"How can we ever truly know if we are hearing exactly what is on the recording?"

[ddk]

Let's have some fun...

I haven't thought this all the way through so I may change my consideration, but, for the moment, I'm very leery of this question being useful. We see the question (posed rhetorically) a lot, often mid-squabble. It's kinda an expression of sheer scepticism that can be used to thwart any attempt to come to a conclusion. We also see it associated to a list (Ron's ?) of 4 Types of Audiophiles, one being those who seek reproduction true to what is on the recording, or some such.

Microstrip's formulation (above) taken from Dave C's cue asks about the artists' intent. This is somewhat problematic because intent is difficult to gauge through listening. If they're still around, we could ask performers - "does this recording exhibit what you intended?" Suppose they say 'yes' or 'no' - what does that tell us? That the recording is faithful to their idea of what they wanted it be? Huh? What does that tell us?

Inspired by remembering that Descarte's scepticism ("How do I know that I exist?) was ultimately the cause of his certainty (cogito ergo sum), I'll rashly answer the question. :-O

We start with the notion that at such-and-such a time and place the XYZ Orchestra of the Air along with The 4th Street Belmont Singers performed Brahm's Schicksalslied Op.54 and that was captured by microphones, etc. and put on tape.

There was an act of recording; the verb. But is that 'the recording' ? If it is, all the scepticism boils down to saying we cannot relive the past, so we can't really know. Even if we could, that's not the recording of a performance, it is the performance.

Is the so-called 'master tape' the recording? No, it's a magnetic tape on a metal reel. Even if you hold it close to your ear you won't hear the Song of Destiny. Not even a pre-echo.

I reject the notion that "the recording" exists as some kind of timeless objective Platonic Form that is The True Recording, that it is something we can never truly know, something that at best we can only grasp as 'shadows' of the recording. This seems to be the angle where the question is coming from.

Music is performance art. It exists in time and is transient. A recording must be performed to hear music. It moves from the potential (media) to the actual through time - when the recording is performed, when the record is played. Every time you play a record you hear exactly what is on the recording.

IME it all depends on your source hardware and software. A good piece of software, wether tape, lp or cd played back on good to very good systems should give a human being a pretty decent and engaging facsimile of the original event. The next step up is superior and exceptional software either lp or if you're lucky enough tape, will transport one even closer to that event. Then playback that superior lp on a properly setup Beyond level turntable like the American Sound AS-2000 with a system to match and one will be attending that venue. This isn't about 1:1 reproduction of the event, we're not test equipment set up to receive rudimentary data via a cable and assign numerical values, we receive data through extremely sophisticated sensory equipment and process it internally through an incredible nervous system then internalize it using other senses and emotion. There's a lot of hidden information in tiny grooves of grooves of a record which most people haven't heard nor are aware that it exists until one hears that record played on something like the AS-2000. Human beings are very capable of consuming and processing this micro information, it's what we need to build a near complete picture of the event with our nervous system. This is what matters, we can process the data and recreate reality if all the information is present, even if altered. Artists or engineers intent is irrelevant it's the level of their competency that matters, a good musician will deliver the goods and a good engineer will record it all even with some alteration.

David

 

[microstrip]

Digital is still a conversion of energy to mathematical representation, then reconversion. At the risk of being metaphysical, analog captures energy using fundamental laws of nature, in the case of vinyl stores it physically in the grooves, and releases it again when the stylus traces the grooves. (Ok, that sounds weird as the energy isn't stored like a battery, but I can’t seem to find the vocabulary.) As such, its a direct function... if the microphone captures the nuances, however subtle, they’re likely there in the grooves. Better cartridge and stylus design seems to be able to recover more and more of what is stored there.

Bob,

It is curious that people have romantic ideas about the" magic" of the LP grooves, but forget that all this information was stored in the individual magnetic domains of the tape before going in the grooves.

IMHO the new better analog devices have simply a more selective ability to collect information that is subjectively relevant to us. The cartridge/tonearm/turntable designers are also part of the art.

 

[ddk]

Bob,

It is curious that people have romantic ideas about the" magic" of the LP grooves, but forget that all this information was stored in the individual magnetic domains of the tape before going in the grooves.

