Can Loudspeakers Accurately Reproduce The Sound Of Real Instruments...and Do You Care?

[MRC01]

PS: a good stereo image is nice to have, but less important for me subjectively. I'd rather hear a mono recording with excellent frequency response and dynamics, than a stereo or multichannel having unnatural voicing or dynamic compression. Stereo can be artificial & distracting when it sounds like a "giant wall of sound". To my ears, minimalist 2 mic recordings have a more natural, realistic image.

...
If you just wish to focus on timbre, I'd say some speakers can do this timbre part better than most of the other parts of sound reproduction. One type speaker being my long time favorite of electrostats
...

Overall the most realistic and natural voicing / timbre I've heard is from planar speakers (electrostats or planar magnetics). Same with headphones. To me, their midrange sounds more transparent and natural, making most conventional speakers sound thick and colored in comparison. That said, my Magnepan 3.6/R measure about -50 dB distortion in the midrange, dropping to -60 dB in the treble. I think good conventional speakers can be just as low. So whatever difference I'm hearing is probably something other than this single measurement.

 

[andreasmaaan]

That said, my Magnepan 3.6/R measure about -50 dB distortion in the midrange, dropping to -60 dB in the treble. I think good conventional speakers can be just as low. So whatever difference I'm hearing is probably something other than this single measurement.

It's probably in the power response.* Whereas monopole dynamic speakers tend towards omni-direcitivity in the lower midrange and bass and increasing directivity at high frequencies, panel speakers tend to have relatively narrow lateral dispersion in the midrange and bass - often, in fact, narrower than in the treble. This tends to result in reduced energy in this region from early lateral reflections.

*Assuming it's not psychology, which is of course impossible to rule out with sighted listening.

 

[Cosmik]

PS: a good stereo image is nice to have, but less important for me subjectively. I'd rather hear a mono recording with excellent frequency response and dynamics, than a stereo or multichannel having unnatural voicing or dynamic compression. Stereo can be artificial & distracting when it sounds like a "giant wall of sound". To my ears, minimalist 2 mic recordings have a more natural, realistic image.

I'm with this quote:

Michael Gerzon emphasized that one of the benefits of wide-stage stereo is "directional unmasking." When two similar sounds arrive at the listener from the same direction, they tend to be heard as a single composite sound whose character is dominated by the louder component. But if the sounds are separated by even a small angle (5 degrees or so), they are easily resolved by the ear as individual sources....
...stereo provides a basic improvement in the quality of the sound, giving you more to hear---making it easy, for instance, to resolve the individual sounds of two similar instruments playing in the same frequency range (eg, a duet between clarinet and English horn in the middle of the orchestra). It also allows you to resolve the reflections of these sounds as they bounce off the walls of the stage, giving you a sense of the width or depth of that stage. ... And since improved resolution of the soundstage lets you hear everything with less mental effort, you may experience less listening fatigue.

https://www.stereophile.com/content/stereo-soundstage-page-2

Since discovering active DSP speakers, stereo for me has ceased completely to be 'a giant wall of sound' and is now a detailed 'soundstage'.

 

[Blumlein 88]

I'm with this quote:

https://www.stereophile.com/content/stereo-soundstage-page-2

Since discovering active DSP speakers, stereo for me has ceased completely to be 'a giant wall of sound' and is now a detailed 'soundstage'.

But stereo is still only two sources. FWIW, stereo hasn't been for me a giant wall of sound. Gerzon's bit about directional unmasking is why I think having maybe 5 front channel sources is an improvement over stereo. The spacing is still enough for directional unmasking, and you'd have 5 actualy not virtual/phantom sound sources. Does not matter of course as no one is using such a format.

