Is "Live" Sound the Gold Standard for Audio? Why? Why Not?

[watchnerd]

jimbo, I sent you a private message...let's continue any discussion needed in pm

Now I feel left out....



I'll go cry in my beer now.

 

[Blumlein 88]

I've not heard any of it yet, but how does object based audio (like Atmos) effect this discussion?
If it works as described, you could place within the defined reproduced sound field a fully realistic sounding source, that was never so in reality. Sort of compounding real acoustic recordings with fully electronic studio creations for a for simulcrum that can't be heard as a simulcrum.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Now I feel left out....



I'll go cry in my beer now.

Now, now, I just posted another query so you can take part. Don't feel left out.

 

[Blumlein 88]

The most real sounding recordings taking a different approach I've heard are where I record an instrument fairly close in an acoustically rather dead environment. Then play it and only it back over a speaker. It has a real sound source, and despite directional differences in the instrument and a speaker it can sound very darn real as if it really is over there. All you need for it to work with all music is to have a separate track for everything on a song, and move the speakers around to where the real device was. The sound is real as in real in my listening room however, not real as if somewhere else.

Before you guys poo-poo the idea, this is the method used in a few famous examples of fooling audiences in real vs recorded sound.

And object based audio could manage to do this without us needing a single speaker for each source or moving those speakers around in theory.

 

[watchnerd]

Now, now, I just posted another query so you can take part. Don't feel left out.

Too late.

Already drinkin' the tear beer.

 

[watchnerd]

The most real sounding recordings taking a different approach I've heard are where I record an instrument fairly close in an acoustically rather dead environment. Then play it and only it back over a speaker. It has a real sound source, and despite directional differences in the instrument and a speaker it can sound very darn real as if it really is over there. All you need for it to work with all music is to have a separate track for everything on a song, and move the speakers around to where the real device was. The sound is real as in real in my listening room however, not real as if somewhere else.

Before you guys poo-poo the idea, this is the method used in a few famous examples of fooling audiences in real vs recorded sound.

And object based audio could manage to do this without us needing a single speaker for each source or moving those speakers around in theory.

Oh, I'm not saying greater realism isn't possible with the right set of circumstances and technology.

Binaural recordings I've made in my own living room of simple recorder music (no bass) can sound pretty spooky real.

But you've still got a software problem and a circle of confusion problem for the vast majority of consumers and the music they listen to.

Multi-ch high resolution music has never taken off in a massive way with the general public, and that's just a baby step towards what would be necessary to really do better.

I ditched my SACDs a decade ago because it wasn't that much better than stereo, it still sounded fake, and it was a lot more hassle and cost than 2 channel.

The #1 selling album right now is "Folklore", by Taylor Swift:

https://www.billboard.com/charts/billboard-200

Not only are most consumers probably listening to it on a fairly low rez set up (Smart speaker, computer audio, headphones, compressed streaming), but it certainly wasn't recorded with high fidelity play back in mind (at least not to my ear), nor is it "live music" by any typical definition.

 

[MissMarplesexbomb]

When you go to hear a good live band, the sound may sometimes not be great but often the musical communication and energy in the room surpasses anything that hifi can offer.

 

[watchnerd]

When you go to hear a good live band, the sound may sometimes not be great but often the musical communication and energy in the room surpasses anything that hifi can offer.

In both situations, the great equalizer is which one has the better weed.

 

[Cbdb2]

Example of creating a reference at home:

1. Put my recording mic in my usual listening position

2. Set up my bass amp at the front of my listening room, between my speakers

3. Play some stuff through the bass amp and record it through the mic at my listening position.

4. Play back the recording through my home stereo while sitting at the listening position and compare how it sounds in the very same room

That's a valid reference standard.

Popular misconception. The playback will not have the attack or impact of the original. Your recarding will be room heavy and youll hear this. You want your speakers to put out the same sound as your amp, that sound is best captured close to the amp( cabinet). Electric guitars ( including basses ) have been recorded that way for 50 years for a reason.

