What is actually on the recording.....??

DaveyF · Oct 9, 2017

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....

JackD201 · Oct 9, 2017

In a word...Information.

I think we have to get past quite a few truisms born mainly out of endless iteration. I guess I've always been much less obsessive about "live" vs "constructed" for a number of reasons. Stereo is an artificial construct but less seen is how it is constructed. Let's take the Decca tree or EMI blumlein as examples. Many see the picture of microphone diagrams and assume that they are vertically oriented. In fact they are more horizontal and are flown, center stage (pun intended).

The common idea is that a soundstage should resemble a movie screen and so people set their systems up to give this type of wide presentation with depth of field like you would see from a camera lens. If one looks at acquisition for minimalist recordings and panning on constructed soundscapes however these are performed with an arc not a flat plane. See the photos here https://proaudioclube.com/2016/04/09/decca-sound-secrets-engeneers/ for Decca. You'll see not only the orientation of the tree but also how the musicians are oriented around the tree and how outriggers are positioned as well. It is a much more severe arc than that for playing to an audience. Here, the microphones are the audience. The equilateral triangle placement for stereo monitoring likewise sets an arc while visually it may appear like straight lines. We all know that beam width varies with frequency. The straight lines then apply only to high frequencies while lower down there will be summing and cancelations to go along with differing arrival times to create the stimuli to create the illusion of localization.

From this perspective live or constructed is a moot point. Of course we want the instruments to sound like real instruments but as far as placement goes, in both cases sound is optimized for a specific area within that arc very different from sound for motion pictures where sound is attempted to be optimized for a wider area. Since we are talking about music especially music for the home we go with the former.

The question now is have a lot of people been setting their systems up wrong. Well I wouldn't be so harsh. Preferences are preferences. I would go far as saying that one of the purposes of stereo like surround sound after it is to give a more immersive experience without having to give up too much of the direct impact of true mono. This is only my opinion but it is what it is. For me, the more realistic soundstage is that of the walk in variety. It is also truer to the vast majority of commercial recordings given how they were made or constructed. They were made to have the listener smack down the middle and surrounded close to his field of view. It is an experience in itself and again IMO should be appreciated as such as opposed to being compared to abstract concepts forced down our collective throats.

The information in the recording, particularly the cues, tonal shifts created by relative distance, reverberation, et al are there. Getting them unmasked by noise is another story provided the noise isn't on the medium itself. Normally when one says dynamic range, loudness is the first thing that comes to mind. It is at the heart of the word length debate in digital. The last few decades however has had the industry and listeners have been looking at the other direction. How do we increase dynamic range without having to go louder? The answer is simple, make quiet quieter. Something the analog guys have had to deal with all along. We just have to deal with acoustical, mechanical and electrical noise.

Ear cleaning helps too

morricab · Oct 10, 2017

DaveyF said:
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....

What about artificial effects added by the engineer to the recordings? Reverb, playing with phase, channel balance etc. can all be controlled after the separate "components" of a recording are assembled. This can be made to sound very much like all were playing together and in whatever venue they would like to have them in.

The best way to tell is to find minimially miked and preferrably live, recordings. These can tell you a lot about what is recording and what is system influence.

DaveyF · Oct 10, 2017

morricab said:
What about artificial effects added by the engineer to the recordings? Reverb, playing with phase, channel balance etc. can all be controlled after the separate "components" of a recording are assembled. This can be made to sound very much like all were playing together and in whatever venue they would like to have them in.

The best way to tell is to find minimially miked and preferrably live, recordings. These can tell you a lot about what is recording and what is system influence.

Agreed. Question becomes as to what was the sound of the original performance. Plus, how may times have we been fooled into thinking that a performance that we hear in our systems had the actual aspects that we are hearing from the system. What equipment did the engineers use to record the event...and was that equipment even able to actually capture the various nuances that we are describing hearing on our systems. All questions that can be answered but usually are left unanswered.

Al M. · Oct 10, 2017

DaveyF said:
Agreed. Question becomes as to what was the sound of the original performance.

Impossible to know. It begins with the fact that microphones 'hear' differently than humans do. Also, a performance can sound different if you sit just two rows closer or farther away in the hall. So what then counts as the 'sound of the original performance'?

