The Nature of Sound

[PeterA]

I have had some rather spirited discussions with three recent visitors to my listening room. Opinions varied as to the quality of the sound from changes I have made to speaker positioning and room treatments. The comments were mostly focused on the imaging of my system, relative to what my guests remember from the last time they heard it, and relative to what they hear at home, and at live venues. With my recent changes, the sound is now quite different. At least one visitor seemed to greatly prefer the sound I had previous to the recent changes.

This led me to think more intently about one specific attribute of live sound: How focused or diffuse is it really? What are the characteristics of its scale, the size of the images, their location in the soundstage, the size of the soundstage, and the relative definition of the virtual images from which the sound originates. And how does all of this relate to what we hear from our systems?

My visitors' comments also have me wondering if they were using live music, their own systems, or some combination of the two as the primary reference from which they formed their opinions.

I decided to do something interesting as one visitor got up to say his goodbyes. I listened to him speak for a minute and then I closed my eyes and continued to listen to him speak.

Last night I attended a live concert with Madfloyd and Al M in Boston at the New England Conservatory of Music. We heard Beethoven’s 2nd symphony, a Mozart concerto for flute and harp, and then one movement from Stravinsky’s Firebird Suite. I listened with both my eyes open and, at times, closed.





Based on listening to my visitor and to the concert with my eyes both open and shut, here are my conclusions:

1. Sound heard with eyes wide open is clear, dynamic and full of complex and nuanced tone and detail. It appears to originate from a very specific location. It is focused.

2. Sound heard with eyes shut closed seems very much the same with one major distinction. It is diffuse. My friend’s voice in my listening room was also very diffuse and interestingly, it was also quite sibilant (which is important in the context of my cartridge comparisons).

Sound coming from voices and instruments is diffuse in real life. I do not hear pin-point, well defined or outlined images. I have certainly heard this from systems, and my system was more in that direction when I had lots of room treatments and the speakers were toed-in to point at my shoulders. Of course, the sound is exactly the same. It is the perception of how diffuse or focused it is that seems to change when I opened or closed my eyes while listening.

Whether listening to a live concert, to a visitor in my listening room, or to my audio system, I can clearly localize the sound from the instruments or singers up on stage and from my speakers, but there is no outline of the image. The sound's precise size and location are not as clear as I had imagined them to be or as they are often described. It is fuzzy and seems bigger than in real life when actually seen. With eyes closed, sounds overlap with the sounds of neighboring instruments and voices. Things sound bigger, a bit more jumbled. There is still a cohesive whole, for sure, but it is not precisely drawn out as we may imagine it to be.

My system was criticized as lacking focus and being overly diffuse. It is certainly more so than it was before I made the recent changes. However, these two experiences, and actually my long-held suspicions, have confirmed that the sound of real live music and voices is also diffuse. My recent changes have resulted in a more convincing and believable sound, at least relative to what I hear live. Some visitors do not seem to agree.

I should add that none of this seems absolute. There is a wide range of diffusion from both recordings and from live music, just as there is a wide range of what we refer to as the timbre of an instrument or ambient sound of a performance space. But what live music never seems to be is a super focused sound with pinpoint imaging and positioning on a clearly defined imagined soundstage, at least in my experience. I have heard this in systems, and some people seem to love it, but I have begun to move away from that type of sound.

I suspected this for a while, and perhaps it is obvious to others, but it seems that there is still some disagreement about this aspect of the sound of live music.

 

[adyc]

When you listen to solo singing in your system, is the voice coming from a sharp point? Or is the size of the mouth of the singer very big? I believe both representations are not real life sound. When I hear people speak, I can localise their voice but not up to a small point. It is somewhat diffuse as you described.

People may have different expectations. But pinpoint imaging is definitely not what I am after for now as I do not believe they are natural.

 

[PeterA]

When you listen to solo singing in your system, is the voice coming from a sharp point? Or is the size of the mouth of the singer very big? I believe both representations are not real life sound. When I hear people speak, I can localise their voice but not up to a small point. It is somewhat diffuse as you described.

People may have different expectations. But pinpoint imaging is definitely not what I am after for now as I do not believe they are natural.

adyc, this is exactly my experience. The solo singing in my system is not a sharp point, nor is the voice really big. It is just slightly larger than one would see if the singer were standing right there between my speakers. I can still easily localize the position, it is just not precise and outlined. And it is diffuse. This is similar to what an actual voice sounds like when speaking in the room. Prior to removing my room treatment and repositioning my speakers to face straight ahead, the image of that singing voice was more precise, more focused, and less diffuse. Of course, it varied slightly depending on the recording. And it still does, perhaps even more so now.

