all the sound pressure waves arriving at the ear.

And somehow, from that decodes all the different instruments.

(and even though a lot of of the decoding complexities happens further down in the cochlea, it’s still a case that the eardrum sums the pressure waves before that point as I understand it).

So there isn’t in principle anything wrong with the concept of a single vibrating membrane, or several - speaker drivers of some sort - reproducing the combined waveform of a symphony or anything else. Because of course, why would we even be able to record and playback symphonies or any other instruments the way we already can.

The devil obviously is in the details in terms of how sound reproduction, from microphones to real world loudspeakers, actually fail to fully reproduce “ the real thing.” (And of course, the inherent limitations in stereo reproduction).

In any case, especially ever since that experience many years ago, I’ve always felt sensitive to the perception that recordings played through most loudspeakers sound homogenized relative to the original sounds or similar sounds in real life. And it’s been one of my guiding lights to seek out sound reproduction that… at least in my perception…sounds as “timbrally varied and surprising as possible.”

In most systems once I’ve heard a few tracks of drum symbols and drums and trumpet or sax, I think “ OK… got it…. That’s how those instruments are going to sound generally speaking through these speakers across many recordings.” There are no more surprises.

What do other people think about this? Does anybody else share my perception of recordings and/or audio systems homogenizing and reducing timbral richness and variety?

Any other ways you find reproduction sound tends to fall short?

Interesting topic.

For me It's quite a difficult question to answer because it depends so much on your aim, your mood, your expectations, and the circumstances especially with live music.

Even in my treated listening room, what I hear depends heavily on the recording itself. Most quality recordings aim to be neutral (thats how my dedicated listening room is acousticly setup), while others are EQ'd or otherwise altered during production.

Ironically, I probably listen to and enjoy most of my music through my Bose Wave Music System III with convenient fuctionality like Bluethoot included DAB+ radio, simply because it's in my living room where I spend most of my time. The acoustics there are actually quite poor, so it shouldn't by far sound as good as my dedicated listening room. Yet somehow the Bose seems to work remarkably well in that space. It complements the room in a way that makes listening effortless and enjoyable, even if it doesn't come close to matching the realism, imaging, or other acoustic qualities of my main system.

For me, that's an important reminder that enjoyment doesn't always correlate with absolute fidelity. Sometimes the best system is simply the one that works best in the room/enviroment you're in and lets you connect with the music.

 

[killdozzer]

I always get in trouble when I'm honest, but... Here goes...

I think in 99% of the cases, live is inferior to recorded. I think people obsess way too much with this 'live' being something like 'listening to actual'.

I think it is way harder to achieve good listening conditions in live concert. There is a lot of noise, audience is unbearable, musicians make mistakes, people tend to clap when you try to hear something, a lot of joints smell, some annoying lady is trying to get you to go to bed with her, the version is different from what you've learned to love and enjoy, someone is sick in the audience and starts coughing in the middle of the performance, you have to pay way too much, someone spilled his beer over you, the guy wants to fight you because you stepped in front of him, you're waaay to far away from the stage and the sound is completely off or OTOH you're in front of the stage and your feet are killing you, etc.

All of this means, of course, that listening to chamber music, some well trained quartet, in a good seat and being lucky enough to avoid obnoxious audience, it's a special experience by all means.

However, I can't let Matt slip, since he praises records highly and live music has no wow, flutter, crackle, compression and all sorts of distortions introduced by the reproduction gear, how come he thinks live performance is close to live performance since all the records shortcomings make the music sound "more natural" and closer to live performance?


P.S. The last question is just a joke and a tease and you don't have to answer it.

 

[Cote Dazur]

I think in 99% of the cases, live is inferior to recorded

In many ways, it does, it is, to me, a very different experience.
But, in light of the question in this thread, live vs recorded is different, depending on what you are after when listening to music, and it might even vary when listening to different genre of music, trying to re-create a live performance may be a good or a bad idea.
As often in the threads, we are people with an apparently similar hobby, but in reality we have 99% of the time different goals.
to me, having a great HiFi ( High Fidelity) it is not about fidelity to a live event, it is fidelity to how it feels, the emotion of music, I know I am not there, but if the music grabs me, if I get the emotion of what the artists are trying to communicate, then it is job done.
Trying to hear all of the recording should be, IMO, the goal of HiFi, since we do not know really what it is supposed to be, even that is very elusive, so it might be a good strategy to stop obsessing about fidelity and instead concentrate on getting a great musical experience.
If listening to music in an engage way, concentrating on the artist performance, is part of your daily routine, then for me, I have reach my goal.

