Live vs. recorder

[gino1961]

Hi ! i found this very interesting video

listen towards the end of the video the opinions of the listeners People that had a bad place in the concert hall liked better the reproduced sound ...
what i find fascinating is that in some situations the recorded sound can be better than the live experience ..
amazing isn't it ?
this i think is the driving force that motivates people to upgrade their systems.
A good system in a good room can be an excellent surrogate of the real thing

 

[Blumlein 88]

If using omni mikes they should have been spaced further apart. Plus an awfully 'live' area with all the hard surfaces.

The omni's should have been 3 times as far apart as they were for the guitarist. At least 6 feet here. I'd have put them closer to the musician and 6 feet or so apart.

Attached is an example with omni's and several instruments. Guitar, mandolin and xylophone. Zip opens into a wav file of a bit over 30 seconds.

 

[gino1961]

If using omni mikes they should have been spaced further apart. Plus an awfully 'live' area with all the hard surfaces.
The omni's should have been 3 times as far apart as they were for the guitarist. At least 6 feet here. I'd have put them closer to the musician and 6 feet or so apart.
Attached is an example with omni's and several instruments. Guitar, mandolin and xylophone. Zip opens into a wav file of a bit over 30 seconds.

Hi ! thanks a lot for the very kind and valuable advice. The attached track sounds phenomenal indeed. Congratulations.
And this is indeed promising. What i find exciting is that given the right recording played back on the right system in the right room can provide a very satisfactory experience.
I do not want to sound silly ... but sometimes i wonder if a listener blindfolded could be even fooled up to think of hearing a live event. That would be amazing. For instance i have noticed that listening in complete darkness is already a more satisfactory experience.
I think that vision can distract from the listening big time.
And by the way the system used for the playback was clearly good ... but not ultimate quality. There is much better around. Also more expensive but better for sure.

 

[Frank Dernie]

What i find exciting is that given the right recording played back on the right system in the right room can provide a very satisfactory experience.

Indeed.
IME listening at home is often a better experience than an affordable seat at a concert, and much easier to get to!

 

[gino1961]

Indeed.
IME listening at home is often a better experience than an affordable seat at a concert, and much easier to get to!

Hi ! thanks a lot for the very important confirmation. From my modest experience the most difficult thing to get right is the room ... walls reflections in particular are very detrimental Very seldom and never at home I have experienced the feeling of sounds coming from beyond the front wall for instance. Once that reflections are kept under control the concert hall feeling can be very nice ... i guess.

 

[Frank Dernie]

Hi ! thanks a lot for the very important confirmation. From my modest experience the most difficult thing to get right is the room ... walls reflections in particular are very detrimental Very seldom and never at home I have experienced the feeling of sounds coming from beyond the front wall for instance. Once that reflections are kept under control the concert hall feeling can be very nice ... i guess.

Well I got a specialist to place my speakers in the room for most even frequency response 25 years ago.
I am not much bothered by stereo image type stuff but instrumental timbre is very important to me.
25 years ago the only way to get a (fairly) even in room frequency response was the actual position of the speaker. Nowadays it is easy and cheap to use room correction for that but IME you get a better result if you carefully position speakers first, since the hollows in the response are shallower (and they aren't corrected by most correction systems due to power requirements) and the peaks are much smaller so the corrected sound isn't appalling elsewhere in the room.
Best to minimise excitation of room modes first and correct second.

 

[anmpr1]

With the exception of a few percussion strikes, gong hits, and maybe bells (the kind you find in ancient Chinese music) I've never heard living room reproduced sound that made me think the performer was actually in my living room. And not just with my system, but listening to other gear in other venues. I think it is possible to achieve something close with a single instrument of necessarily limited FR and dynamic range. You start adding instruments, layers to the recording, vocals, etc. and it's Goodbye Charlie.

The fact that listeners liked the recorded sound better tells you a lot. There are reasons for that. The biggest determinate to good recorded sound is the recording engineer and the recording itself. Next, the listening room (including the seating position).

Of course, as seen on video, maybe what's needed is a 60 watt toob amp and some box speakers. That could be the deciding factor in the realism department. That is most likely the case. [Disclaimer: just being snarky here, for the more literal among us.]