 

[NorthStar]

Peter, I found it very enlightening everything you wrote, your hearing observations, with and without visual clues.

 

[Folsom]

I don’t really understand the focus on this stuff. While I agree you never hear anything outlined in real life, no matter what is happening with all of that in the stereo it doesn’t necessarily predict the quality of the sound at all. Sit outside of the room or lay down and listen without the speakers pointed at you at all - now how good does it sound? One would hope damn good, and strive for that.

 

[Vienna]

Hi Peter
I am carefully reading your posts in this and the other threads of yours and
i totally agree with your observations. In an industry regulated by over-exaggerations such realistic approach is absolutely needed.

 

[NorthStar]

I've read Peter's original post twice; once this morning after he started this new thread (in it he invited us to comment, which was edited/deleted later on...the invitation), and this evening about two hours ago. This morning after reading it I had to attend other matters, so I couldn't reply @ that time. This evening I had more time, after rereading it with more attention.

It is tough to comment without being a witness to Peter's experience, and everything he heard.
It's impossible to fully realize his real life exploration. All the best we can do is to speculate as to what we believe from our own past experiments. To me they have minimal value in relation to Peter's own (I do accept to be wrong). Al and Ian and whoever else was with Peter during this exploration of "nature of sound" and from prior positioning of his speakers, etc., have a better judgement in sharing.

What I can say is this; Peter is a good sound explorer, a true audiophile in the pure natural sense.
To me this is real value, it encourages others to explore further in the hobby we are so passionate about...music enjoyment of the genres we love listening to. ...Pushing the boundaries in search of a higher plane. Every which way is a valid advancement towards this science, part of a system in connection with our disposition.

It is from exploring that we are studying the science of music listening.
It's what makes it best, a part of the nature of sound ...

 

[andromedaaudio]

Great thread peter .
A lot of so called sound experts lay claim on system accuracy ( their system )
Although the sound may sound impressive in certain aspects compared to the real thing its way off ... imo
The real thing is not about pinpoint imaging, its about musical (organic ) flow , and that's were (analogue(turntable) ) tape rules .
And digital sucks,.. imo.

I also think solid state equipment is behind good tube gear in that regard, its a matter of technical aspects/ ss limitations , I dont want to start a tubes / ss discussion here , its just my opinion.

I ve got nothing against solid state equipment it can sound great , I just think it lags the real thing a bit in absolute terms... imo

 

[tima]

Here are a few thoughts...

Without any intent to snark, your post seems more about what we hear when we're in the forest and the tree falls, and about what you prefer, than it does about the nature of sound itself.

You are writing about some discoveries you made recently with changes to your stereo and comparisons with live music. You're more cognizant(?) about differences between what you hear when listening to live music and listening to your stereo. And the fruit of this seems to be a change or shift in what you prefer listening to your stereo, or at least an inclination to pay more attention to the difference betweem it and the live experience to the point where you're prefering one to be more like the other. This harkens back to our discussion about using a live music reference as a basis of preference for guiding our systems versus not using a reference or being self-referential as it were. That choice is personal and we're allowed to change our minds.

It makes sense that what you're hearing from your stereo is more difuse or less focused as you've removed stuff from your system that had the intent to make sound more focused; particularly the tube traps. Although the change to ddk Ching-Cheng power cords perhaps was not done in order to diffuse sound, it may have had a de-focusing effect that you observe. An interesting question is why you made the choices to have those 'components' you're now removing in the first place. (A question applicable to any of us.)

Imo, for a long time now the tendency in audiophile world is to emphasize focus and imaging and other psycho-acoustic phenomena, such as black backgrounds and dimensionality. This has been done to the point where certain of these characteristics are used to praise various components or encourage room /context configurations that deliver them. This (again imo) has come largely out of print magazine columnists and reviewers, into on-line publications, and moved into the general audiophile community where they are adopted or commonly accepted as 'standards' at least in terms of adopting the language of these psycho-acoustic attributes.

Part of this may come from the orientation of advertising or selling stuff to audiophiles. Goodness knows we love to buy and make stuff. Live music doesn't require one buy something to focus it (though gobs of money are spent on concert halls.)