 

[killdozzer]

In many ways, it does, it is, to me, a very different experience.
But, in light of the question in this thread, live vs recorded is different, depending on what you are after when listening to music, and it might even vary when listening to different genre of music, trying to re-create a live performance may be a good or a bad idea.
As often in the threads, we are people with an apparently similar hobby, but in reality we have 99% of the time different goals.
to me, having a great HiFi ( High Fidelity) it is not about fidelity to a live event, it is fidelity to how it feels, the emotion of music, I know I am not there, but if the music grabs me, if I get the emotion of what the artists are trying to communicate, then it is job done.
Trying to hear all of the recording should be, IMO, the goal of HiFi, since we do not know really what it is supposed to be, even that is very elusive, so it might be a good strategy to stop obsessing about fidelity and instead concentrate on getting a great musical experience.
If listening to music in an engage way, concentrating on the artist performance, is part of your daily routine, then for me, I have reach my goal.

Sure, I'm not disputing that. And, in fact, I'm not obsessing with the highest of the high fidelity. Maybe I'm even closer to you than you might think, because I see, so to speak, the blueprint for home audio to be the studio recording and not the live performance.

I admit, fidelity to emotion is not something I can relate to. To me it sounds too much liiiike... horoscope level idea. I honestly don't know faithful to what particular emotion do you need it to be. But ok, I just see it as some sort of your subjective impression.

 

[Cote Dazur]

I admit, fidelity to emotion is not something I can relate to

Neither do I, emotion is what I get from music and art in general, if my music system let me get the message from the artist, then I am happy.
Smile on my face, melancholy, feet tapping, any sign of emotional reaction. In good circumstances I get it from live performance and I also get it in some listening room. With a Bluetooth speaker on kitchen counter, I might get little bit sometime but most of the time I get a distracting and annoying background noise, like a tv set on but not watching.
Listening to music is one of my preferred form of entertainment and what I am getting from the time I spend listening is emotions.

 

[killdozzer]

Neither do I, emotion is what I get from music and art in general, if my music system let me get the message from the artist, then I am happy.
Smile on my face, melancholy, feet tapping, any sign of emotional reaction. In good circumstances I get it from live performance and I also get it in some listening room. With a Bluetooth speaker on kitchen counter, I might get little bit sometime but most of the time I get a distracting and annoying background noise, like a tv set on but not watching.
Listening to music is one of my preferred form of entertainment and what I am getting from the time I spend listening is emotions.

OK, I think I understand you better now. I thought here:

it is not about fidelity to a live event, it is fidelity to how it feels, the emotion of music

You were saying fidelity to the emotion of the music. I must've misunderstood. In general, I agree. As I said, I'm not obssesing with recreating the live event in my living room. All I need is as flat freq response as possible, loud (to me) with low distortion and 20Hz to 25kHz (although in tests I hear 14,5kHz, but just to sure).

And that's it for me. This is already bliss in my eyes (sorry, ears). If I can hear lowest to highest, as free from distortion as possible while listening 80dB SPL with 86 peaks and I want equipment to color as little as possible and I'm as happy as Larry (however happy the bastard may be).

This means that merely recognizing my fave tune while hearing it, let's say, from my laptop inbuilt speakers is not satisfactory. I even avoid it. Before the set-up I have now, I had some speakers I was really unhappy with and I completely stopped listening to music until I bought a different pair.

 

[Floyd Toole]

Whatever the limitations of stereo and the hardware and software involved in capturing, storing and reproducing music of all kinds, it has to be said that countless more people get pleasure from music than do in genuine live performances. I attend at least a dozen live performances a year. They are acoustical treats, but they must be scheduled, and one must deal with parking, crowds and the non-trivial expense. It is an elitist form of entertainment, and I truly wonder what the great classical composers would think - and do - if they had the option of the modern alternative methods of distributing their works. When they were composing their works performances were often limited to relatively small gatherings mounted by a sponsor. It is an interesting mind game.

A blockbuster symphony performed live by 100 musicians in a good hall is a wonderful experience, but that is a vanishingly small portion of music. Most of music is highly enjoyable in the scaled down, spatially diminished, reproductions we experience at home. If music, the art, is the product, it is well served by the technology we now have. Just try to preserve the basic timbres with neutral loudspeakers

 

[killdozzer]

Whatever the limitations of stereo and the hardware and software involved in capturing, storing and reproducing music of all kinds, it has to be said that countless more people get pleasure from music than do in genuine live performances. I attend at least a dozen live performances a year. They are acoustical treats, but they must be scheduled, and one must deal with parking, crowds and the non-trivial expense. It is an elitist form of entertainment, and I truly wonder what the great classical composers would think - and do - if they had the option of the modern alternative methods of distributing their works. When they were composing their works performances were often limited to relatively small gatherings mounted by a sponsor. It is an interesting mind game.

