• Welcome to ASR. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Audio Recording - is it ever realistic?

As I said on page 1, all recordings are artifice. It follows, I believe, that all recording techniques are aesthetic choices and purist techniques have no special position among them -- they are just another option.
Not always, to the best of my knowledge. There have been numerous attempts (and successes) to record live events in order to reproduced them at the same place alternately with the orchestra replaying its performances. In order for this kind of experiment to succeed, the recording have to be done a certain way. I intent to open a thread about that subject, because I think it deserves a dedicated discussion, at least from a historical point of view.
 
Last edited:
# 24 As to why and how, I have a lot of conjectures and no proof as to why we don't hear the "real" sound.
I have some theories with supporting evidences.

Since the reproduction audio (electronic sound) was invented 150 years ago, we haven't found how to record and reproduce the natural sound until now. Electronic sound is un-natural sound. Human can't hear natural and un-natural sound at same time. You can't hear audio music when your friend talk loud. You can choose which one to listen. Or you can hear alternately between audio and voice fast (10 times a second) which makes your brain becomes very tired soon. Listening un-natural sound makes your brain tired fast. ex. you fall asleep while listening music.

Almost best mics are from 1950's. Also, many 1950's audio speakers and electric guitars are still the best? Audio and guitar makers in 1950's knew how to make electronic sound good. Somehow, they didn't teach good electronic sounds to other and passed away. Since 1970's, all audio and microphones sound worse and worse. And no one talks about natural sound and music anymore. Instead, audio makers talk about bass and new sound technology always.

All microphones sound veiled, confused and distorted. So, all recordings sound veiled and unclear too. Also, all speakers (playback) sound veiled and distorted.

I make the most realistic sound audio speakers and microphones. Speaker and mic are a same topology. I play an acoustic guitar. I recorded my own video and playback with my speaker which is the cleanest sound recording and playback in the world. So, there is way to make the realistic sound record. ** I can't show my videos in here. (posting rules)
 
I have some theories with supporting evidences.
Ahem.
Since the reproduction audio (electronic sound) was invented 150 years ago, we haven't found how to record and reproduce the natural sound until now.
But we get better - clearly.
[..]
Almost best mics are from 1950's. Also, many 1950's audio speakers and electric guitars are still the best? Audio and guitar makers in 1950's knew how to make electronic sound good. Somehow, they didn't teach good electronic sounds to other and passed away. Since 1970's, all audio and microphones sound worse and worse. And no one talks about natural sound and music anymore. Instead, audio makers talk about bass and new sound technology always.
This is plain and simply wrong. Both mics and speakers got better, and mostly cheaper as well. Guitars on the other hand are made for a specific sound.
All microphones sound veiled, confused and distorted. So, all recordings sound veiled and unclear too. Also, all speakers (playback) sound veiled and distorted.

I make the most realistic sound audio speakers and microphones. Speaker and mic are a same topology. I play an acoustic guitar. I recorded my own video and playback with my speaker which is the cleanest sound recording and playback in the world. So, there is way to make the realistic sound record. ** I can't show my videos in here. (posting rules)
How do you do this if all mics and speakers sound veiled and distorted? Somewhere there's a large hole in your chain of reasoning ...
 
Since the reproduction audio (electronic sound) was invented 150 years ago, we haven't found how to record and reproduce the natural sound until now.
But we get better - clearly.
====> Yes. Many things are improved for sure such as ergonomic, functionality, appearance, etc. Tho, the sound has been improved so little to compare other aspects of audio industry.

[..]
Almost best mics are from 1950's. Also, many 1950's audio speakers and electric guitars are still the best? Audio and guitar makers in 1950's knew how to make electronic sound good. Somehow, they didn't teach good electronic sounds to other and passed away. Since 1970's, all audio and microphones sound worse and worse. And no one talks about natural sound and music anymore. Instead, audio makers talk about bass and new sound technology always.
This is plain and simply wrong. Both mics and speakers got better, and mostly cheaper as well. Guitars on the other hand are made for a specific sound.
====> To me and many recording engineers know 50's Telefunken mics record closest to the original sound. In my opinion, almost music recordings sound bad (bright, dry, veiled) in last 20 years and it gets worse as time passes. Also, I think 50's electric guitar sounds much more clear and musical than modern E. guitars. There is a reason why 50's microphones and guitars are very expensive.

