[liamstrain]

Quote:

This can be heard as obfuscation if not an outright change in quality of rhythm, but an "orthogonal dimension" to what you are talking about. You can still recognize Bill Evans but he isn't as fun to listen to.
 

 
I think the recording has to be really poor before you start to seriously cut into my enjoyment of a recording, from that standpoint. And as has been pointed out - that the only existing recordings of some past masters are terrible re-masters of 1930's originals, doesn't take away from our ability to appreciate them. Would we prefer better recordings? Of course! Does it fundamentally affect our ability to appreciate their musicality? No. 

 

[mike1127]

Quote:

 
I think the recording has to be really poor before you start to seriously cut into my enjoyment of a recording, from that standpoint. And as has been pointed out - that the only existing recordings of some past masters are terrible re-masters of 1930's originals, doesn't take away from our ability to appreciate them. Would we prefer better recordings? Of course! Does it fundamentally affect our ability to appreciate their musicality? No. 

That may be true for you, but I assure you, given my experience and the kinds of pattern-recognition that my experience has developed, there is much less music perceivable in a recording than in a live hearing, or in a poor recording vs. a good one. And it can fundamentally alter the presentation of the musicality.
 
I am aware that most people here on Sound Science don't hear things that way, but that is a matter of the specific patterns they've trained themselves to recognize.

 

[liamstrain]

Quote:

That may be true for you, but I assure you, given my experience and the kinds of pattern-recognition that my experience has developed, there is much less music perceivable in a recording than in a live hearing, or in a poor recording vs. a good one.
 
No arguments. I can assure you, given my experience and pattern recognition, that I agree with this assessment. 
 
 
And it can fundamentally alter the presentation of the musicality.
 
I disagree with this part. Musicality shows through pretty well barring really destructive artifacts. Again, I'd prefer better quality recordings, but I'll take what I can get with some performers. 
 

 

[mike1127]

Quote:

Musicality shows through pretty well barring really destructive artifacts. Again, I'd prefer better quality recordings, but I'll take what I can get with some performers.
 

Words like "musicality" aren't precisely defined. As an example of what I mean, consider a chamber ensemble that chooses a tempo for a string quartet by combining their instincts about the hall reverberation, the quality of energy they want to convey, and the articulation they are using. For the tempo to sound "right" it has to express the way those things interrelate. Now listen to this live, then on a recording. If the recording alters the perceived length of hall reverberation, the intensity of articulation, or anything else, it can make the tempo sound "wrong."
 
Does that mean I burn the recording? Does it mean I look down my nose at all those sadly misinformed audiophiles who like it? No, if it's the only one I've got, I'll listen, but I don't forget just how much better it can sound, how much more "right" it can sound, when performed live or properly recorded.

 

[liamstrain]

Ok - we don't fundamentally disagree. I think your chosen language to try to convey this concept, is throwing people off. 

 

[mike1127]

Quote:

Ok - we don't fundamentally disagree. I think your chosen language to try to convey this concept, is throwing people off. 

That could be. One thing I sense about this forum, and I don't know if this is true -- but I'm interested in "degrees", "shades" of things like musicality, which is something critical to music-making. You have to evaluate small changes reliably. Whereas the people reading this might mostly associate "musicality" with distinct concepts, like "Coltrane's sound" vs. someone else's sound. Evaluating changes reliably is part of sound engineering, too-- in choosing mike technique, monitor speakers, and the like.

 

[rroseperry]

That could be. One thing I sense about this forum, and I don't know if this is true -- but I'm interested in "degrees", "shades" of things like musicality, which is something critical to music-making. You have to evaluate small changes reliably. Whereas the people reading this might mostly associate "musicality" with distinct concepts, like "Coltrane's sound" vs. someone else's sound. Evaluating changes reliably is part of sound engineering, too-- in choosing mike technique, monitor speakers, and the like.

Ok, that's pretty clear. What hasn't been clear in your posts is how this specific type of musicality can be affected by a competent, working system. It shouldn't be, as far as I can tell, unless something is broken.

 

[mike1127]

Quote:

Ok, that's pretty clear. What hasn't been clear in your posts is how this specific type of musicality can be affected by a competent, working system. It shouldn't be, as far as I can tell, unless something is broken.

Do you think that recorded music in general has less impact than live acoustic music? If so that's an example of a functioning system affecting musicality.

 

[rroseperry]

Do you think that recorded music in general has less impact than live acoustic music? If so that's an example of a functioning system affecting musicality.

