Recordings as simulacra

[Timcognito]

Ambient electronic creations that sound real yet are of sounds that could not exist and we have never heard anything like it. Now such music doesn't claim to be real or have more authority than real music or at least few of the artists would think that. They likely think it liberates them from the constraints most musicians have to work within.

KFJC 89.7FM

spidey.kfjc.org

 

[Multicore]

Intellect did not equal language back then. It's the action of the soul. Language is something terrestrial (and somewhat dirty).

You look at a thing, you speak the name of the thing, the intellect imagines the form of it.

(Sorry for the pedantry.)

No worries. I rather like that and might try connecting it to my postmodern materialist th----gy. We;re not allowed to discuss that on ASR.

 

[theREALdotnet]

My Hi Fi goal is to create an avatar of the simulacrum.

I tried that, it left me wanting. But I found great fulfillment in the hologram of an avatar of the simulacrum.

 

[Multicore]

In Pink Floyd's album Dark Side of the Moon there are heart beats. They are artificial. Maybe even wholly artificial. Yet they sound close enough to a heart beat heard in a stethoscope to make you answer the question, what is that with.... a heart beat or beating heart. Stage 3. Yet even here though nearly everyone will hear a beating heart, if you listen to a real one it isn't quite like this. It is artificial.

Alan Parsons (involved in making the Floyd album too) has what likely are synthesizer or heavily processed bass stringed instrument chords. The pacing, and use of it is like a heart beat. If questioned about what you are hearing you'll not say that you hear a beating heart. You might say that it reminds you of the beats of a heart or the rhythm of life, but it is not and does not sound like a heart beat. It is totally divorced from any real heart beat, yet it creates a mood, a timing and effect on the listener of the beating heart of life from a total abstraction. Stage 4.

So does that make it clear, even though these are successful rather than unsuccessful implementations?

See my line of thought here is not so much about success as aligning intent with methods of making the music. Maybe my thinking is overwrought on this. I think Alan Parsons was acutely aware of when he wanted to create real sounding artifice and when he wanted to create the same effect with a greater gap to anything real. Tales of Mystery and Imagination are all about imagining unreal soundscapes to create moods and feelings. For that purpose an extra step into the unreal facilitates his aims.

I asked about the difference between 2 and 3 and I think you answered about the difference between 3 and 4.

Back to 2 and 3. Your examples were:

2 - A recording made in an acoustic space with carefully placed mics and mixing to yield a "satisfactory" simulation of listening in some more-or-less realistic space.

3 - Close mic tracking in a dead or anechoic space and use effects to yield a satisfactory simulation of listening in some more-or-less realistic reverberant space.

Either of these can be done well, yielding a listening experience that satisfies my need for realism and therefore allows me to listen to the music without being bothered by the inadequacies of the artifice, or can be done badly, resulting in something that distracts me from listening to the music. For example in 2 there's a recording of Marilyn Crispell and Andy Cyrille at KitFac that I can only listen to down mixed to mono because the stereo mix puts some parts of the piano way over here and other parts way over there. You already gave an example of bad Stage 3.

But the difference between these seems rather unimportant to me if they are successful in the (admittedly vague and subjective) sense I just gave. And if the Stage 3 simulation is successful in this sense then what you said (the bit I quoted) about Stage 2 seems also to apply.

 

[Blumlein 88]

I asked about the difference between 2 and 3 and I think you answered about the difference between 3 and 4.

Back to 2 and 3. Your examples were:

2 - A recording made in an acoustic space with carefully placed mics and mixing to yield a "satisfactory" simulation of listening in some more-or-less realistic space.

3 - Close mic tracking in a dead or anechoic space and use effects to yield a satisfactory simulation of listening in some more-or-less realistic reverberant space.

Either of these can be done well, yielding a listening experience that satisfies my need for realism and therefore allows me to listen to the music without being bothered by the inadequacies of the artifice, or can be done badly, resulting in something that distracts me from listening to the music. For example in 2 there's a recording of Marilyn Crispell and Andy Cyrille at KitFac that I can only listen to down mixed to mono because the stereo mix puts some parts of the piano way over here and other parts way over there. You already gave an example of bad Stage 3.

