Does Imagination play a role in how we enjoy Sound Stage?

[goat76]

I imagine the position in space and even today I was listening to my Samsung Buds2Pro earbuds and I was hearing a instrument out about 7' and slightly ahead of my ears.

EDIT:
It was about 7" from my ear and not 7 feet.

Do you mean the sound of that instrument wasn't mixed in a way so that it was meant to appear from that position, or do you mean it was just your imagination and fantasy that made that instrument appear to be in that position?

 

[Doodski]

Do you mean the sound of that instrument wasn't mixed in a way so that it was meant to appear from that position, or do you mean it was just your imagination and fantasy that made that instrument appear to be in that position?

No fantasy. It was a special effect in the audio stream.

 

[Robin L]

The thing is that I never have to use my imagination to hear what's on the recording. Whether the audio engineers tried to capture the sound of musicians playing in a real space, or if it's a completely "doctored" space/soundstage made out of panned multi-mono recorded instruments and artificial reverbs, I still hear what's on the recording and nothing else (except perhaps some envelopment my listening environment is adding to the equation). There's no need for any more or less imagination on my part, I listen to the recording and either hear how well or not the audio engineers managed to capture the sound of the musicians in the real space, or how well or not the audio engineers managed to mix a convincing-sounding space (if that was what they aimed for).

Some of us may be "tricked" into believing an artificially made space/soundstage is a capture of a real space if it's convincing-sounding enough, while some of us fully well know it's just a well-executed artificially made space/soundstage made out of panned multi-mono recorded instruments and artificial reverbs, and hears just that. One group of people just knows it's artificially done while the other group of people may think it's real, but there isn't necessarily any imagination happening in either group they all hear the overall sound the same way (with or without knowing how it's done technically-wise).

I started listening to classical music on a regular basis in 1968. Initially, it was mono LPs played back on old mono LP players. I was captured by the music and the number of pieces I heard expanded rapidly. A few years later, I started listening to the records from the local library via headphones, offering both a sense of separation and some bass. The record players were still primitive, with flip-over ceramic cartridges and funky rim-drive 'tables. A little bit later, I listened to these records on my stepbrother's stereo, with better speakers and more of a sense of imaging.

It was around this time that I went to my first classical music concert. My concept of what this music was supposed to sound like was based on recordings, so I was surprised at how different the sound of the "real thing" was. The bass was different, to start with, more "open" and lighter, but also going down deeper. And the stereo spread was nothing like a recording. I didn't go to all that many classical music concerts until some twenty years later, when I started recording them. Recording classical music made me aware of the artifice of recording and how expectations created from recordings don't match the real thing. To get the sound one expects from a professional classical music recording involves a seating position that does not exist in a concert hall. I would get the most "realistic" sound from a piano by aiming a pair of omnis into the tail end of the piano. That's a seat that doesn't exist in any concert hall. The best results for orchestra involved an ORTF pair of cardioids about three feet over the head of the conductor and ten feet back, with two cardioids on either far side in front of the strings and about as far back as the strings, with spaced omnis in the far back of the stage for bass and hall sound.

My experience is that I imagined that this music was supposed to sound like this in a seat in the concert hall. But it only sounds like that in a recording. I got the same sense from the (fortunately few, for the sake of my hearing) rock concerts I've attended. Had plenty of rock records, they really didn't sound like the concerts. Maybe we're talking past each other, maybe we're differing on what the meaning of "is" is. But my sense is that accepting that a recording sounds "realistic" requires some kind of leap of faith, or at least imagination.

 

[RayDunzl]

It's Xeno's Paradox: we can get closer, but we can't get there from here

Are we half-way there (again) yet?

 

[Robin L]

Are we half-way there (again) yet?

Of course!

I'd say the real problem is A: microphones are transducers and act like transducers.

&

B: Reality ain't what it used to be - a lot of recordings are based on synthesized or sampled sounds and AI keeps getting bigger every day.

