2. speakers
  3. 138847-2227

What Characteristic Strikes You First About Un-amplified Music?

Folks,

If we were to all just list the aspects of live acoustic sounds that it would be nice to have re-created in our system, I’m sure we could come to much (though not total) agreement that live sound has those characteristics. But the list I’m looking for is one of order: what characteristics seem primary to your own perception?

So with this in mind, the question is: when you actually hear a live person singing or speaking, or a live instrument being played - e.g. sax, acoustic guitar, drums, violin, etc - and compare it to what you are used to in reproduced sound, what aspect of the live sound impresses you most?

Today when I went for lunch there was a guy playing tenor sax on the sidewalk. He was playing in the quiet Stan Getz style. As I often do, I stopped, closed my eyes and pondered "what is it that, with eyes closed, I’m hearing that I just don’t seem to hear when I’m in front of an audio system, eyes, closed, with the same instrument playing?"

And it’s almost always the same thing that sticks out to me: How LARGE the sound is of the real instrument. Even played at really quiet levels, the sax had a presence that was just BIG, and full, and rich, and just expanded to fill the surroundings so easily. So much body to the sound. In comparison, saxophone through the majority of sound systems is like a diminished, squeezed down, reductive toy-version of the real thing.

I experience the same when encountering, say, someone playing violin. It just sounds so much bigger, fuller, richer, thicker than their reproduced counterparts. Even when the player moves to the upper strings and plays the higher notes, the sound does not thin-out and become wiry as it does on a sound-system, it remains big, room filling, bold.

This is why, for me, I’m always impressed when I hear a speaker system that gives some of that thickness and richness to the sound of voices and instruments - for instance how I perceive this quality in certain wide-baffle bigger box speakers. (Though that quality isn’t the whole shooting match, which is why that isn’t my only criteria).

It’s also why I’ve gravitated to tube amps that I perceive to add that extra bit of body, roundness, richness. (I have Conrad Johnson tube amps). Even a nudge in the direction of added body is welcome.

So that’s the first thing that strikes me - it just hits me whether I’m looking for it or not. Others on the list of live voice/instruments can depend more on what I’m concentrating on. One big one is a timbral/organic quality. I often close my eyes when someone is talking nearby and listen to the quality of their voice. The thing that hits me right off is "that just doesn’t sound like any amplified voice I’ve heard." There is an immediately recognizable "human, organic" timbre to the voice that seems distinct from the electronic recreations through speakers - one is made of flesh and blood, the other of electronics, speaker drivers, etc.

Other aspects that hit me about live instruments are: richness in timbral complexity and ’effortless’ detail, in the sense that detail seems so smooth, just ’there to be heard into as deeply in to it as I want to listen, but not hyped." There is a rainbow of timbral complexity to a live band or orchestra that is homogenized in reproduced music. Then there is the solidity and acoustic "presence" - the "thereness" of a real voice or instrument moving acoustic energy in the room so you just perceive a solid object making the sound. This is different from the more airy, see-through imaging in many sound systems, and why I really desire density and palpability in my sound system.

 And...of course...dynamics. I guess that one seems so obvious I left it for last, but we all have the experience of hearing a drum set being played and just instantly recognizing the life-force behind it, that you typically don’t get in reproduced sound.

So, back to my original question of what characteristics of live voices and instruments stand out to you, in comparison to most reproduced sound?


prof
soix
2,133 posts
 
I've actually thought a lot about this too.  I play in a band so I've had some time to reconcile what I hear when we play live versus a good recording of a live performance.  Obviously the quality of the recording will make a huge difference, so let's just take that as a given along with the fact that electronics and listening rooms play a huge roll in what we hear as well.  I'm focusing on speakers here mainly because ultimately that's what couples the music to the space we're listening in.  A couple of my observations:

- Live, unamplified instruments emit sound in all directions -- front, back, up, down, etc. -- but not necessarily at the same volume level in all directions.  These sounds continue to expand into space and mix together into the "ether" of the room in a complex fashion along with reflecting off the room boundaries and the things in it. 

- The majority of dynamic cone box speakers primarily emit sound in a forward direction.  Some have a rear-facing driver or two.  Then there are dipole planar, ribbon, dynamic cone designs that mostly propel sound both forward and backward at similar volume levels.  Then there are a few omnidirectional designs that send out sound in all directions. 

My thoughts have mainly focused on how these two observations come together as sound reproduction in a listening room.  I find traditional cone speakers can do a good job of capturing the heft and dynamics of a live performance, and those with rear-firing driver(s) can produce an added sense of spatiousness and atmosphere.  But these designs (except for a larger line array types) don't always capture the size and scale of a performance, and they often portray individual instruments, vocals, etc. in a very well-defined but relatively small size.  Like some mentioned above, this is not how instruments image in a live setting -- probably because their sound continues to radiate outward in all directions. 

