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

[LightninBoy]

Did you see Bone Tomahawk? Some of the most sickening sound effects ever in that movie.

 

[watchnerd]

(BTW, sounds like you know guns and if so, you may be aware that many people - including apparently gun aficionados - hold the downtown street shoot out scene from HEAT to be a high-bar for movie gun sound).

I grew up around firearms, started hunting at age 12, but I've never seen HEAT.

 

[MattHooper]

I grew up around firearms, started hunting at age 12, but I've never seen HEAT.

If you like quality cop/gangster flicks with some of the best actors of all time...you are in for a treat if you get around to watching it!
Fantastic movie! Famous first meeting of De Niro and Pacino on film! Epic.

 

[mhardy6647]

I was once contacted by a company in the defense industry, they were working on electronic training guns, and wanted a more realistic sound for the simulated firing. Users had reported that the sound was not "realistic", not loud enough. Which does not come as a surprise, considering the physics involved.

sixteen 288s. Altec weaponization.

 

[Kvalsvoll]

View attachment 201860
sixteen 288s. Altec weaponization.

Interesting to observe that in such applications, ordinary speakers are still used. There is no requirement for quality, be it linear response or distortion. So why not use some kind of mechanical-acoustic device that can create just what is required - a LOOOUUD sound. But it just happens to be that speakers are the better approach, and they are readily available.

 

[Robin L]

Interesting to observe that in such applications, ordinary speakers are still used. There is no requirement for quality, be it linear response or distortion. So why not use some kind of mechanical-acoustic device that can create just what is required - a LOOOUUD sound. But it just happens to be that speakers are the better approach, and they are readily available.

Well, the antique [pre-electric] Parson Short Auxetophone [a mode of sonic amplification using pressurized air] eventually was developed into a device capable of generating a +165db output used to test the structural rigidity of massive rockets:

The Auxetophone.

Douglas Self, auxetophone, steam audio, Parsons, Edison

douglas-self.com

 

[Kvalsvoll]

About this reality.

Does it exist, when recordings are made artificially by manipulating and adding sound effects like reverb, putting together near-mic recordings form single instruments. I say it does not matter how it was made, and it is not so important what the artist and the sound engineer intended. What matters is if there is a musical event, a sonic experience, that is exciting and emotional.

Realistic then becomes more how the sound is presented in a way that manages to render realistic images of the sound elements in the recording. Rendering of instruments, so they appear like solid instruments, not something that comes out of a small speaker. And room reverb that fills the room, like sound that envelopes.

To make this happen, there must be spatial contrast in the renderings. Some instruments and sounds are precise, fixed in position, defined in size. Other sounds can be enveloping and very large, filling the whole room.

How good this spatial contrast can be, depends on the speakers and the acoustic properties of the room. Some systems can be enveloping and room-filling, but lack any precision in the rendering of objects. Other systems can be very precise, but lack this sense of room-filling sound. It is possible to achieve both. That is realism.

 

[Robin L]

About this reality.

Does it exist, when recordings are made artificially by manipulating and adding sound effects like reverb, putting together near-mic recordings form single instruments. I say it does not matter how it was made, and it is not so important what the artist and the sound engineer intended. What matters is if there is a musical event, a sonic experience, that is exciting and emotional.

Realistic then becomes more how the sound is presented in a way that manages to render realistic images of the sound elements in the recording. Rendering of instruments, so they appear like solid instruments, not something that comes out of a small speaker. And room reverb that fills the room, like sound that envelopes.

To make this happen, there must be spatial contrast in the renderings. Some instruments and sounds are precise, fixed in position, defined in size. Other sounds can be enveloping and very large, filling the whole room.

How good this spatial contrast can be, depends on the speakers and the acoustic properties of the room. Some systems can be enveloping and room-filling, but lack any precision in the rendering of objects. Other systems can be very precise, but lack this sense of room-filling sound. It is possible to achieve both. That is realism.

Speaking as someone on the other end of the chain, those attributes of spatial contrast depend even more on performers and their instruments. Making something sound "big" has as much to do with a performer's dynamics as any other factor. In acoustic music, that requires pure lungpower, in rock 'n' pop, not so much.

 

[Kvalsvoll]

Speaking as someone on the other end of the chain, those attributes of spatial contrast depend even more on performers and their instruments. Making something sound "big" has as much to do with a performer's dynamics as any other factor. In acoustic music, that requires pure lungpower, in rock 'n' pop, not so much.

How an instrument is played obviously affect how it sounds, and if you say the performer can change the perceived acoustic rendering of an instrument, why not.

Can try to find some examples for this, some recordings with sound objects of different size and appearance. Usually easier to understand sound when you can hear it.

 

[MattHooper]

I posted the article because I thought it was well written and resonated with how a lot of people on ASR feel about recordings (from what I've observed). There are not a lot of "Absolute Sound" folks around here it seems, hence an emphasis on simply reproducing the recording, however it sounds, without any demand that things sound realistic.

