Which speakers are the Classical Music Pros using?

[sarumbear]

Apparently one generally accepted definition of High Fidelity is "recreating exactly what the engineers heard" (assuming the engineers used excellent speakers in an excellent studio). Is that approximately the definition you have in mind?

Let me propose an alternative definition: High Fidelity is "creating a credible illusion, both timbrally and spatially, of hearing a live performance." In other words, Fidelity to the experience one would have at the performance (even if it never actually occurred), rather than Fidelity to the experience of the engineer.

So let me ask you a loaded question, which relates to competing definitions of "High Fidelity": How do you feel about using upmixing to surround channels to add delayed reverb to the sound? This being a considerably more extreme approach than my passive multi-directional loudspeaker topology.

The problem with your definition is that it do not apply 99% of the music we hear. Live classical is an infinitely small market segment.

Your last question is exactly what happens when you listen to 5.1 TV broadcast on a stereo system. Most of the time even on many DVDA releases the 5.1 track is down-mixed to stereo instead of a using the separate stereo track.

 

[Duke]

The problem with your definition is that it do not apply 99% of the music we hear. Live classical is an infinitely small market segment.

It does not matter whether a performance was recorded live, or recorded in bits and pieces and assembled and embellished by an engineer. The latter scenario does not preclude the possibility of "creating a credible illusion, both timbrally and spatially, of hearing a live performance".

Your last question is exactly what happens when you listen to 5.1 TV broadcast on a stereo system. Most of the time even on many DVDA releases the 5.1 track is down-mixed to stereo instead of a using the separate stereo track.

Imo it is irrelevant whether broadcast TV sometimes uses upmixing. Is upmixing incompatible with "High Fidelity" playback of stereo recordings? And more specifically, is Floyd Toole's use of "tasteful upmixing" consistent with your definition of High Fidelity, or not?

 

[tuga]

And more specifically, is Floyd Toole's use of "tasteful upmixing" consistent with your definition of High Fidelity, or not?

I wonder if "tasteful upmixing" is science driven?

 

[Duke]

I wonder if "tasteful upmixing" is science driven?

And I wonder where "tasteless upmixing" fits in...

Seriously, imo if "tasteful upmixing" improves the experience, but ISN'T "science driven", then the "science" is not yet mature.

 

[sarumbear]

@Duke my definition of Hi-Fi is transparency of the audio chain. What was recorded into the medium is received at the output of my electronic devices. I exclude speakers because a) the technology is very limited (current transducers have an efficiency of less than 10%. How do you expect quality from them?) and b) listening environments make a huge difference.

 

[Duke]

@Duke my definition of Hi-Fi is transparency of the audio chain. What was recorded into the medium is received at the output of my electronic devices. I exclude speakers because a) the technology is very limited (current transducers have an efficiency of less than 10%. How do you expect quality from them?) and b) listening environments make a huge difference.

Thank you!

Can you formulate a definition of "high fidelity" for loudspeakers, and/or for loudspeakers + rooms? I totally agree with you that the listening environment makes a huge difference, and imo by implication how the loudspeaker interacts with its environment makes a huge difference.

 

[mSpot]

Don’t think those studios (which looks like situated in the US west coast) are big enough to accommodate a classical orchestra.

The vast majority of classical orchestral recordings are done at concert halls, auditoriums, and churches (not in studios). You can see this in album program notes that often list the recording dates and venue. Post production may be done separately at a studio where they have editing/mixing facilities.

 

[sarumbear]

The vast majority of classical orchestral recordings are done at concert halls, auditoriums, and churches (not in studios). You can see this in album program notes that often list the recording dates and venue. Post production may be done separately at a studio where they have editing/mixing facilities.

I was commenting on the phrase “recording studio.“

 

[sarumbear]

Thank you!

Can you formulate a definition of "high fidelity" for loudspeakers, and/or for loudspeakers + rooms? I totally agree with you that the listening environment makes a huge difference, and imo by implication how the loudspeaker interacts with its environment makes a huge difference.

