Why on earth do speaker wires sound different?

[Nevalti]

That's all very well BUT it's not "real" music , is it ?

I've had a piece played on the Acousmonium but sadly wasn't there so looking forward to getting a chance to hear it sometime.
It's a shame that some of the folk who , on the surface, seem to be interested in sound seem so hostile to things like BEAST when it's one of the things that we have, in the UK , tremendous experience of. It's also on our "doorstep" and has the potential for some tremendous musical listening experiences. (i'll settle for a case of Cote De Rhone as a pluggers fee .... if that's ok Jonty )

Careful now.

As this was evidently aimed at me, I feel bound to point out that I expressed a preference for "realistic" music. "Real" music is a very different term and is, of course, in the ear of the listener. I have no interest in hearing 'music' coming from under my feet -etc but, sincerely, each to their own. I have not been interested in 'special effects' or electronic music since 'Switched on Bach' nearly 50 years ago. I rapidly got past that when I started listening to Bach in rather more the way he intended. I have no criticism of those who actually like electronic music but some (most?) of us simply have no interest. There are already too many things to hear without exploring a medium which usually irritates me rather than entertaining me - let alone giving me pleasure. I readily accept that if someone with the talent of Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, Debussy etc were to explore that medium, I may be forced to change my mind. Until then, I get a lot of pleasure from 'realistic' music.

To help you pigeon hole me, I'm not very keen on most modern art or conceptual art either. Maybe both of them go straight over my head - and I am quite happy to allow that to happen.

[MrGongGong]

As this was evidently aimed at me,

It's not all about you , you know
and spare us the 'special effects' unless you mean the dog in The Four Seasons ?

I readily accept that if someone with the talent of Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, Debussy etc were to explore that medium, I may be forced to change my mind.

I really miss Jonathan Harvey

[Nevalti]

........ I can assure you that this is not possible in some other locations in the hall, or indeed in some other halls.

Thank you. I will try again at the next 'hall' I go to. Probably 'The Anvil' in that well known centre of culture....... Basingstoke!

..... I browsed through some old magazines, and found descriptions of amps costing £10,000 and up - which were allegedly very good. I suspect that some of them are good, but not many of us can afford that kind of thing.

Occasionally I have been impressed by mega-bucks amps but the law of diminishing returns cuts in WAY below that for me. One 'bargain' amp that you can get hold of second hand fairly cheaply is the Parasound A21. It seems to work heavily in Class A but switches to B when needed. A very good mix of delicacy and wallop! It is rather large and runs pretty hot but it rivals some fairly exotic amps if 250W is enough. I was VERY tempted but managed to get a Bryston 4B SST at a super low price and decided to 'play safe'.

[hedgehog]

There is also the 41 speaker system at ZKM Karlsruhe, Germany which is severely underused. 3D listening is a wonderful experience especially when it is used in a subtle way, contrasts of acoustic space and movement through that space.

Apologies if it has been said before up-thread but, back to the horizontal plane the big problem with 5.1 is that it is a standard devised for the film industry and even they use it in a totally unimaginative way. There is a big gap at the side (just where our ears are ) and it is very hard to get a good 4.1 or 4.0 audio mix into a DVD 5.1 Dolby standard (DVD audio or video) and get it to sound as good ( I won't go into details but believe me it just isn't a straight transfer or just a matter of leaving out the front central speaker - it has to be tweaked and even then ).

3D or surround one of the joys is how much more the layers of music - any music - can be enjoyed, just as in a concert hall as opposed to coming out of two boxes of whatever type and of whatever cable attached.

[Dave2002]

We seem to be making slow progress, but hopefully in a forward direction. Those who have worked with electronic music seem to agree that the number of speakers used makes a difference, and the number of channels required is probably at least 10, maybe a lot more. Thus there would be no hope of getting anything close to an acousmatic performance on a stereo system or even an SACD or similar based surround sound system.