 

[MRC01]

My "wall of sound" comment was about how "stereo" isn't one thing, but can be very different things depending on how it's recorded.
Blumlein pair, ORTF, or similar minimalist arrangement: realistic, natural 3-dimensional stereo image
Individually close-miced and mixed into stereo: an artificial wall of sound

 

[Sal1950]

I wish, sooner or later, that everyone could hear properly implemented Multichannel, properly set up, be it a 5.1, a 7.1 or 3D Immersive. That way would end the needless justification - will stereo suffice - over classical music recorded in the concert hall.

Agreed. Well done multich takes stereo as far forward in as stereo did to mono.

Since discovering active DSP speakers, stereo for me has ceased completely to be 'a giant wall of sound' and is now a detailed 'soundstage'.

IMO, that's more decided by the recordings production/mastering than anything else. I've heard great recordings do incredible soundstaging when reproduced on quality speakers of many types.
If you really want whole the room to disappear add in some multich capabilities.

 

[Blumlein 88]

My "wall of sound" comment was about how "stereo" isn't one thing, but can be very different things depending on how it's recorded.
Blumlein pair, ORTF, or similar minimalist arrangement: realistic, natural 3-dimensional stereo image
Individually close-miced and mixed into stereo: an artificial wall of sound

As just a hobby recordist, I mostly have ended up doing multi-track mixing following the old LRC method. Everything is put either left, right or center. Some early studio gear for stereo that is literally all you had. A switch that put a track full left, full right, or in both in the days before pan pots. This method makes it easy not to get the "wall of sound" mush stereo. You'd think having a few things all in one channel wouldn't work, but it does. If you try and pan pot several tracks across the stereo field you very likely will get a mushy wall of sound. This probably is due to my inexperience, lack of knowledge and basic lack of skill. There are people who can mix those things across the stereo soundstage and it not sound like a wall of sound.

My preference is for simple real stereo recordings with a couple mikes. Those can get you the image specificity across the whole soundstage without needing to process it. But other aspects are not liked as well by most people as multi-mike recordings in which I take the short cut of left, right, center mixing for its ease of working pretty well. The next shortcut if there is a real performance and not all studio is to do the stereo miking and put it together with a left, right, center mix using upclose miking of everyone at the same time.

PS-I don't do full 100% left, right, when doing LRC. It sounds fine over speakers, but wrong over headphones. I do 85%/15% which sounds effectively the same over speakers, and doesn't sound odd over headphones.

 

[Fitzcaraldo215]

My "wall of sound" comment was about how "stereo" isn't one thing, but can be very different things depending on how it's recorded.
Blumlein pair, ORTF, or similar minimalist arrangement: realistic, natural 3-dimensional stereo image
Individually close-miced and mixed into stereo: an artificial wall of sound

Good luck finding those among all stereo, except maybe oldies on 33’s for the 50’s and some rare later recordings. It ain’t coming back.

 

[MRC01]

As a hobby recordist and musician myself, my best recordings come from putting my Rode NT1a mics in an ORTF like setup, then "balance with my feet" stepping the mic pole closer or further from the musicians to get the right voicing & balance. That can be as close as 6' or as far as 20' away depending on the size of the group and the room. The mics are spaced about the same as human ears. This gives a really stunning stereo image, nearly holographic 3-d.
Modern recordings made like this are rare. Yarlung and Mapleshade make some recordings like this, but they're the exceptions. Most are close-miced and mixed into artificial stereo. You can get more detail that way, and if tastefully done, the artificial stereo doesn't have to sound like a wall of sound, even if it's not as good as a true 2-mic recording. For detail and timbre, this can actually be superior, giving the freedom to match individual mics to the instruments.

 

[Blumlein 88]

As a hobby recordist and musician myself, my best recordings come from putting my Rode NT1a mics in an ORTF like setup, then "balance with my feet" stepping the mic pole closer or further from the musicians to get the right voicing & balance. That can be as close as 6' or as far as 20' away depending on the size of the group and the room. The mics are spaced about the same as human ears. This gives a really stunning stereo image, nearly holographic 3-d.
Modern recordings made like this are rare. Yarlung and Mapleshade make some recordings like this, but they're the exceptions. Most are close-miced and mixed into artificial stereo. You can get more detail that way, and if tastefully done, the artificial stereo doesn't have to sound like a wall of sound, even if it's not as good as a true 2-mic recording. For detail and timbre, this can actually be superior, giving the freedom to match individual mics to the instruments.

