We all get to read on the forums, and in the various high end magazines, hyperbole laced reviews and posts.
I can remember from the very early days when HP used to try and temper some of his articles and reviews- and yet would in some ways come across as spouting hyperbole nonetheless.
The question that struck me today, after once again reading a hyperbole laced thread, was how much information is actually on the recording that is being raved about. The aspect of depth of imaging, and in particular of surround sound, may not be anything more than an artificial effect. Having recorded in a studio myself, I know that a lot of musicians are recorded in separate booths with no possible soundstaging between them....none. Yet, I have read examples in the audio press of how the reviewer lauds the tremendous spaciousness of the recording and how the gear in question expanded the width of the soundstage in his room. While there are many recordings that were recorded with multi mikes or with the famous Decca tree to enhance spatiality, I am not certain that too many of these do exist, particularly with more modern music and more recent recordings.
The question I ponder, is how much of what is actually heard on the most reveling systems is in fact there on the original recording, or is it something that is either a) a figment of our imagination or b) an artificial effect that something in our system or room is propagating. Neither of which would be accurate as to the original recording.
How much of the actual stage and width and depth of the production can the recording device capture?
What is in fact the most realistic and accurate reproduction of the original event....very hard to say unless one was actually at the musical event, IMO. Thoughts....
I can remember from the very early days when HP used to try and temper some of his articles and reviews- and yet would in some ways come across as spouting hyperbole nonetheless.
The question that struck me today, after once again reading a hyperbole laced thread, was how much information is actually on the recording that is being raved about. The aspect of depth of imaging, and in particular of surround sound, may not be anything more than an artificial effect. Having recorded in a studio myself, I know that a lot of musicians are recorded in separate booths with no possible soundstaging between them....none. Yet, I have read examples in the audio press of how the reviewer lauds the tremendous spaciousness of the recording and how the gear in question expanded the width of the soundstage in his room. While there are many recordings that were recorded with multi mikes or with the famous Decca tree to enhance spatiality, I am not certain that too many of these do exist, particularly with more modern music and more recent recordings.
The question I ponder, is how much of what is actually heard on the most reveling systems is in fact there on the original recording, or is it something that is either a) a figment of our imagination or b) an artificial effect that something in our system or room is propagating. Neither of which would be accurate as to the original recording.
How much of the actual stage and width and depth of the production can the recording device capture?
What is in fact the most realistic and accurate reproduction of the original event....very hard to say unless one was actually at the musical event, IMO. Thoughts....