But the difference between these seems rather unimportant to me if they are successful in the (admittedly vague and subjective) sense I just gave. And if the Stage 3 simulation is successful in this sense then what you said (the bit I quoted) about Stage 2 seems also to apply.

Wow, don't know how I did that. Replied over my phone. Was waiting for a relative at a repair shop, and thought I read 2 vs 3.

I know of a live blues recording in a bar/club. You almost think it was recorded live with a minimalist technique. You hear the crowd, you can hear a couple of patrons getting drunker as the show goes on, and that they are sitting at the bar. You are stuck that this is a fantastic unprocessed live recording. This is successful stage 2 however. You have to listen really deep, and have done some mixing and such. You can hear it was nothing of the sort, it has delay and reverb added, but not all over. And the various processing varies over time for different things highlighted. Meaning it had to be done with several microphones and channels. I used to have a magazine article detailing how they did it and it was done with tons of mikes. So your thinking right now, "okay, that is another successful stage 2". However it would be easy, most likely even, to take that approach and mess it up so that it sounds as hokey as you'd expect. Not really live sounding, but a clumsy attempt etc. etc. Even if you did that however, you do have the somewhat satisfying interaction real time with the bar patrons and the music. That aliveness even done poorly comes across. The reason for this is there is a live real-time interaction you have recorded. Something that happened in the physical world behind it.

Could you do all of that with stage 3 artifice? Maybe, but it is much harder. The very lively real interaction would be hard to fake or would take lots of trouble. If you miss on creating this, you would have a terrible joke of a recording no one is likely to care about. The reason is you are a further step from anything that really happened. You might ask nonetheless, if someone did manage it in a much more artificial way would the listener care? No, they wouldn't. But this is one reason many movie scenes involving a crowd, instead of faking it all, they bother to hire extras to create a fake crowd to do the scenes. Yes mostly for the visual, but for the audio too. For that reason trying to stage 3 something like this is risky and the smart thing to do is not take this route for some music.

You might look at some of those youtube videos that put two artists together in concert who never were together. Like I think there is one of Freddie Mercury and Elvis. It gets into that uncanny valley effect. They have done pretty good work to fake it, but it just doesn't seem right anyway. Maybe this encompasses stage 4 video with stage 3 and 2 audio.

Bing and Bowie.

Multi singers that never did this song.

Mercury doing Bowie cover, a pretty awful result if you ask me.

 

[antcollinet]

Sometimes I think that audiophile navel gazing can be taken just a tiny tiny step too far.

 

[Axo1989]

Interesting point. We have to be specific about what the recording is a simulacrum of. I actually saw Autechre live in Chicago a while back. Cool show. Now, is the mixer feed a simulacrum of the experience of going to the concert? Maybe you'd have to put it down as a #2, or 3, sort of like a video or photograph of the show. But it's not a #4 because it's not an artifact divorced from a real reference. The show really happened, I was there, they really played it, the recording is of the actual performance.

Putting it down as a #4 presupposes that electronic music is simulacra of acoustic music, (?) but now I'm thinking I'd better just go read the essay.

Yes, I was originally thinking abstract music = pure simulacrum but changed my mind. Pushing the argument, I can even entertain that our seat in the audience (altered by in-situ transducer reproduction and venue acoustics) is secondary. But I'm not an electron.

Fabulous to have seen/heard Autechre in person.

 

[kemmler3D]

Fabulous to have seen/heard Autechre in person.

They're the real deal, lots of gear on stage that they're actually using. I think the only other electronic act I've seen with similar serious racks of gear on stage was the Chemical Brothers.

e: The fact that I used the phrase "real deal" without thinking about it sort of improves upon the "electronic music isn't a simulacrum of anything" argument, maybe...

 

[Geert]

We have to be specific about what the recording is a simulacrum of.

