As some may realize, our listening skills can vary quite widely in high-end audio. And though some may not realize it, without a clear target on the wall high-end audio pursuits can seem like wandering aimlessly in the desert so-to-speak.
In the past few months I’ve been dabbling with my iPhone and a Shure MV88 USB microphone while trying some in-room recordings and I’ve posted a few of those in-room recordings here and there with some interesting responses. Moreover, I’ve also had the privilege to listen to some others’ in-room recordings and I can’t say enough how beneficial some of those in-room recordings can be. They can really provide some insight into what others are listening to and what they understand about playback sound quality. But I think it really helps all of us if we all took a few in-room recordings and just played them back on our own computers just to get a better understanding of a smart phone’s limitations and potentials of in-room recordings. With a little understanding and a bit of imagination, I suspect some of us could better appreciate how in-room recordings can help in high-end audio forums.
That said, and upon viewing / listening to others' in-room recordings both here and elsewhere, it seems clear to me that the definition of the absolute sound indeed has different meanings to different people.
For example. I've listened to some others’ in-room recordings and in a number of cases thought the sound seemed wonderfully rich and detailed and quite musical. At first. Then within moments there was clearly something odd and unnatural about what I was hearing. I concluded what I was often times hearing was a seemingly wonderfully detailed presentation with a tad bit of what sometimes seemed an almost unnatural hint of ambient info. By unnatural, I’m implying that the ambient info almost seemed like it was added as an after-thought or after-effect to the in-room recording.
In those nice but unusual in-room recordings what I heard was perceivably numerous recording mic's and closely mic’ed live performances. In fact, when I researched one of the recording labels, sure enough, I was able to confirm that is indeed their practice. So even though in-room recordings don’t tell all, I thought what I was hearing might be akin to watching a live event like the Kentucky Derby on the guardrail right next to the track with the horses stampeding thunderously by within just few feet of me where I could feel and hear every hoof pound into the ground, the horses’ heavy breathing, etc, almost as though I was a participant (the trees). But for the thousands in the audience, they don’t really hear much of the individual trees but rather more of the forest as a collective whole. And in the case of some in-room recordings it’s almost like I’m hearing the trees and the forest simultaneously which to me is about as normal as a traffic light illuminating red and green simultaneously.
So I guess what I’m talking about here is that recording techniques e.g. closely mic’ed, numerous mic’s vs 2 or maybe 3 mic’s at a distance, etc, as this alone gives a certain listening perspective. Additionally, I’m also talking about the limitations and potentials of a given playback system and how much of the ambient information remains audible at the speaker as this too contributes greatly to a certain listening perspective.
So many audiophiles claim to routinely attend live performances, yet it seems the one thing many quickly forget after the live performance is the listening perspective of being in the audience with a good distance between themselves and the performers up on the sound stage.
As a fundamentalist in many ways, I find I am most engaged in a playback listening session when the music label also seems to take a fundamental approach toward engineering a recording via microphone techniques, e.g. placement, quantity, etc. Reference Recordings, Telarc, Stockfisch, Tacet, and Windham Hill are just a few of the number of recording labels I appreciate. Not that a closely-mic’ed live performance (the trees) sounds bad as it can be very engaging and very telling of a system’s potentials, but to me such nearfield recordings / listening perspectives just sounds unnatural unless perhaps I was the conductor or one of the performers on the sound stage.
Anyway, I’ve provided below a handful of in-room recordings that hopefully demonstrate a more of the forest rather than the trees perspective in the pursuit of The Absolute Sound.
When listening to anybody’s in-room recordings, I think some valid questions you might ask yourself include:
Note:
In the past few months I’ve been dabbling with my iPhone and a Shure MV88 USB microphone while trying some in-room recordings and I’ve posted a few of those in-room recordings here and there with some interesting responses. Moreover, I’ve also had the privilege to listen to some others’ in-room recordings and I can’t say enough how beneficial some of those in-room recordings can be. They can really provide some insight into what others are listening to and what they understand about playback sound quality. But I think it really helps all of us if we all took a few in-room recordings and just played them back on our own computers just to get a better understanding of a smart phone’s limitations and potentials of in-room recordings. With a little understanding and a bit of imagination, I suspect some of us could better appreciate how in-room recordings can help in high-end audio forums.
