Who Here Knows Why?

[tsv_1]

OK, here's the setting... you're out with friends on the town, you enter bar and you can immediately tell just from the nature of the sound, even without having seen any musicians yet, that the music is live. Let's go a step further (because I've seen this as well), the bar uses the same PA equipment to play pre-recorded music while the band is taking a break... so when you walk in, it could be either live or pre-recorded... but you always know intuitively and immediately which is which. And let's say you're not familiar with the recorded music, so you can't blame instant-recognition as a determing factor.

Is it that the pre-recorded muci production quality always sucks? Is it strictly a function of higher volume with the live act? Or is it something else? (or a combination of something elses). I have my notions, but wanted to hear you guys... maybe someone has a pointer to a white paper or other analysis they could share as well.

I recall a few years ago that some speaker designers had come up with some sort of miracle cross-ver design that completey eliminated all group delay, phase-shift, response dips/peaks, etc... and that, according to them, this revelation removed the last vestige of perceptable difference between live and recorded playback (assuming exceptional speaker quality, room setup, etc). Now I can't find anything on that via Google... but I do recall the statement being made.

At any rate, please chime in... or point me to an existing thread on this and we can let this one fizzle.

Thanks

 

[twich54]

Well Todd one dead give away is that the establishment is 'full' of music when live, without question, IMO live music more fully pressurizes the air. Variables to my theory include, instruments, quantity and type...............

 

[tsv_1]

Well Todd one dead give away is that the establishment is 'full' of music when live, without question, IMO live music more fully pressurizes the air. Variables to my theory include, instruments, quantity and type...............

I think in some instances I agree with that... but you can even tell almost all the time, standing out on the street. And taking a different setting into consideration... what about outdoor performances. Also (IMO) one can immediately tell, before seeing, whether it is live or plyback.

Here's another example, the wife, kids, and I were motoring about the lake and we happened into a cove... I heard music and immediately new it had to be live. I started looking for the source thinking "that's strange... especially in this cove"... then I spotted it, some kids on a party barge had set up a drum set and guitar and were playing away (and actually not bad at all)... and not all that loud. What "struck" me was the highly dynamic transient nature of the sound... extremely percussive (perhaps aided somewhat by the acoustical nature of the water/cove environment). Of course different instruments have different transient wave-front properties.

Anyway, I find this to be a very interesting phenomenon.

 

[churchill]

Todd, interesting thread and I've had similar thoughts about this. I was at a live Alison Krauss show in Denver at an outside venue (Redrocks) and between the opening band and AKUS they played house music and it didn't sound anything like the live shows.

 

[Bernard]

Todd, here's a twist:

Many years ago, when I had my Quad 57's (in my music room above the garage) I had some company, and as they walked through the door one of them said to my wife, "I didn't know that Bernard played the trumpet".

"Is it that the pre-recorded muci production quality always sucks? Is it strictly a function of higher volume with the live act?"

The dynamic range of pre-recorded music is usually compressed, so that may well be a factor.

 

[sleepysurf]

Live music is the "gold standard" which we are all trying to reproduce, and often miserably fail at! Neither a two-channel (nor 5.1, 7.1, or even 9.1+ setup) can fully recreate the myriad sound sources/interactions (plus room/hall reflections) generated with live music that our brains use as "cues" to distinguish live vs. reproduced. Fortunately, with extreme attention to audiophile/system details, plus a superb recording, we occasionally get close enough to still experience some "goosebump" moments. That is the holy grail which keeps all us audiophools plodding along!

I think a similar analogy is why high-def TV/Movies (even in 3D) cannot fully reproduce a live visual experience. New technology is bringing us closer, but we'll never quite get there!

 

[tsv_1]

I think that's a really big part of it Bernard. One test might be to play some close-miked uncompressed recordings at live levels on a very good system to unsuspecting passers-by.

 

[tsv_1]

Live music is the "gold standard" which we are all trying to reproduce, and often miserably fail at! Neither a two-channel (nor 5.1, 7.1, or even 9.1+ setup) can fully recreate the myriad sound sources/interactions (plus room/hall reflections) generated with live music that our brains use as "cues" to distinguish live vs. reproduced. Fortunately, with extreme attention to audiophile/system details, plus a superb recording, we occasionally get close enough to still experience some "goosebump" moments. That is the holy grail which keeps all us audiophools plodding along!