On the other hand we don't read much from the cognoscenti (there's that word again) about what is heard in the concert hall versus the audio room. We don't read much about the idea of having the sound of live music as a reference. A few writers talk about this, but are not mainstream.

I don't mean to imply we're being led or there is a conscious effort to apostolize a certain type of sound. But there seems a tendency or leaning toward a certain style of 'sonic goodness' - after all, who wants unfocused sound, that certainly doesn't seem right now does it? If you ask instead, do you want 'life-like sound' the answers vary as much as the meaning of the phrase. The language we use to talk about this stuff is important. Are you de-focusing or naturalising?

Okay, live music is less pin-point and focused than we can make reproduced sound with our stereos. Are there aspects of what you've "lost" by removing stuff that you'd like a bit more of now they're gone? What other characteristics of a stereo system or stereo sound make it more artificial or less?

 

[Carlos269]

We are asking of our ears to do with sound from our stereos, what our ears AND eyes do at a live performance. You can argue “that when I close my eyes at the live venue” but that assertion is flawed as your brian has already captured, stored and makes use of the spatial image.

The “Absolute Sound” is a myth or a mental exercise per se. One should just enjoy the music through our high performance stereos, just like one enjoys the drive in a high performance car. The guy in the Yugo will get to the same destination and the music will convey its emotion but with perhaps less feels and thrills in much in the same ways that kids enjoy listening to their music through their phones, iPads and computer speakers.

I love the line: “at this stage of refinement It is a matter of preferences” when the “experts” talk about comparing “Uber”, usually expensive, components. Like after a certain level of expenditure all the rules go out the window. Give me a break, glad these “masters of illusions of grandeur” are not in academia or responsible in any way for the advancement of Science and Technology.

 

[PeterA]

I don’t really understand the focus on this stuff. While I agree you never hear anything outlined in real life, no matter what is happening with all of that in the stereo it doesn’t necessarily predict the quality of the sound at all. Sit outside of the room or lay down and listen without the speakers pointed at you at all - now how good does it sound? One would hope damn good, and strive for that.

Thanks Folsom. The focus for me on this particular subject started when a good friend heard my system and commented that it was way too diffuse and he much preferred the sound I had before. Others had been telling me that real sound is diffuse and one never hears pinpoint imaging in live music, so if you are after a more "natural" sound from your audio system, why try to get a focused sound with pinpoint imaging. So basically, I became curious about these two seemingly divergent points of view. I figured, none of this is going to cost me anything, and I am hear to learn anyway, so I decided to pay more attention to this specific, narrow characteristic of sound.

It is not about predictions and the overall quality of the sound. I often sit outside the listening room on a stairway with the door open and listen to what is coming out of the listening room. That too is a good exercise and does inform me if I'm moving in the right direction for my own preferences. It does sound "damn good" from there. And from that vantage point, there are no visual cues, no speakers to look at, no room boundaries, just sound - like walking down a hall in a music school with rehearsal rooms on either side, just not as real.

Like Bob wrote, this is about exploration for me. I am trying to put other people's comments to me about my system sound into some kind of context to better understand their opinions and to see where on the spectrum I hear my system relative to what I hear live. I am trying to understand in a more methodical way, how I perceive natural sound.

 

[PeterA]

Here are a few thoughts...

Without any intent to snark, your post seems more about what we hear when we're in the forest and the tree falls, and about what you prefer, than it does about the nature of sound itself.

You are writing about some discoveries you made recently with changes to your stereo and comparisons with live music. You're more cognizant(?) about differences between what you hear when listening to live music and listening to your stereo. And the fruit of this seems to be a change or shift in what you prefer listening to your stereo, or at least an inclination to pay more attention to the difference betweem it and the live experience to the point where you're prefering one to be more like the other. This harkens back to our discussion about using a live music reference as a basis of preference for guiding our systems versus not using a reference or being self-referential as it were. That choice is personal and we're allowed to change our minds.

It makes sense that what you're hearing from your stereo is more difuse or less focused as you've removed stuff from your system that had the intent to make sound more focused; particularly the tube traps. Although the change to ddk Ching-Cheng power cords perhaps was not done in order to diffuse sound, it may have had a de-focusing effect that you observe. An interesting question is why you made the choices to have those 'components' you're now removing in the first place. (A question applicable to any of us.)

