OK, where to begin. First off, no musical instrument I know of is a speaker. So, right out the gate, our reproduction system is not the real instrument and does not scatter or project the sound waves as the real instrument.
Despite this probably first fundamental fact, folks on audio forums are all about the absolute sound, or the sound of the original live event, as their reference for their music system. They some how insist that their two channel speaker system needs constant upgrading or change outs of gear until they “finally” reach this goal. I suppose that because they don’t understand the technical reasons that stereo can create the appearance of depth they somehow feel that stereo is “supposed” to replicate the live event.
Well, it’s impossible with two channel stereo anyway, yet they persist….
There are other two channel audio recording techniques that can deliver a more realistic form of the original event (lots of patented ideas) and binaural for example, but none of those systems have ever been adopted (I lament about binaural, its time is certainly now with the heavy use of headphones)
To keep this brief, I will just copy some stuff I have said before, and also what Tim has said before:
The recording is not under our control. It is tweaked from every standpoint, if you think not, even if you just choose to use two mics, you got to choose where to place them don't you?
We are forced to accept the recoding as the master and mix engineers best guess of what they think you will like to hear.
Of course we wish our stereos sounded as close to live as possible. None of you say your system sounds live. So, we can only get someone elses idea of what the recording is going to sound like.
When you play back, if your goal is not to amplify that recording to its highest fidelity, then don't look on in disdain when folks use tone controls and equalizers and what not at home to make their system sound good to them, because if you believe your system should add to the recording in any way, you are not at high fidelity, you are at high choice of tone controls.
I bet anyones system here can reproduce instruments and we can identify what they are, that's pretty much a given. After that, IMO, its the ability of a system to clearly bring you all that is in the recording, as to do otherwise is to color all sound with your preferential brush (hey, not complaining about anyones preference here!).
So, just what does a system do to a recording to make the recording be sounding like the original event, and not do that to every other recording that is played, ie color it all with the same brush. (again, not bad if that's your preference)
We can faithfully reproduce the recording (that is hi fidelity) or we can choose to contour the tone of the system to our choice, now how is that called making your system sound like the real thing? Again, we can only playback what is given to us on the recording, and man, visit a studio to find out how much processing has been done to stuff to try and make it sound MORE REAL to you in stereo!
TIM SAID:An old argument. I'll give my old answer: Live music is your reference? What artist? What instrument? What performance? What hall? Music is very rarely recorded in a manner that even attempts to replicate live sound, and for good reason: That doesn't work all that well. Even a small jazz quartet, playing live, in studio, or in concert, will typically be recorded with a half dozen or more microphones, at much closer proximity than any seat in any concert venue. The result, the recordings, are a thing unto themselves, but if you're going to compare them to live, they are much closer to live in your living room, a few feet away from you, all around you, than are to live in any venue you're likely to find. The good news is that these recordings, when well done, will reveal more detail than almost any seat in any house. The bad news is they'll never capture the true ambience of any house either. They're totally different experiences and in some ways, even through a modest system, playback of a recording can be better. In other ways it falls quite short.
When people say live music is their reference, I assume they are really referencing their memory of sound, mostly from other recordings and other systems, because most peoples' live listening experience doesn't include anything even remotely as intimate as a recording well done.
Tim
Despite this probably first fundamental fact, folks on audio forums are all about the absolute sound, or the sound of the original live event, as their reference for their music system. They some how insist that their two channel speaker system needs constant upgrading or change outs of gear until they “finally” reach this goal. I suppose that because they don’t understand the technical reasons that stereo can create the appearance of depth they somehow feel that stereo is “supposed” to replicate the live event.
Well, it’s impossible with two channel stereo anyway, yet they persist….
There are other two channel audio recording techniques that can deliver a more realistic form of the original event (lots of patented ideas) and binaural for example, but none of those systems have ever been adopted (I lament about binaural, its time is certainly now with the heavy use of headphones)
To keep this brief, I will just copy some stuff I have said before, and also what Tim has said before:
The recording is not under our control. It is tweaked from every standpoint, if you think not, even if you just choose to use two mics, you got to choose where to place them don't you?
We are forced to accept the recoding as the master and mix engineers best guess of what they think you will like to hear.
Of course we wish our stereos sounded as close to live as possible. None of you say your system sounds live. So, we can only get someone elses idea of what the recording is going to sound like.
When you play back, if your goal is not to amplify that recording to its highest fidelity, then don't look on in disdain when folks use tone controls and equalizers and what not at home to make their system sound good to them, because if you believe your system should add to the recording in any way, you are not at high fidelity, you are at high choice of tone controls.
I bet anyones system here can reproduce instruments and we can identify what they are, that's pretty much a given. After that, IMO, its the ability of a system to clearly bring you all that is in the recording, as to do otherwise is to color all sound with your preferential brush (hey, not complaining about anyones preference here!).
So, just what does a system do to a recording to make the recording be sounding like the original event, and not do that to every other recording that is played, ie color it all with the same brush. (again, not bad if that's your preference)
We can faithfully reproduce the recording (that is hi fidelity) or we can choose to contour the tone of the system to our choice, now how is that called making your system sound like the real thing? Again, we can only playback what is given to us on the recording, and man, visit a studio to find out how much processing has been done to stuff to try and make it sound MORE REAL to you in stereo!
TIM SAID:An old argument. I'll give my old answer: Live music is your reference? What artist? What instrument? What performance? What hall? Music is very rarely recorded in a manner that even attempts to replicate live sound, and for good reason: That doesn't work all that well. Even a small jazz quartet, playing live, in studio, or in concert, will typically be recorded with a half dozen or more microphones, at much closer proximity than any seat in any concert venue. The result, the recordings, are a thing unto themselves, but if you're going to compare them to live, they are much closer to live in your living room, a few feet away from you, all around you, than are to live in any venue you're likely to find. The good news is that these recordings, when well done, will reveal more detail than almost any seat in any house. The bad news is they'll never capture the true ambience of any house either. They're totally different experiences and in some ways, even through a modest system, playback of a recording can be better. In other ways it falls quite short.
When people say live music is their reference, I assume they are really referencing their memory of sound, mostly from other recordings and other systems, because most peoples' live listening experience doesn't include anything even remotely as intimate as a recording well done.
Tim
Last edited:
