Message to golden-eared audiophiles posting at ASR for the first time...

[dkinric]

Imagine how long this thread will be in 150 years

 

[tmtomh]

Fair enough. But I get the feeling that there is more than that going on. I'd love to see a poll taken here with the following question: do you believe that in 150 years, there will be technology that will manipulate the signals coming from recordings from the 1970s in such a way that the recordings sound lifelike, live and much more pleasing and real than those recordings sound now? I have a feeling you would be surprised at the results of that poll.

I don't mean to be ungenerous or picayune, truly. But I think it has to be noted that you are using the terms "live" and "real" in an overly broad and unexamined manner.

Given how the music industry has grown over the last 100 or so years and the styles of music (and music production) that have become most popular and dominant, I think we can safely say that majority of existing recorded music was not in any meaningful sense recorded "live" - and that the mixed ensemble of sounds we hear is not in any meaningful sense "real." It's multitrack recordings, with parts laid down at different times and sometimes in different places, and more recently with tons of samples and electronically generated sounds.

Let's take the time period and the band you mentioned: Led Zeppelin. And let's go all the way back to 1969 and Led Zeppelin II, first track, "Whole Lotta Love." Here are a few aspects of the song worth considering:

After each refrain line, "Wanna whole lotta love," there's a sort of sliding guitar sound from Jimmy Page. If you listen to the multitracks that were leaked onto the internet about 9 years ago, it becomes clear that this sliding sound is actually an edited part of a longer riff he laid down on the track at each of those moments. The beginning of what we hear on the finished song is a fade-up into the middle of the riff he played. So what would a "live," "truly real-sounding" experience of that guitar sound actually sound like? Would it sound like someone playing a magical guitar that had the ability to start a note in the middle?

In the breakdown/freak-out section in the middle of the song, some of Robert Plant's moans are so close-mic'd that he sounds literally larger than life in one's room. Is a "live, realistic" presentation of that supposed to make your brain think there's a 10-foot-tall giant having an orgasm in your room?

Also in the breakdown/freakout section, some of Plant's vocals, along with some of John Bonham's backing bongo-drum track, plus part of Page's theramin track, all bounce rapidly back and forth between the L and R channels at various points. Are we supposed to feel like Bonham is crouched over a set of bongos that magically can jump 10 feet across the room in well under 1 second, over and over? Are we to imagine that Plant is able to run from one microphone, across the room to another microphone, in 1/10th of a second, and not sound out of breath after he's done so several times?

Just before the final outro of the song, there's a ghostly pre-echo of Plant's vocals, which are actually from a different vocal take that bled onto one of the other channels of the multitrack. Engineer Eddie Kramer couldn't get rid of it, so he and Page decided to just use it. What is a truly "live" and "real" presentation of a faint echo that comes before the thing it's echoing, and which also is not actually the exact same vocal as the vocal it's supposedly echoing?

Finally, how on earth do you present a song that fades out at the end in a "live" and "real" manner?

Look, at some level I get what you're saying. I'm a member over at Royal-Orleans (hardcore Led Zeppelin fan site with a strong emphasis on the variety of amazing live performances available as bootlegs) - I've seen and participated in the threads imagining how amazing it would be if there were software that could un-mix stereo soundboard tapes so that each instrument and Plant's vocals could be separately processed and level-matched in the mix, and so that the horrid tape azimuth problems of the 1973 soundboards could be corrected, and so the missing bass notes could be synthesized and added, and the missing high-hat transients that exceeded the upper frequency limit of the recorders they used at the time could be added in. That would be awesome, and I have no doubt that technology will be available much sooner than 150 years from now - heck, some of it is almost good enough right now.

But to take that scenario, and generalize it as you have, and then claim that you have a "feeling" that ASR members would be against it because they have some kind of luddite or puritanical insistence on "transparency," is, with respect, total nonsense.

