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

[Jimbob54]

Don't get too overwhelmed by this concept. It was made with a different approach compared with most records of its generation but it remains, nonetheless, a highly produced multitrack recording.

It will be interesting when you listen with a ‘different ear’. Speakers, not ’phones, highly recommended.

Alas no speakers. But I'll try different headphones. I suspect I was also listening too loud due to beers.

 

[Pluto]

I suspect I was also listening too loud due to beers

This time it's my turn: I initially read that as “I suspect I was also listening too loud due to bears”

 

[Jimbob54]

This time it's my turn: I initially read that as “I suspect I was also listening too loud due to bears”

Its a brave man that sits back and cranks it up when bears are around.

 

[Pluto]

Mmm… not a problem we tend to have in Harrow

 

[Cbdb2]

As stated, if theres a PA all bets are off. If theres no PA, most bets are off. If your more than 15 feet from the instruments your mostly listening to the room reflections and reverb, and every seat will sound different. Ever listen to the difference in a trumpet thats pointed right at you? Huge spl and tonal difference. This applies to most instruments. So how can you use this kind of audio to judge anything. Not to mention the limited audio memory most people have.

 

[Robert394]

When I think of measuring a hi-fi system by its ability to reproduce "live" music, I think of it more in terms of the context of each recording.

In other words, if I were standing where the microphone was that recorded whatever music is on the track, how similar is that experience to what is reproduced by my speakers?

Does a musician singing from my speakers sound like they are right in the room?

Does a piano through my speakers sound like a piano played live?

Things like that.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

In other words, if I were standing where the microphone was that recorded whatever music is on the track, how similar is that experience to what is reproduced by my speakers?

I think it, and prefer it, the other way. Does a musician singing from my speakers sound like I am there right in the room where they sang?

 

[gonefishin]

Ever listen to the difference in a trumpet thats pointed right at you? Huge spl and tonal difference. This applies to most instruments. So how can you use this kind of audio to judge anything. Not to mention the limited audio memory most people have.

I'm not sure what you mean? Musicians do the above all the time at concerts and during both live and studio recordings. As a listener, noting the tonal and spl diferences would be desirable. At least to me.

 

[gonefishin]

Yes this.

Listen to a microphone feed on a multi-pattern mic. One you can easily switch patterns on. So many times I'd heard people refer to hearing microphone feeds as an arbiter of fidelity. Okay, which pattern, which microphone?

For my own knowledge I would love to listen to the same song recorded over and over using different microphones and different microphone techniques. Just like cooking, I can read a recipe and apply conceptual technique and have a pretty good idea how a dish will taste in my minds flavor palate (minds eye). When talking about brewing you can talk about different grains, yeast, technique and I'll also get a pretty good idea of the finished product or the direction of how it will taste. But when talking about different mics and mic'ing techniques I don't have a good enough association to identify or conceptualize the differences. Would love to hear any recommendations on cd's that may be available.

 

[Feanor]

I love live music, I bet you do too. Even though I would like my home system to replicate that experience, my system seems to be missing something. So here go some questions for you:

Part 1: Is that "Live" sound a key reference against which an ambitious system should be judged?
Part 2: How is an actual "Live" performance different, in a technical sense, from what most home systems can reproduce?
Part 3: Is "Live" sound even worth chasing? What happens when the dog catches the car?

Is "live sound" the gold standard? YES.

To be sure we've all been in venues where that sound was terrible, but let's assume we're talking about the live sound in a very good venue, were performers are sensibly positioned, etc.

But what is the major limitation on live sound reproduction? Is it ...

• The recording of the sound and mastering of the recording, including all the technical and artistic aspects, or
• The listener's listening room and reproduction equipment?

I submit that the major live sound limitation is the former -- by far.

Right now I'll go on the record as believing that multi-channel sound has a much prospect of something approximating live sound than stereo.