Some artists focus on the musical performance and the natural tone of their instruments and expect a sound engineer to create a faithful representation of the performance. On the other end of the spectrum you have artists who run the whole production by themselves, from the musical performance (often playing multiple instruments or using synthesised sounds or samples) to the final mix. They do whatever it takes to create the work of art they envisioned. Both approaches will sound totally different, but in their own way are a reflection of a reality.

Problems with a lot of audiophiles:

1. Because of musical preferences they're only familiar with one approach and they believe it should apply to all styles of music ("eq and compression are evils")
2. They pretend to know better how a production should be approached than the people involved, not even recognising artistic choices

 

[Multicore]

Wow, don't know how I did that. Replied over my phone. Was waiting for a relative at a repair shop, and thought I read 2 vs 3.

I know of a live blues recording in a bar/club. You almost think it was recorded live with a minimalist technique. You hear the crowd, you can hear a couple of patrons getting drunker as the show goes on, and that they are sitting at the bar. You are stuck that this is a fantastic unprocessed live recording. This is successful stage 2 however. You have to listen really deep, and have done some mixing and such. You can hear it was nothing of the sort, it has delay and reverb added, but not all over. And the various processing varies over time for different things highlighted. Meaning it had to be done with several microphones and channels. I used to have a magazine article detailing how they did it and it was done with tons of mikes. So your thinking right now, "okay, that is another successful stage 2". However it would be easy, most likely even, to take that approach and mess it up so that it sounds as hokey as you'd expect. Not really live sounding, but a clumsy attempt etc. etc. Even if you did that however, you do have the somewhat satisfying interaction real time with the bar patrons and the music. That aliveness even done poorly comes across. The reason for this is there is a live real-time interaction you have recorded. Something that happened in the physical world behind it.

Could you do all of that with stage 3 artifice? Maybe, but it is much harder. The very lively real interaction would be hard to fake or would take lots of trouble. If you miss on creating this, you would have a terrible joke of a recording no one is likely to care about. The reason is you are a further step from anything that really happened. You might ask nonetheless, if someone did manage it in a much more artificial way would the listener care? No, they wouldn't. But this is one reason many movie scenes involving a crowd, instead of faking it all, they bother to hire extras to create a fake crowd to do the scenes. Yes mostly for the visual, but for the audio too. For that reason trying to stage 3 something like this is risky and the smart thing to do is not take this route for some music.

You might look at some of those youtube videos that put two artists together in concert who never were together. Like I think there is one of Freddie Mercury and Elvis. It gets into that uncanny valley effect. They have done pretty good work to fake it, but it just doesn't seem right anyway. Maybe this encompasses stage 4 video with stage 3 and 2 audio.

Bing and Bowie.

Multi singers that never did this song.

Mercury doing Bowie cover, a pretty awful result if you ask me.

I see what you mean. I was thinking more in terms of the philosophical difference in principle as opposed to in practice with available techniques. Assuming it were just as easy to "photoshop" the artifice into the blues recording you described then aren't we just comparing different artificial techniques?

 

[Multicore]

Some artists focus on the musical performance and the natural tone of their instruments and expect a sound engineer to create a faithful representation of the performance. On the other end of the spectrum you have artists who run the whole production by themselves, from the musical performance (often playing multiple instruments or using synthesised sounds or samples) to the final mix. They do whatever it takes to create the work of art they envisioned. Both approaches will sound totally different, but in their own way are a reflection of a reality.

Problems with a lot of audiophiles:

1. Because of musical preferences they're only familiar with one approach and they believe it should apply to all styles of music ("eq and compression are evils")
2. They pretend to know better how a production should be approached than the people involved, not even recognising artistic choices

Assuming you're right, this could explain some things for me. When I read your post I found myself almost surprised to consider that this might explain some of the arguments I get in here that I don't really understand.

