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

[watchnerd]

I welcome and appreciate all different viewpoints.

My disappointment is not really about you.

Nothing personal.

 

[MattHooper]

My disappointment is not really about you.

Nothing personal.

Ok, thanks for clarifying.

Cheers.

 

[Blumlein 88]

I find the direction the thread is taking rather disappointing.

The original article was about how much manipulation there is in the recording chain for the goal of creating a more exciting experience.

But the rest of the thread has turned into more of the same old same old audiophile culture tropes that I've heard for 30 years.

It makes me rather sad that so much of the hobby is still, to this day, simply repetition of echo chamber circular musings and imaginings.

So what sort of discussion did you hope to see? FWIW, I pretty much agree with the article in the original post. There really is not much controversial about it. Mostly just a description of how things are.

I remember getting a nice recording from a group practicing in a large church. It sounded to "real" to me. And I was there so had some idea what it was like. It nicely captured that sense of a large space. It wasn't over-powering in my opinion, but just right. Just before the music started you got just a sense of it being somewhere large and then the music sounded naturally within that space.

Comments from the musicians:
Well okay it does sound like a large place, but really that is just noise. I'd rather you could filter that out and leave our music.

Well I don't know if it sounds natural in the hall where people sit, but it doesn't sound like that to me playing it. (reminding me of something I learned early on. The musicians have no perspective to how a group sounds 20 feet away as they never hear their music like that. One reason close miking is liked by some musicians it is closer to how they hear it.)

And then were several comments about hearing it on their home little system or in the car. The music sort of gets lost almost like hearing it from really far away was the consensus. Didn't sound that way over my large home system, but they weren't listening to it that way. They were surprised how different it sounded on my large system, but it didn't please them because they wanted to hand a CD or memory stick to someone and have them think it sounded cool.

 

[MattHooper]

As the article says: natural or realistic sound is often not the goal when producing music.

But a natural sound is a goal for some recordings.

As for recordings that actually do sound natural/realistic, one I like is "Requiem for Pink Moon", An Elizabethan Tribute to Nick Drake.

It's, yup, Nick Drake songs performed in Elizabethan style. Sounds like a bad audiophile trope, and I gave up buying audiophile recordings long ago. But this I bought because I actually enjoy it. Beautiful voices.

It sounded best on my previous Thiel 3.7s and MBL 121 omnis. I swear, played at "live-like" volume, with my eyes closed, the sensation of listening in to a smallish hall to real singers was amazing. I mean, if I had the real thing right there to directly compare, sure there would be a difference, but lacking that it was just eerie in apparent realism.

I looked for a link directly for the album and just found this, a video of the troupe performing:

What blows me away is that, from the recording alone that is almost EXACTLY the sonic picture the recording painted in my mind. I felt I was listening to the voices and instruments, looking up the stage, in a hall just like that! (Except on the recording the higher vocal is on the right not the left).

 

[JJB70]

I think recording is much more important than audio gear in terms of listening experience. A really well recorded performance will generally sound good on almost any audio gear. It's a bit like the error carried forward principle in that a poor recording is going to be disappointing regardless of what it is replayed with. Of course this is just technical experience and is different from whether we like the music and performance.

 

[Digital_Thor]

I think recording is much more important than audio gear in terms of listening experience. A really well recorded performance will generally sound good on almost any audio gear. It's a bit like the error carried forward principle in that a poor recording is going to be disappointing regardless of what it is replayed with. Of course this is just technical experience and is different from whether we like the music and performance.

I would add - that for me - going back to reading up on the basics, really helped a ton. I listen to everything on my stereo system, all types of music from classical to new electronic deep house, news and debates on youtube + movies. What really made the difference for me, was a well setup multi-sub system with a set of 3 way fronts that could also play deep enough to blend with the sub-system. Then using waveguided tweeters to match the midrange as perfect as possible. When the speakers measure awesome on its own, then I position everything and do a final EQ in the listening position to work with the "gray area" beneath around 500Hz, to create a big smooth sweet spot. After this - everything seems to sound like it is very much supposed to, IMO.