Imo, for a long time now the tendency in audiophile world is to emphasize focus and imaging and other psycho-acoustic phenomena, such as black backgrounds and dimensionality. This has been done to the point where certain of these characteristics are used to praise various components or encourage room /context configurations that deliver them. This (again imo) has come largely out of print magazine columnists and reviewers, into on-line publications, and moved into the general audiophile community where they are adopted or commonly accepted as 'standards' at least in terms of adopting the language of these psycho-acoustic attributes.

Part of this may come from the orientation of advertising or selling stuff to audiophiles. Goodness knows we love to buy and make stuff. Live music doesn't require one buy something to focus it (though gobs of money are spent on concert halls.)

On the other hand we don't read much from the cognoscenti (there's that word again) about what is heard in the concert hall versus the audio room. We don't read much about the idea of having the sound of live music as a reference. A few writers talk about this, but are not mainstream.

I don't mean to imply we're being led or there is a conscious effort to apostolize a certain type of sound. But there seems a tendency or leaning toward a certain style of 'sonic goodness' - after all, who wants unfocused sound, that certainly doesn't seem right now does it? If you ask instead, do you want 'life-like sound' the answers vary as much as the meaning of the phrase. The language we use to talk about this stuff is important. Are you de-focusing or naturalising?

Okay, live music is less pin-point and focused than we can make reproduced sound with our stereos. Are there aspects of what you've "lost" by removing stuff that you'd like a bit more of now they're gone? What other characteristics of a stereo system or stereo sound make it more artificial or less?

Thank you Tim. That's a nice post. This stuff is certainly personal and we are allowed to change our minds. I have done so many times. One can also reduce it as being about preferences. That is fine too. I am just attempting to share my own exploration and thoughts about this subject with the hope of learning something from others.

Yes, language is important, and you are an audio reviewer, so you have a keen awareness of this. I would not say that I am "de-focusing or naturalizing". I would describe the sound as slightly more diffuse than it was before which to me leads to a more natural sound, one that is more similar, not less similar, to what I hear from live music and voices.

Have I lost something with the recent changes to my system? Sure. I have lost what I once preferred, namely a more precise, focused, hifi sound. Backgrounds are less black, images are less stark and bold, perhaps the sound is less impressive now. However, I am moving toward something which is less about audiophile attributes and more about enjoying music. It is difficult to describe and as you say, it is personal.

You ask: "What other characteristics of a stereo system or stereo sound make it more artificial or less?" That's an excellent question and a huge area for further discussion. Others are surely more qualified to discuss this than I am. Do you mean specifically two channel sound or are you asking more about reproduced sound versus live sound?

 

[morricab]

I have had some rather spirited discussions with three recent visitors to my listening room. Opinions varied as to the quality of the sound from changes I have made to speaker positioning and room treatments. The comments were mostly focused on the imaging of my system, relative to what my guests remember from the last time they heard it, and relative to what they hear at home, and at live venues. With my recent changes, the sound is now quite different. At least one visitor seemed to greatly prefer the sound I had previous to the recent changes.

This led me to think more intently about one specific attribute of live sound: How focused or diffuse is it really? What are the characteristics of its scale, the size of the images, their location in the soundstage, the size of the soundstage, and the relative definition of the virtual images from which the sound originates. And how does all of this relate to what we hear from our systems?

My visitors' comments also have me wondering if they were using live music, their own systems, or some combination of the two as the primary reference from which they formed their opinions.

I decided to do something interesting as one visitor got up to say his goodbyes. I listened to him speak for a minute and then I closed my eyes and continued to listen to him speak.

Last night I attended a live concert with Madfloyd and Al M in Boston at the New England Conservatory of Music. We heard Beethoven’s 2nd symphony, a Mozart concerto for flute and harp, and then one movement from Stravinsky’s Firebird Suite. I listened with both my eyes open and, at times, closed.

View attachment 61127

View attachment 61128

Based on listening to my visitor and to the concert with my eyes both open and shut, here are my conclusions:

1. Sound heard with eyes wide open is clear, dynamic and full of complex and nuanced tone and detail. It appears to originate from a very specific location. It is focused.

2. Sound heard with eyes shut closed seems very much the same with one major distinction. It is diffuse. My friend’s voice in my listening room was also very diffuse and interestingly, it was also quite sibilant (which is important in the context of my cartridge comparisons).