 

[Jimbob54]

Now I feel left out....



I'll go cry in my beer now.

You got it too.

As an afterthought.

 

[watchnerd]

Popular misconception. The playback will not have the attack or impact of the original. Your recarding will be room heavy and youll hear this. You want your speakers to put out the same sound as your amp, that sound is best captured close to the amp( cabinet). Electric guitars ( including basses ) have been recorded that way for 50 years for a reason.

I've tried that, too.

As well as taking straight into the interface.

One would argue about which sound better, but none are mistakable for the real thing.

 

[watchnerd]

You got it too.

I did.

But I'm still waiting for the big reveal.

 

[Jimbob54]

I did.

But I'm still waiting for the big reveal.

I'm not sure there was one. Man likes music. Man likes hifi. Man buys hifi.

 

[Cbdb2]

I've tried that, too.

As well as taking straight into the interface.

One would argue about which sound better, but none are mistakable for the real thing.

You would be arguing with most recording engineers of the last 50 years.

 

[watchnerd]

You would be arguing with most recording engineers of the last 50 years.

I don't think so, as I know several.

I don't know any who claim to make recordings indistinguishable from live sound.

Their goal is to make a marketable product that meets the clients needs to sell well and sounds good in the average home system and car.

 

[gonefishin]

I don't think so, as I know several.

I don't know any who claim to make recordings indistinguishable from live sound.

I think your use of the word indistinguishable is your hang up. There is no person saying a good recording is indistinguishable from the real event.

 

[watchnerd]

I think your use of the word indistinguishable is your hang up. There is no person saying a good recording is indistinguishable from the real event.

Then it can't be a reference standard.

/thread closed

 

[Instrumental]

You would have a hard time to match all the sweeping statements here with
the "science" word in the title of this forum. My prediction is you will never
agree on anything simply because you are not anywhere close to making
sense to outsiders (like me) . Aren't you all discussing just a tiny subspace of what "music"
means to the rest of us?

An example:
"You would be arguing with most recording engineers of the last 50 years."

Recording what type of music?
Main stream stuff to top the charts or narrow interests?
Aimed at what audiencies?
Aimed for special listening situations?
Controlled by "the industry" or the artists themselves?
Solo or lots of artists?
Totally acoustic or always amplified?
Western hemisphere only?

[end of rant]

 

[watchnerd]

You would have a hard time to match all the sweeping statements here with
the "science" word in the title of this forum. My prediction is you will never
agree on anything simply because you are not anywhere close to making
sense to outsiders (like me) . Aren't you all discussing just a tiny subspace of what "music"
means to the rest of us?

An example:
"You would be arguing with most recording engineers of the last 50 years."

Recording what type of music?
Main stream stuff to top the charts or narrow interests?
Aimed at what audiencies?
Aimed for special listening situations?
Controlled by "the industry" or the artists themselves?
Solo or lots of artists?
Totally acoustic or always amplified?
Western hemisphere only?

[end of rant]

+1

There are huge genres of music for which there is no acoustic live instrument equivalent.

What's the reference point for EDM?

I don't know, and I don't think Tiesto or Deadmau5 can say, either, other than maybe what they heard on their monitors / headphones / computer when they first made a given song. But even then, playing it in a club or at EDC will be different.

 

[Blumlein 88]

+1

There are huge genres of music for which there is no acoustic live instrument equivalent.

What's the reference point for EDM?

I don't know, and I don't think Tiesto or Deadmau5 can say, either, other than maybe what they heard on their monitors / headphones / computer when they first made a given song. But even then, playing it in a club or at EDC will be different.

I often listen to the Hearts of Space radio broadcast on my local public radio station on Sunday evenings. So many sounds that sound as if they could be real in space except of course none of them are. Nor could they be in the vacuum of space.