Should we record and mix without ANY reverberations?

[mohragk]

So here's a shower thought I had just now:

If sound reproduction is about re-creating live performances -- say, a violin performance -- shouldn't we then just record the performance as anechoic and "dry" as possible and leave out any natural or synthetic reverberance? Because, when playing back the performance (in a living room), the actual room acoustics should add the necessary and by definition lifelike reverberation, resulting in a true "as in the room" feeling as possible.

When looking at it like this, it seems actually weird to record a performance in a large hall and then replay that back in a small room, expecting it to sound holographic, meanwhile you're adding all sorts of reverberations and resonances to the original sound signal.

Obviously you don't get the effect of feeling like you're in a concert hall. But wouldn't it be more impressive when an orchestral performance feels like it's playing in your living room instead of simulating an environment?

Has anyone done this?

 

[MaxwellsEq]

So here's a shower thought I had just now:

If sound reproduction is about re-creating live performances -- say, a violin performance -- shouldn't we then just record the performance as anechoic and "dry" as possible and leave out any natural or synthetic reverberance? Because, when playing back the performance (in a living room), the actual room acoustics should add the necessary and by definition lifelike reverberation, resulting in a true "as in the room" feeling as possible.

When looking at it like this, it seems actually weird to record a performance in a large hall and then replay that back in a small room, expecting it to sound holographic, meanwhile you're adding all sorts of reverberations and resonances to the original sound signal.

Obviously you don't get the effect of feeling like you're in a concert hall. But wouldn't it be more impressive when an orchestral performance feels like it's playing in your living room instead of simulating an environment?

Has anyone done this?

I had some anechoic recordings of instruments. They sound awful when you play them in a domestic listening space.

The whole point of stereo, binaural etc. is to capture the ambience of the recording space as well the instrument. Then the (very difficult) task is to reproduce that ambience at home. The brain is able to partially calculate and subtract the listening room characteristics allowing it to "understand" the original space. However, in a small room listening to a large concert hall, there are significant issues.

 

[Ropeburn]

So here's a shower thought I had just now:

If sound reproduction is about re-creating live performances -- say, a violin performance -- shouldn't we then just record the performance as anechoic and "dry" as possible and leave out any natural or synthetic reverberance? Because, when playing back the performance (in a living room), the actual room acoustics should add the necessary and by definition lifelike reverberation, resulting in a true "as in the room" feeling as possible.

When looking at it like this, it seems actually weird to record a performance in a large hall and then replay that back in a small room, expecting it to sound holographic, meanwhile you're adding all sorts of reverberations and resonances to the original sound signal.

Obviously you don't get the effect of feeling like you're in a concert hall. But wouldn't it be more impressive when an orchestral performance feels like it's playing in your living room instead of simulating an environment?

Has anyone done this?

Your premise has one big problem: a concert hall and living room are entirely different sonic environments. You simply don't get the concert hall sound in a tiny, well dampened room. It'll sound super dry and unnatural in comparison.

Which is exactly why mixing engineers always create some kind of big room environment artificially.

 

[mohragk]

I had some anechoic recordings of instruments. They sound awful when you play them in a domestic listening space.

The whole point of stereo, binaural etc. is to capture the ambience of the recording space as well the instrument. Then the (very difficult) task is to reproduce that ambience at home. The brain is able to partially calculate and subtract the listening room characteristics allowing it to "understand" the original space. However, in a small room listening to a large concert hall, there are significant issues.

I'm aware of that, but hasn't that more to do with expectations? You've almost always, exclusively heard orchestras in big rooms/halls, so your expectations are that it should sound a certain way. Removing the hall means you can experience how it would sound when a performer, or group, or large group would sound like if they were there.

 

[WXfreak]

I think the ideal scenario is to close your eyes and not know whether the violin is real or a recording. How do you achieve that? Ask a recording engineer.

 

[mohragk]

Your premise has one big problem: a concert hall and living room are entirely different sonic environments. You simply don't get the concert hall sound in a tiny, well dampened room. It'll sound super dry and unnatural in comparison.

Which is exactly why mixing engineers always create some kind of big room environment artificially.

But that's my point; you only ever experienced performances in larger settings, but when you "remove the hall" you get to experience how a performer (or group) would sound like when they're physically in your room. It's different.

 

[levimax]

I'm aware of that, but hasn't that more to do with expectations? You've almost always, exclusively heard orchestras in big rooms/halls, so your expectations are that it should sound a certain way. Removing the hall means you can experience how it would sound when a performer, or group, or large group would sound like if they were there.

Unfortuneately, an orchestra won't fit in my room.

 

[MaxwellsEq]

I'm aware of that, but hasn't that more to do with expectations? You've almost always, exclusively heard orchestras in big rooms/halls, so your expectations are that it should sound a certain way. Removing the hall means you can experience how it would sound when a performer, or group, or large group would sound like if they were there.

You need to take my word for it - anechoic recordings of voice and instruments sound awful.

Even if you were the only person standing on a small hill in a massive snowfield a couple of feet thick with no breeze, it won't sound anything like an anechoic chamber. No brain on earth has ever evolved to experience a total absence of audible reflections. I've been in anechoic chambers and I would not stay long in there and neither does anybody else.

 

[kemmler3D]

What you are describing 100% exists, but never makes it out of the studio except as a special effect.

You can get a lot of very dry, almost but not truly anechoic recordings of acoustic instruments as part of sample packs / ROMplers for music production. You can also do synthetic versions of acoustic instruments or just plain synthesis that is anechoic by nature. This is a capability available for small dollars to anyone.

Long story short and I can't explain why per se, but music with zero reverb sounds for lack of better words, either stupid, weird, or both. Any producer with ears adds reverb to these raw elements before shipping a recording.