 

[SIY]

Of course, goes without saying. But my point still stands. In 150 years, technology will allow us to listen to albums from the 70's and we will likely hear those recordings as if they were recorded live in front of us. And that technology will not revolve around presenting the signal transparently to the speakers, it will involve a manipulation of the signal. How many of the posters in this thread would agree to that? I think very few.

Second Law of thermodynamics is neither a matter of opinion nor negotiable. Do much better.

 

[ralphf]

But to take that scenario, and generalize it as you have, and then claim that you have a "feeling" that ASR members would be against it because they have some kind of luddite or puritanical insistence on "transparency," is, with respect, total nonsense.

Well that's good to know. I'd hate to think that people who claim to be science advocates would dismiss products out of hand simply because they aren't transparent. Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[RayDunzl]

I personally think that music reproduction sounds so unrealistic and so dimensionless...

With what do you listen?

And to what, for that matter...

 

[ralphf]

Second Law of thermodynamics is neither a matter of opinion nor negotiable. Do much better.

Oh my god man, this has nothing to do with second law of thermodynamics! The type of signal processing being discussed does not involve time travel.

 

[ralphf]

With what do you listen?

And to what, for that matter...

Currently have Genelec 8030 speakers, SVC subwoofers, an NAD amp and play music directly from iphone. I listen to all sorts of music. I'm sure that my system is mediocre and could be significantly improved. When you listen to your system, could you ever even remotely confuse the sound with the sound you would hear if the musicians were playing live in your room? If so, you are a lucky man.

 

[tmtomh]

Well that's good to know. I'd hate to think that people who claim to be science advocates would dismiss products out of hand simply because they aren't transparent. Thanks for clearing that up.

I would hate to think that, too. Fortunately, I was doing nothing of the kind, which is quite clear from any plausible reading of my prior comment.

I’m sorry you’re feeling frustrated, but that doesn’t license lashing out based on a gross misreading of others’ comments.

It’s also kind of counter-productive, as I’m the only one who’s actually expressing some level of agreement with you about tech that could enhance some ‘70s recordings.

 

[BluesDaddy]

Currently have Genelec 8030 speakers, SVC subwoofers, an NAD amp and play music directly from iphone. I listen to all sorts of music. I'm sure that my system is mediocre and could be significantly improved. When you listen to your system, could you ever even remotely confuse the sound with the sound you would hear if the musicians were playing live in your room? If so, you are a lucky man.

So the "back in 150" was seconds and not years. Good to know your frame of reference.

 

[ralphf]

I would hate to think that, too. Fortunately, I was doing nothing of the kind, which is quite clear from any plausible reading of my prior comment.

I’m sorry you’re feeling frustrated, but the doesn’t license a gross misreading of others’ comments.

First of all, I never accused you of anything and if you got that impression, my apologies. You have been very civil (until very recently) and willing to engage in thoughtful commentary and I certainly appreciate it. Rare these days indeed. As for "others' comments" and what conclusions can be drawn from their statements, you are entitled to your opinion and I am to mine. As for you feeling sorry for me feeling frustrated, that's quite an assumption. I am not the kind of person who gets frustrated by the opinions of others. I don't get married to positions. For me, these ideas are simply fun to discuss and talk about.

 

[ralphf]

So the "back in 150" was seconds and not years. Good to know your frame of reference.

What's the point? If you don't have something to add to the discussion, some insight, something new, a question, an anecdote a thought, why bother? Why the insults?

 

[BluesDaddy]

What's the point? If you don't have something to add to the discussion, some insight, something new, a question, an anecdote a thought, why bother? Why the insults?

Because it's apparent there is no point in engaging you seriously and I like popping balloons.

 

[RayDunzl]

Currently have Genelec 8030 speakers, SVC subwoofers, an NAD amp and play music directly from iphone. I listen to all sorts of music. I'm sure that my system is mediocre and could be significantly improved.

I have 50W LSR 308 which can be played with (cheap) subs and they don't move me, though they are fine for non-critical listening - they're the daily drivers for TV and Movies and whatever, and an excellent substitute for the speakers buried in the TV.