You're correct about this Francisco but the problem is that we don't have access to those precious tapes but we can find the records and good pressings have almost all the same information that was on the tape, so we can get very, very close to the "ideal" tape with LP.

david

 

[Bobvin]

Bob,

It is curious that people have romantic ideas about the" magic" of the LP grooves, but forget that all this information was stored in the individual magnetic domains of the tape before going in the grooves.

No doubt. My amazement is that moving a magnet in a coil of wire (or vice versa) creates a current, and our analog world is one manifestation of this simple law of the universe.

 

[Atmasphere]

Ralph,

It is great to read your opinions, it would be great to have some links to factual data and real measurements on it.

Regarding the noise floor, I spoke directly to Chad about what they had done to their pressing machines. As far as the number I threw out, that was based on measurements we made here. I've not presented these findings anywhere but the fact that lacquers can be very very quiet is common knowledge among mastering engineers. Regarding bandwidth, CD-4 of the 1970s required a bit. Most of that was developed on the playback side- it was already in the cutters of the time.

 

[microstrip]

No doubt. My amazement is that moving a magnet in a coil of wire (or vice versa) creates a current, and our analog world is one manifestation of this simple law of the universe.

Yes, it was very simple until Maxwell complicated it in Physics II ...

 

[GaryProtein]

The author's viewpoint in this article may be controversial for our forum, but at least he tries to keep you honest. It is a little long but I think it is worth reading. Don't skip any of it.

http://www.enjoythemusic.com/magazine/viewpoint/0601/audiohell.htm

My personal answer to the question,

"How can we ever truly know if we are hearing exactly what is on the recording?"

WE CAN'T. There are far too many variables, besides, do we want to hear what we think is on the recording or do we want to hear it the way we think the recording engineer heard it? Who is to say what we hear is better or worse than what the recording engineer heard?

Furthermore, recording techniques and devices change over time and they all have different sonic characteristics and the style of what sounds best or more realistic goes in and out of style just like haircuts and skirt lengths. The magnificent sounding recordings of the 1950s-1970s sound nothing like today, yet some systems play them sounding excellently, just like some systems play classical beautifully, some play rock excellently and some play solo vocals really well.

 

[Tango]

Al, even if you could know how a recording is intended to sound, if you play the recording in ten different audiophile systems, each owned by a guy who thinks his system shows the near truth about a recording, they will all sound different. Then what??? We are left with the inconvenient truth that very few systems sound the same, they all have different combinations of gear, are set up differently, and are located in different sounding rooms.

Some audiophiles state that the recording is "all we have", and they make it their goal to reproduce what they think is on the recording. We all do this to differing degrees, but the recording is not all we have. We also have our memories of how we perceive the real thing, and because we hear differently, and we have different budgets and tastes, and priorities, and preferences, the outcomes all sound different. We may start with the same recording, but each of us is on his own path as demonstrated by the very different sounds we hear from that same recording in different settings.

Going back even further, we may think we know the composer's original intent. I am reminded of what a good friend told me once about musical genius. He said that "Bach's compositions were corrupted the moment he wrote his thoughts down in two dimensions on paper." Those notations are later reinterpreted by the conductors and musicians, and then later by different conductors and musicians, far into the future, for audiences around the world. I have seen some of Mozart's original notes on manuscripts in Vienna. Put down, crossed out, altered many times. Then those many interpretations by conductors and musicians are recorded by someone else, engineered later, produced, and sold. We then buy those recordings and hear yet new interpretations through the choices we have made with our systems and rooms. Original intent? It is gone forever as it continues to be re-interpreted by others along the way.

Like the composition in Bach's head being corrupted the moment it is transcribed on paper, the information on the recording is corrupted as soon as we try to play it back in our listening rooms. No piece of gear, assembled system, or room context is perfect. This is why music, and listening to audio systems, is such a rich and varied hobby, and why we can never fully agree about the way it "is" or "should be". It can lead to some interesting and contentious discussions, though.

I think people like Ed Pong, Bernie Grundman, Gary Koh, etc. can more correctly identify if a system portray close to the recording they intended us to hear. These people were working during the recording and knew exactly what the sound that was recorded and engineered. And I am wondering if we tuned our system to those recordings that they made and they gave a nod that it sounded accurate to their recordings, could that sound be extrapolate to other recordings that they did not make and claim accurate to other recordings as well?

