• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Reality Is Overrated When It Comes to Recordings (Article from music Engineer/Producer)

Sonic icons

Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2022
Messages
18
Likes
18
Pure acoustic recording techniques really have little to offer outside small ensemble works playing historical music.

What does "pure acoustic recording techniques" mean? I'm thinking:

Pure acoustic music. Definition: music where all the sounds are generated by acoustic (i.e., mechanical) instruments, and no sounds are generated by or with the assistance of electronic devices.

Pure acoustic recording technique. Proposed definition: a technique for recording music with the use of acoustic (i.e., mechanical) devices, with no assistance from any analog or digital electronic devices.

According to my proposed definition, there is no such thing as a pure acoustic recording technique! Since you believe there is such a thing as a pure acoustic recording technique (it's used to make recordings of "small ensembles playing historical music") please tell me your definition.
 

theREALdotnet

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 11, 2022
Messages
1,181
Likes
2,036
I very much disagree.

Me too. I greatly appreciate @Sancus ’ considered reply, but I own enough exquisite minimally recorded albums to know that they can sound far better than the standard, multi-mike fare of the big classical labels.

I find those recordings I have listened to to sound very much unreal. Enveloping or exciting yes but not really realistic in my experience (with a 2-channel).

The most realistic recordings I've listened to (in 2-channel) are Mario/PlayClassics':


Thank you so much for the link to that thread (and by extension the playclassics.com site)! The article comparing the two miking techniques is quite relevant to this thread and explains the issue well enough for lay persons (like me).
 

Sonic icons

Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2022
Messages
18
Likes
18
Music recorded by a simple stereo pair with minimal use of equalisation.

Quibbling over definitions like this is completely pointless and a waste of time. :rolleyes:

It's not a waste of time to try to understand what someone else means when they post something, thanks! ;)
 

Gorgonzola

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 27, 2021
Messages
1,016
Likes
1,398
Location
Southern Ontario
I suppose I'm biased as a mainly Classical music listener, but the last thing I want is artistic creativity from record producers, I want the precise portrayal of live performance in a real auditorium. I suppose that's "realism".

To produce the best simulacrum of reality, just might require many microphones and post-recording processing -- I don't know: that's the expertise of recording and mastering engineers. But that expertise is occasionally innovative technical mastery, IMHO, not artistic creativity.
As I implied, above, I'd rather not get into the debate over number of microphones nor post-recording manipulation. I'm not sure that either of these issues necessarily has lot to do with achieving the "simulacrum of reality" as I phrased it.

I'm brought to mind of the Mercury Living Presence recordings of Robert Fine and Wilma Cozart Fine in the '50s and '60s. These recordings, (all originally distributed on LP obviously), were made with 3 microphones generally suspended above the orchestra; recording in many cases was made on magnetized 35mm film. I never owned any of the LP but have several CD, (not the SACD), transcriptions of these recordings.

The sound quality of the LP versions of the recordings was highly touted as the be-all & end-all of realism back in the LP era -- and since by many audiophiles, both the LPs and CD transcriptions. From my own small sampling they tend to have a unique sound that is very good in terms of conveying the "presence" the actual recording venues, however IMHO, they are overrated in terms of "realism" or at least the impression of desirable reality.

Frankly most of my MLP CD transcriptions sound a bit bright and rather like they were made in echoy high school gymnasiums. Many, (by no means all), contemporary recordings sound much better in convey the sense of real ensembles performing superior auditoriums.
 
OP
MattHooper

MattHooper

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 27, 2019
Messages
7,194
Likes
11,806
I think it's worth re-visiting the original point made by the recording engineer in the article.

His point wasn't that "a greater sense of sonic realism in recordings is impossible" but rather: Audiophiles may want recordings to generally sound real, but many if not most recordings won't sound that say, and here's why, and why stylization is often preferred when producing music.

So it's a defense of why artists and engineers often don't seek naturalistic recordings. Not that there aren't or can't be recordings that sound more natural and realistic.