I also have "the big rig" which gets powered up for occasions when I crave a stab at realism and dimension. See below:

When you listen to your system, could you ever even remotely confuse the sound with the sound you would hear if the musicians were playing live in your room?

There is no chance nearly all of the musicians I listen to would be playing in my room. Maybe if I held a successful seance.

Nevertheless, I don't find the playback to be particularly unrealistic nor dimensionless.

Particularly when in a frame of mind to relax and let the imagination play its part in the presentation.

One gauge I have, in that situation, mesmerized, is how long it takes me to even realize a disc has finished, when the sound is still resonating in my head.

In any case, it's an illusion, easily shattered. You're susceptible, or not, depending on many changing factors.

Some movies draw me in, others don't. Same with music playback.

YMMV, as always.

 

[ralphf]

Nevertheless, I don't find the playback to be particularly unrealistic nor dimensionless.

Particularly when in a frame of mind to relax and let the imagination play its part in the presentation.

One gauge I have, in that situation, mesmerized, is how long it takes me to even realize a disc has finished, when the sound is still resonating in my head.

In any case, it's an illusion, easily shattered. You're susceptible, or not, depending on many changing factors.

Some movies draw me in, others don't. Same with music playback.

YMMV, as always.

I appreciate that perspective, and certainly until we have a paradigm shift with regard to sound reproduction, your advice is solid. What I'd like to hear from music reproduction is simply the ability to produce the sound of a talking voice and not be able to tell the difference between a real live person behind a curtain and a system playing back a recording.

 

[Ken1951]

My system would be sneered at by most audiophiles, but when I listen to Van Morrison's "Snow In San Anselmo" it blows me away when I turn it up some. And I'm streaming from my iPhone 6 to my Sony XBR to my Yamaha AVR (in 7 channel stereo). Paradigm S8s (powered by 30+ yr old Adcom 555) and C3 and Focal Cache rears. It simply sounds wonderful. I just love the sound. I'd never mistake anything I listen to as "live" but no system likely ever would, no matter the price. It's about the music. It''ll never sound like the orchestra, or Hendrix, or Joni Mitchell is in the room. Just love the music and relax.

 

[SIY]

Oh my god man, this has nothing to do with second law of thermodynamics! The type of signal processing being discussed does not involve time travel.

I note that basic physics is outside your knowledge base. A good deep reading of the first volume of the Feynman Lectures would be highly beneficial.

 

[David Harper]

Imagine how long this thread will be in 150 years

assuming we don't all go up in a nuclear mushroom cloud by then.

 

[dkinric]

It’s not really a valid comparison as most of us, myself included, have never heard a live performance in our living room. And, most live performances I’ve attended have sounded pretty bad, mostly due to the venue (classical concert halls may be better). It was loud, with lotsa bass, but not really that good.
So, what exactly are we hoping to achieve with our playback systems?
Personally, I like to be able to believe I’m watching a live studio recording, or maybe an intimate live performance, and my system is pretty good at providing that suspension of disbelief, imho. Sure, there is room for improvement, but holding out for some upcoming massive breakthrough in audio reproduction before it can be enjoyed seems like chasing the dragon.

 

[ralphf]

I note that basic physics is outside your knowledge base. A good deep reading of the first volume of the Feynman Lectures would be highly beneficial.

Very impressive indeed

 

[Slayer]

Seeing how audio equipment has become very transparent, one would think it can only be marginally improved upon.

Personally I think the closest way we can get to the Live experience as Ralph is searching for, is to go with 3 channel stereo.
I know there have been test experiments over the past 90 yrs or so and it would seem that the 3 channel stereo system was preferred as they were able to achieve a more perceivable true to life experience.

2 channel stereo can get really close to realism, but the 3 channel system adds the extra realism we seem to be missing.
Many moons ago, I had a receiver pre/pro ( sorry don't recall what make and model it was ) with 3 channel stereo and i have to admit it was nice listening to it.