The dipole planar and ribbon designs, conversely, can do a good job capturing scale and project individual images in a larger way like in a live setting, but they often cannot project the full dynamic force and heft that cone drivers seem to do better.

I haven't heard too many dipole cone speakers, but I'd guess this design falls somewhere between the other two by adding some heft but lacking some scale.  And I've only heard one omnipolar design at a show, and it was an uber-expensive MBL.  It sounded great.  Maybe the closest thing I've heard to a live performance, but it's an exceedingly small sample. 

I'm not sure we'll ever fully capture the total experience of a true live and unamplified performance.  But at the same time, I marvel at how much of it good systems can capture and portray.  I once read that a theoretically perfect speaker driver design would be like some plasmatic orb, which kinda makes sense and maybe why the MBLs sounded like they did.  

Where I am currently given all this?  Hell I don't know.  I was 90% sure I'd end up with Joseph Audio, Vandersteen, or ProAc speakers -- all of which I love -- for a long time.  Now, largely because of this "live" sound issue I'm thinking more along the lines of something like a Nola (not sure the omnis I can afford will suffice).  But here's one thing I'm 100% sure of -- whatever speakers I ultimately choose, I will also have at least two high-quality subwoofers.  Having heard good, properly set up subs in several systems, I find them to provide a good dose of the "ether" of a live room that I find absolutely essential.  With the subs disengaged, the sound goes flat and a lot of the "liveness" disappears.  Anyway, I've gone on way too long.  Sorry.  Nice thread @prof 
prof OP
1,741 posts
 

Excellent stuff, soix!

As it happens, I'm both a fan of Joseph Audio (was planning on the Perspectives) AND I own MBL 121 radialstrahler speakers!  (And Thiels, and others...) .  So I have a bit of experience comparing these things.

As for live vs reproduced, the "does it sound live from outside the room" test is always interesting.  For one thing, it's easier to get the sensation that a live player is coming from the sound system from outside the room than from sitting in front of the speakers.   That's because (I surmise) of various factors that make two stereo speakers producing the sensation of a live object in front of you is more challenging given the way stereo information departs from reality, and also when we are directly in front of the speakers there are actually MORE tells that it's reproduced.

In contrast, outside the room you are getting essentially a "mono" signal coming from the room (say, even for a single sax), which is the sound of the speaker combined with the room.   So I find, for instance, often if I play a track with a single well-recorded instrument it can sound fairly convincing, eyes closed, in front of the speakers, but even more so from outside the room played at the right volume level.

Still, though I've used this "does it sound real from outside the room" test many times over the years, certainly not all speakers have sounded equally realistic.

The absolute champ has been my MBL 121 omnis.  I have recordings of, for instance, me playing acoustic guitar, and recordings of my son practicing saxophone.  When I play those through the MBLs and listen from outside the room, it's uncannily convincing.  I've fooled a couple of people with it (who thought my son was in there playing sax).  The MBLs also hold up probably the best in terms of realism when sitting in front of them as well.   

There's a fabulously well recorded album:  Requiem for a Pink Moon: An Elizabethan Tribute to Nick Drake

Which includes a number of Nick Drake tunes played on Elizabethan instruments and in that vocal style.   If you want to hear vocals naturally recorded, in a natural sounding acoustic, I think it's hard to do better.

When I play those tracks with eyes closed on various speakers it's always amazing.  My big Thiel 3.7s in particular sounded incredibly authentic.   But when I play it on my MBLs it just leaps to another level over any regular box speaker.  All those "tells" that the sound is coming from speakers in any direction sense disappear and the acoustic melts in to the room, with dimension and acoustics that seems to stretch realistically "behind" the singers in a way that doesn't with normal box speakers.   It's the most realistic vocal presentation I personally have encountered.  Even the Harbeth speakers I owned, which were suitably renowned for vocals, could not provide that last iota of realism the MBLs seem to provide.


wolf_garcia
4,650 posts
 
I was mixing an acoustic guitar concert at a club with all the normal bar ambient noise, although during the show the crowd (mostly) stops talking...the goal during the soundcheck is always to get a sound the performer likes so they’re happy and comfortable when performing, so it’s not simply my opinion affecting the sound of the show. The show was a success, sounded great, no problemo...until a grumpy older dude comes up to me after the show and says something like, "I don’t know why you need to amplify the guitar so much, I saw Andres Segovia at at Carnegie Hall and he was un-amplified." Uh...OK...
More to discover