Your reference sounds

[Axo1989]

Reference recordings need to be on the list. Seems like many use them and as others mentioned I have my go to "in the room" favorites. Plus knowing what is there and whats not again and again, that is say life like accuracy, familiarity, and repeatability listening to different devices.

Yes, added that new list item to my vote fwiw. By 'reference' I really mean a fairly constant selection of tracks I like to use when trying out gear, not any specific authoritative set.

Useful though. A short while back I was quite taken with a pair of JBL K2 that showed up second-hand nearby at a nice price (especially $/kg). They were gorgeous. But they didn't play sub-bass at all really, so no substitute for (say) similarly sized Focal Utopia. Not that I'm going to afford those, but realising the K2 required some significant sub-woofer-age to render my test tracks adequately tempered my enthusiasm. Was that 'good' or not? Maybe I should've bought them anyway. Someone else did.

 

[Axo1989]

To avoid confusion re scope of 'reference recordings' I'll mean I'll use (inter alia) something like this ...

... you want to hear the 'air' as the cymbals ring, the synth bass and kick-drum distinct from/below the guitar bass-line, clear delineation of all the sonic elements including the expressive/delicate vocal timbres, and sufficient clarity/low distortion/clean decay to allow a semblance of conversation while playing at realistic >100 dB peaks (minimally, not that we listen like that all the time, but we should be able to). From the recording, not the YT, of course.

 

[Barrelhouse Solly]

in my youth I played piano, guitar and violin (not well I might add, zero talent, but I put the hours in). Done two piano recitals and sang in a choir with full orchestra. So I think I also have reasonable experience of live acoustic instruments.

The problem, I think, with using that as a reference to the recorded version is how much that is changed by the very act of recording, and then what is done in post production to make, say, a flat, one dimensional piano recording sound 'live' and 'real' again on playback. There's quite a bit of artifice involved. Perhaps not in every recording of acoustic instruments but even the purest recording will still have some compression applied.

Then consider mic position - how do you mic up, at what distance, how many mics and which mics? All those choices give a different sound and none of them 'hear' the same as you standing in the room with the piano.

My point is the recording cannot be a direct facsimile of the original experience of a listener in the room or hall. Maybe at best it can be a rough guide as in when the replay system gets it badly wrong we can tell.

Personally I'd rather take the recording as the starting point and listen to it on a calibrated, accurate replay system then compare that to how it sounds on whatever system I'm evaluating. But that isn't really practical.

That's exactly the point. If the recorded version sounds different from the live version, assuming optimal listening position, the recorded version is not faithful to the actual sound. This may be a semantic thing, but the way I understand it, accurate reproduction is a recording that's as close as possible to indistinguishable from the live performance.

 

[pablolie]

That's exactly the point. If the recorded version sounds different from the live version, assuming optimal listening position, the recorded version is not faithful to the actual sound. This may be a semantic thing, but the way I understand it, accurate reproduction is a recording that's as close as possible to indistinguishable from the live performance.

I don't think that's true.

Recording venues and studios are very different (as a rule). Live venues have larger volume and almost always a certain hall effect. Some are great, some are awful. I love going to Yoshi's in Oakland, but most acts -many of them big names in today's jazz- completely overwhelm the venue with way too much SPL. There have been live albums recorded there, but heaven forbid they ever be my reference for anything. And seating position is very important in a live venue, something one has often little control over.

Many studios are better at isolating stuff and providing a cleaner sound. The "padded room" thing can sound a bit sterile, but in the majority of cases it is cleaner and hence my personal preference (when a competent recording engineer is in control).

I personally think the whole audiophile belief that "the truth is in the live performance" a somewhat empty platitude - I tend to prefer the cleaner albeit more sterile studio recording.

Of course there are exceptions to the rule, meaning that most likely there isn't a rule.

 

[Torin Krell]

Another difficulty in choosing reference recordings is that the tonal balance target used in mastering has varied significantly over time and is still different at times with different media. For example older recordings tend to have much less deep bass - which I notice immediately with my dual subwoofer reference system.

 

[pablolie]

Another difficulty in choosing reference recordings is that the tonal balance target used in mastering has varied significantly over time and is still different at times with different media. For example older recordings tend to have much less deep bass - which I notice immediately with my dual subwoofer reference system.

I have also always assumed that's why early AAD CDs sounded a bit congested and sharp in many cases... recording practices for vinyl basically kept everything under 30Hz completely out and kept bass mono up to 200Hz. And then there's the groove effect with bass, which sometimes also limited bass in favor of play time.

