Live vs. recorder

[gino1961]

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.

Hi ! thanks a lot for the very kind and valuable advice. So Headphones and speakers are really different worlds. It's a pity because HPs are just so handy for recordings. For me virtual soundstage is very important. Even if it is the result of good processing i prefer always 3D to 2D. Depth of image is very fascinating. Speaking of minimal recordings involving just two mics or a stere one i see omni the standard choice. Why not try two mono shotgun mics instead ? with an optimized alignment of course.

 

[anmpr1]

1) ...listeners who attend live events frequently are the one more critical about the reproduced music.

2) ...the ability to sustain high level peaks without distortion is key to get a satisfactory result also with a playback system

1) Possibly. On the other hand, I think audiophiles who actually listen to live music sooner or later come to the conclusion that Harry Pearson's idea of 'the absolute sound' is simply unobtainable. For my part I don't care much about the recording quality (I mean to say that that is not my first priority) but rather whether the performance is top rate. I have some pristine and top quality Direct to Disc records that sound great, but the performances are mediocre, and for musical enjoyment I therefore prefer something like those old Furtwangler recordings, which are generally pretty horrible from a sonic standpoint.

2) Paul Klipsch argued that way. The late JBL engineer Drew Daniels thought so. I think so (not that I'm fit to even Discwash the records of those two illustrious men). Perhaps it an acquired taste.

I know I'm likely in a minority here, but the idea of a perfectly Klippelized, Roonized, and self-powered two way box speaker the size of a shoe box on a stand would not be what I'd ever want to have in my main listening room. I could appreciate it as an intellectual and engineering effort, but I probably wouldn't buy it.

 

[MattHooper]

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.

I couldn't disagree more, and it always amazes me a bit when I encounter the view you just expressed, along the lines "imaging/soundstaging doesn't exist in real life."

I close my eyes all the time to check out the character of live sounds. For instance if my wife or son is speaking and I close my eyes the sure as hell "image" precisely from a specific spot, with a sense of 3 dimensionality in a room.

It's the same with they symphony, and again this will be influenced as I said by where someone prefers to sit in terms of how it's emphasized. But when I sit close, as I did fairly often, I'd close my eyes and the symphony imaged like bejeezus! Huge, spread out, instruments imaging fairly distinctly in the soundstage - I could point eyes closed to any particular instrument, soloist, section - space between instruments...everything you just mentioned, and which is often mentioned in subjective reviews, is there in abundance.

I find it's also the case as I move further back - though there's a bit more compression of distance - it's still layered, depthy, individual instruments or sections "imaging" in specific places "on the soundstage" etc.

And this aspect has been to me surprisingly well represented on some recordings through speakers that image well. Sometimes through my big Thiel 3.7s (or my omni MBLs), with eyes closed the "gestalt" or sensation of listening to an orchestra laid out before me could be very reminiscent of the real thing. Admittedly lacking the body and power of the real thing, but if I imagined myself somewhat further from the players, it took surprisingly little effort to feel like I was at a concert with my eyes closed.

YMMV...and apparently yours does

 

[Nabussan]

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

Except for people rustling with candy wrappers, constantly scratching their heads or producing other nonlinearities when András Schiff performs the pianissimo possibile passages in, for example, Beethoven's Hammerklavier sonata.

 

[gino1961]

1) Possibly. On the other hand, I think audiophiles who actually listen to live music sooner or later come to the conclusion that Harry Pearson's idea of 'the absolute sound' is simply unobtainable. For my part I don't care much about the recording quality (I mean to say that that is not my first priority) but rather whether the performance is top rate. I have some pristine and top quality Direct to Disc records that sound great, but the performances are mediocre, and for musical enjoyment I therefore prefer something like those old Furtwangler recordings, which are generally pretty horrible from a sonic standpoint.
2) Paul Klipsch argued that way. The late JBL engineer Drew Daniels thought so. I think so (not that I'm fit to even Discwash the records of those two illustrious men). Perhaps it an acquired taste.
I know I'm likely in a minority here, but the idea of a perfectly Klippelized, Roonized, and self-powered two way box speaker the size of a shoe box on a stand would not be what I'd ever want to have in my main listening room. I could appreciate it as an intellectual and engineering effort, but I probably wouldn't buy it.

Thanks a lot for the very helpful advice. I am leaning towards high efficiency pro speakers for the above mentioned reasons. I like Altec speakers and similar. For sure the main issue will be the listening room. I live in a flat with silent neighbours ...

 

[Blumlein 88]

@gino1961
It might be helpful to read Michael Williams Stereophonic zoom article.

http://www.rycote.com/images/uploads/The_Stereophonic_Zoom.pdf

Or use this visualization aid.
http://www.sengpielaudio.com/Fragen08.htm

This gives you an idea of what angular coverage various pairs of microphones will result from different spacing. You might not slavishly abide by this, but it will put you in the ball park.

I'll mention somewhat counter-intuitively close spacing results in picking up a wider area while wider spacing narrows the area picked up.

Now this is mainly useful with non-omni microphones.

As for using headphones for judging mic positions...........no. You need speakers for that.

A few tricks on picking a mic position, one is put a finger in one ear, and move around listening with the open ear. Closer to what a mic hears. I've found this is mainly useful for eliminating bad positions more so than picking good ones, but even that is useful. Another is when recording groups of musicians you will need the mics closer to the musicians than where the audience sits to get a sound like the front rows of the audience hear. Back where the audience is you'll get too much room not enough musician. Mics don't hear like ears.