We can argue about whether electronic music forms are "real" music, but it seems unreasonable to suggest that pieces written for electronic instruments, and electronic environments should not be counted as music, and there are serious workers (composers) producing works for such systems.

Personal preferences for music types may, of course, come in to play, and if someone doesn't want to listen to anything by Stockhausen that's OK, but they shouldn't try to stop others from so doing.

The notion of "perfection" in a recording is of slight interest. Generally we would probably not wish to hear a recording of an orchestra which has clicks and scratches, such as we have heard on LPs. It is possible to make systems which would filter out any such defects, at least to a considerable extent. However, such "perfection" is not the same as transparency. If a composer specifically wrote a piece to be played by a conventional orchestra, but at the same time requested that a scratched recording of the same (or other) work were incorporated into the soundfield, then a system which, by some logic processes, removed the scratches on replay would actually be downgrading the transparency (accuracy) of the reproduction. We might question the musical worth of pieces written with such ideas in mind, but the encoding/decoding system should be able to handle it if we are aiming at transparency.

Regarding some people's "real" music (Beethoven, Mozart, Mahler using more conventional instruments), it seems likely that the reproduction of such music can be enhanced by the use of more channels. Some relatively early experiments established that 4 channels was the minimum required to give an illusion of an orchestra in a conventional hall - using the transparent curtain model for spatial effects. More would be required for complete surround sound.

Michael Gerzon's promotion of what he called periphony was based on a notion that spatial information could be encoded in a relatively few channels, and this led to some companies recording using microphones such as the Soundfield microphones - which used 4 microphone units in a tetrahedral arrangement. Mathematically these approaches are of interest, because they suggest the minimum number of channels required for spatial localisation, but there are surely gaps between mathematical models and theory, and what happens in real recordings.

Blumlein's work suggested that an essentially 1D representation of the world could be achieved with only 2 channels. Given some of the assumptions for a recording made using Blumlein's techniques, it might be possible to give a fairly accurate replay effect using logical (logic?) processes. Stereo does not do this - the simplest example being of a single instrument recorded centrally in the sound field. In stereo, replay is by feeding the same signal to both speakers, which does not give the same effect as feeding the sound of that single instrument to a single speaker placed centrally in the room with respect to the listener.

The "fact" that for some people stereo appears to work quite well is interesting, but that does not mean that 2 channel listening is the ultimate. It is possible that stereo works better than it should because of the way human hearing actually works., though this is surely open to question. How could height information be conveyed in a stereo system?

Gerzon's ideas of periphony were based on an end user centred view of the world, and indeed could give an impression of height even with only 4 channels. One listener at an early demonstration doubted that sounds under a listener could be perceived as such. This was tested by someone going underneath the 4 microphone array, and speaking from that position. There was certainly an impression that sounds were coming from underneath, though perhaps not everyone would have reported this in the same way. Both Blumlein and Gerzon had a belief that sound location could be achieved with only a few recorded channels, and once the recording had been made it should be possible to decode this in such a way that fairly accurate perceptual localisation could be achieved. This does not, however, mean that the number of replay speakers has to be the same as the number of channels used for encoding, and indeed better results could perhaps be achieved by the use of more speakers for replay than the number of recorded channels. To do this would require some form of logic processing, some forms of which have indeed been used for cinema audio in films. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soundfield_microphone)

Perhaps unfortunately the sound effects used in films have given logic processing a bad name regarding high quality sound reproduction of orchestras. Most audio systems used for cinematic reproduction are reported to work quite poorly for orchestral reproduction.

Logic processing could be used to reduce the problems with the centre channel effect in stereo, though care has to be taken to avoid interfering with some of the other aural clues which tend to be captured in the recording process - such as the way echoes/reverberation/ambience are recorded - which can also have an influence on the ways in which listeners become aware of the spatial characteristics of the music they listen to.

[Nevalti]

..............We can argue about whether electronic music forms are "real" music, but it seems unreasonable to suggest that pieces written for electronic instruments, and electronic environments should not be counted as music, and there are serious workers (composers) producing works for such systems.