PS: Just confirmed this listening to Kenny G's song "Pastel" on the Silhouette album, comparing the original 1988 CD (we are all young :-D) to the song on Spotify. The Spotify version is quite a bit "richer".

 

[Mart68]

That's exactly the point. If the recorded version sounds different from the live version, assuming optimal listening position, the recorded version is not faithful to the actual sound. This may be a semantic thing, but the way I understand it, accurate reproduction is a recording that's as close as possible to indistinguishable from the live performance.

There's a story I read years ago of which I am unsure now of all the details, but essentially the writer sold some photography equipment via the local newspaper. The buyer comes to collect and says 'I'm a professional violinist and whoever that is I hear playing the violin is extremely talented. Is it your wife or one of your children?'

So the bloke leads him into the next room where his system (QUAD ESL, no idea of the rest) is playing. The violinist could not get over that this was just a recording coming through loudspeakers. The 'very talented' violinist he thought he had discovered was Yehudi Menhuin.

So I suppose it can be a reference to some extent.

 

[Robin L]

That's exactly the point. If the recorded version sounds different from the live version, assuming optimal listening position, the recorded version is not faithful to the actual sound. This may be a semantic thing, but the way I understand it, accurate reproduction is a recording that's as close as possible to indistinguishable from the live performance.

Most recordings do not have a "live music" reference. They are studio constructs, and the only true representation of the recording would be the sound the recording engineers/producers heard in the studio. In order for a recording to be a true representation of a "live" event, it would have to be a recording of acoustic instruments/unamplified voices and untreated with electronic processing. Even with recordings of classical music or other acoustic music, that rarely happens. I've made many recordings of classical music using a minimal microphone array, like ORTF. The smaller the ensemble the closer the recording resembled the sound of the source.

 

[Barrelhouse Solly]

Most recordings do not have a "live music" reference. They are studio constructs, and the only true representation of the recording would be the sound the recording engineers/producers heard in the studio. In order for a recording to be a true representation of a "live" event, it would have to be a recording of acoustic instruments/unamplified voices and untreated with electronic processing. Even with recordings of classical music or other acoustic music, that rarely happens. I've made many recordings of classical music using a minimal microphone array, like ORTF. The smaller the ensemble the closer the recording resembled the sound of the source.

I like chamber music. It's pretty clear that small groups are easier to record faithfully than full orchestras. For that matter four players are easier than 8.

 

[Barrelhouse Solly]

There's a story I read years ago of which I am unsure now of all the details, but essentially the writer sold some photography equipment via the local newspaper. The buyer comes to collect and says 'I'm a professional violinist and whoever that is I hear playing the violin is extremely talented. Is it your wife or one of your children?'

So the bloke leads him into the next room where his system (QUAD ESL, no idea of the rest) is playing. The violinist could not get over that this was just a recording coming through loudspeakers. The 'very talented' violinist he thought he had discovered was Yehudi Menhuin.

So I suppose it can be a reference to some extent.

Like the old speaker ads with live vs. recorded. IIRC, it was AR.

 

[Puddingbuks]

My absolute reference is this fart I once recorded. I know how this instrument is played well and how it was when it was played. The feeling, the atmosphere, the timbre, the reverb - all full of life and emotion.

When I play this on a system, I just know instantly if it doesn’t sound right, or that I get that instant emotional memory of that great moment in space and time. A real reference.

Reference fart

This is my old reference, when there is need for a sound with more body, texture and swift changes in tonality.

Old reference

 

[pablolie]

My absolute reference is this fart I once recorded. I know how this instrument is played well and how it was when it was played. The feeling, the atmosphere, the timbre, the reverb - all full of life and emotion.

When I play this on a system, I just know instantly if it doesn’t sound right, or that I get that instant emotional memory of that great moment in space and time. A real reference.

Reference fart

And there's an argument to be made we don't want to experience that "live". :-D

 

[Peluvius]

That's exactly the point. If the recorded version sounds different from the live version, assuming optimal listening position, the recorded version is not faithful to the actual sound. This may be a semantic thing, but the way I understand it, accurate reproduction is a recording that's as close as possible to indistinguishable from the live performance.

The live version will never sound the same as the acoustics of the room or space where the performance took place will have a major impact on what you hear. I have not been able to use live music as a good reference for this reason although I do like it when my system can re-create the deep bass and percussion I have experienced at an acoustic performance. Most of my listening has been at the Sydney Opera House and while not every room is acoustically excellent, many are. My home spaces are not even close.

 

[Peluvius]

I used to use this as a reference for many years: