The elephant in the room? Objective to what...

[Digby]

Is there not something of an elephant in the room when discussing music reproduction, that being stereo, the high technology of the 1930s.

Stereo is missing so much spatial information that whichever way you cut it, I think the limit for music reproduction is always going to be stereo recording. When I say this I'm talking, best case scenario, stereo mic'd recordings of live music, obviously any sound processed and panned through a mixing desk is false (not an accurate representation of the sound as it was played).

When I hear people say "it was as if the singer/band was in the room" about a stereo system, I have to say, I pull a slightly befuddled look. Has anyone here truly been convinced the a real person was singing or a band playing in their room from a stereo speaker system, so much so that if someone was to blindfold you and lead you into a room where a good stereo was playing, you'd say "this is great, I'm going to go talk to the singer right after they finish". Has anyone actually experienced something like that?

Anyway, I suppose the point of the thread is there are a lot of people here who call themselves objectivists, but objective to what? If you want objective reproduction of a stereo recording, then that is likely quite possible, but it will always fall short of sounding like live music, because stereo is so limited in recording and then conveying the sound as it arrives at the listener at a live music event.

I don't think people are going to move past stereo, generally speaking, because the drive (for the majority) is towards fewer and smaller speakers, but if objectivity is being objective to a stereo signal, then it is never going to get very close to sounding like live music, which I suppose is what many (most?) are really looking for. It can be enjoyed for what it is, of course, but then what is the objective? To be objective to a (significantly spatially flawed) stereo recording or to reproduce the sound as it was in the room in which the music was playing, that is the question.

I was prompted to post the thread by the people that have a dig at those listening to and spending money on vinyl playback equipment. I'm not arguing for vinyl superiority over digital, it is inferior in a technical sense, but I do feel like saying to them....uh, you know you are listening to stereo, right....stereo....from the 1930s...with all of the flaws that entails.

 

[PierreV]

convinced the a real person was singing

Yes. One vivid example with an opera singer. Fun detail: the opera singer was also on the couch listening to her recording.

But... there was a catch and a big one. The opera singer decided to stand between the speakers and sing live. I immediately had to back away ten meters and retreat to the kitchen. It was as if the amplification had been multiplied by 10 and, acoustically, the room wasn't helping. In fact, the recording subjectively sounded more lifelike than reality.

I'd say that it is the same perceptual/psychological mechanism at work when you watch a movie and you are not constantly thinking that you are looking at a regular piece of glass or hanging cloth.

 

[RayDunzl]

Stereo playback creates an illusion.

I don't try to objectively rate it, beyond maybe the mental comparison of one instance of playback to another.

I've taken a few objective measurements, not of "stereo" but of what is happening at a point in space, to augment my analysis of what was heard.

Attributes that assist in the creation of the illusion can be objectively measure, but what goes on in your head after that is less quantifiable.

---

As for the sensation of "live", I'll just be content with a "wow" now and again.

 

[Mart68]

Anyway, I suppose the point of the thread is there are a lot of people here who call themselves objectivists, but objective to what?

To be as faithful as possible to the recorded signal. Doesn't matter if it is one channel, two channel or five hundred channels.

The objective approach is to mangle the recorded signal as little as possible.

The starting point for accurate playback is the finished recording that you buy (or nowadays maybe rent), nothing that went before that is relevant.

 

[anmpr1]

Stereo is missing so much spatial information that whichever way you cut it,

You do the best you can given what you have to work with. Never expect more than what you can get from whatever is in front of you. It's as simple as that.

If you are looking for 'realism' in music, go to a live event, or play an instrument. A recording is just a small picture of the event. It will never be more than that. And, generally, recordings are more in the abstract vein than they are of the realist school.

Plus, you always have to adapt. For instance, I listen to a lot of monophonic recordings. They sound much better if you turn off one of the stereo speakers. If you can place the loudspeaker in the center of the room near a wall, the sound spreads out and, off axis, it is difficult to localize as a point source. As a bonus, you don't get the stereo 'hole in the middle'! But who wants to listen to mono, today?

In the late '50s, and by the early '60s, when stereo became popular, no one wanted to listen to monophonic. I guess folks always gravitate to whatever's 'new and improved'. Record companies saw it as an opportunity, and invented 'mono reprocessed for stereo'. It allowed them a way to recycle all the 'old' Sinatra recordings. They could also sell those records for a dollar extra (reminding you to buy a new, more expensive made-for-stereo needle). What a sad joke. But people bought them. I don't think anyone really liked them. But they were at least as 'natural' sounding as the new authentic stereo records--the ones with all the instruments on one channel, and the vocals on the other, and nothing in the middle. Or the one's with the lead instrument that bounced around, from left to right.

Next was 'quad', or 4-Channel. The discrete stuff--four channel tapes of pop music, sounded even more ridiculous than stereo. For their part, quad records never worked very well, even if you could figure out the different formats.

Next came 'original' masters. The last few years it's been 'Hi Res'. Then remasters. And remasters of remasters. Are we in 'natural sounding' land, yet? Does anyone really expect a mono recording of Hank William's Hey Good Lookin' to sound better in 24/96? Of course record companies like it, because they can sell more 'old' product. It's the 'mono reprocessed for stereo' thing, all over.

What else? Headphones? That's where the excitement is, now. How are headphones 'natural' sounding? Does anyone think that? Even with the Harmonic Curve!

Until music can be 'direct injected' into your head, cyborg style, none of it will be more than a small artificial picture of varying quality and form. So don't worry too much about how 'artificial' stereo is, or how much 'spatial' info is missing. Unless you just like to worry.

 

[Digby]

I'd say that it is the same perceptual/psychological mechanism at work when you watch a movie and you are not constantly thinking that you are looking at a regular piece of glass or hanging cloth.

True, but nobody is convinced they are looking at anything other than glass or hanging cloth, however engrossed they are or vivid their imagination is. Isn't the same largely true of stereo - stereo is to live music (unamplified) what (2D) television is to (3D) theatre.

The objective approach is to mangle the recorded signal as little as possible.

The starting point for accurate playback is the finished recording that you buy (or nowadays maybe rent), nothing that went before that is relevant.

OK, I suppose the question is to what extent does stereo recording (even in the best possible circumstances) mangle the recording before it even gets to the playback stage and, seeing as this a form of distortion itself, what concern should we have it?

As for nothing before the recording is relevant, I beg to differ. I've had to endure many a recording from the 1920s that was superior, as far as I was concerned for musicality, but the recording itself was grossly inferior (ever had to listen to/endure 78rpm shellac). I'd much prefer for those great artists to be available in the kind of resolution available now.

I understand this site is about measuring equipment and how accurately it reproduces a given signal, but as the signal we're listening to is music, it makes sense to wonder how accurate a stereo system can be in the first place and whether higher and higher levels of accuracy elsewhere (amplifiers/speakers/DACs) is not just micturating into the wind in the face of the deficiencies of stereo reproduction.

You do the best you can given what you have to work with. Never expect more than what you can get from whatever is in front of you. It's as simple as that.

If you are looking for 'realism' in music, go to a live event, or play an instrument. A recording is just a small picture of the event. It will never be more than that. And, generally, recordings are more in the abstract vein than they are of the realist school.

Yes, but surely there are recordings techniques of higher and lower resolution just like there is equipment that is more or less accurate. A recording probably won't ever sound precisely like a live event, but is stereo really the final word on this or are there multichannel techniques that could provide a more realistic spatial experience and if so, are they being pursued.

Is stereo satisfactory when we are talking about people who don't flinch spending 4 and 5 figure sums on music equipment. Seems like it might be putting the cart before the horse somewhat.

 

[RayDunzl]

Is stereo satisfactory when we are talking about people who don't flinch spending 4 and 5 figure sums on music equipment.

It works for me.

But then, I own (and fly) an airplane with no motor. Two hours and thirty five minutes airtime yesterday.

Go figure.

 

[Zensō]

But then, I own (and fly) an airplane with no motor. Two hours and thirty five minutes airtime yesterday.

Double-blind ABX or it didn’t happen.

Seriously, that sounds glorious.

 

[Koeitje]

I think the most important part is that we try to play back the recording as accurately as possible. The recording is of course already flawed, but at least we can objectively say if the playback of what has been recorded is accurate.

 

[PierreV]

Yes, but surely there are recordings techniques of higher and lower resolution

I don't think anyone records below the sufficient limits (sampling theorem + a lot of safety margin). But of course the recording equipment has its own characteristics. (see the price of vintage microphones, coveted by people who want to recreate a certain sound).

just like there is equipment that is more or less accurate. A recording probably won't ever sound precisely like a live event, but is stereo really the final word on this or are there multichannel techniques that could provide a more realistic spatial experience and if so, are they being pursued.

Yes, there are and yes they are being pursued. But one has got to think about practical issues for the normal customer.

Inside Morten Lindberg’s Immersive Genelec Studio

Morten Lindberg recently upgraded the monitoring system in his post production studio using Genelec monitors and woofer systems in a 7.1.4 configuration.

headlinermagazine.net

Is stereo satisfactory when we are talking about people who don't flinch spending 4 and 5 figure sums on music equipment. Seems like it might be putting the cart before the horse somewhat.

Not necessarily, although it is (imho) unjustified to spend a fortune on dac or amplifiers. Speakers, on the other hand, are more problematic. But if you move from two bad speakers to ten bad speakers, you probably aren't improving much. That being said, DSP is very able to improve so-so speakers in general so that aspect is probably going to be settled in the near future as well.

But practical issues remain: the availability of recordings is one issue and the average customer probably isn't going to have the space or budget for a custom-made multi-channel listening room. I am lucky enough to be able to dedicate a room to my HT but 7/2 is the absolute maximum I can tolerate in terms of inconvenience (mostly cabling)

 

[Gregss]

Is there not something of an elephant in the room when discussing music reproduction, that being stereo, the high technology of the 1930s.

