Audio Recording - is it ever realistic?

[TLEDDY]

I just read, in Stereophile, a history of the first DDD CD…”Brothers in Arms”. It is worth reading for both the historic content and the recording techniques utilized. The piece is detailed, including microphone types used, positions and engineering. I consider that recording as a tour de force in every way - except what we hear is not “real”, but a creation of its own.

In my brief alterego as a self styled recordist, I used an excellent R2R Technics with RCA Ribbon microphones in the Blumlein configuration. In the 1970s I recorded the Oberlin College Choir in an Episcopal Church in Palm Beach, Florida. By happenstance, many of the choir and its Director were at my home, listening to the recoding on my Fulton Premier Speakers powered by Audio Research amps.

The Director was so impressed by the recording, he borrowed my tapes to be used on their vinyl recording. The vinyl was produced, crediting me as a recoding engineer. The album sound came nowhere near the tape, and sadly, the tapes were destroyed in return shipment!

My comment now on real… the tape, playing back on my system, came close, at least to my and the conductor’s ears, to approximating the performance in the church. Even so, having been in the venue for the concert, it was still an approximation, therefore - not real.

That said, having thousands of vinyl and CD/SACD recordings and now, access to high quality streaming music, approximation is pretty damn good!! Being 84 years old and somewhat disabled, live performances are no longer within my reach and, without my likely ultimate system, I would not be able to enjoy the experience!

We stand on the shoulders of giants to be able to enjoy the vast catalog of performances of all genre of music - kudos to all of them… and the approximation of reality!

 

[Apesbrain]

We stand on the shoulders of giants to be able to enjoy the vast catalog of performances of all genre of music - kudos to all of them… and the approximation of reality!

I love recorded music's ability to let me "time travel". Right now, I'm listening to Coleman Hawkins from 1951 and imagining my parents dancing to it at the sock hop.

 

[TLEDDY]

My wife, together for 34 years and I enjoyed a dance on her birthday! The piece:

The most famous early recording of Tangerine was by Jimmy Dorsey and His Orchestra with vocalists Helen O’Connell and Bob Eberly, released in January 1942

It was written in 1941 and was a favorite of my wife’s father, James D. Sturrock - an Army Air Force B-17 pilot in WWII!

 

[DVDdoug]

We have limitations with the sound coming from a pair of speakers in a small room.

Since you've done some live recording yourself, you've probably found that the amount of natural reverb that you hear coming from all directions when listening live usually sounds artificial coming from a pair of speakers in your living room. You usually have to get closer to the performers. (I've never been near the conductor...)

I don't know how Brothers In Arms was recorded/produced but I assume it was a multi-track studio production, probably with different tracks/vocals/instruments recorded at different times, with all kinds of effects, etc.

Most modern recordings are artificial studio productions with no attempt to create a live-like presentation.

You can get "more real" with surround sound (depending on how the recording was produced) but most music recordings are still 2-channel stereo and some surround recordings have the instruments panned around "creatively" rather than an attempt to make it sound like a live performance.

I've got a shelf-full of DVD concerts with surround. I enjoy them a lot a they probably sound better than live! Although, I don't listen at live levels.

With stereo recordings I like to use a "hall" or "theater" setting on my AVR to get some delayed reverb in the rear and the "feel" of a larger space.

The Director was so impressed by the recording, he borrowed my tapes to be used on their vinyl recording. The vinyl was produced, crediting me as a recoding engineer.

Congratulations!!!

The album sound came nowhere near the tape

I have a lot of CDs that were recorded in the 1960s & 70s that sound great! The studio recordings were obviously far better than what we had at home at at the time. There were some good sounding records in the vinyl days but most were mediocre so my impression is that they just didn't care. The rumor was that classical records were better but that's not what I was listening to.

and sadly, the tapes were destroyed in return shipment!

Bummer!!! To bad they didn't make a copy. A secondary master would be better than a vinyl copy.

The most famous early recording of Tangerine was by Jimmy Dorsey and His Orchestra with vocalists Helen O’Connell and Bob Eberly, released in January 1942.