I don't expect natural or realistic sound from much of the music I love, but I certainly can recognize when some recordings do sound more like the real thing. I've been doing demos of my hi-fi systems for decades for interested non-audiophiles. Many "normal folk" these days have no expectation of music ever sounding "real." That's not what they listen for, they don't listen on components that have any hope of achieving that, it's not a "thing" for them. Which is perfectly understandable. But the reaction I have typically seen to some tracks on my system from non-audiophiles almost inevitably takes the form of shock, and some expression like "I never knew it could sound so REAL." There are some vocal tracks that leave people looking like they've seen ghost. I've had people tell me years later it made such an impression on them in terms of it's realism.

Me, I recognize how these tracks more closely approach reality than others, while also being acutely aware of how they fall short of reality.
But even the non-audiophiles easily recognize when they are hearing something "closer to real sounding" than what they are used to.
 
OP
MattHooper

MattHooper

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 27, 2019
Messages
7,194
Likes
11,806
When the movie analogy was dropped onto this thread I wasn’t too keen on it, but I think there are some parallels between how movie making and sound recording evolved.

Many of the first movies made were filmed theatrical performances, either literal recordings of theatre stages, or movies played in a quintessential theatrical way. They were hampered by the fact that early movies had no speech, which is of central importance in much of theatre. That’s probably one of the reasons movies soon weaned themselves off their theatrical roots and found new ways of expression, even before they became talkies. Today, the typical movie (of any genre) has very little to do with a stage performance at a theatre (which you can still go and see, of course). The pendulum sometimes swings back, too, and you can see technology infused theatre performances that employ lots of movie-inspired special effects.

Music recording started in a similar way, with almost all of the early recordings being literal cuts of concert performances. In the second half of the last century music recording, too, moved beyond the capture of stage performances and started to add its own ways of expression.

Totally agree.

I've brought up that point before too: that the origin of recording technologies (e.g. film, or sound) were attempts to "capture and transmit" images and sound, as they were. That's why you see so much documentary-like footage at the beginning of film, a camera set up on a city street or whatever (though people got creative with picture pretty early on). It was even more so I think for sound, where the attempt was to reproduce sound - an admired vocalist, violinist, a symphony etc - as faithfully as possible, and there was an ongoing attempt to increase "sound quality" of capture and playback to those ends. This was actually the origin and original meaning of "high fidelity" which is why so much of the effort, promotion and advertising emphasized the purported "ability to bring the real sound in to your own home!"

Much later on people started to use the recording studio as an artistic instrument itself of course. But as I say, the origins of sound reproduction and hi-fi was fidelity to the sound of the real thing, not "the recording" simply in of itself. If you had a bad (unrealistic/unnatural sounding) recording, even if you replayed it with perfect "fidelity to the recording" it would have been considered "low fidelity" by the original standards. (And it's also why that term continued to be applied to "poor sounding" recordings - even up to this time).
 

charleski

Major Contributor
Joined
Dec 15, 2019
Messages
1,098
Likes
2,239
Location
Manchester UK
Audiophiles may want recordings to generally sound real
Yes, this is a very common opinion. But I think we need to understand what that involves in terms of broader physiological function.

The auditory system of mammals has a specific alert mechanism called the acoustic startle reflex. In simple terms, this is a brainstem mechanism (no cortical processing involved) that's evolved to tell you to drop what you're doing because a predator is about to eat you, i.e. This Thing is Real, So Do Something! Anything that can trip this reflex has a much better chance of being flagged as Real, and sudden loudness is the major factor involved in getting it to fire. A recording has a much better chance of sounding 'real' if it's loud and literally startling. But ... that's not necessarily a desirable quality in music when you're listening for pleasure. I'm not saying the ASR is necessary for music to sound 'real', but it may be sufficient and certainly makes the perception more likely.

Of course, the use of compression to reduce dynamic range is something that's most probably going to reduce the possibility of triggering the ASR. While it results in a rise in overall loudness, this will lead to rapid habituation and the lack of contrast in loudness levels will fail to produce a startle response.
 

Ricardus

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Mar 15, 2022
Messages
843
Likes
1,153
Location
Northern GA
Different "Audiophiles" can't even give me a consistent definition of "soundstage," so I doubt any of them are going to be able give a consistent definition of what a "natural recording" is.
 

Blumlein 88

Grand Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 23, 2016
Messages
20,521
Likes
37,050
What does "pure acoustic recording techniques" mean? I'm thinking:

Pure acoustic music. Definition: music where all the sounds are generated by acoustic (i.e., mechanical) instruments, and no sounds are generated by or with the assistance of electronic devices.