 

[gino1961]

Well I got a specialist to place my speakers in the room for most even frequency response 25 years ago. I am not much bothered by stereo image type stuff

I would die for a great virtual 3D soundstage. And i am not saying a natural soundstage but even when it is a result of processing.
In particular i like when i read in some articles about the feeling to be transported in the concert hall or a church where the even has been recorded.
And when this soundstage extends beyond the room walls. Imho there is only one way ... to cancel wall reflections.
I think we hear an object when it reflects the sound. Bats use this principle to avoid obstacles i understand.
And what a torture must be to put bats in anechoic chamber ... they would crash on the walls. Or in a reverberation one they would get crazy.
Some strategically placed acoustic panels should help. But it is complex.
Once the reflections are tamed i would eq the response curve. But from what i read low linearity is more acceptable than high distortion.
Another idea is to switch to speakers with limited dispersion like horns or similar. Very small sweet spot but i have to find a compromise.
I saw this extremely interesting SW
https://www.ikmultimedia.com/products/arc3/?pkey=arc-system-3
it seems very effective. I am thinking seriously to buy it. Only problem i am now far from home ... and now i live in a hole.

but instrumental timbre is very important to me.

i think this should have to deal with low distortion ? of course this is a fundamental aspect for realism. No question about that.

25 years ago the only way to get a (fairly) even in room frequency response was the actual position of the speaker.
Nowadays it is easy and cheap to use room correction for that but IME you get a better result if you carefully position speakers first,
since the hollows in the response are shallower (and they aren't corrected by most correction systems due to power requirements) and the peaks are much smaller so the corrected sound isn't appalling elsewhere in the room. Best to minimise excitation of room modes first and correct second

Thanks again clearly i have to study more. But reflections are a pain. I knew about that at a friend home. He had a perfectly sqared room.
I remember he playing a cd and stopping the track after a bass note ... the sound was going on forever Like ten seconds and more !!!
That day i understood what room reflections were.

 

[anmpr1]

i think this should have to deal with low distortion ? of course this is a fundamental aspect for realism. No question about that.

One thing's for sure. Live acoustic music is distortionless.

 

[gino1961]

With the exception of a few percussion strikes, gong hits, and maybe bells (the kind you find in ancient Chinese music) I've never heard living room reproduced sound that made me think the performer was actually in my living room.
And not just with my system, but listening to other gear in other venues. I think it is possible to achieve something close with a single instrument of necessarily limited FR and dynamic range. You start adding instruments, layers to the recording, vocals, etc. and it's Goodbye Charlie.

I certainly believe that this result is extremely difficult to achieve. Sometimes I had a sensation of this kind by feeling well-developed high-level systems at some hifi exhibition. But reading on the net it seems that this is possible for example here

https://www.stereophile.com/content/rockport-technologies-antares-loudspeaker-page-3

After two months of listening, I felt that it was more adept at revealing tonal and spatial differences among recordings than any speaker I've auditioned. When I listened to my own voice, as recorded on The Ultimate Test CD (out of print), I was taken by surprise at how the Antares put me — not just my voice — in my own room, nasal twang and all, without added colorations. It was an out-of-body experience.

speaking of dreams ... i would be probably scared to feel someone in the room ... but i would be so much delighted to feel being transported in the jazz club or the concert hall where the event has occurred (sorry for the poor english)

The fact that listeners liked the recorded sound better tells you a lot. There are reasons for that. The biggest determinate to good recorded sound is the recording engineer and the recording itself. Next, the listening room (including the seating position).
Of course, as seen on video, maybe what's needed is a 60 watt toob amp and some box speakers. That could be the deciding factor in the realism department. That is most likely the case. [Disclaimer: just being snarky here, for the more literal among us.]

i am pretty sure that the playback system can be bettered in performance. That is a big challenge. I think that high efficiency and high quality pro drivers can help to provide that live feeling. I listened to some professional horn drivers from JBL ... there was this sense of effortless and unlimited power that i was floored. At the point that i would be curious to listen to speakers like the big Klipschorn ... they must be something.

 

[gino1961]

One thing's for sure. Live acoustic music is distortionless.

Hi think that this one is a very important statement. Therefore a low distortion system is the main goal. Maybe with some EQ and acoustic treatment.
I used to listen to small bookshelf speakers hard to push. I thought the sound was nice. Then i listened to a pair of JBL pro monitors ... wow
I was shocked ... what a revelation. Mainly in terms of realism i mean. More similar to a live event. Going back to the small speakers was painful. Piano was sounding like a harpsichord.

 

[tuga]

The fact that listeners liked the recorded sound better tells you a lot. There are reasons for that. The biggest determinate to good recorded sound is the recording engineer and the recording itself. Next, the listening room (including the seating position).

Realism starts by the way the performance is mic'ed (when there is a performance).