All microphones sound veiled, confused and distorted. So, all recordings sound veiled and unclear too. Also, all speakers (playback) sound veiled and distorted.

I make the most realistic sound audio speakers and microphones. Speaker and mic are a same topology. I play an acoustic guitar. I recorded my own video and playback with my speaker which is the cleanest sound recording and playback in the world. So, there is way to make the realistic sound record. ** I can't show my videos in here. (posting rules)
How do you do this if all mics and speakers sound veiled and distorted? Somewhere there's a large hole in your chain of reasoning ...
====> I forgot to write words "all mics sound veiled and confused, except my microphones and speakers." I made few comparison videos to show veiled and distortion noise between different recordings. The difference is clear in my audio system (clean sound). And the difference won't show in any other systems because all other sound systems (spkrs) are already veiled and distorted.

I posted few times in audiogon that my system is "Absolute best sound spkrs regardless of cost" and no one disagreed yet. If you hear comparison videos "my audio system vs. any other audio systems (including most expensive + greatest audio systems + $million systems), they all are bright and distortion noisy monsters. And many people heard my systems at audio shows to prove it's real.
 
@Wavetouch some things did get worse like standards, there is no DIN anymore. But you don't have to go very far to still get to at least same level, objectively much better sound thanks to DSP correction regarding reproduction. Neumann for example rings some bells at least for me. If you know what to do and do it good systems dosent have to be expensive, actually even cheap one can do it how long it would last is another thing. There whose no real brake true regarding drivers technology but there are improvements and optimisations. Many people here drive golden age best speakers and improved them with active crossovers like N1000. We do have very awarded "tone master's" whose biggest achievement is that they broke so much materials and in the process earned lots of money. We see that every year. Any how point of this place is to rise awareness of acoustic limitations and how to approach them and people who are hear long enough and did it pretty much all can ease mutch what ever you have (not to mention those who did it for living and back from 1950's). I will do it with speakers that many hire consider as broken as NS10's and pair of closed back 10" sub and not only it will be able to sound as your's but it will be able to emulate it as well (because I am sure you didn't respect time domain to the end). Today you have not only incrimental technical progress improvements to use in your favour, DSP's but also possibility to learn (hard part) how to utilise them better. Some domains have reached such highs that you can't even compare them with anything else in the past like low cost IEM's with great FR and very low distortion for a deacent meal price and they are so popular and widely used that hole HI-FI world looks like a joke in comparison. Some things didn't see any improvements like motor magnets tho Neomidium one's are used much more now and in inexpensive products and we have double magnet motors but that's about it. Today you can opt for much more rigid and more linear driver's as cost to drive them even if they are significantly less efficient is not a problem as it whose. All together it does make significant improvement when done good in every aspect and when it's not it's just plain old bad but with a twist that when properly measured you know exactly what you get.
 
Still waiting for Alex @Wavetouch to send in a pair of his speakers to Amir for measurements on the Klippel NFS.

And now that he has a modified Oppo he's trying to sell, he can send that in for measurements too.

Otherwise, it's just the typical salesman claims we've all heard countless times.
 
I forgot to write words "all mics sound veiled and confused, except my microphones and speakers." I made few comparison videos to show veiled and distortion noise between different recordings. The difference is clear in my audio system (clean sound). And the difference won't show in any other systems because all other sound systems (spkrs) are already veiled and distorted.
This is a very strong claim, which requires equally strong evidence. Sending your speaker to @amirm or Erin (audiocorner) to be measured on the Klippel NFS is the least you need to do now.
 
I don't care about realistic, I care about more or less realistic. Because I will never get real. Seriously, a guitar in my room sounds real (it better!), no recorded guitar will sound the same. But some will sound more real. More physical.

Then we get to do I want more real in the sense of the musicians in my room, or me in the room with them wherever that was? I want both at various times.

I want real in the same sense as I want real at a movie. I want to suspend my disbelief and not be pulled out of that state of mind for the entire performance. Can I get that? Yes, with a good recording, yes.
 