My dad used to talk about Big Band music and I'm pretty sure he'd heard it live. He and my mom met at a dance. He didn't listen to a lot of it at home, but those old recordings weren't that great and we didn't have a good stereo and I wasn't impressed. Many years later I heard a Big Band live and it was a different experience.

Several years ago I searched-out some more modern recordings of the old Big Band music and it sounds great. I still mostly listen to classic rock, but occasionally I'll play one of those Big Band CDs.

 

[EERecordist]

You are right, and you are also in a good position to judge the live performance in the room with your own ears to recordings. I had the opportunity to do that recording for a music school, walking from the hall, into the control room live, then from tape. Cutting to vinyl requires further compression and frequency EQ.

And we are fortunate as you say, to have so many one-time musician experiences available to listen to.

I would also say there can be unforgettable electricity experiencing a live performance sitting in an audience. I attribute that to mental state.

 

[LTig]

Just for the record:Telarc made digital recordings at least since 1979 (probably earlier), they were published on vinyl back then as DDA, of course.

 

[mcochris]

Most modern recordings are artificial studio productions with no attempt to create a live-like presentation.

This!

(Note the overly-compressed response )

 

[kmanusa]

I bought my Technics RS-1500 back in the late 1970s from a guy in Michigan who was a friend of a coworker. The guy was the head of IMF USA at the time and he did recordings in his spare time. As part of the deal for the RS-1500, he threw in a copy of a live recording of the New Reformation Jazz Band (NRJB) that he made live at a club in Michigan at the time; the tape was 15 IPS 2 track and was made on the Technics. The sound was spectacular and was my main music source whenever I demoed my hi-fi system; this tape seemed to sound great no matter how crummy my system was at the time.

A few years later, I bought an LP made from the tapes the guy had made of the NRJB in live performances. While not the same performances as the ones on my 1-1 master tape copy, the LP material was recorded in the same venues and at around the same time as my tape. While the LP is good (I still have it), it was no competition for the tape. The dynamic range, lack of distortion, and high frequency smoothness on the tape all seemed to greatly exceed what was on the LP.

Fast forward to the 1990s. One day I was playing this tape for a visitor and I was shocked at how bad it sounded. I went to look at the deck and noticed a lot of brown material on the cabinet surface below the head block of the Technics. The tape was made on Ampex 456 and-- you guessed it-- shed syndrome had turned it into a sticky, gooey mess. So the LP is all I have of that wonderful music. I have often thought about baking it but I wonder how much of the magnetic material on the tape was irretrievably lost.

This tape was one of the few recordings I have heard that sounded 'real'; it sounded as if I was in the club where it was made. It was probably not a 'perfect' recording-- if there is such a thing-- and I wonder what I would think of it now. But it sure sounded "real" when I first heard it back in the day.

 

[Dimitri]

Most modern recordings are artificial studio productions with no attempt to create a live-like presentation.

It seems as long as it makes it to #1 it don't have to be live-like, or even good. Or listenable outside of an escalade.

 

[MattHooper]

Especially with complex recording and mixing, many different colorations can add up in the recording.

But as somebody who records, lots of individual sounds for my work as a sound, editor - a door opening, a kitchen appliance, countless every day sounds - I’m always fascinated simultaneously by the colouration the recording puts on something, and yet nonetheless how somewhat real it can sound.

This was even the case back when I was doing some live versus recorded tests in my home for loudspeakers. I recorded individual voices of my family and individual instruments, and it was often remarkable to me how real those individual sources could sound played back through a good set of loudspeakers, sometimes even indirect comparison to the real thing. (of course never sounding fully real.)

 

[rationaltime]

Most recorded music is the creation of the musicians and producers.
It is what they want you to hear and not an attempt to recreate a live
performance.

Even a live performance is usually not "the real thing". The various
channels are usually balanced to hear all the instruments. Live house
sound is not even what the musicians hear. Each Musician gets the
mix in "their" stage monitor or in ear monitor. And yes, some channels
get compressed. Still, with reasonable care what you hear live is often
a good experience.

I expect some would prefer live music without any sound reinforcement.
I won't argue against it. For me that would have to be rather small venue.