I think a similar analogy is why high-def TV/Movies (even in 3D) cannot fully reproduce a live visual experience. New technology is bringing us closer, but we'll never quite get there!

Never say never

Again though, I suggest standing out on a sidewalk, a good distance away from a sound source that might be bouncing all over the inside of a club or bar until it finally reaches an open window or door... and you can still tell (or at least I've had a very high degree of success in discerning) live from memorex. I think you're right that it's in those cues somehow... but why can't those cues be readily captured? In the scenrio I mention here, is it just a function of limited playback dynamics... or something more... ethereal? (twilight music here)


* Important Annotation*

When I paranthetically referred to "twilight music"... please, for the love of all that is rational and sane... it is absolutely imparative that you understand I was talking about the decades old TV serial "Twilight Zone"... not the hormonally supercharged teen movie series (although... at the risk of potential and unjustifiable scorn, I will readily admit I did not hate that particular set of films).

 

[amey01]

OK, here's the setting... you're out with friends on the town, you enter bar and you can immediately tell just from the nature of the sound, even without having seen any musicians yet, that the music is live. Let's go a step further (because I've seen this as well), the bar uses the same PA equipment to play pre-recorded music while the band is taking a break... so when you walk in, it could be either live or pre-recorded... but you always know intuitively and immediately which is which. And let's say you're not familiar with the recorded music, so you can't blame instant-recognition as a determing factor.

Is it that the pre-recorded muci production quality always sucks? Is it strictly a function of higher volume with the live act? Or is it something else? (or a combination of something elses). I have my notions, but wanted to hear you guys... maybe someone has a pointer to a white paper or other analysis they could share as well.

I recall a few years ago that some speaker designers had come up with some sort of miracle cross-ver design that completey eliminated all group delay, phase-shift, response dips/peaks, etc... and that, according to them, this revelation removed the last vestige of perceptable difference between live and recorded playback (assuming exceptional speaker quality, room setup, etc). Now I can't find anything on that via Google... but I do recall the statement being made.

At any rate, please chime in... or point me to an existing thread on this and we can let this one fizzle.

Thanks

Very interesting thread. We've discussed it before, but probably as part of other topics.

I have no idea why recorded music does not sound like live music, but it is certainly not the speakers/crossover (as the study you mention questions) - as you say, they are using the same PA equipment!

I've even heard shopping centre PA speakers with live music being piped through [and no idea of this] and can instantly tell the music is live. In this particular case, I was down the other end of the centre and was no way in earshot of the actual live instruments either. But I walked in thinking something was especially good about the centre PA. It was only when I walked up the other end and around a corner that I saw the band playing there.

There is something in the recording process that kills the live sound. I have no idea what it is. But I do know what it is not. It is not the mics, it is not the cabling, mixers, etc, it is not how the mics are set up, it is not the amplification, it is not the speakers. Nor is it compression, as live music is often compressed to buggery too. It is something in the recording or retrieving process that destroys it.

 

[sleepysurf]

Here's an interesting website showing how a Princeton Professor is pursuing realistic "3D" music reproduction... http://www.princeton.edu/3D3A/ (watch the video clip too!). Looks like the technology is going to be licensed for commercial use!

 

[tsv_1]

Here's an interesting website showing how a Princeton Professor is pursuing realistic "3D" music reproduction... http://www.princeton.edu/3D3A/ (watch the video clip too!). Looks like the technology is going to be licensed for commercial use!

His work, in concept (just scanning his "how does Pure Stereo work?" write-up) sure sounds a whole lot like Carver's Sonic Holography, except perhaps with well designed DSP versus whatever Carver's latest generation of that implementation was based upon. That is... the cancellation of cross-coupled signals between channels when they might interfere with accurate stereophonic perception. Of course Prof Choueiri's work is significantly more complicated when all is considered... but largely based on these BACCH filters of his nonetheless.

This may indeed bring one closer to a goosebump event in a highly controlled listening environment... but does it preserve those seemingly gossamer cues that others here feel identify live versus playback regardless of venue? Hmmmmm....