I had a pair of old Schoeps tube condensers. Worst audio decision of my life. Loads of self-noise, restricted dynamics, unreliable. They made me really appreciate modern solid-state gear.
Whence comes the poem?
 
Only twice have I ever been fooled into thinking what I was hearing was live when it was a recording. Both times I was around the corner from the system playing. The first was a Chante! recording being played at the 2010 RMAF. The second was a recording by The Milk Carton Kids playing on my own system. I don't think any recording when listened to in the sweet spot has ever sounded like live music - some may come close but none make me believe I am listening to a live performance.

Martin
 
I have not read every post.

I think we have to first define "realism". Does that mean how an orchestra sound to the conductor? The audience on Row 8? The audience in the mezzanine? The audience in the high box on the side of the hall? The choir seating behind the orchestra? The tuba player on the back row? Are we even talking about an orchestra? The effect of room acoustics and blend will be far difference for each of these. When an orchestra is closely mic'd and uses all 24 tracks of the recorder, the blend and shape of the orchestra is more in the imagination of the mix engineer than in reality, it seems to me. But recording with two microphones above Row 10 might incorporate a lot of room effects, depending on the room. Some of those effects might include the air-handling system and the truck traffic on the street outside the hall.

And it's profoundly different for acoustic music versus amplified music. Music that purposely has an amplified sound, like rock, will often be double-amplified--first there is the instrument amplifier which intentionally has a characteristic distortion, and then there is the PA system that makes it uniformly mixed and loud for the audience. Philip Glass performed with the mixing engineer for the PA system on stage, and he was given credit in the concert at the same level as the musicians. Recordings of those live performances are often taken straight off the PA board, but when that happens, the mix needed by the room might be different than the mix needed for the recording. These days, it's easy enough with digital mixing desks and workstations to bring all the inputs to two separate buses before mixing, so that the live-sound mix and the recording mix can be tailored to each purpose. But most rock music recorded in the studio avoids the PA system altogether, and records directly into the recording mixing board from the microphones, which are placed either in front of singers or in front of mostly acoustic instruments (like drums) or in front of the amplifiers of amplified instruments. The latter is less common now, too, because often normally amplified instruments are now fed straight into the mixing board, and all the effects one hopes to get from the instrument amp on stage are added digitally to the recorded track.

If I want a live rock concert that was held indoors to sound realistic, I have to expect a certain amount of mud resulting from the inability to separate the room effects from all the other effects. It will sound like a live concert, but it will usually not sound realistic simply because live rock concerts are louder and with greater dynamic range than most people can tolerate at home and that most recording engineers are willing to preserve on a recording. This was especially true in the days when live concerts were recorded on tape, which has limited dynamic range and a characteristic compression signature when the loud bits get too loud.

I've said this before. When listening on headphones, the live recordings I made on Teac open-reel decks always sounded like recordings. I did not get the sense of true realism (in the headphones) until I started using a VHS video recorder with HiFi audio, which recorded the audio onto the rotating video heads using depth multiplexing. These recordings preserved a dynamic range of at least 70dB, versus something more like 55 on the Teac, and that made the critical difference to my hearing. Digital recording took that one step further--too far, in the minds of some recordists whose characteristic sound included tape compression. But all that was for acoustic instruments, not amplified instruments.

Movie sounds are something different altogether. I used to have one of those demonstration LP's that include live recorded thunder. It never sounded realistic, even using a Phase Linear 700 and Altec A7 "voice of the theater" speakers (an experiment conducted in my younger days--the equipment was part of the road kit for a band that I sometimes roadied for). But I remember watching some silly movie--it was Romancing the Stone--which was recorded on VHS tape with HiFi sound, and played back on a system with a couple of cheap Genesis speakers driven by a 200-wpc Spectro Acoustics amp. That was in '84 or '85. The thunder in that movie made me look out the window. But only distant thunder. The vibration of nearby thunder wouldn't have been possible with that setup. But movie sounds offer an even greater willing suspension of disbelief as does music recording. Still, I have a subwoofer on my HT system precisely for the relatively dynamic deep bass that real-life sounds sometimes need.

If I wanted an orchestra to sound the way it sounds to the tuba player, I'd need a different system than for listening from Row 10. It would need to give me tympani strikes that articulate at 120 dB SPL for something like the tympani solo in the Shostakovich 5th Symphony. And 110 dB sustained (by my specific measurement). Nobody else would tolerate that mix, for sure.

