How real does it sound?

ack said:

I'll go as far as to say, Impossible - can't even record such scale.

Click to expand...

ack said:

I can't remember where I posted it... but here it is again - low sound and video quality, iphone 4S, sorry; but the message is clear. And don't forget, I said large-scale is Impossible, not this

Click to expand...

DaveC said:

Of course not, as I said it's about dynamics, which many have repeated since then.

Recordings are made so a more average system can reproduce it, there's just isn't 30-40 dB swings in SPL on any recording I'm aware of.

I think, if the recording was much more dynamic and the system had enough surface area and efficiency it could be done.

Click to expand...

ack said:

I suspect, though not entirely sure, that a lot of folks simply look at peak SPLs in live events and feel comfortable when their own systems can go as loud, or even louder. But, from my standpoint, this not the entire picture on dynamics; dynamics include both scaling up and out; "up" as in how loud you can go, and "out" as in how much body to the sound is added at the same time. That scale-out is just impossible to achieve, but anyone feel free to tell me I need to get out more. And part of it, again, is limitations in the recordings.

BTW, If anyone has ever been to NYC's St. Patrick's Cathedral on 5th Avenue for Sunday Mass when the organ plays - and I assume most probably know how enormous that place is - you will likely be in suspended disbelief at the amount of power coming out of the organ, filling that entire gargantuan space. I feel it is a shocking experience, especially that body of sound, never mind the SPLs.

Click to expand...

16hz lover said:

And no 12" subwoofer with 400 watts is going to give you the displacement necessary to reproduce that SPL and extension.

Click to expand...

ack said:

I suspect, though not entirely sure, that a lot of folks simply look at peak SPLs in live events and feel comfortable when their own systems can go as loud, or even louder. But, from my standpoint, this not the entire picture on dynamics; dynamics include both scaling up and out; "up" as in how loud you can go, and "out" as in how much body to the sound is added at the same time. That scale-out is just impossible to achieve, but anyone feel free to tell me I need to get out more. And part of it, again, is limitations in the recordings.

BTW, If anyone has ever been to NYC's St. Patrick's Cathedral on 5th Avenue for Sunday Mass when the organ plays - and I assume most probably know how enormous that place is - you will likely be in suspended disbelief at the amount of power coming out of the organ, filling that entire gargantuan space. I feel it is a shocking experience, especially that body of sound, never mind the SPLs.

Click to expand...

JackD201 said:

I echo your sentiments especially about the limitations in the recordings. However, I don't think it is "impossible" per se, just that very, very few have actually tried. Tape on a very big rig, in a very big room has been quite convincing with classical music recorded minimally. I've also heard a multichannel big rig do a live Pink Floyd simulation quite convincingly. Now if we're talking trying to do that in a domestic setting, even my 80 sqm room with speakers that move lots of air don't quite scale up and out at the level of realism we are talking about. The kind where we are more experiencing pressure waves than just listening with our ears. Where the sense of touch and hearing are balanced out with neither being really dominant. Again, source is everything. No free lunches so to speak.

Click to expand...

ack said:

Quite serious... all the way u pto the Magico Q7. I suggest more exposure to live symphonic music and then we can have a more meaningful discussion. I'd love to hear a system that does Also Sprach Zaratustra (and similar) justice, and have yet to. For one, we just can't record such scale.

Click to expand...

ack said:

I welcome your comments as a great reality check! And yes, multi-channel stands a better chance at total grand-scale reproduction than stereo.

Click to expand...

However. I cannot agree with your statement regarding multi-channel standing a better chance at total grand-scale reproduction over stereo. Nor do I agree with your and JadD201's sentiments about limitations in the recordings.

I'm unaware of any evidence that might support either claim. For example. In the case of multi-channel, if you're talking simply of producing raw SPL's perhaps to saturate an amphitheater or large cathedral, you might have a point. But presuming we're talking about a medium-to-large listening room, a well-thought-out full-range 2-channel system should easily suffice achieving those same levels of the live event. Of course, well-thought-out being the key phrase here.

With regard to limitations in the recordings? Well, I suspect the jury's still out. We're all too familiar with poorly-engineered recordings perhaps by inferior engineers. But hopefully we're all familiar with some superior-engineered recordings too. Not to say any recording is perfect but my point being that I'm unaware of specific and significant limitations in the recording side of the house. To the contrary, every time I hear an improvement which is somewhat frequent, I'm reminded of the shortcomings on the playback side only, not the recording side. I suppose if after a series of modifications where one was confident should easily have provided at least one distinct audible improvement but did not improve and confidence is high the given system still hasn't arrived yet, then perhaps that is an opportunity to focus on potential shortcomings on the recording side.

IOW, so long as I continue to make mods or purchase product and hear improvements, that seems to be evidence of shortcomings on the playback side of the house. Not on the recording side. The side for which I've no evidence yet (aside from inferior engineering) and of which remains outside my scope.

Perhaps you're thinking along the lines of Robert Harely of TAS (and former sound engineer) who said in the Mar/Apr, 2009 issue, "I believe that something catastrophic is occurring at the recording mic's diaphragm that prevents much of the music from ever reaching the recording." Paraphrased. Harley went on to describe why he believes this was because of a rather simple experiment Ed Meitner did by recording some musical notes played thru a guitar amp and then played back thru the same guitar amp. Then there's John Atkinson of Stereophile (who is forever a sound engineer) who said in the Sept 2009 issue, "I believe something is preventing much of the music from ever reaching the recording." Paraphrased. This was said supposedly after he and others listened to a live piano vs recorded / played back piano session. And though I put little weight into what either say about anything, they are nonetheless both agreeing that much of the playback music was inaudible.

But I agree with Harley's use of the term catastrophic and that something catastrophic is indeed occurring. Just not on the recording side. And Meitner's little experiment certainly was not conclusive by any means.

JackD201 said:

As far as the recordings go it is really simple. A huge amount of recordings were not mixed with the purpose of sounding live, only pleasing when played back on most common denominator type of systems. No matter what your play out system is then, there's no achieving that. The amplitude proportions are simply off to begin with. No amount of dynamic capability and no amount of resolution can fix that. So in a way, a big way, chasing the objective of "live" for every single recording really is quixotic. Just enjoy the damn thing for what it is, is my take on it.

Click to expand...

JackD201 said:

As far as the recordings go it is really simple. A huge amount of recordings were not mixed with the purpose of sounding live, only pleasing when played back on most common denominator type of systems. No matter what your play out system is then, there's no achieving that. The amplitude proportions are simply off to begin with. No amount of dynamic capability and no amount of resolution can fix that. So in a way, a big way, chasing the objective of "live" for every single recording really is quixotic. Just enjoy the damn thing for what it is, is my take on it.

Click to expand...

JackD201, since such recordings are outside of everybody's scope, shouldn't that go without saying?

Just sayin'.

Actually, perhaps I should better qualify. You say huge but I and perhaps a few others might say not so huge amount of recordings. But that starts to get us down another rabbit hole that I prefer not to go. But yes, there are certainly some (to many) recordings where it would be simply nonsensical to use as reference material when considering fidelity to the original performance. And there certainly exists at least a small percentage that are so poorly engineered they are not worth playing at all for any purpose - of which I already alluded.