I personally cannot imagine a Hi-Fi speaker. As I said the current technology is too crude for high fidelity.

 

[q3cpma]

It does not matter whether a performance was recorded live, or recorded in bits and pieces and assembled and embellished by an engineer. The latter scenario does not preclude the possibility of "creating a credible illusion, both timbrally and spatially, of hearing a live performance".

Only works for conservative music that doesn't use the studio as an instrument by itself. I'm sure industrial or extreme metal will sound awful with too much reflections, for example.
I'm also quite skeptical about the attainability of that goal in a consistent manner on very disparate material produced and mixed in different ways and mostly for the purpose of stereo reproduction focused on direct sound. Quite possible to reach something good by focusing on material made with the same methods in the same place, I guess.

But it is never High Fidelity, even to the original performance. It's a new performance within your room, which is probably not as optimal as a concert hall =). Basically, my take is that fidelity to the performance is a pipe dream, and one that isn't necessarily wanted (studio work can really do wonders to make it sound clearer than even the best seat in the hall), while fidelity to the recording certainly is an approchable goal.

 

[Duke]

I personally cannot imagine a Hi-Fi speaker. As I said the current technology is too crude for high fidelity.

So you were criticizing "adding delayed reverb" as NOT being High-Fidelity when, by your definition, High-Fidelity DOES NOT EVEN EXIST for loudspeakers?????

In that case, let me re-phrase my question:

Given the limitations of current technology, can you formulate a concise description of "what a loudspeaker should do"? Or if you don't like that question, re-write it as one you do like. I'm genuinely interested in knowing what you think a speaker should attempt to accomplish.

 

[Duke]

I'm also quite skeptical about the attainability of that goal [creating a credible illusion, both timbrally and spatially, of hearing a live performance] in a consistent manner on very disparate material produced and mixed in different ways and mostly for the purpose of stereo reproduction focused on direct sound.

If the goal of creating a credible illusion cannot be attained with some recordings, does that mean spatial quality is not worth making an effort to improve?

(According to a study done by Wolfgang Klippel [yes, THAT Wolfgang Klippel] and cited by Floyd Toole starting on Page 185 of the 3rd edition of his book, sound quality and the "sense of space" both contribute equally to the perception of "naturalness", while the "sense of space" dominates the perception of "pleasantness". Toole concludes: "Therefore, whether one is a picky purist or a relaxed recreational listener, the impression of space is a significant factor.")

Basically, my take is that fidelity to the performance is a pipe dream, and one that isn't necessarily wanted (studio work can really do wonders to make it sound clearer than even the best seat in the hall)...

Just to be clear, what I advocate is "fidelity to the experience one would have at the performance (even if it never actually occurred)." Which encompasses studio productions as well as live recordings. And note that this is a perceptual goal, not a "recreate the exact waveforms" one, which would be a pipe dream.

... while fidelity to the recording certainly is an approchable goal.

I think I understand what you're saying.

Imo the recording is not the holy grail. The whole purpose of the recording is to convey the experience of listening to a real performance (even if that "performance" is partially or entirely a studio creation); imo that is the holy grail.

At least this isn't a car analogy: The recording is like a Xerox copy of the original, and then the speakers are making a second-generation Xerox of that first copy. What I'm saying is, let's tweak that second-generation Xerox copy in ways which will make it more closely resemble the original (whether or not the "original" is an unedited photo or a creation of Adobe).

 

[maverickronin]

Is upmixing incompatible with "High Fidelity" playback of stereo recordings? And more specifically, is Floyd Toole's use of "tasteful upmixing" consistent with your definition of High Fidelity, or not?

I think intentionally using unconventional directivity patterns to enhance the listening experience is perfectly valid. In principle, it's a far smaller leap than multichannel upmixing. The inherent limitations of stereo combined with the circle of confusion pretty much guarantee there's going to some combination of personal tastes and program material for which some kind of "post-processing", whether physical/acoustic or electronic, will be preferred.

