1. Home
  2. misc-audio
  3. 1255910528

Detailed sound? Real?

I have read about many audiophiles wanting more detail and air around the instruments to improve realism. usually, when i hear a system with these qualities, the sound is almost always thin and fatiguing. When I hear live music, it never sounds like air around the instruments and detailed. Most detailed systems sound way too detailed. When i hear live music, there is a sense of air, but not around the instruments. Actually, many times it sounds natural and mono. It seems to me that detailed systems are probably the most unrealistic in audio. Yesterday I heard a live performance of a piano and sax. The piano was so muffled sounding, much more so than on any system I have recently heard. The sax sounded more detailed, but still not like the stereos portray it. I think the secret to listening is to find something that sounds good and that you can listen to without fatigue. Natural Timbre, color and good bass, not overblown but good, gets you closer to the real thing IMHO
tzh21y
tvad
9,467 posts
 
I believe many audiophiles ask for one thing, but in fact they want something
completely opposite.

Sidssp made an excellent point about mic position. A close-mic'd recording will
never sound like a mid-hall performance, regardless of the equipment it's
played on.

Based on audiophile's pervasive complaints of brightness, I believe that more
people would prefer recordings that are not close-mic'd.

How many people listen to concerts from the conductor's position (or the music
stand's perspective)?

Close-mic'd, hyper-detailed recordings are not realistic, even though every
nuance is captured.
tpreaves's avatar
tpreaves
2,515 posts
 
Music using no electronics at all is the only "live" music you will ever hear.When you add electronics to the equasion,either in the presentation or the reproduction,it ceases to be "live".
tzh21y OP
1,377 posts
 
acoustics have so much to do with the sound of a live recording. I was basing my comments from going to the concert hall and hearing live jazz music. Some of the living stereo recordings sound more like the real thing. It seems like live just does not sound as good as the hi fi. It does not matter whether it is dry, warm, liquid, rosy, tubey, or whatever. As long as the system makes me want to listen to music, that is all that counts. I would throw accuracy out the window if I did not want to listen to it. Sometimes I see reviewers say the highs are rolled off a bit. They are always rolled off in the concert hall. Anyone who goes knows that. The instruments do sound natural and timbre and color of each is perfect because they are real. Some sytems do sound closer to the real thing but the question is, does it draw me in? Does it engage me?
larry_yo
5 posts
 
I thinks that's going too far, and although that may be a working definition for some in a very narrow sense, it's not very useful. "Live" music would be slim slice indeed for that camp.

I believe a more usable definition for "live" is any music which is not recorded in it's entirety and played real time. Therefore, some musicians use pre-recorded vocal, background singers, synthesizers, etc... are less live than others, but would still consider it "live". There are shades of grey in live.
cyclonicman
693 posts
 
Maybe the term Live music would be better if it was termed Live performance. Most rock music gets mixed, equalized and compressed in the studio. This doesn't happen on stage, so it never really sounds like the recording.
More to discover