|
Post by MartinT on Jan 3, 2016 21:05:36 GMT
I would say that, presentationally, a live acoustic performance and my system's rendition of a live acoustic recording are not miles apart. Of course, the dynamics of real life blow away the played back version, but the feel of the sound melding into one, still retaining spatial cues, is similar. I've sat at the Festival Hall with my eyes closed to try to assess this, with some curiosity.
Studio/manufactured performances have their own rules.
|
|
|
Post by MartinT on Jan 3, 2016 21:06:51 GMT
Oh that's not how I meant it. I was meaning a "proper" hifi system need not be expensive to be high fidelity but I wasn't including lossy. The cost of entry to hifi being what....£1k, possibly less? Ok then, we are in better agreement. £1k will buy you a lot of hi-fi if you scour the used market.
|
|
|
Post by Greg on Jan 3, 2016 21:25:03 GMT
I would say that, presentationally, a live acoustic performance and my system's rendition of a live acoustic recording are not miles apart. Of course, the dynamics of real life blow away the played back version, but the feel of the sound melding into one, still retaining spatial cues, is similar. I've sat at the Festival Hall with my eyes closed to try to assess this, with some curiosity. Studio/manufactured performances have their own rules. Well that may be what you genuinely think (which I respect) but I suspect your view is a little illusionary. I really don't believe it is possible to make a home sound reproduction system come even close to what can be heard at a live performance. Eyes closed in front of a large orchestra will reveal far less in any comparison with recorded reproduction than the differences that can be observed from eyes closed in front of a quintet and how it sounds on your system at home. In that circumstance, the difference to what you hear live and what you hear reproduced at home is very obviously different. As said, not a problem for me. I enjoy both presentations equally but always consider them separately.
|
|
|
Post by MartinT on Jan 3, 2016 21:44:07 GMT
I did say with the exception of dynamics. In fact, a single instrument can be the most shocking difference of all. Ever heard a sax played close up? There is no way that can be reproduced with accuracy. But yes, I was talking about a full orchestra, and I've been to lots of concerts. Where you sit makes a big difference.
|
|
|
Post by Greg on Jan 3, 2016 21:53:35 GMT
Having read your last post, I believe we are probably in general agreement.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 3, 2016 22:04:12 GMT
Mods - this is out of order on a friendly hifi forum IMO. On balance, it was a bit rude @mikmas However, you referred to pinkie 's posts/actions, so it was not ad hominem. Okeedoke - I promise to be gentler in future
|
|
|
Post by julesd68 on Jan 3, 2016 22:20:42 GMT
I did say with the exception of dynamics. In fact, a single instrument can be the most shocking difference of all. Ever heard a sax played close up? There is no way that can be reproduced with accuracy. But yes, I was talking about a full orchestra, and I've been to lots of concerts. Where you sit makes a big difference. Ha, yes that's true - whenever I'm at the Barbican or Festival Hall I'm normally in the cheap seats so recreating that distant experience wouldn't be a priority of mine ... That aside, whilst I'm not obsessed with trying to recreate the live experience, inevitably I like my classical music to be reproduced in the most natural way possible, with as little as possible added or taken away ... I'm very aware of what each of the orchestral instruments sounds like in 'real life', whether played in an orchestra or solo. But with a really good recording I can certainly lose myself in the music the way I do in the concert hall and that's good enough for me. Of course the more extreme examples of Decca or DG recordings are very obviously 'coloured' by in-house techniqes and as my system became more neutral, the differences in various approaches to recording and mastering was all the more obvious. I find the sense of scale and dynamics I get from my Tannoys with large orchestral works like the Mozart Requiem can be very compelling but they will also handle a Couperin harpsichord recording in such a way that I'm not having to question the tone or timbre of the notes at all ...