 

[Carlos269]

You're correct about this Francisco but the problem is that we don't have access to those precious tapes but we can find the records and good pressings have almost all the same information that was on the tape, so we can get very, very close to the "ideal" tape with LP.

david

Francisco brings up a good point, which is inline with my theory of why we find vinyl so pleasing to listen to. Most vinyl, with the exception of direct to disc/record/metal, is derived from magnetic tape. Magnetic tape makes all recordings sound better than the original as it compresses the high frequencies and gives you a nice bass bump. It is this magnetic tape saturation/equalization that, in my opinion, is a big factor in our allure with the sound of vinyl records.

You can give digital the same magnetic tape saturation effect with the right pieces of mastering equipment, in the digital or analog domain.

The saturation and compression is also true of vacuum tubes. So if you are listening to your vinyl or tape through a vacuum tube playback chain then you are potentially getting a double or even triple dose of saturation and compression.

Most modern vinyl originate from digital recordings and don’t sound as good.

In theory, digital capture, storage and playback (DAC) with solid-state amplification chain playback should yield the most accurate reproduction.

With all that said, I really enjoy the sound of tape, vinyl and tubes because I’m no longer after the Holy Grail, as I realized that is unattainable.

I play music for myself and do not need affirmation from others. I don’t ever have guest over anymore. I have spent time on this forum this past week because I’m away from home, otherwise I be spending time with my wife, listening to music on one of my various systems, or driving one of my Porsche’s.

As the old cliche goes, enjoy the music. Audiophiles we long for affirmation (this should be the subject of a different thread). Do it and listen for yourself and not for others, life is more pleasing that way

 

[Solypsa]

Its very common for digital releases to see some tape saturation and or over driven valve saturation (real or emulated) during mastering. That topic is a steady feature on the mastering fora. As an aside I've made dub plates of digital recordings and they sometimes sounded 'better' with just the lacquer transfer. Go figure...

But yes enjoy music and be glad there are so many nice recordings

 

[tima]

Artists or engineers intent is irrelevant it's the level of their competency that matters, a good musician will deliver the goods and a good engineer will record it all even with some alteration.

Yes. My sense is that most musicians, particularly those at the concert or symphonic level , intend to play their instrument well, to play it artfully according to how the conductor directs. That is competency.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Fiendishly? Complicated? Chuckle. Dear Ron, it's only complicated here because it's not expressed in your terminology. I noted the topic is associated to your/the list. But it was not taken from that list.

But, but mom I meant to be clear - I really did. (pavers and hell story goes here.) So I'm happy to try being clearer.

Re: this question
"How can we ever truly know if we are hearing exactly what is on the recording?"



"The recording" is not something in an engineer's mind. The recording is a record or some other media. This was made pretty explicit in the OP:



No mention or suggestion anywhere is made about replicating the actual event. So in your terms the question/topic relates to objective #2. It can only be a "wrong queston" if it doesn't lead to a pre-conceived answer. :-o

Thank you for the opportunity to clarify. Honest! Where you and I and the list makers may get into a "real quarrel" is over the notion that Objective #2 makes any sense.

. . .

I stipulate that the opening question asks what is on the physical media?

 

[the sound of Tao]

So beyond this ‘you are there’, ‘they are here’ thing are there any other perceptual possibilities?

I’ve been wondering because when I’m listening to the pap horns I am nowhere and all there is for me is the trail from note to note. I am lost in that. I’m not interested in the boundaries of the room because all I am following is the core of the music, the musical thread. It has been like this for a while now. All scale falls away and there is just the music and me in infinite space.

With the Maggie 20.7s I was always building the space. There was an architecture with amazing detail. With the Harbeth 40.2s everything was about the flow of the music, but with the horns I’m just falling into the notes and it’s like nothing else exists. It’s like the musical intention is palpable and self evident and nothing else is needed to be done.

 

[Gregadd]

I stipulate that the opening question asks what is on the physical media?

But we.inevitably evaluate it based on our sonic memory of past musical evemts. Becaise we do not know what the original recording sounds like.

 

[ddk]

So beyond this ‘you are there’, ‘they are here’ thing are there any other perceptual possibilities?

