Do you want "in the room" or "in the recording" for your sound?

[amirm]

I read this interesting slide in Dr. Geddes presentation on small room acoustics:

Moving forward creates a subjective effect that I call “in the recording”

Backward - “in the room”

The former gives the subjective impression of “being there” – you are moved into the recorded space

The later gives the impression that the musicians have been transported into the room with you

Some like the “in the recording” effect, but I find it unnatural - precise imaging beyond reality, no spaciousness, a kind of headphone effect

So where do you land on this?

 

[JackD201]

My main listening isn't done in a small room, so it's easy for me and Dr. Earl to differ on opinions. It's clearly "in the recording" for me. Come to think of it I can't imagine how it could ever sound natural in a small room.

 

[Ron Party]

In the recording. But, and this a big BUT, 2 channels is not enough to get there.

 

[JackD201]

The closest to a live simulation I've experienced is 4.1 DSD (Phantom Center Channel)

My 2 channels "get me there" to some extent but nowhere near the multi-channel. It does "in the room" easily IMO.

I will grudgingly have to agree with Ron. The truth hurts.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

If I had the room, I'd have nearfield monitors for in the recording and omnipolars in an open space for in the room. But I'd probably mostly listen to good live recordings in the room. Being a frequent headphone listener, however, I don't agree that nearfield listening is headphone-like. It is a very different effect.

Tim

 

[Robert]

Some like the “in the recording” effect, but I find it unnatural - precise imaging beyond reality, no spaciousness, a kind of headphone effect[/i]

My stereo puts me in the concert hall. Two channel. Music seems to envelope me. I can hear the sound bouncing off walls, and the decay into a real acoustic space.

Unnatural? Maybe you have not really heard something like this, yet.

 

[flez007]

I would land in the middle, that is - my system recreates as close as possible the true escence of the musical instruments (I listen a lot to acoustic music) but at the same time sends the right recreation of what the engineer looked to place in the master (somethine innevitable from the storage media and 2ch format).

 

[slowGEEZR]

I prefer in the room most of the time, but there are times, usually late at night when, in the recording, is best.

 

[amirm]

Unnatural? Maybe you have not really heard something like this, yet.

Hmmm. Just to clarify, nothing I wrote came from me. I was quoting a slide by Dr. Geddes.

For me personally, I have both and enjoy both. I find that "in the recording" is much easier imaging for me to create with my studio monitors. I find it a big step from headphone which is "in the head" not "in the recording." I also get the in the room feeling when I listen to well done systems. As such, I get the distinction that Earl is mentioning. The feeling of the two is quite different.

 

[Ron Party]

The closest to a live simulation I've experienced is 4.1 DSD (Phantom Center Channel)

Hey Jack, please share the details.

 

[MylesBAstor]

I read this interesting slide in Dr. Geddes presentation on small room acoustics:

Moving forward creates a subjective effect that I call “in the recording”

Backward - “in the room”

The former gives the subjective impression of “being there” – you are moved into the recorded space

The later gives the impression that the musicians have been transported into the room with you

Some like the “in the recording” effect, but I find it unnatural - precise imaging beyond reality, no spaciousness, a kind of headphone effect

So where do you land on this?

Sorry if I don't get this question -- a good audio system should reproduce the perspective of original recording. If it's a jazz/studio recording like a RVG, the recording will be close up, lacking somewhat in ambience but with the sense of added reverb. If it's a classical Wilkie Decca orchestral or opera, you should hear it slightly further back and awash in the sense of space. If it's a RCA classical, it's a little more natural perspective than the closer miked Mercury recordings. If it's a chamber orchestra, it should be a closer perspective eg. I don't know too many people who sit willingly in the back of a hall to listen to small scale classical music.

 

[amirm]

My bad for taking the slide somewhat out of context. Didn't want to link originally to it since it is a rather complicated presentation to sit through and requires PowerPoint to read. But here it is: http://www.gedlee.com/downloads/Audio Acoustics 6 12 05.ppt

There, you see that he makes a case for room reverberations adding a sense of space. And that by reducing the effect of that, you lose the soundstage which he considers an important perceptual thing. At least that is my read of it. I can ask Earl to come and explain it better if it helps.

 

[Steve Williams]

There, you see that he makes a case for room reverberations adding a sense of space. And that by reducing the effect of that, you lose the soundstage which he considers an important perceptual thing. At least that is my read of it. I can ask Earl to come and explain it better if it helps.

That would be a good idea

 

[Kal Rubinson]

"In the recording" for me since both of my rooms are too small for an orchestra.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

There, you see that he makes a case for room reverberations adding a sense of space.

Sure but that space is spurious.

 

[amirm]

Guys, I am just a messenger and probably a poor one at that . I have PM into Earl. Hopefully he has the time to contribute directly.

For now, have you all heard the two versions?

 

[JackD201]

Multichannel SACD of Dark Side of The Moon

VR-11s up front
VR-9s at the rear
Gotham doing LFE

That makes for 7 active subwoofers in 7 locations, two of them with acoustic centers 6 feet off the ground.

We then played the LP and while in many ways it was just as if not better sonically speaking, it lost out in the "you are THERE" department.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

Two versions of what?

Kal

 

[amirm]

Two versions of what?

Kal

Two versions of the experience, with the "in recording" achieved by:

"By moving closer and closer to speakers that are canted inward, the sound field becomes more and more dominated by the direct field – the direct to reverb ratio goes up.

Moving back beyond a certain point has no effect."

 

[Kal Rubinson]

Oh. Ignore everything I have posted. I was contrasting the aural perspectives provided by different recordings and setups, including stereo and multichannel. I do not believe that "moving closer and closer to speakers that are canted inward" with a stereo recording does anything more than increase the direct to reverb ratio. It may move you "into the recording" as with wearing headphones but it doesn't move you into the recording venue the way a good multichannel recording can.