Generally yes, but I've heard remarkable recordings and sat in live venues with terrible mixing and crap acoustics.

They're fundamentally different experiences of music. I'm not sure how useful a comparison is.

 

[BlindInOneEar]

Quote:

 
Actually I'm glad to try to discuss this because you seem interested, and as you may know, some people on the Sound Science forum are only here to mock.

Hey!  I resemble that remark!
 
All kidding aside, how about sharing some insights with the board with regard to what you have learned over the years?  I'd be most curious to know what speakers or headphones you've found to be the most transparent.  I'd also be curious to know what the rejects were you discarded along the way, and why.  What should I be looking for when I'm shopping for new gear?
 
Thanks in advance for your advice! 

 

[germanium]

A good recording should be able to accurately convey the energy of the live event even if one cannot achieve live volume levels & one should not actually even try for live volume levels as that is damaging to hearing except with live unamplified  instruments & voices. If your system faithfully can reproduce live unamped instruments & voices then you should be able to get the best out of all recordings. The volume does not nessessarily need to be as loud as a live event in order to perceive the energy of the live performace in a system that accurately reproduces the sound of live unamped instruments. Many people assume that you need volume that closely matches the live event to get the impression of energy present in the live performance.
 
Am I against the use of compression? No, but in the way it is used in many recordings it is way way overdone & detracts from the energy of the live event whether it be in the studio or live event. Compression used wisely actually can enhance the sense of the live energy when properly used but must be used with subtleness. In other word one should not be aware that compression was even used even though it was.
 
A large part of what makes a recording sound its best is that the impresion of dynamics is not lost. The whole recording & playback chain must be able to accurately be able to convey dynamics in order to have that feeling that you are there at the live event. Precious few systems or recording are capable of reproducing to that level. You do not need to have an audiophile recording to get a well recorded album.  Wynton Marceles Magic Hour is an incredable recording that truely give you the feeling that you are there in the studio with them. It has that incredible live energy sound & with my system I feel as though I am in the same venue with them. This is not an audiophile recording but a standard issue one that was incredibly well recorded.

 

[jnjn]

Quote:

the best voice I ever heard from a popular music singer was Laura Branigan.

I've been tossed over the years.  Teena Marie was the one who impressed me the most, her speed and accuracy.
 
jnjn

 

[JadeEast]

Quote:

Do you think that recorded music in general has less impact than live acoustic music? If so that's an example of a functioning system affecting musicality.

 
Mike, if I boiled down your position would it look like this?
 
1) Live sound is the benchmark.
3) A good recording chain will be more musical than a poor one.
4) A good playback chain will be more musical than a poor one.
5) A good playback chain reproduces the experience of listening live.
6) Musicality is the way to asses both the recording chain and the playback chain.

 

[liamstrain]

Quote:

 
6) Musicality is the way to asses both the recording chain and the playback chain.

 
Barring, of course, a way to directly compare the recording/playback with the live performance (even memory of the same performance as the recording is flawed) - making the assessment a floating point, at best. 

 

[drez]

Quote:

 
Mike, if I boiled down your position would it look like this?
 
1) Live sound is the benchmark.
3) A good recording chain will be more musical than a poor one.
4) A good playback chain will be more musical than a poor one.
5) A good playback chain reproduces the experience of listening live.
6) Musicality is the way to asses both the recording chain and the playback chain.

 
Quote:

 
Barring, of course, a way to directly compare the recording/playback with the live performance (even memory of the same performance as the recording is flawed) - making the assessment a floating point, at best. 

 
I know of lots of examples where people chase their own proverbial tail seeking to remedy a lack of musicality by modifying the playback chain in the wrong place.  I think the target experience of live music is quite compelling, but regarding dynamics in my opinion if you are trying to recreate the subjective experience of a live event at a lower sound level you could possibly end up with gear that overemphasizes macrodynamics.  However if you are methodical in how you measure and/or modify your equipment I'm sure that dynamic range can be improved for example by reducing phase distortion, improving power supply, properly engineering equipment line input/output stages and cabling etc (unfortunately the last one is beyond what I can hope to understand at this point)
 
Aside from this, today I was reading the Wireworld website, and they seem to be promoting some ABX comparator switchbox, no links to any actual test results (perhaps unsurpisingly) yet - just hot air for now.  Might be worth contacting them to see if they are actually planning to do anything with this equipment or just talk about having it...  Might be interesting to send them an email to see if they are sending these out to distributors, but I'm probably being a little too hopeful here.