Personal preferences for music types may, of course, come in to play, and if someone doesn't want to listen to anything by Stockhausen that's OK, but they shouldn't try to stop others from so doing.

I don't think anyone in this thread has claimed that any particular form of music is not "real" music Dave nor have they tried to stop anyone listening to their particular choice of music. Or did I miss that? Some have expressed preferences but who here has claimed that any particular type or format was not "real" music? Some of us do not like opera or heavy metal but clearly plenty of people do - and some like acousmatic music, surround sound, immersive sound fields and all manner of 3D wonders.

What seems to be absent is an appreciation that some people have very good reasons (to them) why they are not interested in any form of surround sound or immersive experience from reproduced music and some people are simply not interested in improving their home hifi. To some of us, the subtleties of the music are the key to our enjoyment. To achieve that, everything in the recording and playback chain has to be as 'clean' as possible, with the minimum possible processing. Each piece of equipment has to do its job as well as possible..... and therein lies a huge problem. How much are you going to spend - even for a major presentation centre? Each such venue that I have heard, and that has not been many, has been downright poor in the presentation of 'realistic' music. They have been nothing like as good, to me, as a competent home hifi system let alone as good as could be achieved for the money spent. The inevitable compromises in the quality of the equipment used for multi speaker presentations rob it of much I love about music. Just a single, simple digital volume manipulation spoils the sound quality, to my ears, so the multiple processes that most multi speaker systems involve absolutely ruin it - for me.

.... Generally we would probably not wish to hear a recording of an orchestra which has clicks and scratches, such as we have heard on LPs.

That is an interesting subject. For some reason, I could and did, almost completely ignore LP surface noise and still thoroughly enjoy the music but, at the same time, some other low level noises, like tape noise or hum, I felt very distracting. Just the way my brain works I suppose. I am nevertheless very pleased that CDs etc can now provide a satisfactory sound.

...........The "fact" that for some people stereo appears to work quite well is interesting, but that does not mean that 2 channel listening is the ultimate. It is possible that stereo works better than it should because of the way human hearing actually works., though this is surely open to question. How could height information be conveyed in a stereo system?

Again, these are very interesting issues - all of them are worthy of a separate thread. Add to that list - how does sound appear to emanate from a space to the left of the left speaker and the right of the right speaker?

.......Perhaps unfortunately the sound effects used in films have given logic processing a bad name regarding high quality sound reproduction of orchestras. Most audio systems used for cinematic reproduction are reported to work quite poorly for orchestral reproduction........

Yes, that is a shame, but it is partly money again. I have heard truly impressive surround systems costing upwards of £100,000. They could also play music very acceptably but I would need a very large lottery win even to consider spending that sort of sum. However, that same level of equipment, with just two channels, becomes an affordable source of endless pleasure. In much the same way, I very much prefer HD TV over SD TV but I have absolutely zero interest in 3D TV. It is a great novelty but it wore off after about 10 minutes for me. Those who enjoy 3D TVs and cinemas are very welcome to them.......... and so are those who like multi speaker music.

[Nevalti]

There is also the 41 speaker system at ZKM Karlsruhe, Germany which is severely underused. ...............

Have you any idea why? Is it that people are simply not interested?

Could it be the Stockhausen effect?

Only 2% of CD sales are of classical music and Stockhausen gets nowhere near even being in the top 100 composers. That suggests that less than 0.02% of the population are likely to be interested in listening to anything they fear may sound like Stockhausen.

[Dave2002]

nevalti

We have again deviated very much from the thread title. Why don't you/we start a new one or two which deal with some of the issues which are emerging. Perhaps also MrGG could be encouraged to manage a thread on acousmatic or similar music and the technical aspects of working with that. A discussion of the more "musical" aspects, and the works of some fairly recent composers such as Stockhausen could also be started on the obviously music related forums. Some of us might be interested, or want to discuss or simply learn. I personally do like some music by Stockhausen - e.g Zyklus, though that of course does not rely on electronics. I have been to live performances of music by people such as Roger Smalley, where I think 12 radios were tuned to different stations. Odd - interesting - maybe!

