How do posters keep their appreciation of what their recorded music ACTUALLY sounds like before comparing with the results through their kit? I'm surprised how little I see references to real music performances on this group.

Just to give my own examples, in the last six weeks I've seen The King and I (radio miked, very good quality) La Traviata (WNO at the Southampton Mayflower, excellent acoustics) Rossini's Messe Solonelle (Local choral group plus professional soloists at a local Dorchester church), Tchaikovski's Swan Lake, Chinese State Circus (terrible sound!) and WOW - a local young singers' show. I reckon I spend at least as much on live performances as I ever do on recorded music. Presumably professional reviewers go to live performances even more often to make sure their ears are up-to-date.

On Saturday Mornings on BBC3 "Building a library" they do comparative reviews of different recordings of the same work - the differences can be astonishing even on our kitchen portable radio. I've really no idea how I would judge Pace, Rhythm and Timing of a piece of Hifi kit given the fantastic variability of the same parameters from recording to recording.

Ken, the elephant in the room in your post is the supposition that we like classical music, and that therefore there is some objective reference experience with which we can compare the in-home experience.

Most of the music that I like - Folk, Blues, Jazz, Rock - is miked and mixed and amplified before it even starts its journey from the stage. I do go to live gigs, I have occasionally been very impressed, but usually (as I reported here a few weeks ago) the results are appalling. That could be because my local venue is the Cambridge Corn Exchange, whose acoustics we might politely describe as "difficult".

So I can't make any real objective comparison between what I hear at home and what I hear at a gig. How could I?

Agree completely, Martin.

But again, just to play devil's advocate for a mo, I have to ask what's "objective"? Growing up 40 years ago, I had a great aunt who was a piano teacher. In the front room of her semi in Hull lurked a damn great nineteen-oh-something Steinway concert piano. Beautiful thing, but the sound of it in her front room would clearly be very different to the sound of it in its natural habitat, and again its sound will differ hugely depending on whether I'm standing next to it or sitting 60 feet away...

Perhaps this is just me, others may differ, but if I listen to a recording of a piano, I'm not particularly interested (perhaps, just not knowledgeable enough to be interested) in whether I'm hearing an accurate reproduction of the sound of a particular piano, I'm much more interested in the fact that it's Oscar Peterson (or Duke Ellington, or Otis Spann, or...) playing it, and can I hear "how" they were playing it, and "oh, didn't he just quote a bit of so-and-so there?" and so on. Those aspects, to me, are much more what "hifi" is for than trying to convince myself that it's a "real" piano. That, to me, is what leads to the ...let me quote you... "more involuntary foot tapping , more excitement , more satisfaction"

If I can try to summarise that: as a listener I appear to be much more interested in reference to real musicians than to real instruments. Hopefully I'm not alone in this?

Actually, now I've written that, I realise I've written something similar before. Back in your "what loudspeaker technology" thread, I think I commented that I seem to hate most conventional (ie 2KHz) crossovers and that I seem to be willing to put up with aberrations in the frequency domain in order to get coherence in the time domain. At least I'm consistent :-)

What do you mean by impulse curve? I did an in-room waterfall for them once, using Room EQ Wizard, but when done from the listening position that's much more about the room than the speakers, I think; so I don't think that's what you're after...?

Gotcha, I know what you're after. I only measured mine (with REW) in-room, so I don't have a pretty professional one. Stereophile never tested the Ascent, as far as I can tell - the contemporaneous MLs that they tested were things like the Prodigy which looks clean enough - it's more or less the same ML technology, albeit with a slightly wider panel (16" rather than 12") and lower X-over point. The woofer section is rather different, but still set back in the same orientation as the Prodigy.

To answer the original question, I go to a local jazz club most weeks. There is a PA, which is often unnecessary. However, I don't go to provide myself with a reference, but because I like live music. Unconsciously, though, I suppose the experience might help to keep me on the straight and narrow.

Yep, and sometimes it's loose and there, and sometimes it just doesn't work. I haven't found out yet why that is...

But for the discussion here about time alignment, read my post here of some extreme 10cm time aligning with my horns:
http://hificritic.com/Fo...the-home.aspx#post12945

Not that it now sounds perfect or so, but I did some measurements that show non-time-aligned (yellow) vs time-aligned (green) impulse responses. The 2 yellow pulses can be clearly seen and melt into 1 in the green measurement where the high horn is moved forward 10cm to allow the drivers to be aligned.

About live music. Me and some friends did a comparison once where a flute player would be recorded in the room and we replayed the recording through the high end set. Even on 24/96 it was no comparison to the live performance that gave so much more "pressure" and dynamics to the sound. I don't think live music can be fully recorded and replayed. So I just enjoy my set as a different form of music than live music, but it can be equally satisfying.

Edited by user 18 April 2012 18:28:35(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

MC>>> So true, but may I point out an error in the test?

The flute is largely omni directional and will have a certain generally recognisable sound at a sensible mic distance in a large recording space.

That flute in a room will have the shorter Rt of the room imposed on its recording, and another change due to proximity.

Then assuming record replay is perfect the speakers will be directional , forward firing and will excite the room very differently from the flute and at a different height. Finally this recording has excited the room acoustic twice, once on the recording and once on replay.

No wonder they did not sound even similar.

I have done live V recorded comparisons in a medium hall and for a good match I needed a very dynamic power amplifier and anechoic recordings.

Jangling keys required 200W headroom for a lifelike result with a good speaker.

Live dynamics are not appropriate in domestic rooms , the reflections are too near and quickly saturate the ear.

In that respect a large listening room is a prerequisite for improved fidelity and realism.

The best we can get is a scaled down version.

MartinC

I have to say that as someone who listens to very little classical music there is little I can do to find a reference to judge what any recording I enjoy should soound like . One of the only references I have is that my son plays guitar and sings and often some of this is done using an acoustic guitar . I have made some recordings of these using a single microphone (Sony Stereo electret) on to mini disc and then uploaded these to my HD . I can now play this through my SBT on my full system and have my son in the same room to listen and also perform .

Sadly the difference is huge and no one would ever be fooled in to thinking the recording was real . Now this may well be down to my recording skills which are not great but it does show how hard even recording something as simple as a single guitar and acoustic can be. I am going to try out a cheap Mackie mixing desk which has come my way and see if this can help .
it.
I also find that live music if it is amplified and in almost all venues I have been to even small cafe bar types they always use amplifiers again if you record it bears little resembalance to your live expereince when listening to the recorded version. Maybe the lack of visual clues change things but it often sounds flat and one dimensional when the original was live and vibrant.