Some music is deep and immersive, but most importantly, some music sound like crap.... which can be anything from taste to bad recordings, which again is simply something you have to be able to live with. A system can't play a good recording perfectly, and then be "asked" to play a poor recording in a way, so that all the recording/mixing errors are hidden, like on a less revealing system. Or can I?
I have 4 presets on my preamp - which make it possible to add any EQ in front of all other EQ done in the DSP, with one push on the remote, so I can for example add a boost or dip in a certain area whenever a recording is bad, kinda emulating a less detailed system like in a car + the environment in the car, which in almost all cases are not good for audio.

In most cases though - I keep it neutral, and I do not really feel that I miss anything that bad, that I focus more on the system than on the music

 

[mhardy6647]

Jeezus this thread is devolving into a reeking pile of self-indulgent semantic debate like college Philosophy 101 discussions after you've had some good weed.

Literary criticism meets audiophile vocabulary.

well, with a thesis like reality is overrated -- one is pretty much in Animal House's "Jennings" territory from the get-go.

 

[tuga]

To be realistic is not to have the same sound waves, it is to have the same excitement and engagement. Some compensation is appropriate, if we want the home experience to approach the live experience. Perceptual realism, not sound-wave realism.

Realism is true to life representation.
It can be achieve to some degree with minimal distant mic'ing when recording acoustic music.

Perceptual realism is subjective.
If that is the goal then there's no point in aiming for accurat reproduction of the recoded signal in playback. Go for whatever sounds best/euphonic (non-flat frequency response, harmonic and other signal-correlated distortion, etc.).
In fact that is what half of the audiophile community is doing.

 

[tuga]

This is the first page from an old EMI piece titled "The Pursuit of High Fidelity...":

 

[tuga]

And then were several comments about hearing it on their home little system or in the car. The music sort of gets lost almost like hearing it from really far away was the consensus. Didn't sound that way over my large home system, but they weren't listening to it that way. They were surprised how different it sounded on my large system, but it didn't please them because they wanted to hand a CD or memory stick to someone and have them think it sounded cool.

I think that the sense of being transported into an acoustic space is perhaps not as attractive to most audiophiles as having the feeling of musicians playing in one's room.
There is a lack of immediacy in "realistic-sounding" recordings which is less exciting in the way it presents the music.

Wider-dispersion speakers and/or more reflective listening rooms will make matters worse in my experience.

I wonder how audiophiles who never listened to an unamplified concert would react if they were to find out that live classical does not have the same level of presence and detail as close-mic'ed recordings.

 

[watchnerd]

So what sort of discussion did you hope to see? FWIW, I pretty much agree with the article in the original post. There really is not much controversial about it. Mostly just a description of how things are.

Indeed, it's just a description of how things are, nor is there much controversy that this is the way the world is and has been over half a century.

Except...

Somehow it keeps circling back to Harry Pearson's idea that comparing a recording to live acoustic events (even if dissimilar to the recorded one on many levels, and ignoring highly flawed audio memory) is some kind of benchmark reference test. Which then leads to the corollary that electronic music is unknowable because it can't exist "in nature".

I had hoped for something other than the same debates people were having 50 years ago. The intellectual stagnation in certain elements of the audio hobby makes me want to disengage as it gets pretty boring to hear the same debates over and over.

 

[thegeton]

The rational goal for a playback system is to accurately reproduce the recording.

Hear, hear!

(pardon the pun)

 

[tuga]

Indeed, it's just a description of how things are, nor is there much controversy that this is the way the world is and has been over half a century.

Except...

Somehow it keeps circling back to Harry Pearson's idea that comparing a recording to live acoustic events (even if dissimilar to the recorded one on many levels, and flawed audio memory) is some kind of valid reference test. Which then leads to the corollary that electronic music is unknowable because it can't exist "in nature".

I had hoped for something other than the same debates people were having 50 years ago. The intellectual stagnation in certain elements of the audio hobby makes me want to disengage as it gets pretty boring to hear the same thing over and over.

Electronic music, and also electric/amplified, is "knowable" as reproduced sound. Be it in our homes, clubs, football stadiums, or over head/ear phones.
It is music created in the mixing desk over monitors.