We appear to be getting upset because people keep throwing new ideas in to the mix. I suspect that wasn't your intention, but it is what has happened. We have moved far away from speaker cables. I'm sorry - I have also been partly responsible for this.

[Richard Barrett]

We have again deviated very much from the thread title.

And I hope not too far in the direction of "discussing" whether Stockhausen wrote "real music" or not, or (worse) how his CD sales compare to those of other artists - but my question remains: many of those who are interested in developments in sound reproduction technology seem quite uninterested in its possible creative uses, and I wonder why this is. Michael Gerzon, of course, was not of that number, and much of his work as a recording engineer was connected with music of a more "experimental" nature.

[Nevalti]

nevalti

We have again deviated very much from the thread title. ........... I'm sorry - I have also been partly responsible for this.

This thread, on topic, seems to have pretty well had it. No-one really came up with any answers other than - 1.'the wire must be fat enough' and 2. an oblique reference to 'HF travelling on the surface of the wire'. As the OP, I am not particularly concerned about interesting off-topic discussion as that is often more entertaining. I am glad to have helped spark off some gems.

I was particularly intrigued by the hearing/brain processing differences highlighted my Mr GGs Dallas recording - so I will start another thread around that subject.

[Nevalti]

........ my question remains: many of those who are interested in developments in sound reproduction technology seem quite uninterested in its possible creative uses..........

I am sorry Richard, I thought I had answered that. I probably didn't make my point clearly enough so I will go a little further.

1. The 'many people' that you say are 'interested in developments in sound technology' may simply be interested in the concept, much as many of us were when 'Quad sound' appeared in the 70's. 'Quad sound' died at a very young age because it sounded so artificial compared with the 'realistic' illusion created by good stereo equipment (please don't mix up 'real' with 'realistic'). Speaking purely for myself, I would only be interested in any benefit gained from any technology which removed some of the compromises that we all inevitably have to make when we select our equipment and music. I would probably not take much interest in the technology itself other than trying to understand the basic concept. I suspect that I am, in that regard, one of the vast majority. I like to have at least a basic understanding of how something works but I will continue to use my ears rather than the specification of any new technology.

2. I suspect that those who are uninterested in the 'possible creative uses' of 'sound reproduction technology', or indeed of any particular medium, remain uninterested because they have yet to perceive any real benefit from that medium. The example I gave earlier was that I had zero interest in 3D TV & cinema. I tried it, was briefly amused, but quickly found that it was a distraction rather than a benefit. I certainly would not rule out the possibility that someone, somewhere has made a wonderful film that I would enjoy in 3D, but I haven't seen one yet. Precisely the same situation applies to my experience of multi speaker systems. Everything that I have heard has, to me, been markedly inferior to well presented stereo. Given the low level of interest in multi speaker performances, my guess is that I am far from alone in this. I suspect that the 3D TV bubble has already burst and most people who bought one will not bother to buy one again - for much the same reason.

A very similar situation applies in other artistic media. I am not interested in abstract art but I own four that I do like. Because the instance of me liking them is rare, I do not seek them out. Similarly, impressionism leaves me fairly cold but I have two that I do enjoy at about one millionth of the price of 'Sunflowers'. Given the astronomical value of 'Sunflowers' there are presumably a great number of people who do enjoy impressionism - or is it just investors? Linking that back to multi speaker music, people have clearly voted with their wallets. That does not mean that there is anything wrong with the medium, only that most people are just not interested.

I do realise that it is far from the same thing but it occurred to me that most cars have four speakers these days. With tongue only slightly in cheek......... an enterprising company could, with a cheap and simple surround sound module, try to corner the market in 'Quad' all over again. One could create the illusion that you had a couple of musicians sitting in the back seat playing to you. Your sat-nag could talk to you just as if she was sitting in the passenger seat next to you

You can have that idea for free.