It was a sort of "most people will agree with this, and enjoy seeing it spelled out by a recording engineer." But in a way it's so obvious to most here it could be nothing but "hear, hear" which could be a bit boring The "obviousness" of the article also allows for also sort of pushing around the edges to see what gives as well.

While it's good to be reminded that "sonic realism/naturalism" often isn't the goal for music production (and in fact would severely limit the artistic palette, as the author points out), a reply often goes along the lines "that's right, that's why we shouldn't expect any sonic realism, in fact it's mostly impossible anyway, so one may as well just ignore any relationship to reality and treat all recording as artificial."

I think part of my own inner pushback is not only certain goals I've had as an audiophile, but also the fact that in my job as a sound effects editor/designer, I'm actually very much trying to reproduce "reality" all the time. Much about film/TV is stylized, but much isn't. Even a horror or ghost movie will usually, in between the surreal moments, seek to establish a sense of recognizable normalcy - as we'd recognize from real life.
Same with the sound effects which can be stylized and emphasized for drama, or which can seek to replicate normal every day sounds - whether it's the specific sound of a motorcycle on screen, a drawer opening, the sound of a basketball bouncing or whatever. Reality is often my reference. So I don't have this luxury of saying "ah, it's all captured by microphones, it's art, and stereo or even home theater systems can never reproduce realistic sound anyway." I actually have to have the "sound of reality" constantly in view, and use it as a reference to, as much as possible, replicate that sound.

One may say "well, the goals of film making are different then." But...is it? It seems to me films and TV span a gamut of stylization and unreality and illusion to higher degrees of naturalism (which can happen even within the same movie). You'll never "really believe it's real" (though some people seem to practically "believe it's happening" when watching a movie) yet reality IS often the measure against which much of what may happen on screen is judged (from acting, character development, to scripts, to sets, to sound...). Same it seems with music. You may want to heavily editorialize a sound with heavy production techniques. On the other hand if you have a pianist playing his favorite Bösendorferor or Steinway in a great hall, one will likely want to document that sound to the degree possible (even if the techniques this require seem artificial). No point if you are going to take that artist's sound and turn it in to some unrecognizable toy piano sound or whatever. The artist will often want to hear some simulacrum of "his sound" on the recording. And the listener will hopefully hear more of the character, the "reality," of that piano in that hall.

 

[watchnerd]

Can try to find some examples for this, some recordings with sound objects of different size and appearance.

????

Like a vibrating sphere vs a vibrating cube??

 

[Robin L]

How an instrument is played obviously affect how it sounds, and if you say the performer can change the perceived acoustic rendering of an instrument, why not.

Can try to find some examples for this, some recordings with sound objects of different size and appearance. Usually easier to understand sound when you can hear it.

One of the best examples I know of is Ensemble Hesperion XX [now XXI], directed by Jordi Savall. The sounds of the vocalists swell to fill the performance venues. The sound of the late Montserrat Figueras' appears to become bigger as her volume increases.

 

[anmpr1]

I think part of the reason music like Baroque chamber music and Chamber Jazz is associated with "audiophile" sound is that it's easier to record and play back.

With a small ensemble, one's hearing is obviously directed toward individual instruments. Sometimes, on a recording, things don't work out as they would in a live venue. For instance, the acoustic bass. In a live event, you often don't even 'hear' it among the piano, drums and horns.

However, often the producer wants to highlight the instrument, so it is either miked closely (I presume) and then mixed at a higher level than would be heard, naturally. The other day I was listening to Ron Carter's The Bass and I. Now, it's Ron's record, highlighting his playing, so you want to hear Ron playing for sure, but should his bass be as loud as the drums?

Sometimes the final result has to be consciously discounted, or it becomes annoying.

 

[Robin L]

With a small ensemble, one's hearing is obviously directed toward individual instruments. Sometimes, on a recording, things don't work out as they would in a live venue. For instance, the acoustic bass. In a live event, you often don't even 'hear' it among the piano, drums and horns.

However, often the producer wants to highlight the instrument, so it is either miked closely (I presume) and then mixed at a higher level than would be heard, naturally. The other day I was listening to Ron Carter's The Bass and I. Now, it's Ron's record, highlighting his playing, so you want to hear Ron playing for sure, but should his bass be as loud as the drums?

Sometimes the final result has to be consciously discounted, or it becomes annoying.

Our Lincoln Elementary School band has a regular bass player, a stand-up instrument. I run a little mixing board so the music can be seen/heard for a Zoom. Performers [two singers & a clarinet] either have a Shure 58 [with the percussionist who gets a hypercardioid Sennheiser mic with a big overload margin] or plug in. The bass player is always the last to show up. So getting the bass to sound right is always a challenge, as I have to make his adjustments after the guy plugs in [he's got a pick-up on his upright bass] and starts playing. I have to EQ for buzz [a little residual noise even after the bass player got a DI box] but everybody's already playing and it's hard to isolate bass, even with closed back headphones. So mixing in the bass is always a challenge on Friday mornings at 8:45 am. Essentially I have to listen to the buzz from the bass player's pick-up, so the buzz is barely audible. That usually gets me close enough.