Pure acoustic recording technique. Proposed definition: a technique for recording music with the use of acoustic (i.e., mechanical) devices, with no assistance from any analog or digital electronic devices.

According to my proposed definition, there is no such thing as a pure acoustic recording technique! Since you believe there is such a thing as a pure acoustic recording technique (it's used to make recordings of "small ensembles playing historical music") please tell me your definition.
What is this a tortured tautology?
 
OP
MattHooper

MattHooper

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 27, 2019
Messages
7,194
Likes
11,806
Different "Audiophiles" can't even give me a consistent definition of "soundstage,"

Do you really, truly have no general idea of what "soundstage" refers to in audiophile language? Serious question.

I mean, that you can find some people using the word in a vague manner they can't explain, or if there is some degree of fuzziness if you try to put all the opinions together...does this mean you still don't have a general sense of what they are getting at?

I just googled "what is a soundstage in audio?" and found plenty of consonant explanations. For instance, from links on the first page of results:


In the world of audiophiles, soundstage (or speaker image) is an imaginary three-dimensional space created by the high-fidelity reproduction of sound in a stereo speaker system;


Soundstage refers to the apparent depth, height, and width of a recorded sound played via speakers.


A soundstage is the width, depth, and height of the recorded audio. It can be played through stereo speakers or headphones.


Soundstage is the perceived sense of the width, depth, and height of the imaginary "stage" where the music performance is being performed.


With the right stereo setup, you can create an imaginary three-dimensional space that immerses you in detailed sound. This imaginary 3D space is your soundstage.


Those are all pretty consonant, and map quite well with how I and pretty much every other audiophile of my acquaintance use the term.

Can you find someone using the term in a more confusing manner? No doubt. Doesn't mean lots of folks aren't using it pretty consistently in a way they understand.


so I doubt any of them are going to be able give a consistent definition of what a "natural recording" is.

But does this mean you really don't have an idea of what would constitute a "more" or "less" natural recording? No idea at all?

I mean you could say the same for the term "realistic." If you want to remain confused you'd look at all the most confusing or vague uses of the term. But if you wanted to get the gist of what someone means, you'd look to where the meanings have some clarity.

What would you think if someone said "we are seeking to make our CGI humans more realistic?" It isn't truly that baffling is it?

Similarly, if someone said "this recording of a voice sounds more natural" is that actually confusing? It generally means "having more of the character of the real thing, fewer artificial artifacts."
 

Sancus

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Nov 30, 2018
Messages
2,923
Likes
7,616
Location
Canada
I very much disagree. I find those recordings I have listened to to sound very much unreal. Enveloping or exciting yes but not really realistic in my experience (with a 2-channel).

The most realistic recordings I've listened to (in 2-channel) are Mario/PlayClassics':

Sorry but this just doesn't make any sense.

2L's recordings(in multi-channel) sound exactly like what they are: a bunch of performers surrounding a point in space. They transport you to the venue, as if you were in the place of that mic tree. That's as realistic as it gets. I've never heard any stereo recordings on any system or in any room that approach the ability to transport you to a venue of even a mediocre multi-channel recording, let alone the excellent ones.

Sure, it may not be to your taste or match your expectations. But that's not *lack of realism*. Those are real performers singing and playing acoustic instruments and being recorded together! If realism to you means "duplicates a concert" then your definition itself has nothing to do with realism. That's only duplicating a very narrow, particular style of performance.

And stereo is frankly a terrible format to attempt acoustic-concert-duplication with anyways. A big reason that the recording industry and most artists don't care for this approach is an honest response to the limitations of stereo. They don't think it sounds good, and I agree with them, it usually doesn't.
 

tuga

Major Contributor
Joined
Feb 5, 2020
Messages
3,984
Likes
4,281
Location
Oxford, England
2L's recordings(in multi-channel) sound exactly like what they are: a bunch of performers surrounding a point in space. They transport you to the venue, as if you were in the place of that mic tree. That's as realistic as it gets. I've never heard any stereo recordings on any system or in any room that approach the ability to transport you to a venue of even a mediocre multi-channel recording, let alone the excellent ones.