[Richard Barrett]

I suspect that those who are uninterested in the 'possible creative uses' of 'sound reproduction technology', or indeed of any particular medium, remain uninterested because they have yet to perceive any real benefit from that medium

I don't wish to labour the point, but I suspect that this is because they haven't even heard what's possible, for example with the kinds of systems MrGG and I have been discussing, in terms of a music which can only fully exist in such an environment (ie. rather than in terms of a "benefit" to the reproduction of preexistent music conceived for other circumstances). I'm not talking about how popular or commercially-successful such an idea might be (and in any case it's not likely that something like Wavefield Synthesis would ever have a domestic application, as opposed to being used for public presentations, which is what most music is produced for after all), but the musical possibilities it might enable; so I think we are possibly at cross-purposes here.

[Gordon]

Fascinating thread this, so much erudite stuff on all aspects of music and its reproduction/creation. This latter end having led into a kind of "what is music anyway" discussion is highly valuable in its own right and another thread more focussed on that might be best - I agree that we've probabaly done the original post to death now!!

I, like many others who have come to music through the "traditional" route, and not trained in music in any way, tried hard to get to understand and enjoy "new" music by which I mean non-traditional forms, sound production etc. Yes, I know that understanding isn't necessary according to some and I'm not sure that I understand some of the traditional stuff anyway, but music is as much the journey as reaching a destination. When the journey gets to traverse Nono, Berio, Birtwhistle, Maxwell-Davies [eg Songs for a Mad King!! - there's a bit of a challenge] Ferneyhaugh to name a few off the top of my head - the list is long - I struggle but do persevere but also I do tire rather quickly I'm afraid to say.

As for using technology as a means of creating new sounds and as part of the means of artistic expression I have no quarrel with it - but my expectation is that it will say something meaningful to my ears and preferably also my brain. It is slow going. The only piece that I can honestly say hit me between the ears the first time I heard it was George Crumb's Black Angels - but does that count as "NEW" these days?

As for Multichannel sound - Quad failed for economic reasons as much as anything. There were too many conflicting "standards" for one thing and the backwards compatibility constraint did not help. It also meant upheaval in the home and so many, for whom stereo was good enough, embraced the music not the noise it makes. FWIW I think that modern consumption of "music" is dominated by popular taste - pop music is a commodity where the money is made and it realies on obsolescence - and that also means listening on the move with the vast majority interested in convenience not HiFi sound. Immersive sound environments at home are all very well if you have the space and wallet to set yourself up in it - in specially desiged theatres the experience and the "music" may well be novel but it won't necessarily have mass appeal and so will not attract large amounts of commercial money to sustain it - the traditional classical business doesn't either actually - it will have to be grants, awards, tax breaks for donors and - Oh, Yes, rich patrons - where have we heard that last one before I wonder?

Goodnight all!!

[Nevalti]

...... I think we are possibly at cross-purposes here.

I don't think so. I believe that I have always understood the points being made. The lack of popularity is rather similar to the lack of popularity of opera. Most people have not bothered to actually go to an opera because they know that they don't like that 'sort of thing'. If someone tells them that 'they don't know what they are missing', there is clearly an element of truth in that BUT the non opera lover is most unlikely to be converted by making them suffer a few operas that they hate. It is the 'type' of thing that is the problem, not an individual performance. I can think of no better example than the 3D TV illustration I have already given. Some people may not know what they are missing but most of us do.... and we are not interested.

[Dave2002]

Rather curiously this kind of issue crops up in the music drama Tannhäuser, which I saw last night. During the song contest Tannhäuser objects that some of the singers don't know what they are talking about, because they have never experienced some of the things they are describing, and that they are attaching unfounded moral value judgements. That at least was how I interpreted it.