Many people who start out using the purity of a pair of mics will end up getting more good results if they'll at least use 4 microphones. A stereo pair in the middle, and some widely spaced omnis further back. You get your image from the center pair and can later mix in the omnis for the amount of hall sound you think sounds good.

I do like it when I just use a pair and get the result I wanted however. You become more at mercy of the recording venue. You'll need a good sounding space and those are not all that common.

If you are going to use omnis you owe it to yourself to try the Jecklin disk approach. Would have worked well with the solo guitarist.
http://www.josephson.com/tn5.html

You can make your own disk there are lots of youtubes and blogs about making your own. Basically a padded foam disc between two omnis with a diameter of 12 inches (30 cm) or so. Gives the omni a slightly directional character with spacing similar to your ears. Still has the pure omni sound and the result works very nicely over both speakers and headphones.

 

[anmpr1]

1) I couldn't disagree more, and it always amazes me a bit when I encounter the view you just expressed, along the lines "imaging/soundstaging doesn't exist in real life."

2) It's the same with they symphony, and again this will be influenced as I said by where someone prefers to sit in terms of how it's emphasized. But when I sit close, as I did fairly often...

1) What I meant to imply was that 'sonic attributes' one reads about whenever reviewers discuss their latest preamp or DAC are recording artifacts (microphone placements, mix arrangements, use of artificial reverb et al), and are not heard that way at an actual live venue. YMMV--obviously an early stereo DGG recording is going to come across differently than a modern 'mic limited' production, and different halls will have different 'sonic signatures'.

2) Your key point lies in your words I've underlined. By sitting up close your acoustic sensation will pick up directional and other spatial clues generally not present in back rows, or side balconies. Those seats are, by the way, known as the 'cheap seats'. I admit it is my own shortcoming, but I tend to gravitate to those, and hence in my case you could certainly say that I'm getting what I pay for, and I'd have to agree...

I think the video accompanying the original post make this quite clear. Listeners certainly heard things on the recording they didn't hear (at least consciously) at the actual event. The fact that many preferred the recording is an interesting finding. On the other hand, if one of the listeners had been a writer for a hi-fi magazine they would have heard the space between the one instrument even better with a more expensive preamp and DAC! (Just kidding about that last part!).

 

[tuga]

1) What I meant to imply was that 'sonic attributes' one reads about whenever reviewers discuss their latest preamp or DAC are recording artifacts (microphone placements, mix arrangements, use of artificial reverb et al), and are not heard that way at an actual live venue. YMMV--obviously an early stereo DGG recording is going to come across differently than a modern 'mic limited' production, and different halls will have different 'sonic signatures'.

2) Your key point lies in your words I've underlined. By sitting up close your acoustic sensation will pick up directional and other spatial clues generally not present in back rows, or side balconies. Those seats are, by the way, known as the 'cheap seats'. I admit it is my own shortcoming, but I tend to gravitate to those, and hence in my case you could certainly say that I'm getting what I pay for, and I'd have to agree...

I think the video accompanying the original post make this quite clear. Listeners certainly heard things on the recording they didn't hear (at least consciously) at the actual event. The fact that many preferred the recording is an interesting finding. On the other hand, if one of the listeners had been a writer for a hi-fi magazine they would have heard the space between the one instrument even better with a more expensive preamp and DAC! (Just kidding about that last part!).

I wouldn't say that for orchestral music / large ensembles the front seats provide the best experience. And perhaps this is why they don't sell out as quickly or easily as the midfield ones. Part of the orchestral sound comes from the hall reverb.

Over the past 50 years there's been a lot of research and discussion around the subject of concert hall sound. An example:

Tonal quality in concert halls
C.L.S. Gilford, T. Somerville

Abstract
A common feature of the design of post-war concert halls is the use of canopies and other surfaces near the platform to reflect sound directly towards the audience. The acoustic characteristics of such halls are contrasted with those of the traditional Leipzig type which were far more suitable for classical music.
Some of the apparent advantages of canopies are shown to be unfounded and it is suggested that such advantages as can be substantiated could be obtained more cheaply and with less serious effect on orchestral quality by building traditionally shaped halls having more seats for the same volume.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/publications/rdreport_1963_52

 

[restorer-john]

Attached is an example with omni's and several instruments. Guitar, mandolin and xylophone.

Impressive recording sample, thanks for posting it. There's a background noise like ventilation aircon or something. What is it? So that is spaced omnis? Tell me, how does a crossed cardiod / coincident pair compare? It must be hard to get it right when you get just one take. *impressed*

On another note, timing isn't the xylophone player's strong suit is it? 8 notes, one perfectly hit the mark and the muted/mis-struck one was nice, the rest...

 

[sergeauckland]

I've found this very useful to visualise how different placements give different images

http://www.sengpielaudio.com/Visualization-AB60-E.htm

With one take only, if possible, set up both cross pairs and spaced omnis and record them simultaneously if one has 4 channel recording capability.
Then, one can choose the better result and/or mix them together.

S

 

[mikewxyz]

I prefer live recordings (Horowitz in Moscow, Trinity Sessions, etc.) The ambient noises give a “you are there” quality. And maybe the sound engineers fuss with the sound less. Others have remarked how musicians listen thru the crappy recording to hear the virtuosity of the playing. I struggle with that. When shopping for music I weigh both attributes - performance and recording.

My system does a reasonable job playing single string instruments. I’ve been to house concerts (Eric Skye, jazz acoustic guitar) and the recorded vs live thing is pretty close.

I agree with others that where you are in the concert venue determines how much of the audiophile descriptor thing you experience.