That said, and upon viewing / listening to others' in-room recordings both here and elsewhere, it seems clear to me that the definition of the absolute sound indeed has different meanings to different people.
For example. I've listened to some others’ in-room recordings and in a number of cases thought the sound seemed wonderfully rich and detailed and quite musical. At first. Then within moments there was clearly something odd and unnatural about what I was hearing. I concluded what I was often times hearing was a seemingly wonderfully detailed presentation with a tad bit of what sometimes seemed an almost unnatural hint of ambient info. By unnatural, I’m implying that the ambient info almost seemed like it was added as an after-thought or after-effect to the in-room recording.
In those nice but unusual in-room recordings what I heard was perceivably numerous recording mic's and closely mic’ed live performances. In fact, when I researched one of the recording labels, sure enough, I was able to confirm that is indeed their practice. So even though in-room recordings don’t tell all, I thought what I was hearing might be akin to watching a live event like the Kentucky Derby on the guardrail right next to the track with the horses stampeding thunderously by within just few feet of me where I could feel and hear every hoof pound into the ground, the horses’ heavy breathing, etc, almost as though I was a participant (the trees). But for the thousands in the audience, they don’t really hear much of the individual trees but rather more of the forest as a collective whole. And in the case of some in-room recordings it’s almost like I’m hearing the trees and the forest simultaneously which to me is about as normal as a traffic light illuminating red and green simultaneously.
So I guess what I’m talking about here is that recording techniques e.g. closely mic’ed, numerous mic’s vs 2 or maybe 3 mic’s at a distance, etc, as this alone gives a certain listening perspective. Additionally, I’m also talking about the limitations and potentials of a given playback system and how much of the ambient information remains audible at the speaker as this too contributes greatly to a certain listening perspective.
So many audiophiles claim to routinely attend live performances, yet it seems the one thing many quickly forget after the live performance is the listening perspective of being in the audience with a good distance between themselves and the performers up on the sound stage.
As a fundamentalist in many ways, I find I am most engaged in a playback listening session when the music label also seems to take a fundamental approach toward engineering a recording via microphone techniques, e.g. placement, quantity, etc. Reference Recordings, Telarc, Stockfisch, Tacet, and Windham Hill are just a few of the number of recording labels I appreciate. Not that a closely-mic’ed live performance (the trees) sounds bad as it can be very engaging and very telling of a system’s potentials, but to me such nearfield recordings / listening perspectives just sounds unnatural unless perhaps I was the conductor or one of the performers on the sound stage.
Anyway, I’ve provided below a handful of in-room recordings that hopefully demonstrate a more of the forest rather than the trees perspective in the pursuit of The Absolute Sound.
When listening to anybody’s in-room recordings, I think some valid questions you might ask yourself include:
- Should a playback performance sound more like the performers are in your living room (thick, rich, just feet in front of you, almost overly dynamic and detailed, flowing toward you as individual trees, etc) or in an expansive recording hall (light, airy, expansive, on-the-move, flowing toward you more as a collective whole forest, but also a perceived thinness, etc)?
- Based on what you hear here, just how far away do you perceive your ears to be from the performers?
- Based on the volume of ambient info, what do you suppose might the rough dimensions and type of the recording venue?
Note:
- These are all recorded with the playback system’s volume levels around the 97db mark using a single stereo mic attached via USB to the iPhone which is centered and about 12 feet in front of the speakers.
- Unless otherwise noted, all recordings are off-the-shelf Redbook PCM.
- In-room recordings of this type (an abundance of air and distance) via a smart phone will add much to a perceived thinness to the presentation.