About 30% of the music I listen to is either '50s-'60s jazz or rock. My goal, when reproducing it, is not to have it sound like a live event, not a club and even less so a stadium.
With classical I find that a realistic soundscape helps me connect with the musical event, not just with the music.

 

[watchnerd]

Electronic music, and also electric/amplified, is "knowable" as reproduced sound. Be it in our homes, clubs, football stadiums, or over head/ear phones.
It is music created in the mixing desk over monitors.

It's not me making the argument that it's unknowable.

I could even argue that it is the *most* knowable:

"Hey Skrillex, make me a track. I want you to make it using only Sennheiser HD-600S and an RME ADI-2 Pro as your monitoring chain, because that's exactly what I'll be playing back on when you're done. Send me your Ethereum wallet address when you're done so I can pay. K thx bye."

 

[tuga]

It's not me making the argument that it's unknowable.

I could even argue that it is the *most* knowable:

"Hey Skrillex, make me a track. I want you to make it using only Sennheiser HD-600S and an RME ADI-2 Pro as your monitoring chain, because that's exactly what I'll be playing back on when you're done. Send me your Ethereum wallet address when you're done so I can pay. K thx bye."

Such music will sound different depending on what system is reproducing it. You can't really use it as reference, only the system that is playing it.

 

[watchnerd]

Such music will sound different depending on what system is reproducing it. You can't really use it as reference, only the system that is playing it.

That's why I specified the system to create and reproduce it.

To eliminate the circle of confusion, thereby making it "knowable".

And thus I get as close as possible to hearing what the creator was hearing (biological differences in hearing not withstanding).

 

[tuga]

That's why I specified the system to reproduce it.

To eliminate the circle of confusion.

That could be an option, to use a unique playback system as the single reference.
But that would only work with headphones. With speakers you'd have to include a specific room.

Acoustic music is not a perfect reference but at least a violin in a room always sounds like a violin in a room, a piano, a singer.
And even when blindfolded I would expect most people to be able to tell whether they are close or far from the sound source and if the room is big or large, reflective or absorptive.

 

[watchnerd]

That could be an option, to use a unique playback system as the single reference.
But that would only work with headphones. With speakers you'd have to include a specific room.

Acoustic music is not a perfect reference but at least a violin in a room always sounds like a violin in a room, a piano, a singer.
And even when blindfolded I would expect most people to be able to tell whether they are close or far from the sound source and if the room is big or large, reflective or absorptive.

Ah, see, you're back to Harry Pearson again.

Personally, I don't listen for any of those things even when I audition speakers using recordings I'm familiar with (i.e. stuff I've listened to for decades).

And I generally think music, especially in an unfamiliar room in a dealer, is a poor way to evaluate a speaker.

And if you aren't intimately familiar with the recording, you're just falling into the dealer's trap of cherry picking whatever they think makes the speaker sound best and sell best.

But I'll just bow out, as we're philosophically at opposite ends of the spectrum.

 

[tuga]

Ah, see, you're back to Harry Pearson again.

Personally, I don't listen for any of those things even when I audition speakers using recordings I'm familiar with (i.e. stuff I've listened to for decades).

And I generally think music, especially in an unfamiliar room in a dealer, is a poor way to evaluate a speaker.

I agree. Equipment should be evaluated in one's room with one's system. One of the criticisms I would make of Harman's listening assessment sessions.

And if you aren't intimately familiar with the recording, you're just falling into the dealer's trap of cherry picking whatever they think makes the speaker sound best and sell best.

Again I agree. Equipment should be evaluated in one's room with one's system woth one's music. Another the criticism I would make of Harman's listening assessment sessions.

But I'll just bow out, as we're philosophically at opposite ends of the spectrum.

I think that we are at the opposite ends of the musical spectrum (preference-wise) but not that far apart in regard to listening assessment methodology.

 

[watchnerd]

I think that we are at the opposite ends of the musical spectrum (preference-wise)

Not so sure about that....

Check out watchnerd's music collection on Discogs

Dig through watchnerd's collection on the world's biggest online music database and marketplace & start cataloging your own. Happy Collecting!

www.discogs.com