It does not matter whether a performance was recorded live, or recorded in bits and pieces and assembled and embellished by an engineer. The latter scenario does not preclude the possibility of "creating a credible illusion, both timbrally and spatially, of hearing a live performance".

I totally buy the idea of setting this as a goal, and achieving it to some degree, but I'm going to have to agree with with @q3cpma that it really depends on the genre. Electronic genres essentially have no live performance and with any amplified genre it's rare that any concert will sound better than the studio album.

Besides that, there's just preference. I listen to music to relax and as an introvert there is no way I could relax and enjoy the music in a crowd at a concert. I also enjoy the fact that studio mixes can produce effects that are either impractical or completely impossible to replicate in a live performance. I basically see it as the difference between a play and a movie. For those reasons I really have no interest in reproducing a live performance.

OTOH, as this is a thread about classical music I can definitely see why other people would have that goal.

I don't really see it as a question of "Hi-Fi" or not either since "stereo" is really just a vague set of assumptions rather than a standard.

 

[Duke]

I think intentionally using unconventional directivity patterns to enhance the listening experience is perfectly valid. In principle, it's a far smaller leap than multichannel upmixing.

Thank you!

I totally buy the idea of setting this as a goal, and achieving it to some degree, but I'm going to have to agree with with @q3cpma that it really depends on the genre. Electronic genres essentially have no live performance and with any amplified genre it's rare that any concert will sound better than the studio album.

My experience thus far has been that good speakers are genre-agnostic, whether or not they have something unconventional going on with their radiation patterns. I have not heard electronica suck on speakers which sound great with classical, nor vice-versa, within the speakers' dynamic limits.

That being said my experience is inherently limited, and I could be mistaken.

 

[Chrispy]

What is the definition of a "classical music pro"....the artist or the guy in the recording process?

 

[mSpot]

What is the definition of a "classical music pro"....the artist or the guy in the recording process?

The phrase by itself is ambiguous, but if you look at the first post, it's clear that the creator of the thread was referring to the guy in the recording process.

 

[MarkS]

I have not heard electronica suck on speakers which sound great with classical, nor vice-versa, within the speakers' dynamic limits.

IMO, both of those types of music sound best with wide directivity. It's stuff like solo vocal that can sound better with narrow directivity.

 

[Chrispy]

The phrase by itself is ambiguous, but if you look at the first post, it's clear that the creator of the thread was referring to the guy in the recording process.

LOL got that part, but wasn't really what I was referring to. Just getting paid to do something only means so much as far as "pro" goes. Lots of different angles, and the thread was TLDR material so just posted what I was thinking of on the OP title question.....and in general how does one recreate a full orchestral classical playing space in a studio is a whole 'nuther thing

 

[Duke]

IMO, both of those types of music sound best with wide directivity. It's stuff like solo vocal that can sound better with narrow directivity.

Interesting. Do you have an explanation for why wide directivity is best for classical and electronica, while narrow directivity is best for solo vocals?

(I'm not arguing with you [at least not yet!!] - I'm hoping to learn.)

 

[tecnogadget]

At least this isn't a car analogy: The recording is like a Xerox copy of the original, and then the speakers are making a second-generation Xerox of that first copy. What I'm saying is, let's tweak that second-generation Xerox copy in ways which will make it more closely resemble the original (whether or not the "original" is an unedited photo or a creation of Adobe).

I think your analogy is on the right track (pun intended ). Hi-Fidelity is about reproducing as faithfully as possible the program material, meaning the finished mastered file from the recording studio, nothing more.

Attempting to recreate reality is just impossible (at least for now), even if we come up with some fantasy technology like a direct link to the brain we would still have the dilemma on how the heck "record the reality".

Lets just be happy getting as close as possible (but never absolutely, just like Log scales can’t start at zero), and as faithful as possible as the recording material. Everything else is a futile exercise.