Conversely, there's a guitar player who shows up occasionally. Even though he's running a lovely Gretch through a little Ampeg amp [the board is plugged into the line out on the Ampeg], there's difficulty in getting him to balance in the mix on account of underplaying---another reminder that a lot of "audio problems" are really performance issues.

 

[anmpr1]

...there's difficulty in getting him to balance in the mix on account of underplaying---another reminder that a lot of "audio problems" are really performance issues.

It's definitely an art based upon much trial and error experience, and maybe some luck, that transcends the gear. Everyone has examples, but one that sticks out for me is a particular Stan Getz record, featuring Albert Dailey on piano. Just the two of them. But the recording comes across as dull, in spite of the minimalist gear and obvious care taken in the setup. To my ears, the piano seems pushed back in the minimalist mix, and Albert's playing just doesn't have the sparkle you expect from that instrument. Is Stan overpowering him?

This, in spite of what Stan's liner notes tells us: If you notice anything different about the sound on this record, it's because [the engineer] believes in not glorifying, i.e. tampering, with the sound... The microphones used were two B&K instrument mikes set up between the two musicians. The sound was then driven by a Mark Levinson LNP-2 preamp into a specially modified Mark Levinson Studer A-80...

The gear in one's stereo is one thing, but anymore I don't really find it to be that important to my musical enjoyment. The biggest determinant is what is done at the recording venue. You can have the best gear in your living room, but that will do nothing to help you if they didn't get it right at the session.

 

[MattHooper]

Interesting interview:

Andrew Jones on designing for ACCURACY​

He traverses some of the territory covered in this thread.

(I had to ignore the sort of cringeworthy opening question from the vinyl-loving interviewer, but after that it's mostly all Jones)

 

[Kvalsvoll]

????

Like a vibrating sphere vs a vibrating cube??

Can not say I know how a cube or sphere sounds like. I would think the image we see when hearing instruments are more like a picture of that instrument, but then we have all sorts of electronica with sound effects that clearly has no connection to known physical instruments, yet those sounds also give some sort of perceived visual image.

I was thinking more in the line of the difference between a small, precise, located instrument, and a larger, diffuse sounding instrument that fills the room.

 

[Kvalsvoll]

One of the best examples I know of is Ensemble Hesperion XX [now XXI], directed by Jordi Savall. The sounds of the vocalists swell to fill the performance venues. The sound of the late Montserrat Figueras' appears to become bigger as her volume increases.

Thank you, I like medieval music, and found this, which I claim for sure sounds better that the real performance in that stone church:

Now, how can that be. Better than "real".

The recording looks like it is put together from mics placed quite close to each instrument, excellent job, great dynamics, very high sense of realism and presence of the instruments, and a subtle hint of stone church acoustics.

Listening to this performance in that stone church would be very different. The hard stone walls creates a very reverberant sound field which in this case is likely to obscure the sound from the instruments rather than just adding a pleasant atmosphere.

 

[Robin L]

Thank you, I like medieval music, and found this, which I claim for sure sounds better that the real performance in that stone church:

Now, how can that be. Better than "real".

The recording looks like it is put together from mics placed quite close to each instrument, excellent job, great dynamics, very high sense of realism and presence of the instruments, and a subtle hint of stone church acoustics.

Listening to this performance in that stone church would be very different. The hard stone walls creates a very reverberant sound field which in this case is likely to obscure the sound from the instruments rather than just adding a pleasant atmosphere.

Grace Cathedral in San Francisco has the weirdest acoustics I have encountered. There's a single, very high, spire, an immense space between the performance area available there and the highest point in the room, directly above the performance area. It all slopes down to the four corners of a long rectangular space like a great big acoustic horn. As a recording venue, spectacular. An ORTF pair 10' up and back, captures the performers in clear focus surrounded by a rich reverberant backdrop. The seats are twenty feet from the performers. From that vantage point, the sound is pure mud periodically interrupted by noises off from the audience. If you're in the middle seats, you will hear more of the audience than the performers.

 

[tuga]

Grace Cathedral in San Francisco has the weirdest acoustics I have encountered. There's a single, very high, spire, an immense space between the performance area available there and the highest point in the room, directly above the performance area. It all slopes down to the four corners of a long rectangular space like a great big acoustic horn. As a recording venue, spectacular. An ORTF pair 10' up and back, captures the performers in clear focus surrounded by a rich reverberant backdrop. The seats are twenty feet from the performers. From that vantage point, the sound is pure mud periodically interrupted by noises off from the audience. If you're in the middle seats, you will hear more of the audience than the performers.

Any commercial recordings made there that you would recomend?