 

[timm]

IMHO I think it is the mix. I disagree a bit in that I find most live events to sound Worse than a recording. Usually because of the mix. In most of the events I attend the volume is thru the roof. Do I like it better? Yeah I do but it isn't about the sound. It is about the artist hitting a note I am familiar with or being with a group of people that are just really charged up over the same artist. I think recordings are more refined and lose the emotional or animalistic qualities music can bring out. The mix at most shows is loud loud and louder. Oh and
I'm not talking classical orchestra or jazz. There are exceptions when I have thought the sound has been stupendous. But it is usually dependent on the venue and where I am seated within it.

 

[User211]

At my last bake off, I had a chap round the night before. We had a fine time, drinking and listening to sounds.

Then I thought I'd make a point - I've done it a few times. What did I do? Fired up the geetar amp - it's in the same room, and let rip with the volume set to 11.

The sound that emanates is quite different from anything you ever hear from a commercial recording, we both agreed.

A long time back, I posted a recording of me playing one of my Gibson acoustics on this forum. Now that is interesting - when you play it back loud via a hi-fi system, it simply sounds incredible. You can replay it at much louder volumes than an acoustic is capable of - and the hi-fi system becomes an acoustic magnifying lens onto the performance. - producing a larger than life rendition. That said - you know it isn't live.

I'll think on this one a little more...

 

[amey01]

I'll think on this one a little more...

I haven't wasted too much energy thinking. But if you do realise why then you're set to make some big bucks (or quid for you).

It is definitely in the recording process though - we are not recording everything that is in the performance. We do however, have mics that are capable of picking up the entire performance and electronics/speakers that are capable of reproducing it in its complete entirety. That, I am convinced of.

 

[tsv_1]

I haven't wasted too much energy thinking.

....... nah, too easy

Honestly though... where does the magic go??? It has something to do with life energy, "chi" if you will (or even if you wont). Something to do with living vibrations that our current state of the art simply cannot capture. There are far more senses than the base five... far more

 

[tsv_1]

IMHO I think it is the mix. I disagree a bit in that I find most live events to sound Worse than a recording. Usually because of the mix. In most of the events I attend the volume is thru the roof. Do I like it better? Yeah I do but it isn't about the sound. It is about the artist hitting a note I am familiar with or being with a group of people that are just really charged up over the same artist. I think recordings are more refined and lose the emotional or animalistic qualities music can bring out. The mix at most shows is loud loud and louder. Oh and
I'm not talking classical orchestra or jazz. There are exceptions when I have thought the sound has been stupendous. But it is usually dependent on the venue and where I am seated within it.

Have to agree that many, many times, live performance sound quality has been abysmal. I guess I wasn't really saying one is necessarily better than the other... just that they are distinctly different and usually immediately recognizable as being so.

 

[tsv_1]

At my last bake off, I had a chap round the night before. We had a fine time, drinking and listening to sounds.

Then I thought I'd make a point - I've done it a few times. What did I do? Fired up the geetar amp - it's in the same room, and let rip with the volume set to 11.

The sound that emanates is quite different from anything you ever hear from a commercial recording, we both agreed.

A long time back, I posted a recording of me playing one of my Gibson acoustics on this forum. Now that is interesting - when you play it back loud via a hi-fi system, it simply sounds incredible. You can replay it at much louder volumes than an acoustic is capable of - and the hi-fi system becomes an acoustic magnifying lens onto the performance. - producing a larger than life rendition. That said - you know it isn't live.

I'll think on this one a little more...

You know when I hear "bake off" - I don't immediatly think of audio sessions... rather, images of my trip to the Netherlands and the tragic (but hilarious in retrospect) result of certain activities within that fine, fine country. Also the girls there are "smoking" hot!

Having said that... if that vid of you playing is still active, please fwd a link.

Cheers

 

[amey01]

Have to agree that many, many times, live performance sound quality has been abysmal.

It is not about abysmal quality of some live performances though. Even though abysmal they are, they still sound "live" - they have the "chi" - whatever.

 

[User211]

You know when I hear "bake off" - I don't immediatly think of audio sessions... rather, images of my trip to the Netherlands and the tragic (but hilarious in retrospect) result of certain activities within that fine, fine country. Also the girls there are "smoking" hot!

Having said that... if that vid of you playing is still active, please fwd a link.

Cheers

Twas a music only recording. May still be on the Rowland, with my CLX recordings. Now that'd be fun - listening to CLXs via CLXs