Something I wrote recently stated that I want the recording to transport me to the venue rather than transporting the musician to my living room. That might be inappropriate for certain types of music, such as solo classical guitar, where it might be fun to have examples of both. And the sound I want from rock recordings is not a live sound--too much mud from room effects in spite of my appreciation for the dynamic range. I prefer the dry sounds of rock music performed in a studio with little room-effect processing. That's more like hearing them at a jam session in a small room, and it usually makes hearing the detail of what they did more clear. But I would not expect the live presentation to sound like that, particularly in a massive venue. Rock concerts are more about the experience than the sound quality or musical appreciation.

If we are walking down the street in, say, Nashville, past a row of music clubs, the ones playing live music are distinguishable from those playing recorded music even from the street. The difference to me is the dynamic range--live music just doesn't have the compressed sound of recordings. Can't fix that with the playback equipment.

Rick "sorry for the scatter" Denney
 
Whence comes the poem?
I don't know where you're coming from, exactly, but I find this interesting. Everybody knows "The Girl from Ipanema", right? I've got the SACD right now. Just before Astrud Gilberto starts to sing one can hear (on something really high definition like Stax earphones) her microphone being faded in. Happens to be a Schoeps M 221 B. I had a pair of those. I can hear the same kind of self-noise I got familiar with when recording using my pair.

Recordings I made of orchestra sounded a lot like 1950s stereo recordings, with hiss in the quiet passages and overloads in the climaxes. Something consistently low in dynamics such as lute was pretty hopeless. The one recording that came out best was of a Clarinet (Bassett Clarinet, actually) quintet playing Mozart. Hardly any dynamics, nice sounding room, good performers. These microphones were not "transparent", but they did have that "sound" a lot of people identify as coming from tubes. They also had a great susceptibility for picking up noise in the a/c, like dimmer switch noise.
 
Something I wrote recently stated that I want the recording to transport me to the venue rather than transporting the musician to my living room. That might be inappropriate for certain types of music, such as solo classical guitar, where it might be fun to have examples of both.
I worked for Joseph Spencer, he had a record label - Wildboar - mainly for harpsichord. Had a harpsichord upstairs at his house. As one of Joseph's careers involved tuning keyboard instruments, it was always in tune, and he played frequently. The perspective on the Wildboar's recordings was very close. Joseph's model was that of his harpsichord in his house, and playing these recordings in his house gave him the perspective he was used to. Really excellent recordings, for what it's worth:

 
Whence comes the poem?
Did you mean:

Well, my ship's been split to splinters and it's sinking fast
I'm drowning in the poison, got no future, got no past
But my heart is not weary, it's light and it's free
I've got nothing but affection for all those who sailed with me


That's from Nobel prize winning scribe Bob Dylan's "Mississippi".

Please excuse the diversion folks:

 
I think we have to first define "realism".
Rick "sorry for the scatter" Denney
No worries. A few days ago I tried to elaborate the different ideas of real and realistic in use in this thread. I gave up. It's maybe for the best if the implied definitions are allowed to conflict without my mediation.

Overall what I personally care about most is not fidelity or realism but a kind of transparency. Not the technical transparency we apply to amps and such, but the quality of not being aware of the recording, its production, or the playback equipment. I don't have a word for it. Do you? The condition of being able to enjoy the music and the performance without any awareness of the channel. I'm listening to the Parmentier harpsichord that Robin L linked above on the Sierra Tower speakers just now. If I choose to attend to the sound then it sounds very nice. It doesn't sound like there's a harpsichord in my living room so it's not realistic. But I can easily ignore the sound and instead attend to the music. That's what I want. Bad sound makes that harder.

Now, a good multi-track recording of an orchestra that mixes with automation to dynamically re-balance the tracks according to some musical understanding of the score, so you can, for example, better hear a solo part (as in the DECCA Phase 4 video above) can be transparent (in my sense here) so long as it is artfully done and my attention is not drawn to the effect. The Liszt piano concerto we saw live in Philly two weeks ago could have benefited from this. Indeed, the balance deficiency in that performance -- the orchestra was sometimes too loud for the piano -- was a distraction from the music.