I think that many people prefer close-mic'ed recordings because they "remove" the venue from the recording making instruments sound closer, better defined and more detailed. Close-mic'ing produces better soundstage but a less realistic soundscape (when compared to what would have been heard live).
Close-mic'ing also has a negative impact on the timbre of instruments but since most people listen to amplified vocals and instruments that is probably not important to them.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Hi ! thanks a lot for the very kind and valuable advice. The attached track sounds phenomenal indeed. Congratulations.
And this is indeed promising. What i find exciting is that given the right recording played back on the right system in the right room can provide a very satisfactory experience.
I do not want to sound silly ... but sometimes i wonder if a listener blindfolded could be even fooled up to think of hearing a live event. That would be amazing. For instance i have noticed that listening in complete darkness is already a more satisfactory experience.
I think that vision can distract from the listening big time.
And by the way the system used for the playback was clearly good ... but not ultimate quality. There is much better around. Also more expensive but better for sure.

Seeing my post today it reads a little unkind. I wasn't trying to be overly critical. You took it in the spirit intended which was to be helpful.

I've done a little recording and in the right situation really like omni's. There is a rule of thumb for omni's called the 3 to 1 rule. The distance between a pair of omnis should be 3 times the distance from the source to the omnis. It is a pretty good guide. I usually keep the spacing between 2.5 and 4 to 1.

Thank you for your compliments on the recording snippet. It was in a church auditorium a little larger than the one in the video with some carpet, and padded pews. So a little less reflective. I did a very minor EQ (basically a calibrated amount for flat response from the mics I was using), and nothing else. It was during a practice session from a musical group I'm friends with. I forget the exact spacing, but the mics were around 18 or 20 feet apart with the musicians between, and back around 6 feet.

 

[MattHooper]

Hi ! i found this very interesting video

listen towards the end of the video the opinions of the listeners People that had a bad place in the concert hall liked better the reproduced sound ...
what i find fascinating is that in some situations the recorded sound can be better than the live experience ..
amazing isn't it ?
this i think is the driving force that motivates people to upgrade their systems.
A good system in a good room can be an excellent surrogate of the real thing

I can understand some people preferring reproduced sound in their home to some "bad" live sound.

Though for me, I find the difference between live unamplified instruments and voices to be significant enough to almost always prefer the live
instrument. Even in sub-optimal acoustics - a sax, whether played in a reverberant subway or totally dry outdoor acoustic - has a certain "live," relaxed, big, rich complex tonal quality that I never truly hear through hi-fi systems. And I always zero in and appreciate that.

When I was in New Orleans I heard numerous street bands marching down streets which you could say were "awful acoustics" in terms of all the reverberation in the alley-ways, but my-god the huge, powerful, rich, dynamic sound was off the charts and no hi-fi system I've ever heard approaches it.

 

[MattHooper]

Realism starts by the way the performance is mic'ed (when there is a performance).

I think that many people prefer close-mic'ed recordings because they "remove" the venue from the recording making instruments sound closer, better defined and more detailed. Close-mic'ing produces better soundstage but a less realistic soundscape (when compared to what would have been heard live).
Close-mic'ing also has a negative impact on the timbre of instruments but since most people listen to amplified vocals and instruments that is probably not important to them.

I would argue that the "realism" one finds in a recording has to do somewhat with personal reference points and what we are seeking.

For instance, I see many classical fans diss close-micing of orchestras. But when I attended the symphony, which was often (until a few years ago), I always preferred close seats. This is because closer, more direct sound, revealed more detail, including timbral detail, among the instruments, vs the more blended-together-with-hall-verb sound some other classical fans prefer. So I want that sense of closeness and vividness of texture and timbre, and close-mic'd tracks can do that for me. In fact, as a soundtrack fan, I love the way Bernard Herrmann's soundtracks were often mic'd, which was really close. One of my favorite all time cues is the Giant Bees in his Mysterious Island on London Records. The strings mimicking the buzzing of the bee wings sound closey mic'd and so there is a vividness and rasp that creates an amazing texture of bee wings that the distant-mic'd orchestra preferred by some wouldn't achieve.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Realism starts by the way the performance is mic'ed (when there is a performance).

I think that many people prefer close-mic'ed recordings because they "remove" the venue from the recording making instruments sound closer, better defined and more detailed. Close-mic'ing produces better soundstage but a less realistic soundscape (when compared to what would have been heard live).
Close-mic'ing also has a negative impact on the timbre of instruments but since most people listen to amplified vocals and instruments that is probably not important to them.

I think you are right. When I've presented recordings using different mic techniques the musicians complained about the hall sound. They said it was noise that gets in the way of the music. We didn't record so people can hear the hall. The music is what is important in a recording. I want to hear how I was playing without noise from the hall.