@Curvature usefully described my view of music as medieval. I can think of it as a connection from and to the soul, even assuming a material soul. In other presumably more modern terms, music is a language we can use to try to express something that is perhaps not even accessible to the narrative self. It's a simple enough idea that Buddy Guy convincingly explains in this awesome YouTube (from 19:00 to 20:00). I think I've believed this since I learned the bandwidth theorem in college.

From this point of view, there's a lot of levels of purpose, meaning, intent, coding etc. in a recording: an elaborate crystallization involving a host of deliberate choices imposed on something that may have been quite mysterious in the first place. So it's reasonable that I might end up talking at cross purposes with someone who regards, perhaps implicitly, the recording and the music as equivalent.

 

[GMStudio]

Yes we want the highest fidelity possible in playback, it's not my concern what happens during the creation, at least nothing I can control.

Regardless of whether there is nothing you can control, it is your concern what happens during the creation, you made it your concern by making the common audiophile fallacy of referencing playback fidelity to real sound, your specific example of “it still needs to sound exactly like a piano” for instance, because “what happens during the creation” is what defines the fidelity that you’re trying to reproduce in the first place! IE. Your concern is not just the fidelity of playback, it’s the fidelity of the real sound (piano in your example) and therefore, also of the recording creation process. I’m sure you’re not suggesting that playback fidelity can overcome/improve the recording (production) fidelity? And to continue:

So in this I would put minimalist techniques with no processing of the recording.

With the exception of certain binaural recordings, do you know of many professional/commercial recordings which would fit this condition? Certainly there are countless amateur recordings that do, an audience member recording a gig on their smartphone or portable recorder is an obvious example but professional recordings? How many professional/commercial recordings are not mastered, have no balancing, EQ, compression or other processing and were recorded with only a single stereo pair? Even “direct to disk” recordings typically use more than just a single stereo pair and those extremely rare examples that do, virtually always have some sort of processing. I’m not sure that even a single professional recording meets this condition but if there are any, then it’s not more than a handful or so out of countless millions. It’s certainly no where near standard recording/production techniques.

G

 

[Blumlein 88]

Regardless of whether there is nothing you can control, it is your concern what happens during the creation, you made it your concern by making the common audiophile fallacy of referencing playback fidelity to real sound, your specific example of “it still needs to sound exactly like a piano” for instance, because “what happens during the creation” is what defines the fidelity that you’re trying to reproduce in the first place! IE. Your concern is not just the fidelity of playback, it’s the fidelity of the real sound (piano in your example) and therefore, also of the recording creation process. I’m sure you’re not suggesting that playback fidelity can overcome/improve the recording (production) fidelity? And to continue:

With the exception of certain binaural recordings, do you know of many professional/commercial recordings which would fit this condition? Certainly there are countless amateur recordings that do, an audience member recording a gig on their smartphone or portable recorder is an obvious example but professional recordings? How many professional/commercial recordings are not mastered, have no balancing, EQ, compression or other processing and were recorded with only a single stereo pair? Even “direct to disk” recordings typically use more than just a single stereo pair and those extremely rare examples that do, virtually always have some sort of processing. I’m not sure that even a single professional recording meets this condition but if there are any, then it’s not more than a handful or so out of countless millions. It’s certainly no where near standard recording/production techniques.

G

My estimate of purist recordings is less than 1% and probably less than .1% of commercial recordings. That wasn't the main point of this thread however.

 

[Vacceo]

You can argue that many concerts dissapoint the audience due to the hyperreal condition recorded music generates.

 

[GMStudio]

My estimate of purist recordings is less than 1% and probably less than .1% of commercial recordings.

I’ve been a professiona/commercial audio engineer for 30 years and I don’t know of a single example of such “purist recordings”, either during those 30 years or prior. There maybe some I don’t know of but I’d be surprised if there’s more than a handful that almost completely eschew the engineering and production knowledge and many of the tools of the past 70 years or so. I doubt the number is anywhere vaguely close to 0.1%, even 0.0001% would be a huge surprise. At best you’re referencing an extremely rare outlier and it’s entirely possible you're talking about something that has never existed.