Stereo is missing so much spatial information that whichever way you cut it, I think the limit for music reproduction is always going to be stereo recording. When I say this I'm talking, best case scenario, stereo mic'd recordings of live music, obviously any sound processed and panned through a mixing desk is false (not an accurate representation of the sound as it was played).

When I hear people say "it was as if the singer/band was in the room" about a stereo system, I have to say, I pull a slightly befuddled look. Has anyone here truly been convinced the a real person was singing or a band playing in their room from a stereo speaker system, so much so that if someone was to blindfold you and lead you into a room where a good stereo was playing, you'd say "this is great, I'm going to go talk to the singer right after they finish". Has anyone actually experienced something like that?

Anyway, I suppose the point of the thread is there are a lot of people here who call themselves objectivists, but objective to what? If you want objective reproduction of a stereo recording, then that is likely quite possible, but it will always fall short of sounding like live music, because stereo is so limited in recording and then conveying the sound as it arrives at the listener at a live music event.

I don't think people are going to move past stereo, generally speaking, because the drive (for the majority) is towards fewer and smaller speakers, but if objectivity is being objective to a stereo signal, then it is never going to get very close to sounding like live music, which I suppose is what many (most?) are really looking for. It can be enjoyed for what it is, of course, but then what is the objective? To be objective to a (significantly spatially flawed) stereo recording or to reproduce the sound as it was in the room in which the music was playing, that is the question.

I was prompted to post the thread by the people that have a dig at those listening to and spending money on vinyl playback equipment. I'm not arguing for vinyl superiority over digital, it is inferior in a technical sense, but I do feel like saying to them....uh, you know you are listening to stereo, right....stereo....from the 1930s...with all of the flaws that entails.

Just a comment on on perfect "live" performances are:

Have worked at several live venues and seems fairly common that the amps and speaker systems are often running in mono as they can't set up well to give stereo imaging to most of the audience. Now live unamplified events, there at least those in the sweat spot do get stereo imaging.

Just idolizing "live" performances as being close to perfect is way too often not true.

 

[Frgirard]

+1

In acoustic concert, the number of good seats is weak.
In amplified concert, the eyes are a good placebo.
I have more than thousands concerts on my bag. The concert for me is the live music, the magical moment, no the good sound.

 

[sonitus mirus]

The only objective consideration for me is with the recorded audio signal and the faithful reproduction of that signal. What may be heard with an infinite number of scenarios and preferences is not part of this pursuit of objectivity.

 

[Frgirard]

1)The target in studio for the early reflections is - 30 dB
For the EBU is - 10 dB.
For an accurate reproduction.
The recording embeds a level of early reflections

2) The decay along the bandwidth. The recording embeds....

How do you do?

 

[billyjoebob]

Not necessarily, although it is (imho) unjustified to spend a fortune on dac or amplifiers. Speakers, on the other hand, are more problematic. But if you move from two bad speakers to ten bad speakers, you probably aren't improving much. That being said, DSP is very able to improve so-so speakers in general so that aspect is probably going to be settled in the near future as well.

Give me 2 good speakers with no DSP over 2 so-so speakers with DSP any day of the week.
Thats not even close!!

 

[DVDdoug]

When I hear people say "it was as if the singer/band was in the room" about a stereo system, I have to say, I pull a slightly befuddled look.

I'm not going to be fooled in my living room but in a concert hall or music hall it's a different story and many people have been fooled many times. In a music hall our ability to "locate" sounds is more limited than we think because the angle across the stage is rather narrow and there is lots of reflected sound.

And as Gregss said, live amplified (or "reinforced") sound is usually mono.

I wouldn't want a live band or orchestra in my living room! And, most of the music I listen to is "studio music" and it's not really intended to replicate a live performance...

​

generally speaking, because the drive (for the majority) is towards fewer and smaller speakers,

Most music is still 2-channel stereo but actually the trend toward more channels/speakers. I don't think they even make stereo movies anymore and most of my video concerts are 5.1 channels.

 

[JeffS7444]

"Live" only has one correct volume, and it's usually going to be too loud for domestic consumption.

 

[Digby]

It works for me.

But then, I own (and fly) an airplane with no motor. Two hours and thirty five minutes airtime yesterday.

Go figure.

Lucky you. I've always wanted to have a go in one of those. What kind of flying experience do you need before you go in one?

 

[JustAnandaDourEyedDude]

Faithful to the live performance, you say? Just a few (ten) cases where the singers themselves were outed while trying to be faithful to their previously recorded performances (who knows how many instances when they got away with fooling the audience)!

https://www.billboard.com/music/pop/most-infamous-lip-sync-incidents-videos-mariah-carey-7640807/

 

[elvisizer]

obviously any sound processed and panned through a mixing desk is false (not an accurate representation of the sound as it was played)

tell that to my synths lol