A blockbuster symphony performed live by 100 musicians in a good hall is a wonderful experience, but that is a vanishingly small portion of music. Most of music is highly enjoyable in the scaled down, spatially diminished, reproductions we experience at home. If music, the art, is the product, it is well served by the technology we now have. Just try to preserve the basic timbres with neutral loudspeakers

I agree. That's what I tried to say. There is a sort of glorification of anything live just because it's a performative art and you're supposed to hear musicians perform their music, but a lot of down sides accompany this experience.

I tried to pose a similar question to vinyl-heads (let's just jokingly call them that to save on time), when I asked do they really think if, for example, Duke Ellington was given a choice to say whether he wants his music to crackle and flutter and have IGD would he pick that?

 

[HiMu]

I think there are two completely different approaches to reproducing music that need to be considered here, and those are the so-called "you are there" and "they are here".

So it'd be reasonable to think that there could be some sort of combination, ie. "instrument speakers" combined with multi channel atmosphere. Both approaches are equally valid and have their pros and cons, and with current technology there is so much possibilities.

 

[Barrelhouse Solly]

My experience is playing blues and folk music. Recorded music sounds similar to live. I play acoustic guitar and I've never heard a recording of acoustic guitar that sounds like what I hear when I play or when I listen to others playing in the same room with no amplification. It's close, but the recorded version emphasizes different harmonics. Sometimes post processing is used to "improve" the recorded sound to make it sound like what the engineer or producer wants it to sound like. Recorded music sounds better than it did 60 years ago when I first got interested in hi fi sound. Audible noise is a thing of the past in most cases. I remember how fun it was to hear silence between the tracks when CDs came out. Radio in great tuners back then always had some hiss. I may not live to see a live vs recorded demonstration where blindfolded listeners can't tell the difference, but I still like what comes out of speakers these days. It's the transducers. Microphones and speakers are the weak links.

 

[Willem]

A while ago we went to a concert in the Amsterdam Concertgebouw by the Netherlands Wind Orchestra. The concert was recorded and broadcast later that same day on Dutch television, offering a fascinating comparison. My stereo system is pretty good and powerful with Quad 2805 electrostatic speakers, and three subwoofers equalized by MSO in a large listening room. I noticed four things. First, the timbre of the various instuments was well reproduced. Second, because this was recorded for television, various instruments were highlighted a bit when they came into view, but not excessively. Third, therefore, the recording was miked pretty closely to integrate image and sound: the sensation of this superb hall had largely vanished. Finally, the dynamic range had obviously been much reduced, again removing that sensation of being in this large and glorious hall. My audio system could easily have reproduced more of that dynamic range.
So yes, from this comparison I notice that better more realistic sound would have been possible if the recording would have sacrified less to the demands of the video part: less focus on close ups of individual players and not so much close up miking but more hall sound. Finally, more dynamic range would have made the sound more realistic, at least on my system.

 

[Snarfie]

Most of music is highly enjoyable in the scaled down, spatially diminished, reproductions we experience at home. If music, the art, is the product, it is well served by the technology we now have. Just try to preserve the basic timbres with neutral loudspeakers

I'm curious from a more personal perspective. Given your unique background as an audio researcher and industry insider, how do you consume music at home?

Do you have a dedicated listening room with a carefully optimized high-end system, including room treatment and or DSP, or do you simply listen in a more casual setting? And how often do you find yourself listening to music in your car?

Does one provide a more satisfying musical experience than the other, or do they each have their own?

 

[Floyd Toole]

I'm curious from a more personal perspective. Given your unique background as an audio researcher and industry insider, how do you consume music at home?

Do you have a dedicated listening room with a carefully optimized high-end system, including room treatment and or DSP, or do you simply listen in a more casual setting? And how often do you find yourself listening to music in your car?

Does one provide a more satisfying musical experience than the other, or do they each have their own?

My setup is described in this post: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...for-order-of-canada.72090/page-3#post-2627665.

I have ideas to do more DSP to finesse the bass, but it is acceptable although not impressive as is, so my laziness takes over. I tend to enjoy the music.

Music in a car has always been a way to relieve monotony on a long drive, or while stuck in traffic - some has actually been pleasurable. Car audio is a world unto itself.

 

[MattHooper]

I’ve read all the replies so far and pretty much all the answer answers strike me as interesting and putting forth sensible viewpoints. Aside from some objective facts that can be discussed in how reproduced music tends to sound different from live music, there’s lots of room for opinion in terms of what people care about as a goal for their system, or what features of live sound they tend to notice or care about, and how that might relate to what they are seeking or not.