They are unreal precisely because in a live performance the audience is never surrounded (with very few exceptions).
One can only judge realism by having experienced it.

But they do sound good.

Reference Recordings recordings also sound good but unrealistic (in a different way).
 

Kal Rubinson

Master Contributor
Industry Insider
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 23, 2016
Messages
5,270
Likes
9,765
Location
NYC
They are unreal precisely because in a live performance the audience is never surrounded (with very few exceptions).
One can only judge realism by having experienced it.
2l's recordings are of real events in which the microphones/audience are surrounded by the performers. Are you saying that a perfectly accurate, transparent and "realistic" recording will not be judged so if it depicts a specific event that the listener has never experienced? We do generalize (we cannot not do so) and base our judgements on multiple prior similar experiences.
 

Newman

Major Contributor
Joined
Jan 6, 2017
Messages
3,448
Likes
4,209
Totally agree. Also remember @tuga 90% or more of the sound heard when attending a live classical performance in a venue is from the side and back walls, and the ceiling. And, although we can distinguish direct from reverberant, the reverberant is the sound of the space and is dominant. And we need multichannel (MCH) playback at home to get anywhere near to acceptable replication of this. Stereo (2CH) is hopeless for this task, and BTW the notion that 2CH can use the walls of the home listening room to recover a sense of venue is beyond ludicrous, just in case anyone was thinking along such lines.

...and that is why people trying to describe simple,"pure", 2-mic-to-2-channel productions as most natural sounding are kidding themselves. Most likely literally, ie confirmation bias.
 
Last edited:

Ricardus

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Mar 15, 2022
Messages
843
Likes
1,153
Location
Northern GA
Do you really, truly have no general idea of what "soundstage" refers to in audiophile language? Serious question.

I mean, that you can find some people using the word in a vague manner they can't explain, or if there is some degree of fuzziness if you try to put all the opinions together...does this mean you still don't have a general sense of what they are getting at?

I just googled "what is a soundstage in audio?" and found plenty of consonant explanations. For instance, from links on the first page of results:


In the world of audiophiles, soundstage (or speaker image) is an imaginary three-dimensional space created by the high-fidelity reproduction of sound in a stereo speaker system;


Soundstage refers to the apparent depth, height, and width of a recorded sound played via speakers.


A soundstage is the width, depth, and height of the recorded audio. It can be played through stereo speakers or headphones.


Soundstage is the perceived sense of the width, depth, and height of the imaginary "stage" where the music performance is being performed.


With the right stereo setup, you can create an imaginary three-dimensional space that immerses you in detailed sound. This imaginary 3D space is your soundstage.
Yes, and it's all nonsense. Just like most audiophile words.

The stereo field is as wide as your speakers (assuming some phase tricks haven't been done to enhance that). You want it wider, move them farther apart.

The depth of something in a recording is generally controlled by reverb. You want it to sound far away, the mix engineer ads reverb.

Height? I don't recall having a height control on my mixing desk, so I don't know about that one.

I mean, unless the recording was done with a Binaural system or ambisonics most of these things are in the listeners head, and they most likely think they're there because someone told them they would be there.
 

Newman

Major Contributor
Joined
Jan 6, 2017
Messages
3,448
Likes
4,209
Yes, and it's all nonsense. Just like most audiophile words.

The stereo field is as wide as your speakers (assuming some phase tricks haven't been done to enhance that). You want it wider, move them farther apart.
Perhaps you could avail yourself of Toole's work? "Apparent source width" is not limited to as wide as your speakers.

"Soundstage" in playback is the 3-dimensional size and position of sonic images in relation to the listener(s). It's not that hard.
 
Last edited:

Ricardus

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Mar 15, 2022
Messages
843
Likes
1,153
Location
Northern GA
Perhaps you could avail yourself of Toole's work? "Apparent source width" is not limited to as wide as your speakers.

"Soundstage" in playback is the 3-dimensional size and position of sonic images in relation to the listener(s). It's not that hard.
How do we measure it? Can Amir's Audio Precision tell me if something has a "good soundstage"?
 

Newman

Major Contributor
Joined
Jan 6, 2017
Messages
3,448
Likes
4,209
Read Toole and come back to us, instead of flailing around like a fish out of water. Random machine-gun questions do not a discussion make.
 
Top Bottom