NorthStar · Oct 10, 2017

If audiophiles were/are truly serious about sound reproduction in the most accurate rendition of live music events in their homes they would acquire only the very best live music recordings from the best music recording engineers using the best microphones and techniques and who record only the best music performances from the best artist musicians and singers. Classical music would be @ numéro un spotlight.

Studio music recordings are a free musical expression; anything goes ... from preference to passion to personal artistic choice in the mixing and mastering. ...In the studio and @ home...our homes.

You are right Davey; the studio music recordings are deliberately an artistic choice without real frontiers.
Imaging, sound staging, holographic depth, black background, palpable atmosphere, ...everything the way the music is monitored with headphones and mixed on the consoles with each instrument separately recorded is @ the end the mixing/recording engineer's artistic technical creation in collaboration with the music player's level of involvement in the process.

Live music performances don't have takes...2, 3, 4, 5 ... they are in the moment perfect capture without too much polishing/manipulation...the very best ones.

@ the end the level of fun versus serious sound acoustic is proportional to the music genres we listened to, to the quality recorded by the recording people, and to the scale representing them with all our senses and emotions/sensibilities.

I think.

JackD201 · Oct 10, 2017

DaveyF said:
Agreed. Question becomes as to what was the sound of the original performance. Plus, how may times have we been fooled into thinking that a performance that we hear in our systems had the actual aspects that we are hearing from the system. What equipment did the engineers use to record the event...and was that equipment even able to actually capture the various nuances that we are describing hearing on our systems. All questions that can be answered but usually are left unanswered.

It's left unanswered because it can't be answered. The human element can't be quantified. In short we're left the hand we are dealt. Let me put it this way. You are a musician and you did a session. Your engineer recorded you at proper level and you go back to hear yourself from his monitors. Did you sound the same to you from your perspective as from his? Surely not. You take the dub and listen to it in your car. Different again. You play it in your system at home. Again, different. IMO this is a form of masochism. The thing is he did capture something and depending on the system and environment you will hear less or more of what was captured. That's just the beginning of the divergences.

Folsom · Oct 10, 2017

The more each album takes on a distinct flavor, the closer you are to hearing whats on the album you are listening to. But its all through the lens of mixing and mastering so there is no way to hear the exact "performance". You may not want to anyway, consisdering that musicians shamelessly maniplute music so they'll like, not so it sounds "pure" - as they generally have some say so in production work.

DaveyF · Oct 10, 2017

Folsom said:
The more each album takes on a distinct flavor, the closer you are to hearing whats on the album you are listening to. But its all through the lens of mixing and mastering so there is no way to hear the exact "performance". You may not want to anyway, consisdering that musicians shamelessly maniplute music so they'll like, not so it sounds "pure" - as they generally have some say so in production work.

Indeed the lens of mixing and mastering is always present. Although I think that some of the best a'phile recordings do have the ability to recreate all of the 'sound field'. Question is whether this is an artificial artifact or not??

The reason I started this thread was to see if there is some correlation between our experiences of the 'live' event and the best sounds that we can create in our homes. Are the aspects of imaging..and in particular some of the imaging effects that Steve has reported using his new footers ---i.e an expansion of the sound field into areas that are now not only behind the speakers ( the traditional sound stage), to in front of the speakers and all around in the room; an accurate reproduction of what was captured in the lens of mixing and mastering. Interesting question, which i for one, do not know the answer to.

NorthStar · Oct 11, 2017

Davey, when professional audio reviewers review audio products...loudspeakers, amplifiers, audio cables, power noise silencers, DACs, digital music servers, turntables, etc., ... and when using common audio terms as imaging, sound staging, ambiance revival, presence, 3D depth, air, micro details, macro dynamics, holographic substance, emotional involvement, physical entanglement, being one in the now, more there in here, spaciousness, clarity, liquidity, .... it is important that the readers, us the prospective buyers/investors, understand very well the music recordings to which they are referring to; short of that it is simply more air inside an empty vacuum space of a far away galaxy.

Folsom · Oct 11, 2017

DaveyF said:
Indeed the lens of mixing and mastering is always present. Although I think that some of the best a'phile recordings do have the ability to recreate all of the 'sound field'. Question is whether this is an artificial artifact or not??