That wasn't the main point of this thread however.

It was certainly one of the main points, it was specifically point #1 and more generally it has an impact on most if not all the other points, as they reference some degree of faithfulness of a copy, with the possible exception of point #4.

The points you listed do not reflect well the reality of creating commercial recordings. Virtually all recordings would fit loosely into point #4 but even that is not quite correct because there is commonly some relationship to reality, albeit an idealised or believable reality that never exactly existed.

I’m not trying to be insulting or argumentative here BTW. It just seems to me that much of what is being suggested is based on marketing and specifically audiophile marketing of the music recording process, rather than the actual reality and this site (and what I’ve seen of your personal posts) is typically one of better ones at not swallowing audiophile marketing hype and prioritising the science/actual facts.

You can argue that many concerts dissapoint the audience due to the hyperreal condition recorded music generates.

Indeed, that has been a point of discussion amongst classical soloists and conductors for at least as long as I’ve been in the business. Conductors and soloists are generally more risk averse than in previous eras, resulting in fewer technical mistakes but less exciting, engaging or surprising performances.

G

 

[Vacceo]

Perhaps the worst offender I can think of is electrónica. Orbital and Prodigy, two massive classic bands now, often get the "studio is soooo much better".

 

[dasdoing]

I hate this topic because it made me even more aware of how unrealistic the soundstages are

 

[Blumlein 88]

I’ve been a professiona/commercial audio engineer for 30 years and I don’t know of a single example of such “purist recordings”, either during those 30 years or prior. There maybe some I don’t know of but I’d be surprised if there’s more than a handful that almost completely eschew the engineering and production knowledge and many of the tools of the past 70 years or so. I doubt the number is anywhere vaguely close to 0.1%, even 0.0001% would be a huge surprise. At best you’re referencing an extremely rare outlier and it’s entirely possible you're talking about something that has never existed.

It was certainly one of the main points, it was specifically point #1 and more generally it has an impact on most if not all the other points, as they reference some degree of faithfulness of a copy, with the possible exception of point #4.

The points you listed do not reflect well the reality of creating commercial recordings. Virtually all recordings would fit loosely into point #4 but even that is not quite correct because there is commonly some relationship to reality, albeit an idealised or believable reality that never exactly existed.

I’m not trying to be insulting or argumentative here BTW. It just seems to me that much of what is being suggested is based on marketing and specifically audiophile marketing of the music recording process, rather than the actual reality and this site (and what I’ve seen of your personal posts) is typically one of better ones at not swallowing audiophile marketing hype and prioritising the science/actual facts.

Indeed, that has been a point of discussion amongst classical soloists and conductors for at least as long as I’ve been in the business. Conductors and soloists are generally more risk averse than in previous eras, resulting in fewer technical mistakes but less exciting, engaging or surprising performances.

G

You have missed the point. Because I am in agreement with you. Yet you don't understand why.

The reason I posted the thread was because it is so common among audiophiles to have this idea of The Absolute Sound as a reference (both the sound and the mag). Yet most probably have never heard a stage 1 recording (using my made up 4 levels). If you are considering from a philosophical point how something works, you start at a level possible even if it is never used. I also have found deciding where a recording project fits simplifies some decisions in how to make it. That was why I wanted some other opinions about it. I was somewhat surprised most here aren't under any illusion about stage 1 or stage 2 recordings. Then again this forum is not populated with the usual audiophile crowd.

OTOH, Chesky for more than a decade used purist techniques before switching to binaural recording. The Wilson recordings released by the speaker company were done this way. Water Lily has released recordings in stage 1. Harmonia Mundi I believe has as well. Mario a member here has a company doing recordings that way. There are a few others. I don't think any made the top 100 list commercially. Which is fully beside the point.

Early recordings would be category 2, and nearly all recordings in the last 40 years are category 3. With 4 being more common than ever, but still probably not the majority of releases. I get the idea you think I am pushing stage 1 as a reference of what is best. I am not. However, it is the manner of recording most directly connected to a reality of sound and performance. That stage 1 is the least popular commercially tells you something about what modern music recording is all about. That can inform what kind of recording you make and how you get to the final product.