 

[ZolaIII]

Not all recordings or live recordings are the same and it's not only about effort put in by recording engineer and used equipment but also performers. Sometimes things just happen and it sounds better so knowing your sources and reproduction equipment plays a big role. Today 24 bit digital (integer PCM) is enough for storage purposes, 64 bit FP for all processing you ever might like to add and that it stays without introducing any artifacts to source (24 bit integer) using quality filters and effects. ADC's picked up to 20~23 bit and mics are much better. Reproduction equipment is still lacking but in the big long partially treated room with lot of effort and very good speakers you can get very close including time domain (staying the same as recording). Or going the other way around to TXH large good done JBL cinema and listening to rare such mixes and there you will be closest to uncompressed (DR 24) but limited to room/speakers reverberation time. You still don't want live not edited and processed at all recording and it would sound bad. You emphasis what you need (for example lead vocal and out it forward with adjusted reverb for it) and carefully use compression (just ensuring it doesn't overlap) and then it sounds good.
Two most annoying and demanding things to catch in my experience were large choir and pounding drummer.

 

[mcochris]

Even a live performance is usually not "the real thing".

At first, I was surprised by your comment. I record solo acoustic instrumentalists, so I often have a direct reference to "the real thing." When using multiple microphones, some processing is usually needed to balance levels, pan for stereo, and decide how much room sound to include—but it's still relatively minimal.

I understand that larger productions require more mixing, but I don’t have experience with that yet. That said, I’ve always questioned the need for compression in many cases. With proper mic placement and gain staging, it often seems unnecessary.

Compared to my simple recordings, I find most modern productions disappointing. Dynamics are often overly compressed, instruments sound muffled, and there's a lack of spatial realism. Ironically, some recordings from the 1950s and later sound far more natural—closer to the real thing. That suggests the issue isn’t technological, but rather aesthetic or procedural.

So when I hear professionals justify the current production practices, I can’t help but wonder if the status quo is off track.

Anyway, I appreciated your thoughtful and rational ;-) post.

 

[Multicore]

All recordings are artifice.

A portrait of someone is real even though it is a photograph or a painting and not that actual real life person.

Recordings are real but a different kind of thing from participation in a social musical event.

If recordings were not real then what would they be: imaginary, supernatural, immaterial?

Recordings are objects, which, no matter how good the artifice, have their distinct uses.

 

[bluefuzz]

I've always been a bit puzzled by why people think a stereo recording should, or even could sound 'real'. We don't expect an oil painting or even a photo or movie to fool us into thinking it is reality. We readily accept that visual art is a 2d representation of 3d reality made to make us think or feel something about the reality represented. It may even be a distorted or made up representation of worlds that cannot exist in reality or a purely abstract composition, but we are still able to enjoy the painting, photo, or movie for what it is; a piece of art. Likewise, the stereo recording can create more or less fictional or abstract spaces to enjoy. A straight 'documentary' stereo '2d' concert recording is analogous to an perspectively accurate landscape painting where some features are emphasised and some features left out. There is no reason it should be mistaken for reality ...

 

[Speedskater]

Telarc started as Advent Records back in 1970 making vinyl records of high school bands and such.
But parents started bring portable records to concerts, so Advent (with name problems) became Telarc and focused on commercial recordings.

 

[MattHooper]

I've always been a bit puzzled by why people think a stereo recording should, or even could sound 'real'

I can be equally puzzled as to have some people don’t see the relevance of sonic realism. Because inheriting the idea of Sonic realism is that things sound like the relevant real sound in real life.

This doesn’t mean falling to some fantasy that pure sonic realism is possible or even always desired.

But ideally, an attempt to capture the particular sound of an object , be a grand piano, a cello or an opera singer, would produce essentially the same sound at the loudspeaker end.

We often use well, recorded vocal tracks to identify colorations in loudspeakers, because we have a general familiarity with the sound of the human voice, and we can recognize obvious departures and artificiality.