|
|
|
Post by steveeb on Jan 3, 2016 22:27:12 GMT
I would say that, presentationally, a live acoustic performance and my system's rendition of a live acoustic recording are not miles apart. Of course, the dynamics of real life blow away the played back version, but the feel of the sound melding into one, still retaining spatial cues, is similar. I've sat at the Festival Hall with my eyes closed to try to assess this, with some curiosity. Studio/manufactured performances have their own rules. One personal reference that endures is Antonio Forcioni playing amplified, solo and live in the bar at a Heathrow HiFi exhibition through a HiFi quality PA. Absolutely captivating, total sensory overload and thrilling. Completely devoid of any source localisation or soundstage though, the sound just completely filled the room. I rarely find live performance, unless it's up close and personal acoustic, to be particularly clean and detailed. Actually it's usually quite poor in HiFi terms. I wonder if we obsess about detail in a home situation as compensation for the comparative lack of other attributes that define the experience of hearing an original source, such as the dynamic level and timbre that colour instrument or vocal character. I recently heard a street busker on accordion which was a very rich and musical experience, dominated by the actual complex sound of the instrument. I once heard Sweet Dreams by Patsy Cline floating out of an upstairs window in a poor town in St Lucia which sounded truly realistic and beautiful - and I'm confident was not coming from any vaguely high fidelity source, yet captured the essential essence. There's more to this malarky than you might imagine
|
|
|
Post by jandl100 on Jan 4, 2016 6:59:11 GMT
I was talking about a full orchestra, and I've been to lots of concerts. Where you sit makes a big difference. Absolutely. I've found that it is also a strong indicator of your tastes in audio presentation. Audio-wise, I prefer my sounds up front and fairly impactful. And in a concert hall I like to sit about 2/3rds of the way back in the front stalls. A good friend of mine likes his audio presentation laidback and smooth. Where does he sit in the concert hall? Yup! - he likes to be waaaay back in the Gods. He says he'd take a seat in the car park if it could be done.
|
|
|
Post by MartinT on Jan 4, 2016 7:01:17 GMT
Whereas I sit 1/3 of the way back in the stalls if I can. That's also the presentation I prefer on recordings
|
|
|
Post by jandl100 on Jan 4, 2016 7:46:57 GMT
3 out of 3 -- Perfect correlation of audio presentation preferences with concert seat of choice. So ... which of our 3 rather different systems is more realistic? -- they are all realistic!
|
|
|
Post by MartinT on Jan 4, 2016 8:02:10 GMT
Indeed so, they all provide us with our presentational preferences
|
|
|
Post by ChrisB on Jan 4, 2016 8:08:13 GMT
Which came first - the realisation that you prefer to sit in that position or the hifi that gives that presentation?
|
|
|
Post by jandl100 on Jan 4, 2016 8:14:09 GMT
I was going to concerts before I had a good enough hifi to start to do the music justice, so the real thing came first for me.
|
|
|
Post by jandl100 on Jan 4, 2016 8:18:36 GMT
... actually, that was a good question, Chris. (Shock! ) My early concert hall experiences were as a student at a London university. ££ was in short supply, and good cheap seats were to be had in "the choir" in the RFH (Royal Festival Hall on the South Bank), which is immediately behind the orchestra, where the choir is seated when the music needs one. So - my musical tastes were formed by a fairly upfront and immediate sound -- and thanks to your question I now realise that my hifi has needed to replicate that type of presentation ever since.
|
|
|
Post by ChrisB on Jan 4, 2016 8:28:02 GMT
Hah! Delighted to know that I can shock you by asking a good question! So if you had been a more wealthy student, your system would have been a Grand Tourer rather than a racer?
|
|
|
Post by jandl100 on Jan 4, 2016 8:45:08 GMT
Hah! Delighted to know that I can shock you by asking a good question! So if you had been a more wealthy student, your system would have been a Grand Tourer rather than a racer? Hmmm .... maybe! Cheap seats were also to be had way back at the rear, so I guess I had that option but I chose up-close. I think, though, that was partly just for the excitement and involvement of being so close to the musicians. And it was good, too, to be able to see the conductor from the front - most concert goers only see his/her back. Interesting question, and I guess I'll never really know.
|
|
|
Post by MartinT on Jan 4, 2016 15:46:40 GMT
I was going to concerts before I had a good enough hifi to start to do the music justice, so the real thing came first for me. Ditto for me.
|
|
|
Post by MikeMusic on Jan 5, 2016 18:13:46 GMT
I got tickets for a very early Dark side of the moon at Wembley Thought it was the first time but found out recently it wasn't
Cursed my bad luck getting seats right in the middle Then overjoyed at finding we were dead centre for the Quadraphonic sound. Best seats going Wonderful gig
|
|
|
Post by John on Jan 5, 2016 18:20:52 GMT
When I first started going to concerts it was about the performance and music. How it sounded was not something I use to notice I was more into the energy of the music. As I got older that started to change and started to avoid the front, then I started to get close to the mixing desk
|
|