The reason I started this thread was to see if there is some correlation between our experiences of the 'live' event and the best sounds that we can create in our homes. Are the aspects of imaging..and in particular some of the imaging effects that Steve has reported using his new footers ---i.e an expansion of the sound field into areas that are now not only behind the speakers ( the traditional sound stage), to in front of the speakers and all around in the room an accurate reproduction of what was captured in the lens of mixing and mastering. Interesting question, which i for one, do not know the answer to.

None of it is an artifact unless it's added post recording, as in information was added. What happens is that certain frequencies are exploited to create a stronger illusion. The recording usually has them, so there is no need to add.

In Steve's case the information was there, and embellished or not, the footers allowed it to convey it better.

If you want to know about accuracy to real life, go see some live music. The reality is you cannot get near the read of imaging & soundstage placement as many stereos can give. Many parts of music are too loud to allow many small cues to come through - it's simple physics. But in our stereos we can exploit them so we get a fun sense of heightened imaging and soundstage placement.

the sound of Tao · Oct 11, 2017

JackD201 said:
In a word...Information.

I think we have to get past quite a few truisms born mainly out of endless iteration. I guess I've always been much less obsessive about "live" vs "constructed" for a number of reasons. Stereo is an artificial construct but less seen is how it is constructed. Let's take the Decca tree or EMI blumlein as examples. Many see the picture of microphone diagrams and assume that they are vertically oriented. In fact they are more horizontal and are flown, center stage (pun intended).

The common idea is that a soundstage should resemble a movie screen and so people set their systems up to give this type of wide presentation with depth of field like you would see from a camera lens. If one looks at acquisition for minimalist recordings and panning on constructed soundscapes however these are performed with an arc not a flat plane. See the photos here https://proaudioclube.com/2016/04/09/decca-sound-secrets-engeneers/ for Decca. You'll see not only the orientation of the tree but also how the musicians are oriented around the tree and how outriggers are positioned as well. It is a much more severe arc than that for playing to an audience. Here, the microphones are the audience. The equilateral triangle placement for stereo monitoring likewise sets an arc while visually it may appear like straight lines. We all know that beam width varies with frequency. The straight lines then apply only to high frequencies while lower down there will be summing and cancelations to go along with differing arrival times to create the stimuli to create the illusion of localization.

From this perspective live or constructed is a moot point. Of course we want the instruments to sound like real instruments but as far as placement goes, in both cases sound is optimized for a specific area within that arc very different from sound for motion pictures where sound is attempted to be optimized for a wider area. Since we are talking about music especially music for the home we go with the former.

The question now is have a lot of people been setting their systems up wrong. Well I wouldn't be so harsh. Preferences are preferences. I would go far as saying that one of the purposes of stereo like surround sound after it is to give a more immersive experience without having to give up too much of the direct impact of true mono. This is only my opinion but it is what it is. For me, the more realistic soundstage is that of the walk in variety. It is also truer to the vast majority of commercial recordings given how they were made or constructed. They were made to have the listener smack down the middle and surrounded close to his field of view. It is an experience in itself and again IMO should be appreciated as such as opposed to being compared to abstract concepts forced down our collective throats.

The information in the recording, particularly the cues, tonal shifts created by relative distance, reverberation, et al are there. Getting them unmasked by noise is another story provided the noise isn't on the medium itself. Normally when one says dynamic range, loudness is the first thing that comes to mind. It is at the heart of the word length debate in digital. The last few decades however has had the industry and listeners have been looking at the other direction. How do we increase dynamic range without having to go louder? The answer is simple, make quiet quieter. Something the analog guys have had to deal with all along. We just have to deal with acoustical, mechanical and electrical noise.

Ear cleaning helps too

Jack, great post! Ultimately everything is recreation and therefore synthetic. The experience that we have of music can translate beyond the real, this is our greatest opportunity to let go of the limits of thinking. Thinking about sounds is a very different thing than listening to music. If an engineer is an artist then recording technique is ultimately both a skill and an art. It is what is felt at the end that is important.

Search

Search

What is actually on the recording.....??

DaveyF

Well-Known Member

JackD201

WBF Founding Member

morricab

Well-Known Member

DaveyF

Well-Known Member

Al M.

VIP/Donor

NorthStar

Member

JackD201

WBF Founding Member

Folsom

VIP/Donor

DaveyF

Well-Known Member

NorthStar

Member

Folsom

VIP/Donor

the sound of Tao

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Staff online

Members online