When I record stage 1 is what I like best when it all comes together yet it too is a step from reality. One could easily make the case in art that being further abstracted from reality indicates more creativity. If one wants an audience however, one has to meet the audience near where it is. Neither stage 1 nor stage 4 are where the biggest commercial releases are. OTOH, a few people in this thread have already voiced the idea nearly all music now is stage 4. I don't quite agree, but maybe I am wrong.

 

[Blumlein 88]

I hate this topic because it made me even more aware of how unrealistic the soundstages are

My job has been accomplished then if I reduced someone's enjoyment of music. That after all is the purpose of science and ASR.

Just kidding. Maybe with some more time you'll just forget to worry at all about how realistic the soundstage is and soak in the music.

 

[GMStudio]

I was somewhat surprised most here aren't under any illusion about stage 1 or stage 2 recordings. Then again this forum is not populated with the usual audiophile crowd.
OTOH, Chesky for more than a decade used purist techniques before switching to binaural recording.

I’m not quite sure how you’re defining “purist techniques”? Chesky certainly employed minimalistic mic’ing but routinely edited between takes, edited out wrong notes/recording errors (using a DAW), mixed (at least EQ’ed) and mastered their recordings and HDTracks routinely applied additional compression to their “standard resolution” (16/44) versions, etc. I’m not sure how any of that qualifies as “purist” except maybe only in terms of the minimal mic’ing? Sheffield Labs was also famous for “purist techniques”, yet also edited and mixed their recordings (although they were mixed “live”) and eventually dumped the minimal mic’ing nonsense and used more advanced techniques. Harmonia Mundi certainly made some lovely recordings but likewise they generally weren’t particularly “purist”, just *somewhat* minimalist. “Purist” is essentially an audiophile marketing term.

Early recordings would be category 2, and nearly all recordings in the last 40 years are category 3.

I’m not entirely sure how to interpret category 2, certainly early recordings were direct to disk (or cylinder) using a single horn and no editing or processing was possible. So they were an entirely faithful copy (as far as fidelity of the technology of the time would allow), although balancing was manipulated and achieved acoustically by moving the musicians around, relative to the position of the horn. So, not “real” in the sense of how the piece would be performed live.

I’m also not sure exactly how category 3 should be interpreted. I presume that “pretends to be a faithful copy” refers to acoustic music genres, mostly classical (or jazz) but that doesn’t fit because there is an original. I don’t see how category 3 can apply to most popular genres, especially from around the mid 1960’s onwards, when stereo and mixing/production techniques started to become almost ubiquitous. For example, I don’t see how a drum kit or a keyboard spread across the entire stereo image can “claim to represent something real”, nor many of the other processes typically applied. Certainly many rock and other genres consider and present something “believable” but I’m not sure, beyond marketing implications, that many claim to represent something real. And of those that do, most do in fact have an original, although again, the recording is not an exact or “purist” copy of it. So relatively few recordings belong in category 3 as far as I can see.

I get the idea you think I am pushing stage 1 as a reference of what is best. I am not. However, it is the manner of recording most directly connected to a reality of sound and performance.

No, I didn’t get the idea you were necessarily pushing category 1 as a reference of what is best, I did get the idea that you thought that category 1 actually exists though (or was more than an extreme outlier). While you’re correct that it would be “the manner of recording most directly connected to a reality of sound and performance”, why would that be desirable? The reality of sound and performance is that it’s full of frequencies, peaks, dynamic ranges and spurious noises, many of which an audience would never hear or be aware of, and which would therefore not sound like their expectations of the instruments being played. Furthermore, in most popular genres the “reality of sound” is pretty much the last thing we’re after! Ever heard a live, unmixed/processed drum kit in a room? That’s certainly not the sound we’re after with virtually any rock, metal, electronic or other popular genre (although original punk rock was probably the closest to the “real sound”).

G