I’ve been wondering because when I’m listening to the pap horns I am nowhere and all there is for me is the trail from note to note. I am lost in that. I’m not interested in the boundaries of the room because all I am following is the core of the music, the musical thread. It has been like this for a while now. All scale falls away and there is just the music and me in infinite space.

With the Maggie 20.7s I was always building the space. There was an architecture with amazing detail. With the Harbeth 40.2s everything was about the flow of the music, but with the horns I’m just falling into the notes and it’s like nothing else exists. It’s like the musical intention is palpable and self evident and nothing else is needed to be done.

This is the definition of being there.
david

 

[tima]

I’ve been wondering because when I’m listening to the pap horns I am nowhere and all there is for me is the trail from note to note. I am lost in that. I’m not interested in the boundaries of the room because all I am following is the core of the music, the musical thread. It has been like this for a while now. All scale falls away and there is just the music and me in infinite space.

The limbic, 'a-cognitive', paleomammalian, endorphic escape that occurs sans musical program. Analytic listening - audiophile listening - is fun too, but quite different. Take what the day gives you.

Aaron Copland understood this too. In his book What to Listen for in Music, he talks about how a fundamental aspect of enjoying music takes place on a “sensuous plane,” which is “a kind of brainless but attractive state of mind [that] is engendered by the mere sound appeal of music.”

 

[microstrip]

I stipulate that the opening question asks what is on the physical media?

The physical translation of a stereo recording is an electrical signal - better, two simulatneous electrical signals. It is as close as you can be of the recording. The recording engineers anticipate the effects of the storage, reading and playing processes in their choices. Unfortunately they can only make educated guesses, due to the weakness (or non-existence ) of solid standards in stereo sound reproduction.

F. Toole approach to solve this problem was simple - forget about the audiophiles selfish preferences and evaluate a statistically valid preference under what he considers unbiased conditions. Then , the winner takes it all and becomes a reference speaker to be used by professionals and consumers. Science at the service of the art!

 

[kach22i]

..... Magnetic tape makes all recordings sound better than the original as it compresses the high frequencies and gives you a nice bass bump. .....

I have never read anything like this before.

Thank you for exposing me to these thoughts.

Another great thread guys, now I'm off to read several articles posted in this thread. Might even get that Copland book one day.

 

[the sound of Tao]

This is the definition of being there.
david

I’ve been working at getting more out of a recording since I bought my first stereo (paid for by doing extra chores at my dad’s business before school each day) when I was 8.

Consciously this has been the target more and more until over the last twenty years it has been a one pointed focus with the system choices. I still loved the music (never fell out of love with that regardless of any system I had) but I became very strategic on doing regular review of what I was hearing in the recording. A year ago I just stopped trying to get more off the recording and switched that review point off completely.

I stopped asking myself or listening for the conscious differences when I made changes to the gear or setup (and I’ve made more comprehensive changes over the last year than I had in the previous 6 or 7 years).

I’m not analysing sonic values now at all really. I’m not listening to if I am hearing anything more and just settling on what I am feeling and if I’m understanding the musician more.

I wonder if my instinct is taking me there in my decision making and guiding me closer to what is there in the recording or if by not asking how much I am hearing any more I have changed myself and retrained my relationship with listening... so changing me more than I’ve changed the system.

Not sure but am sure the speed of the connection is becoming more immediate and easier for me and much more reliable.

Perhaps the shear exposure to more musicians and being in the stream lately is also shaping this openness to listen rather than actively think any more in this engagement. I remember sitting in a park listening to my uncle’s jazz big band when I was 5 or 6 and being swept away with the music and not being aware of anything else, not the people around me or the noises in the distant traffic and ocean noises from the beach nearby... there was just the music and me and no things. My first relationships with live music triggered my search for that no place... maybe I have just gone full cycle and gotten back to the no where, no time and no place that not being aware of the mechanism allows music to take you to.

 

[the sound of Tao]

The limbic, 'a-cognitive', paleomammalian, endorphic escape that occurs sans musical program. Analytic listening - audiophile listening - is fun too, but quite different. Take what the day gives you.

Aaron Copland understood this too. In his book What to Listen for in Music, he talks about how a fundamental aspect of enjoying music takes place on a “sensuous plane,” which is “a kind of brainless but attractive state of mind [that] is engendered by the mere sound appeal of music.”

Love that. A plane rather than a place. Where the music performs on you.