This gets back to the version a group of musicians prefer and it being the arbiter of what is right.

The recordings I think my best are done with two microphones. Universally the musicians prefer the multi-mike version. See they actually never heard themselves from 10 or 20 feet away while I did. I'm not surprised as they can hear themselves better with each one getting a mike. More surprising is almost universally regular people who weren't there and aren't musicians also prefer the multi-miked version. While I thought the two mike version much better captured the space and a sound rather close to what it really sounded like in person. It apparently doesn't come across that way to the average civilian. So it is just us audiophiles that are weird or the odd folks out I think. Musicians and regular folks think the space is pretty much noise interfering with the clarity of the instruments while the multi close miking reduces all that leaving only the instrument/vocalist.

 

[MRC01]

... Universally the musicians prefer the multi-mike version. ... I thought the two mike version much better captured the space and a sound rather close to what it really sounded like in person. ...

When I listen to professional recordings made by others:
A: The most realistic voicing, timbre, resolution usually comes from multi-miced recordings.
B: The most realistic imaging usually comes from minimalist miced recordings.

It's a tradeoff but if I had to pick which is more realistic overall, I'd go with (A). Voicing & resolution trumps imaging, for me personally. The reason I use 2-mic methods is not because I think they're better, but simply because I only have 2 mics! That said, it's fascinating how good a stereo image can be when captured with simple 2-mic methods.

Regarding voicing: we musicians sound different to ourselves while playing, than we do to someone in the 1st row, or even standing right next to us. The biggest difference I notice is "zing": brightness/HF/overtones. My own sound and the violin sitting next to me has a lot of zing. Much of it decays in the first few feet of distance. A close-miced recording captures more of that zing, gets closer to the sound the musician heard, rather than the sound the audience heard. This is all about natural unamplified acoustic instruments; I don't know whether it applies to electronic/amplified.

 

[Sal1950]

More surprising is almost universally regular people who weren't there and aren't musicians also prefer the multi-miked version. While I thought the two mike version much better captured the space and a sound rather close to what it really sounded like in person. It apparently doesn't come across that way to the average civilian. So it is just us audiophiles that are weird or the odd folks out I think.

It's only the audiophiles that listen for the special artifacts that simple mic'ing can capture. They offer that "real instruments in real space" as only they can but the number who even know how to listen for it is minimal. Also the types of music that can be captured in that manner is extremely limited.
I do wonder at times if minimalist isn't overrated? Other types of multimic, multich recordings (just talking stereo here) offers so many other recording possiblities not to mention the fact it is applicatble to any type of music including the popular genre's that have completely dominated recording forever.
Modern recording engineers have been able to accomplish amazing things including being able to (artificially) create so much of what the minimalist techniques can do so well. Things like depth, height, air, etc suffer but aren't totally lost to the pro's at modern recording studios.
Not arguing against minimalist, but just being somewhat of a devils advocate.

 

[Cosmik]

But stereo is still only two sources. FWIW, stereo hasn't been for me a giant wall of sound. Gerzon's bit about directional unmasking is why I think having maybe 5 front channel sources is an improvement over stereo.

I thought your user name would mean that you were a true stereo devotee .

You only have two ears, and my current level of understanding of Blumlein stereo is that it requires two sources and two ears to render a continuous soundstage between the speakers. More front channel sources are just superfluous - or actually detrimental.

 

[Blumlein 88]

I thought your user name would mean that you were a true stereo devotee .

You only have two ears, and my current level of understanding of Blumlein stereo is that it requires two sources and two ears to render a continuous soundstage between the speakers. More front channel sources are just superfluous - or actually detrimental.