I'd have this recording of the type where the first couple of seconds before the music you hear the end of your room open up as if another space just before music starts. Every non-audiophile hears it as noise and that means it isn't a good recording. Something like those tracks on the original Trinity sessions or in quiet moments in Mercury Living stereo 3 omni recordings. That kind of sound and non-audiophiles notice, they notice and don't like it.

 

[gino1961]

Seeing my post today it reads a little unkind. I wasn't trying to be overly critical. You took it in the spirit intended which was to be helpful.
I've done a little recording and in the right situation really like omni's. There is a rule of thumb for omni's called the 3 to 1 rule. The distance between a pair of omnis should be 3 times the distance from the source to the omnis. It is a pretty good guide. I usually keep the spacing between 2.5 and 4 to 1. Thank you for your compliments on the recording snippet. It was in a church auditorium a little larger than the one in the video with some carpet, and padded pews. So a little less reflective. I did a very minor EQ (basically a calibrated amount for flat response from the mics I was using), and nothing else. It was during a practice session from a musical group I'm friends with. I forget the exact spacing, but the mics were around 18 or 20 feet apart with the musicians between, and back around 6 feet

Hi thanks again. I understand that mics placement is impacting a lot the outcome.
Moreover i wonder if with a simple very well isolated headphone is useful in some way to decide mics placement on the spot, or the only realiable tool are stereo speakers.
I have an old dream to start some live recordings of group of friends playing music.

 

[anmpr1]

But when I attended the symphony, which was often (until a few years ago), I always preferred close seats. This is because closer, more direct sound...

The idea of front to back depth, imaging, 'space between the instruments' and all the other stuff you read about in ' equipment reviews' has no basis in concert going reality. That's for sure.

There's another oddity you get with recordings. At an opera performance you watch and listen. Brain mostly 'filters away' extraneous and incidental noises (the sound of the resonant floor when actors are jumping around, the guy in Row 3 Seat 20 eating a bag of potato chips, etc). But on a recording those noises stand out and really intrude. It's difficult and really impossible to filter them out, consciously. They stand out like pops 'n ticks on a record. In fact, growing up with analog I learned to filter away perceptually occasional record pops. People brought up on digital playback notice that more, I think.

That's why, in general, for opera I prefer a studio recording over something like a live Bayreuth.

 

[sergeauckland]

Hi thanks again. I understand that mics placement is impacting a lot the outcome.
Moreover i wonder if with a simple very well isolated headphone is useful in some way to decide mics placement on the spot, or the only realiable tool are stereo speakers.
I have an old dream to start some live recordings of group of friends playing music.

My experience of recording quite a lot of amateur musicians is that headphones are totally useless for deciding on microphone placement or any sort of EQ. They're only of value in making sure there's nothing gross wrong, but all subtleties of stereo image and timbre are lost.

If I've ever tried to correct anything using headphones, it's ended up sounding horrible on loudspeakers. Tracking is OK done on headphones for subsequent mixing, as all EQ and stereo panning decisions are then made later, when using loudspeakers in a proper acoustic environment, but that's not what purist recordings are about. Recording using a simple stereo pair or Decca Tree is a matter of experience, although if one can monitor at the time on loudspeakers and there's some rehearsal / set-up time available, then better results are likely as there's time to try different microphone arrangement, or indeed record simultaneously with different arrangements and use whichever works best.

S.

 

[gino1961]

I can understand some people preferring reproduced sound in their home to some "bad" live sound. Though for me, I find the difference between live unamplified instruments and voices to be significant enough to almost always prefer the live instrument. Even in sub-optimal acoustics - a sax, whether played in a reverberant subway or totally dry outdoor acoustic - has a certain "live," relaxed, big, rich complex tonal quality that I never truly hear through hi-fi systems. And I always zero in and appreciate that.
When I was in New Orleans I heard numerous street bands marching down streets which you could say were "awful acoustics" in terms of all the reverberation in the alley-ways, but my-god the huge, powerful, rich, dynamic sound was off the charts and no hi-fi system I've ever heard approaches it.

Hi i am quite sure that listeners who attend live events frequently are the one more critical about the reproduced music. Because they know very well what live music means. As you point out

the huge, powerful, rich, dynamic sound was off the charts

i think that the ability to sustain high level peaks without distortion is key to get a satisfactory result also with a playback system

and no hi-fi system I've ever heard approaches it

have you heard also big high efficiency monitors. I think common home speakers are not enough dynamic Maybe some high quality PA speakers ?