 

[Zensō]

I love live music, I bet you do too. Even though I would like my home system to replicate that experience, my system seems to be missing something. So here go some questions for you:

Part 1: Is that "Live" sound a key reference against which an ambitious system should be judged?
Part 2: How is an actual "Live" performance different, in a technical sense, from what most home systems can reproduce?
Part 3: Is "Live" sound even worth chasing? What happens when the dog catches the car?

Live sound in general can be pretty terrible. High-powered but high distortion systems in often less than ideal rooms, played too loud, performed by musicians who are tired, possibly bored, and often intoxicated, doesn’t usually add up to the best sound quality. Of course, there are exceptions in certain music genres (classical, opera, some acoustic genres, etc.), but the above is the norm for most modern music. The appeal of live music is the overall experience, seeing the artist in person, enjoying the energy of the crowd, etc., not sound quality.

 

[Robin L]

For my own knowledge I would love to listen to the same song recorded over and over using different microphones and different microphone techniques. Just like cooking, I can read a recipe and apply conceptual technique and have a pretty good idea how a dish will taste in my minds flavor palate (minds eye). When talking about brewing you can talk about different grains, yeast, technique and I'll also get a pretty good idea of the finished product or the direction of how it will taste. But when talking about different mics and mic'ing techniques I don't have a good enough association to identify or conceptualize the differences. Would love to hear any recommendations on cd's that may be available.

The way to do it is to be a recording engineer, figure out what microphones you want to buy or rent, volunteer to record a concert, or a friend. Nothing like recording, hearing the stark difference between what goes in and what comes out than recording. It disabuses one of the notion that one can successfully capture "the Absolute Sound". When recording one has the possibility of capturing the sound in exactly the right spot, a sonic perspective rarely available at a concert. One also hears the inimitable sonic imprint of the microphone itself. The more microphones one hears, the more often one records, the more aware one becomes of the gap between recording and reality.

 

[Jimbob54]

Live sound in general can be pretty terrible. High-powered but high distortion systems in often less than ideal rooms, played too loud, performed by musicians who are tired, possibly bored, and often intoxicated, doesn’t usually add up to the best sound quality. Of course, there are exceptions in certain music genres (classical, opera, some acoustic genres, etc.), but the above is the norm for most modern music. The appeal of live music is the overall experience, seeing the artist in person, enjoying the energy of the crowd, etc., not sound quality.

Lets not forget volume. For rock, especially music types where the (intentional) distortion is high, get it loud enough and it can be transcendent. Its impossible to replicate the volume.

 

[gonefishin]

The way to do it is to be a recording engineer, figure out what microphones you want to buy or rent, volunteer to record a concert, or a friend. Nothing like recording, hearing the stark difference between what goes in and what comes out than recording. It disabuses one of the notion that one can successfully capture "the Absolute Sound". When recording one has the possibility of capturing the sound in exactly the right spot, a sonic perspective rarely available at a concert. One also hears the inimitable sonic imprint of the microphone itself. The more microphones one hears, the more often one records, the more aware one becomes of the gap between recording and reality.

Good advice, but I'm not sure I have the money or time to learn and then apply the knowledge in a timely fashion. Hopefully I can find someone to help me with it, as you also suggested.

I certainly wouldn't say that there is any "Absolute Sound" when it comes to recordings. I would argue that (conceptually) two different people can record the same event using their equipment and technique of choice and both produce recordings that are of quality and "live like". Even though the recording styles and sound are different from one another.

Thanks for the thoughts above

 

[cistercian]

Nothing beats a fantastic orchestra in a great concert hall. The same applies to opera performances.
For modern music with electronics the live music can vary wildly in quality depending on the venue and the system
and the engineer running it.

 

[Robin L]

Lets not forget volume. For rock, especially music types where the (intentional) distortion is high, get it loud enough and it can be transcendent. Its impossible to replicate the volume.