Well people do sometimes learn from experience. There are a number of tests of live vs various stereo miking techniques. IIRC Blumlein has either been judged best or second best in those I've read about. There were some where stereo vs three channel were compared. You had stereo over two channels and over three with a center speaker. You had three channel recordings with center mixed to each side for two channels and three channels over three speakers. Three channels over three speakers won out as most accurate in placement of instruments. The biggest difference being how accurately it placed instruments in relative depth. The other three tested out roughly the same.

Now three channel as a format is pretty much a no go. So you'd either go surround or stereo. For stereo I do prefer true stereo.

I'd like to make some surround recordings and see what I think. Just haven't been free to do that in several months.

 

[Juhazi]

It looks like the popularity of earphones and "mobile listening" has killed multichannel music recordings, at least in pop/rock/jazz/folk music. Multich SACD is a curiosity. Bluray videos with multich sound publications are mostly operas or some live mega concerts.

Simple recording techniques are also just a curiosity, mainly small acoustic groups for marginal markets. Classical genre recordings are mostly pretty high-tech multimic with some studio trickery.

Overall, we will have more and more of music optimized for earphones! Just look at where the money goes!
https://www.riaa.com/u-s-sales-database/
https://ifpi.org/global-statistics.php

 

[Soniclife]

This gets back to the version a group of musicians prefer and it being the arbiter of what is right.

The recordings I think my best are done with two microphones. Universally the musicians prefer the multi-mike version. See they actually never heard themselves from 10 or 20 feet away while I did. I'm not surprised as they can hear themselves better with each one getting a mike. More surprising is almost universally regular people who weren't there and aren't musicians also prefer the multi-miked version. While I thought the two mike version much better captured the space and a sound rather close to what it really sounded like in person. It apparently doesn't come across that way to the average civilian. So it is just us audiophiles that are weird or the odd folks out I think. Musicians and regular folks think the space is pretty much noise interfering with the clarity of the instruments while the multi close miking reduces all that leaving only the instrument/vocalist.

Put me down in the multi mic preferred group, I'm not a fan of recordings that capture a lot of room sound in general. Some spaces, e.g. churches are different, possibly because the decay is so long the performers can also hear it, as well as the music being developed for that acoustic.

 

[MRC01]

Sometimes the room is an essential part of the sound. For example an acapella ensemble in a small church sounds completely different than in a large cathedral. The reverb quality & duration is an essential part of the musical performance. When I listen on my stereo I want it to sound like I'm in that space listening to the live event. A close-miced recording that picks up only the voices, would not capture that.

 

[cjfrbw]

Heh, Heh! "Ringtones" is an over 30 million dollar industry. So, in a mansion somewhere, is a ringtone mogul.

 

[MRC01]

To answer the OP's question, YES it's possible (with reservations), and YES I care.
Near-transparent fidelity to the natural musical event, the live sound of acoustic instruments and voices, is possible. But it takes the right recording, played back on the right system.
In my view, this is the real definition of "high fidelity". Fidelity is transitive: it is fidelity to something. That something is the sound of natural acoustic voices & instruments.

 

[Sal1950]

It looks like the popularity of earphones and "mobile listening" has killed multichannel music recordings, at least in pop/rock/jazz/folk music. Multich SACD is a curiosity. Bluray videos with multich sound publications are mostly operas or some live mega concerts.

Simple recording techniques are also just a curiosity, mainly small acoustic groups for marginal markets. Classical genre recordings are mostly pretty high-tech multimic with some studio trickery.

Overall, we will have more and more of music optimized for earphones! Just look at where the money goes!

Yep another example of real quality being the last thing to attract the money and Joe sixpack's interest.
Music recording for the general public has been squashed to death dynamically, Multich has always failed in the market because it's too expensive and the wife acceptance factor is below 0.
It's a shame with all the wonderful prospects we have for advancing the SOTA in home entertainment, and the focus of money spent is on the earbud and vinyl markets. Sad.