Why doesn't a dry recording sound like a real version of it inside our rooms? My naive guess is simply that real instruments are not point source and microphones are, but beyond that I'm not totally sure why your theory dramatically falls apart in practice. It does sound intuitively reasonable.

 

[bmc0]

Denon did some quasi-anechoic recordings of a symphony orchestra in the late '80s. Here's some info from Stereophile.
Aalto University has some anechoic excerpts of symphonic music available. These were done in a proper anechoic chamber and each instrument was recorded individually using 22 microphones.

The hall is an integral part of western classical music and removing it simply doesn't sound good (to most people, at least). Neither the instruments nor the compositions were intended to be heard the way you propose.

 

[voodooless]

It’s really simple: if you’re recording or mixing, you’re part of the artistic process. And given that, anything goes! Do whatever you think gives the best representation of your vision (for lack of a better word ).

 

[fcserei]

This is an excerpt from the DENON anechoic orchestral recordings test cd for spatial experiments:

"An artificial reverberator is included among the monitoring equipment to supply sound with additional reverberation to the conductor and players of
the orchestra. Due to the absence of reverberation in anechoic recordings, general pauses (Fermata) in the music tend to be shorter than those in normal sound environment through psychological effect, and the original music pause cannot be obtained when listening to the recording after the addition of reverberation. To solve this problem, the players performed music monitoring the sound with 2-second artificial reverberation through headphones."

 

[Arindal]

Because, when playing back the performance (in a living room), the actual room acoustics should add the necessary and by definition lifelike reverberation, resulting in a true "as in the room" feeling as possible.

That would be technically possible under the condition that

- the reverb pattern in the listening room is matching the reflectogram of the desired concert venue in volume, absorption and alike (I personally like sacred music with organ and choir from cathedrals like Notre-Dame or Reims - what should I do?)
- the localization of each instrument is matching the position of each speaker channel exactly - I wonder how this should work out with 200+ musicians?

It does not sound very realistic to meet both conditions

it seems actually weird to record a performance in a large hall and then replay that back in a small room, expecting it to sound holographic, meanwhile you're adding all sorts of reverberations and resonances to the original sound signal.

It is not as complicated to add natural reverb pattern to the mix. That is how most of acoustical recordings like classical, partly jazz, folk etc. are done. The important part is to keep the additional reverb in the listening room as low in level, subtle, diffuse and tonally balanced as possible, so the original reverb on the recording has a chance to be dominant over the added reverb in the listening room. The more channels you have, the better this works, with 7.1 it is already pretty easy.

Obviously you don't get the effect of feeling like you're in a concert hall.

But that is mainly a matter of balance between direct and indirect sound contained in the recording, and from which angle the respected soundwaves hit the listener. Admittingly, with two channel stereo this comes with a certain amount of compromise. With an Atmos setup, typically a 7.0.4 channel layout, this is absolutely possible. If it is always desirable, is a different question.

Denon did some quasi-anechoic recordings of a symphony orchestra in the late '80s. Here's some info from Stereophile.

To get an impression how this sounds (pretty unnatural), I recommend to watch one of the ´Live opera films´, shot at the original places with ´dry´ microphones for the soloists (not the CD/streaming versions which presumably have some reverb added). Verdi's ´La Traviata´ and Puccini´s ´Tosca´, both conducted by Zubin Mehta, rose to fame:

Have to be honest, to me it is completely unbearable.

 

[WXfreak]

Maybe we should all listen in anechoic chambers.

 

[Multicore]

Long story short and I can't explain why per se, but music with zero reverb sounds for lack of better words, either stupid, weird, or both.

Wrong. That's the word I choose. It sounds wrong.

 

[Multicore]

Maybe we should all listen in anechoic chambers.

Like headphones and iems?

 

[nerdstrike]

Speaking from the recording side it's much harder to play/sing with too little or too much reverb. Timing seems harder, judging volume is more difficult. It's a big shift for the performer going from practice room to a big theatre or open air space.

I think you'd get worse performances from musicians, irrespective of the strangeness of the reproduction.

 

[kemmler3D]

Wrong. That's the word I choose. It sounds wrong.

Yes. I say it sounds stupid because it's so obviously wrong syndrome that only a total noob publishes a track with zero reverb on it...

 

[DVDdoug]

This might not be the best place to ask... Most of us here are audio consumers rather than audio producers...

Most pro recordings have SOME natural or artificial reverb. One approach is to add reverb and then back-off to the point where you don't really notice it, but it's still present. The producer gets to decide.

If you've ever recorded a live performance from your normal audience location you've probably noticed that the reverb that sounds wonderful live, coming from all directions, sounds artificial when reproduced from a pair of speakers in your living room (or with headphones). Pro live recordings usually have the microphone around the conductor's location/distance or closer. O with rock music everything is close-mic'd and multitracked (almost like a studio recording) with additional mics/channels for the room sound and audience.

I've had my speakers in a dance hall a couple of times for DJ gigs and the sound WAY better (to my ears) in a larger space with natural reverb coming from all directions.

At home, I like to use a "hall" or "theater" setting on my AVR for some delayed reverb in the rear speakers and the "feel" of a bigger space. (That's when I'm not listening to true surround sound.) Of course, this is "hi-fi heresy" since I'm not listening "as intended" or accurately as it was heard in the studio.

Maybe we should all listen in anechoic chambers.

Like headphones and iems?

Somewhere I read that listening in an anechoic chamber can give the perception of the sound coming from inside your head, which is also very common with headphones/IEMs.

 

[Multicore]

So here's a shower thought I had just now:

Just wanted to thank you for asking this. It's an important question and one that's not so simple to answer.

Closely related:

Notice that listening to live acoustic music performed outdoors sounds meh, weak, disappointing. But the same musicians doing the same music in a good concert hall sounds fantastic! How come?