Not impossible, Voice of the Theater speakers with enough amplification can get more than loud enough. What prevents that sort of thing from happening are neighbors. But somebody with enough space between themselves and anyone else can do it. Neil Young comes to mind.

"More Barn!"

 

[Robin L]

Good advice, but I'm not sure I have the money or time to learn and then apply the knowledge in a timely fashion. Hopefully I can find someone to help me with it, as you also suggested.

I certainly wouldn't say that there is any "Absolute Sound" when it comes to recordings. I would argue that (conceptually) two different people can record the same event using their equipment and technique of choice and both produce recordings that are of quality and "live like". Even though the recording styles and sound are different from one another.

Thanks for the thoughts above

I had ten years of attempting to make a living as a recording engineer. Life got in the way.

The sort of hyperbole found in "High End" audio journals gives one the impression that "The Absolute Sound" is an attainable goal. My experience is that "lifelike" is about the best we can hope for, and that realism is rarely the point with most music anyway. Good engineers know the colorations of the microphones they use, and know that all microphones have colorations.

 

[gonefishin]

I had ten years of attempting to make a living as a recording engineer, life got in the way.

Good engineers know the colorations of the microphones they use, and know that all microphones have colorations.

Congrats on spending some time as a recording engineer. While life certainly does get in the way it's great that you have that foundation and knowledge.

It is nice to listen to good sound engineers. I enjoy this as much as the musicians themselves. I actually consider good sound engineers as part of the band, or a level of artistry on top of the band. Unfortunately, many of the good ones don't get the recognition they deserve because people think it's just the band. You have scores of people touting hi rez audio right now. I always thought the better first move would be to elevate what the recording engineers are doing before worrying so much about anything above redbook. If we assume I like the artist already, the recording engineer is much more influential on the sound quality than the size (or type) of file.

 

[Robin L]

Congrats on spending some time as a recording engineer. While life certainly does get in the way it's great that you have that foundation and knowledge.

It is nice to listen to good sound engineers. I enjoy this as much as the musicians themselves. I actually consider good sound engineers as part of the band, or a level of artistry on top of the band. Unfortunately, many of the good ones don't get the recognition they deserve because people think it's just the band. You have scores of people touting hi rez audio right now. I always thought the better first move would be to elevate what the recording engineers are doing before worrying so much about anything above redbook. If we assume I like the artist already, the recording engineer is much more influential on the sound quality than the size (or type) of file.

I think the artists are the biggest influence on sound quality. Enrico Caruso comes to mind. Biggest selling recording artist of his time, which happened to be a time when recorded sound quality was horrendous. But people loved the sound his discs made. Don't know if you have ever heard an acoustic recording. What they lack in signal to noise ratios and frequency response they make up in presence. A similar thing with the Beatles, where much of their early work suffers from limited recording quality, and usually bad playback quality. The pre-Sgt. Pepper recordings were engineered with AM radio in mind. Doubtless people's imaginations fill in the missing part when listening to recordings they love.

What one needs to know in order to properly engineer a recording is nothing compared to what one needs to know [or be capable of] to perform. Good producers often are good engineers who assume other duties. And much recording these days is homebrew. I can tell you that most of what one needs to know on the engineering side for recordings of classical music, where one expects a reasonable simulacrum of the sound, is easily taught. But the totally unreal sound of modern popular music requires a different, and greater, skill set. Many of those sorts of sound and engineering decisions come from the artists and producers, not the audio engineers.

 

[Zensō]

But the totally unreal sound of modern popular music requires a different, and greater, skill set. Many of those sorts of sound and engineering decisions come from the artists and producers, not the audio engineers.

I totally agree. The laptop computer is the instrument of choice for a large majority of young musicians. Much of the work is completed on the desktop, going directly from the artist to the mastering engineering (even self-mastering is becoming more common). With the musician taking on the role of artist, producer, and mix engineer, that doesn’t leave much room for the traditional role of “audio engineer”.