Sound coming from voices and instruments is diffuse in real life. I do not hear pin-point, well defined or outlined images. I have certainly heard this from systems, and my system was more in that direction when I had lots of room treatments and the speakers were toed-in to point at my shoulders. Of course, the sound is exactly the same. It is the perception of how diffuse or focused it is that seems to change when I opened or closed my eyes while listening.

Whether listening to a live concert, to a visitor in my listening room, or to my audio system, I can clearly localize the sound from the instruments or singers up on stage and from my speakers, but there is no outline of the image. The sound's precise size and location are not as clear as I had imagined them to be or as they are often described. It is fuzzy and seems bigger than in real life when actually seen. With eyes closed, sounds overlap with the sounds of neighboring instruments and voices. Things sound bigger, a bit more jumbled. There is still a cohesive whole, for sure, but it is not precisely drawn out as we may imagine it to be.

My system was criticized as lacking focus and being overly diffuse. It is certainly more so than it was before I made the recent changes. However, these two experiences, and actually my long-held suspicions, have confirmed that the sound of real live music and voices is also diffuse. My recent changes have resulted in a more convincing and believable sound, at least relative to what I hear live. Some visitors do not seem to agree.

I should add that none of this seems absolute. There is a wide range of diffusion from both recordings and from live music, just as there is a wide range of what we refer to as the timbre of an instrument or ambient sound of a performance space. But what live music never seems to be is a super focused sound with pinpoint imaging and positioning on a clearly defined imagined soundstage, at least in my experience. I have heard this in systems, and some people seem to love it, but I have begun to move away from that type of sound.

I suspected this for a while, and perhaps it is obvious to others, but it seems that there is still some disagreement about this aspect of the sound of live music.

Hi Peter, thanks for the insightful observations. One thing though that strikes me is that you are not really taking the perspective of the recording into consideration...should it be diffuse or should it be focused based on how it was recorded.

If the recording is made up close (as many are) then likely it should not sound diffuse but focused and present. If it is made in real space at a significant distance from the performers, then it will sound more diffuse and with a greater sense of space and "you are there". When I attend live concerts this perspective of focused vs. diffuse changes greatly depending on how close my seats are to the proceedings.

When I was recording my ex-girlfriend playing solo violin the sound is quite present on the recordings even though the microphone was 3.5 meters from the performer. Sure there is room acoustic (surprisingly dry) but the sound is focused and present...not diffuse on every system I have played it on.

Keep in mind that a lot of recordings are often made with the understanding that there are no visuals, so to give that "visual" effect it may be made more upfront.

 

[jeff1225]

I'm heading to Walt Disney Hall this evening to enjoy two of Strauss' tone poems. I've been listening to them on my system for the last few days and I'm looking forward to the contrast. I'll report back....

 

[KeithR]

My guess is there is a happy medium that you haven’t quite reached yet. You seem to be experimenting with two extremes. Honestly, toe in shouldn’t be hard and the speaker position should be determined before experimenting with toe. It’s the icing on the cake, not the flour.

Said another way, position the speakers horizontally on the room to reach desired midrange fullness and bass response and then use toe for center image and treble energy. You shouldn’t be changing entire positions to accommodate no toe.

 

[kach22i]

My system was criticized as lacking focus and being overly diffuse. It is certainly more so than it was before I made the recent changes. However, these two experiences, and actually my long-held suspicions, have confirmed that the sound of real live music and voices is also diffuse. My recent changes have resulted in a more convincing and believable sound, at least relative to what I hear live. Some visitors do not seem to agree.

You are 100% correct in my opinion, and the fact that live performances are just a little more more pinpointable with eyes open I suggest is the power of your brain to make sense of things.

Recently I've been renewing my interest in tension membrane loudspeakers including exciter style transducers and found early Yamaha organs used such a devise and is the origins of their brand name catch phrase "Natural Sound".

As it was alleged with a very convincing visual that I would post if I could find it again, natural sound of musical instruments such as a violin stem from a vibrating string in tension transferring energy to a bridge to the soundboard where the hollow body then resonates and amplifies the sound.

https://organforum.com/forums/forum...ha-ns10-organ-speakers-unique-shaped-speakers

Diffused sound with a 360 spherical distribution pattern is most natural.

EDIT:

Apologies for a failing memory, it was Continental that had the image I recalled.

Actuators instead of tweeters, midrange speakers and subwoofers.
https://www.conti-engineering.com/e...oom/Debut-of-a-revolutionary-sound-experience

Pinpoint imagery is an artificial artifact of using small conventional drivers.

 

[NorthStar]

Peter mentioned the language of an audio reviewer. We've been through some of it before right here in the annals of WBF. It's important because the audio readers cannot be in the audio reviewer's listening room. Which brings me to Tang's music videos with accentuated appreciation. They take only few minutes each for him to record and they bring up the listener much closer without any Prozac, audio poetry, ...bla-bla-bla ...

One day more and more people will follow his lead and the audio world will be a better place...IMHO.

If Peter's music exploration (nature of sound) could be translated in sounds that can be shared on music videos I think the reach into the readership audience would be that much more illuminating...from beginner audiophiles to the hardcore ones. It's only another tool in the arsenal of audio dealers and music lovers all together.

Personally it reinvigorates my audio music passion; plus I love the violin's timbre/tone/virtuosity of his music selections with the gracious help of the general.

Peter has also a unique approach in the mastering of turntable's parameter adjustment.
...Speaker's positioning, toe in, facing straight up, power cords, etc.

We are all different in the music listening we love and in the sound we love and learn to adapt with. We all have our periods of experimentation in audio reproduction, the art of mechanical loudspeaking. To me live music is one and reproduced music is its own entity.
The aural sensorial emotional pleasure from both have their own set of different criterias.
I like to keep it simple, but I also enjoy extremely complex musical passages in my audio life...the artists I like the music I like.

Imaging is a quality I seek for...an holographic image in 3D.
Each room, each set of loudspeakers, each music listener has the capability to ameliorate his music orgasm by optimizing his loudspeaker's positioning...toe in more or less or facing straight up. Between focus (clarity) and spaciousness I like a 3dimensional balance.

I believe that one of the most important qualities in the art of music listening is the listener.
The music listener could be fine-uned for optimal music receptivity.

I've been talking to a musician friend recently; he had music playing exchanges with Johnny Cash, Linda Rondstat, Waylon Jennings, Pete Seger, the Chieftains, Van Morrison, ...met Neil Young, Johnny Mitchell, played the Grand Oly Opera in Nashville, cotoyed CSN&Y, traveled the world playing professionally, he hanged in California in the 60s with the bands and music of that era.
You would be talking with him and his audiophile level is in a completely different plane.
He recorded on open reel tapes and record vinyls from various professional recording studios, so he has the hang of things when it comes to our audio music passion in us all.

The essence is the health, the wealth, the happiness ... the nature of sound.
Sharing that with love with our most loved ones and lovers is one of the greatest gifts ever created in the human's history. I like speakers facing straight up behind my head, in vast best general.

 

[kach22i]

When you listen to solo singing in your system, is the voice coming from a sharp point? Or is the size of the mouth of the singer very big? I believe both representations are not real life sound. When I hear people speak, I can localise their voice but not up to a small point. It is somewhat diffuse as you described.

People may have different expectations. But pinpoint imaging is definitely not what I am after for now as I do not believe they are natural.

Your comments brought forth an experience I had years ago at Audio Dimensions in Royal Oak MI (Magnepan dealer).

They set up a small pair of Rogers speakers with some tube amplification in a small room with a near-field listening seating position.

Yes, the size of the driver did indeed mimic the size of the female singers mouth, but male vocalists with larger chest cavities were not as convincing.

The size of the drivers in nearfield were indeed voiced to a certain scale.

It can be done, just not across the board with a one size fits all.

The grand piano wasn't so grand, it wasn't much larger than a suitcase.

 

[kach22i]

......... (analogue/turntable) tape rules..........

I also think solid state equipment is behind good tube gear in that regard, its..........................

I agree.

There will always be a new digital or solid state that up's the bar for what they do, but it's like comparing a stove be it gas or electric to an outdoor BBQ grille. I like the BBQ, or shall I say tubes?

 

[kach22i]

....... focused based on how it was recorded...............

Keep in mind that a lot of recordings are often made with the understanding that there are no visuals, so to give that "visual" effect it may be made more upfront.

I've been researching room acoustics lately and keep stumbling upon recording engineering rooms with nearfield monitors in use while the mixing techie processes the mix sitting in front of a computer screeen at a table.

We get the engineers perspective of how they want it to sound based on their own gear and setup.

Somehow the best of systems have to unravel this intended mess and liberate the music from it's coffin also known as a recording.