 

[pablolie]

... my sense is that accepting that a recording sounds "realistic" requires some kind of leap of faith, or at least imagination.

I'd say it entirely depends on the recording.

I have been a stern defender of the fact that I *demand* classical recordings to have an identifiable stage. And because they are most often recorded live and in a way that resolves the positioning of the orchestra, it is a very plausible demand to have.

With jazz and other genres I am far more lenient, and I am keenly aware the stage of often just a mix in - and sometimes ridiculously so. You can often hear 30ft pianos, or 20ft congas or bongos, even in recordings the audio press declares reference recordings. If I ever read a line about Nile Rodgers' guitar riff in Daft Punk's album feeling "right there on the left in the studio" I shall throw up a little, because you know that whole thing is mixed and Niles' riffs where nowhere there, but rather recorded in some remote studio and just mixed in. Still - it doesn't take "imagination", the mix is there and what you listen is mixed that way, and if someone claims it isn't there, they clearly should get their ears checked. And the latter happens regularly, but it's not my loss.

 

[goat76]

Recording classical music made me aware of the artifice of recording and how expectations created from recordings don't match the real thing. To get the sound one expects from a professional classical music recording involves a seating position that does not exist in a concert hall. I would get the most "realistic" sound from a piano by aiming a pair of omnis into the tail end of the piano. That's a seat that doesn't exist in any concert hall. The best results for orchestra involved an ORTF pair of cardioids about three feet over the head of the conductor and ten feet back, with two cardioids on either far side in front of the strings and about as far back as the strings, with spaced omnis in the far back of the stage for bass and hall sound.

My experience is that I imagined that this music was supposed to sound like this in a seat in the concert hall. But it only sounds like that in a recording. I got the same sense from the (fortunately few, for the sake of my hearing) rock concerts I've attended. Had plenty of rock records, they really didn't sound like the concerts. Maybe we're talking past each other, maybe we're differing on what the meaning of "is" is. But my sense is that accepting that a recording sounds "realistic" requires some kind of leap of faith, or at least imagination.

I fully accept that recorded music and live music are two different "sports", therefore, I only expect the best recordings to be as convincing-sounding as a recording can be, but far from as convincing as I would think it's a real band or an orchestra playing in front of me. It's simply way too much imagination needed for that to happen, so I don't.

 

[pablolie]

I fully accept that recorded music and live music are two different "sports", therefore, I only expect the best recordings to be as convincing-sounding as a recording can be, but far from as convincing as I would think it's a real band or an orchestra playing in front of me. It's simply way too much imagination needed for that to happen, so I don't.

I honestly don't get why many audiophiles have had so many awesome live experiences in concerts.

Live concerts to me rank high in immersive experience, yet very low in audio quality.

For audio quality, I'll take the studio recording over the live performance in 95% of cases outside of classical. And even with classical i'll probably take the wel recorded version, which means they are seated there and arranged for real, but there's no coughing or clapping etc.

I have a friend (still is) that used to claim his reference for audio quality was how real the audience's clapping sounded, until I told him why he would even think that would even be a remote recording priority for an audio engineer. It's a silly thing. I think the cocktail glasses clinking in "Waltz for Debby" were quaint, but they were entirely accidental, and if that distracts your from the jazz trio.... your loss.

 

[goat76]

I'd say it entirely depends on the recording.

Yes. Recordings of a single instrument can sound very convincing, and probably to the extent that it could even be used to trick someone that a real instrument is played in the other room.

I have been a stern defender of the fact that I *demand* classical recordings to have an identifiable stage. And because they are most often recorded live and in a way that resolves the positioning of the orchestra, it is a very plausible demand to have.

I also expect recordings of acoustic instruments to have an identifiable room sound, as that's a big part of what makes that instrument an acoustic instrument. But unlike the recording of a single instrument, I don't think there exists a recording of a full classical orchestra that sounds so convincingly close to the real thing that it could trick anyone (who's blindfolded) into believing it's a real orchestra playing in front of us, not even if our other senses are telling us that we are in a big room that could be a concert hall.

 

[Doodski]

I honestly don't get why many audiophiles have had so many awesome live experiences in concerts.

Live concerts to me rank high in immersive experience, yet very low in audio quality.

One of the reasons why RUSH a progressive rock band is so popular with it's base is that they when live sound like the studio.

For audio quality, I'll take the studio recording over the live performance in 95% of cases outside of classical.

I agree. Too many auto-tune users and poor singers getting punched in a million times and using special effects too much.

 

[Titurel]

I fully accept that recorded music and live music are two different "sports", therefore, I only expect the best recordings to be as convincing-sounding as a recording can be, but far from as convincing as I would think it's a real band or an orchestra playing in front of me. It's simply way too much imagination needed for that to happen, so I don't.

I'm not sure what convincing means in this context, but as someone more interested in music than vibe, recordings are almost alway superior in many even most genres. I doubt I heard B. B. King and the Allman brother half so well at the Fillmore (it might have been Winterland) as I did in their recordings. I will concede the vibe was impressive - dope smoke so thick you could walk on it, but the limitations (and excesses) of the sound system (good as it was) got in the way of the music. There are some performers I'd agree who don't come to life without an audience, but I generally don't care for what they're selling. Janis Joplin was one of them. I don't think her recordings really tell the story. Alternatively, I would suggest that absent the fear of screwing up in front of an audience, that more disciplined (skilled) performers are free to push the performance envelope much further in the studio than in a filled concert hall. Some of my favorites recording are live studio recordings - kind of the best of both worlds.

As for live concerts, once you're pushed out into the reverberant field, the soundstage you get will not be all that informative, i.e., allow you to hear deeper into the performance. So, if you are a soundstage devotee, sit somewhere near row 10 center (in most venues). Back of the orchestra seats may feel more authentic, but how much value can we put on authentic once the event's over? I was there when...

Live performance recordings do have their place, documenting a single performance, but on multiple listenings they often don't hold up. There are exceptions, like (Little) Stevie Wonder's Fingertips part 2, where you can clearly hear one of the sidemen calling out, "What Key? What Key?" Priceless. Don't know how many times I've laughed listening to that cut - also really happy-making music.

 

[pablolie]

....

Live performances recordings do have their place, documenting a single performance, but on multiple listenings they often don't hold up. There are exceptions, like (Little) Stevie Wonder's Fingertips part 2, where you can clearly hear one of the sidemen calling out, "What Key? What Key?" Priceless. Don't know how many times I've laughed listening to that cut - also really happy-making music.

There's also the Getz-Evans live recording when Evans clearly stopped playing when Getz went for a tune they didn't agree to in rehearsals...

 

[goat76]

I honestly don't get why many audiophiles have had so many awesome live experiences in concerts.

Live concerts to me rank high in immersive experience, yet very low in audio quality.

For audio quality, I'll take the studio recording over the live performance in 95% of cases outside of classical. And even with classical i'll probably take the wel recorded version, which means they are seated there and arranged for real, but there's no coughing or clapping etc.

I have a friend (still is) that used to claim his reference for audio quality was how real the audience's clapping sounded, until I told him why he would even think that would even be a remote recording priority for an audio engineer. It's a silly thing. I think the cocktail glasses clinking in "Waltz for Debby" were quaint, but they were entirely accidental, and if that distracts your from the jazz trio.... your loss.

It depends…

About a year ago, I had one of those awesome live experiences when one of my favorite rock bands from my youth came playing in my town. The venue was a modern build with really great and controlled acoustics and the band could be clearly heard in a way I have never heard them live before.

When just focusing on pure sound quality, it didn't come close to my home system. But the overall dynamics, the tactile feeling of that electric bass guitar that I could feel through my whole body, and the whole atmosphere of seeing the band playing live are things I could just dream of listening to my stereo system in my apartment living room.

 

[pablolie]

It depends…

About a year ago, I had one of those awesome live experiences when one of my favorite rock bands from my youth came playing in my town. The venue was a modern build with really great and controlled acoustics and the band could be clearly heard in a way I have never heard them live before.

When just focusing on pure sound quality, it didn't come close to my home system. But the overall dynamics, the tactile feeling of that electric bass guitar that I could feel through my whole body, and the whole atmosphere of seeing the band playing live are things I could just dream of listening to my stereo system in my apartment living room.

I think that aligns with the opinion I expressed. If it's that great a sound quality in the venue you went to, awesome for you - but as I said, those occasions are awesome but the definite minority in live experiences for me. I have been in very few live concerts I didn't enjoy for the experience, but if I could reproduce them 1:1 in my home system or just play the studio version... there would be preciously few instances when I'd pick the live version.

And the differentiating thing about classical is that the reference recording is most often done live in a great venue, but without a live audience. Some jazz recordings too, but not all of them - even less so these days with smooth jazz.

 

[goat76]

Some of my favorites recording are live studio recordings - kind of the best of both worlds.

Those are my favorite recordings as well. They have the benefit of great acoustics but keep the live dynamic and timing between the musician's in a natural way (especially compared to click-track recordings), and for some reason the mixing engineers are often more light-handed with the post-processing of such recordings.

 

[goat76]

And the differentiating thing about classical is that the reference recording is most often done live in a great venue, but without a live audience.

In that long video someone posted earlier in this thread, the recording engineers for the Boston Symphony Orchestra prefers to make the recordings with live audience. I didn't watch the whole video, but I guess that has to do with the acoustics and that it probably sounds better with that large hall filled with people.

 

[pablolie]

In that long video someone posted earlier in this thread, the recording engineers for the Boston Symphony Orchestra prefers to make the recordings with live audience. I didn't watch the whole video, but I guess that has to do with the acoustics and that it probably sounds better with that large hall filled with people.

That's a singular example, and there may be more. But the audience is never integrated into recordings as a priority, which is why the clapping and such always sounds artificial and flat (show me a recording where it isn't}. But listen to most legendary Deutsche Gramophone recordings, and the audience is either non existent or pretty much filtered out. Mercifully so, in my personal opinion, but YMMV etc.

 

[audiofooled]

It's all in the recording, so no need for imagination. On the other hand, the right loudspeakers, their setup and room interaction to make it happen is well beyond the scope of imagination or intuition. There's a big thread on this:

Properties of speakers that creates a large and precise soundstage

There are some similar threads about what imaging and soundstaging even is, and some threads about how to measure it (we're not great at that). In this thread I thought it would be interesting to have a look what properties is likely to enable a speaker to be good at this. My (!) definition of...

www.audiosciencereview.com

Here's one recording that is not even intended to be natural because of the way the handpan is being recorded. So visuals do not matter at all and there's nothing that is subject to imagination:

 

[Holmz]

…
Live concerts to me rank high in immersive experience, yet very low in audio quality.

Yeah - I know what you mean.

For audio quality, I'll take the studio recording over the live performance in 95% of cases outside of classical…

But there are the 5% where the studio album sucks, but the band live is better.
Usually those albums were from earlier on in the bands infancy.

One of the reasons why RUSH a progressive rock band is so popular with it's base is that they when live sound like the studio.
…

Milli Vanili sounded the same

 

[Sokel]

In that long video someone posted earlier in this thread, the recording engineers for the Boston Symphony Orchestra prefers to make the recordings with live audience. I didn't watch the whole video, but I guess that has to do with the acoustics and that it probably sounds better with that large hall filled with people.

Here's the mics and the mic trees:

We can see at least 4 of them over the audience in front of the (extended) stage.
It's not always mixed but in the case they want to include the live "feeling" they have that too.

One of the most interesting things in the video is watching the recording matrix and some short view of the mix.