So in my view there’s room for various different yet still reasonable view points.

 

[MattHooper]

However, I can't let Matt slip, since he praises records highly and live music has no wow, flutter, crackle, compression and all sorts of distortions introduced by the reproduction gear, how come he thinks live performance is close to live performance since all the records shortcomings make the music sound "more natural" and closer to live performance?


P.S. The last question is just a joke and a tease and you don't have to answer it.

But answer it I will


Since it keeps with the theme of this thread…

I certainly have never advocated for vinyl (or tube amp) distortion, but I have explained why I personally seem to enjoy a bit of added distortion in my systems.

Adding distortion usually involves some sort of trade-off, and I’m OK with some of the trade-offs.

On my system… whether it’s due to my particular turntable/cartridge set up or distortions accrued from the process by which vinyl records are made…Vinyl playback distortions seem to add a sort of textural edge to the sound which translates to me as sounding a bit more vivid and solid - more palpable. As somebody else has put it, vinyl can seem to paint a slightly more solid picture of the sound.

To me that’s valuable because I highly value a sense of density and palpability. Stereo playback imaging lacks the density of the real thing. It sounds diaphanous, see-through, relative to real sounds. Adding additional speakers like a centre channel can help improve the sense of density, but I’m talking about my two channel playback.

So anything that that makes stereo playback sound a little bit more “there” is something I really appreciate, even if it is a subtle difference.

It’s one reason why I’ve gone and re-bought vinyl versions of some music I own on CD. I hear a trade-off of ultimate resolution, timbral nuance, lack of noise and sometimes bass quality… those advantages go to what I hear from digital. But a good vinyl record gets really close in those areas, close enough for me, that I can appreciate that added texture as well. (Whereas somebody else listening to the same comparison on my system may latch onto the superior aspects of the digital presentation and prefer the digital playback. I’ve had that happen).

Finally, I generally own records that are in very good condition and so to my ears, they effectively play back mostly without obvious noise - certainly rarely noticeable while music is actually playing. And when there are bits of noise - I don’t expect perfection from vinyl! - I seem good at mentally filtering it out in terms of my attention so it’s no big deal. I listened to a whole album last night and I can’t remember noticing any noise at all.

ETA: another way I can add some more of that texture/density is by manipulating room reflections, from wall surfaces, etc.
I find that as I cut down wall reflections using absorption (eg thick curtains) I gained more subtle detail and more timbral nuance and information about the specific reverbs and recorded acoustic from a recording.
Whereas if I allow more liveliness in the room the sound loses some subtlety but it’s like the “ room hash” adds some texture and solidity to the sound. I don’t know if others have the same experience.

 

[Hapo]

...as pointed out by intelligent and observant minds on this thread, a lot of live music sounds like ass...there is that...

...did you ever hear the Ass Ponys live...???...LoL...

...it don't sound much like this at all...

 

[Hapo]

...anyone catch this show live...???...

 

[Snarfie]

My setup is described in this post: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...for-order-of-canada.72090/page-3#post-2627665.

I have ideas to do more DSP to finesse the bass, but it is acceptable although not impressive as is, so my laziness takes over. I tend to enjoy the music.

Music in a car has always been a way to relieve monotony on a long drive, or while stuck in traffic - some has actually been pleasurable. Car audio is a world unto itself.

I missed your setup description, so thank you for adding the link.

I have to admit, I smiled when I read that you use Sonos throughout the condo for casual listening, much like I use a Bose Wave music system in my living room. Somewhere, an audiophile is probably having an existential crisis... while one of the world's leading audio researchers is simply enjoying the music.

It is a great reminder that once the fundamentals are right, the goal is not endless tweaking, but simply enjoying the music.

 

[mpw]

To me there is nothing like seeing live music. The musicians feed off the crowd and the crowd feeds of the music being played. I have seen some great concerts: The Who, Jethru Tull, Santana, Steve Windwood, Gratefull Dead, Symphony's at the Boston Symphony Hall and the Raleigh Concert Hall, Pat Metheny with Roy Haynes at small club in Cambridge, Ma. The Pat Metheny Group at larger venue all incredible performances with great sound. Listening to music at home is a completely different experience more relaxing and comfortable but with the right 2ch. system it can be emotional and quite enjoyable as well. Both different but worthwhile. Note: I have seen a classical concert in Amsterdam that famous concert hall that one of the forum members mentioned, incredible experience. We are lucky to have all these choices listening to Music. The next concert that I plan to see is the NC Symphony playing Pink Floyd. If I had to pick one listen room to hear music it be at Michael Fremers basement with his hi-end system playing some his Lp's.