There is space in the world for all sorts of things. It makes sense, then, that different philosophies of recording are in use.
 
Overall what I personally care about most is not fidelity or realism but a kind of transparency. Not the technical transparency we apply to amps and such, but the quality of not being aware of the recording, its production, or the playback equipment. I don't have a word for it. Do you?

Sort of, but before I get to it…

I’ve had experiences that I would expect our familiar to others here: sitting in front of some high end system in which the speakers do a terrific job of “ disappearing” as a parent sound sources, and so you presented with a wide open highly detailed acoustic bubble representing the recording in great detail.

But of course, recordings can contain all sorts of cues to how they are not real or natural, so are you talking about specific recordings that would also not betray their artificiality?

Or is the sense of transparency you’re thinking about achievable even when the recording themselves have some artificial qualities?

In my case, what I find most pleasing generally across-the-board is what I would term a “ natural” or “ unmechanical” presentation.

In many sound systems, I’m very aware of the artificial, electronic, mechanical nature of the sound like everything is being squeezed through woofers and tweeters, and very often the balance of the sound, whether it’s an individual voice, a trumpet or saxophone or acoustic guitar or whatever, seems unnaturally skewed - very often towards favouring the transient versus the body of the sound. And that helps give it that thinner more spiky artificial flavour. Plus there’s various types of distortions that can add up.

Some systems sound to me less mechanical and more natural.

For instance I remember when I played some tracks, I know on a friends system, and the system at that time used some Vivid Audio speakers and big solid-state amplifiers.
I listened to some Joni Mitchell tracks, and I think it was kind of blue.

The system presented an incredibly vivid hologram of Joni Mitchell’s voice, but it sounded mechanical and artificial nonetheless. Not “ made of flesh and blood.”

When I played the same tracks on my system when I got home, John‘s voice sounded so much more natural, without artificial edges, the balance much more like a human being… she sounded more human.

The same went for the sounds of the saxophones which were extremely clear and vivid on my friends system. They were less vivid on my system, but the balance of the sound seemed so much more natural and real, the saxophones sounding bigger and richer, and to me much more like the real thing.

Speaking of sonic realism, to this day, the most realistic reproduced sound I’ve heard where my personal recordings of my son playing saxophone and me playing acoustic guitar, played through some MBL omni speakers I used to own. it sounded amazing sitting in the room, but even more so from outside the room in the hallway. Once I was outside the room, it sounded almost indistinguishable from somebody playing a real saxophone in the room. It was quite remarkable. And in fact, later on, I fooled some guests with that recording. When they were sitting in a room down the hall and I put on that recording unknown to them, they wondered who was practising saxophone in the front room. (The sound was actually of my son, struggling somewhat to play the sax as he was still learning when I did the recording, and that aspect also helped with fooling the people).

As for desiring sonic realism, I do want my system to be able to reproduce or at least mimic certain qualities I hear in real sounds.
One of those is the sense of “ real acoustic sources playing in real space.” I find the super tight presentation in many systems, especially with certain speakers toed in heavily, on an overly constricted quality, and that includes the recording of the reverb or ambiance around the object as well. so even the acoustic presented unnaturally squeezed or hardened.

Properly dialled in, to me things sound like they are just happening in the space around the speaker, and the accompanying reverb or acoustics also have a natural quality that gives me the sense of entering that acoustic.

And I want the general timber of voices and instruments to have some of the beauty of the real thing even if it’s totally out of reach.

But I have no need to be able to reproduce the dynamics of a drum solo in my small room, more than I want the real dynamics of a fighter, jet missile or tank rolling by when I’m watching a movie in my Home Theatre. A sort of tamed mimicking of reality is fine with me… just enough elements to make me sink into the illusion.
 
Still waiting for Alex @Wavetouch to send in a pair of his speakers to Amir for measurements on the Klippel NFS.
And now that he has a modified Oppo he's trying to sell, he can send that in for measurements too.
Otherwise, it's just the typical salesman claims we've all heard countless times.
Same day w/ above post, I request to Amir for measurement of WT-95 (modded Oppo). Amir said today that he's busy and can test my WT-95 at end of summer. I reply I'll wait until then.
 
Back
Top Bottom