I think most of us would say that if you’re system or loudspeakers are routinely adding unnatural sibilance to vocals, or thinning out strings so that cellos sound more like viola or violins, or the strings always have a thin irritating wiry quality they don’t have in real life, or if wind instruments are sounding more like kazoos, then that’s not desirable.

Personally, while I’m not expecting realism from every recording, I do use certain aspects of real sound as touchstones to what I like in the system. The human voice has a certain very organic quality - it’s produced by the vibration of wet dampened material, and there’s a certain organic softness and density to the sound of a real person speaking. Some systems get closer to reproducing that recognizable human character than others.
The same goes for the general type of balance I hear in real instruments such as acoustic guitar. When I listen to or play a real acoustic guitar, I am struck by the richness of the harmonics, the sense of body from the resonating or reflecting wood, etc.
I’ve heard many systems that make acoustic guitars sound like they are made out of plastic or carbon, and with a little of the harmonic richness to the vibrating strings.
Whereas other systems reproduce the acoustic guitar away that my brain just says “ yes, that’s correct, that’s what a real guitar sounds like.”

There are many varied observations above the sounds of real acoustic objects that, when I hear them better replicated on a Soundsystem, I find myself enjoying the sound more.

And I’ve also found that the properties that allow acoustic sources to sound convincing also let themselves to everything sounding more satisfying, including artificial electronic music.

YMMV of course.

 

[wadude]

I've always been a bit puzzled by why people think a stereo recording should, or even could sound 'real'. We don't expect an oil painting or even a photo or movie to fool us into thinking it is reality. We readily accept that visual art is a 2d representation of 3d reality made to make us think or feel something about the reality represented. It may even be a distorted or made up representation of worlds that cannot exist in reality or a purely abstract composition, but we are still able to enjoy the painting, photo, or movie for what it is; a piece of art. Likewise, the stereo recording can create more or less fictional or abstract spaces to enjoy. A straight 'documentary' stereo '2d' concert recording is analogous to a perspectively accurate landscape painting where some features are emphasised and some features left out. There is no reason it should be mistaken for reality ...

“Readily accept,” and,”No reason it should be mistaken for reality,” are the operative ideas here. Purist type recordings are more or less convincing documents of an event, not the actual, real event. Oddly it’s the studio manufactured productions that may be the most “real” type of recordings. George Martin compared them to sonic paintings. They can’t exist outside of their medium. Even more strange, when artists do try to perform those pieces live they are only approximations of the recordings, live imitations of the actual artwork.

 

[JanL]

It should be noted that a close-miked multi track recording can never sound like the real live performance despite how well it's mixed. It typically turns out sounding hyper realistic, much like an HDR photo plus tons of Photoshop treatment looks hyper realistic. Having isolated instruments and voices allows you to bring out the details of each track and combine them in such way that they don't step on each other, which would not be possible with just a neutral capture. Strings might end up sounding thin or otherwise strange but that's often because they would "cloud" or "step on" other more important tracks if they were not thinned out. This is where the most important part of making a record comes in, namely arranging and getting "good" sounds as the source. Some producers are working with a solid vision of the final product and are making crucial choices ahead of time. That makes their final mixes stand out. Others will capture a ton of material and attempt to "fix it in the mix", which sometimes works out and sometimes does not. It's a big field and making generalizations is typically a mistake.

 

[bluefuzz]

I think most of us would say that if you’re system or loudspeakers are routinely adding unnatural sibilance to vocals, or thinning out strings so that cellos sound more like viola or violins, or the strings always have a thin irritating wiry quality they don’t have in real life, or if wind instruments are sounding more like kazoos, then that’s not desirable.

Yes, of course. Just like we want colour accurate reproduction on a computer screen or a photographic print, we want the representation to be accurate within the limitations of the 2d frame or canvas. Similarly, the stereo soundstage is a 2d 'canvas' on which we can represent reality (or a reality) as accurately as possible. But it's a mistake to think it should be indistinguishable from actual reality. With complex multichannel recordings and playback systems it may be possible to cheat our senses into thinking we are hearing 'real' sounds or instruments but I regard this more of a party trick, akin to holograms or 3d glasses, than a serious artistic medium ...