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

[jsrtheta]

RE: Singer in the room illusion. In general I find stereo to be like the old "3-d" viewers.... it adds some depth but also causes eye strain. The most convincing "singer in the room" illusion I get are from old mono recordings (not stereo fold downs) of a "girl and guitar" style of music. I turn off one speaker and move the other speaker to the center of the room. It creates a nice illusion without the brain struggling to create a "phantom center" from 2 point sources. I bet many have never tried listening to "real mono" with a "real mono" recording played on one speaker and would be surprised how well it works for some music (better than stereo or multi-channel).

Some of us grew up with "real mono" played on one speaker. Some of us are glad we don't have to live like that anymore.

 

[PierreV]

Good news I managed to pare it down to 55k
dac/pre 8k
amps 22k
speakers 24k
cables 1k

Sorry, but the "measurement by cost" claim has to be the dumbest argument there is in the audiophile world. It is just a repackaged argument from (bogus) authority. It tells us more about the personality of the claimant than the sonic performance of his system.

I am 100% sure that some users here have more accurate sound reproduction than I do at their listening position for less than a 1/10th of the cost of my speakers/systems.

Why am I sure? Because they shared their LP measurement.

How did they do that? Good speakers + DSP/treatment for the room impact.

So why did I spend more? Scale, effortless impact in a relatively large room.

 

[Mart68]

£25K on speakers may be worth it depending on what you buy.

The rest is bollocks. 8 grand on a DAC/Pre? Maybe if it was made of gold and all the buttons were diamonds. Otherwise what's the point? It's like spending 8 grand on a toaster. The toast won't taste any better for it.

 

[Capitol C]

With a really good performance and recording, chamber music can sound like it is in the room. The old Acoustic Research live versus recorded demos showed this.

 

[agiletiger]

Well th

As soon as I encounter anybody making a rather obvious statement that the pursuit of the original musical performance experience is futile and unobtainable, I question whether they are making this mistake (of choosing the wrong objective) deliberately, or whether they are genuinely accidentally misunderstanding the point of sound reproduction.

The truth is fairly simple and is certainly achievable, and worth striving to attain. And that is, to reproduce with fidelity the actual recorded music production that was made by the musicians in concert with the sound engineering and recording team. The experience that they had in the mastering suite is a work of technical art wrapped around a piece of musical performance art, and they made that sonic experience and not any other sonic experience, and striving to hear what they heard, and reproduce what they produced, is worthwhile and worth doing.

Accuracy to the original production is achievable, not unobtainable.

The closer you can make your home playback environment resemble the mastering suite (room) and speaker performance, the more you can approach true accuracy. You want to experience the actual product that they actually made for you? Then do this. Toole calls it Closing the Circle of Confusion.

Calling it an unattainable illusion is what I would describe as settling.

Let's hear from Toole himself (my emphasis added):

"It is important to differentiate between the production of a musical event and the subsequent reproduction of that musical event. Subjectivity – pure opinion– is the only measure of whether music is appealing, and it will necessarily vary among individuals. Analysis involves issues of melody, harmony, lyrics, rhythm, tonal quality of instruments, musicianship, and so on. In the recording studio, the recording engineer becomes a major contributor to the art by adjusting the contribution of each musician to the overall production, adjusting the total balance and timber of each of the contributors, and adding reflected and reverberated sounds or other processed versions of captured sounds to the mix. This too is judged subjectively, on the basis of whether it reflects the artists intent and, of course, how it might appeal to consumers.

"The evaluation of reproduced sound should be a matter of judging the extent to which any and all of these elements are accurately replicated or attractively reproduced. It is a matter of trying to describe the respects in which audio devices add to or subtract from the desired objective. A different vocabulary is needed. However, most music lovers and audiophiles lack this special capability in critical listening, and as a consequence, art is routinely mingled with technology. In subjective equipment reviews, technical audio devices are often imbued with musical capabilities. Some are described as being able to euphonically enhance recordings, and others to do the reverse. It is true that characteristics of technical performance must be reflected in the musical performance, but it happens in a highly unpredictable manner, and such a commentary is of no direct assistance in our efforts to improve sound reproduction.

"In the audio industry, progress hinges on the ability to identify and quantify technical defects in recording and playback equipment while listening to an infinitely variable signal: music. Add to this the popular notion that we are all "hear differently," that one person's meat might be another person's poison, and we have a situation where are universally satisfying solution might not be possible. Fortunately reality is not so complex, and although tastes in music are highly personal and infinitely variable, we discover that recognising the most common deficiencies in reproduced sounds is a surprisingly universal skill. To a remarkable extent we seem to be able to separate the evaluation of reproduction technology from that of the program. It is not necessary to enjoy the program to be able to recognise that it is, or is not, well reproduced."

Cheers

Music production and music performance are absolutely not synonymous. The latter is always the former but not vice versa. It is even hinted at in your quote of Toole. Experiencing a performance is a wholly subjective experience.

 

[agiletiger]

It's more for the band. Maintaining the rhythm and timing. That's what I've read. But I've always wondered how much of it bandmembers can hear? Not playing a horn in a big band, I don't know.

They have monitors for this purpose, either in ear, or a speaker in front of them. The mix for the monitor is completely different than the front of house mix. The former is just for the musicians to hear what everyone else is doing.

 

[agiletiger]

As a long time audiophile, former professional classical and jazz musician, and a former long time stage manager at a large performing arts venue, the pursuit of trying to recreate a live performance is a fool’s errand.

This site is all about the objective and faithful reproduction of a musical recording. I feel like I need to state the obvious to make my point here. You do not get to see the facial expressions of a singer who is completely in the zone. You don’t get to see the sweat dripping down Buddy Rich’s face during one of his marathon solos. You don’t have collective experiences like everyone leaning forward to hear the last notes of the first movement of Mahler’s ninth symphony. These are essential parts of the concert experience.

If you want to close your eyes in an attempt to have an “objective” experience, you are entitled to do so but you’d be missing out on most of the experience. On the flip side, if you try to evaluate music reproduction equipment purely subjectively, you are missing out on so much.

 

[Frgirard]

As a long time audiophile, former professional classical and jazz musician, and a former long time stage manager at a large performing arts venue, the pursuit of trying to recreate a live performance is a fool’s errand.

This site is all about the objective and faithful reproduction of a musical recording. I feel like I need to state the obvious to make my point here. You do not get to see the facial expressions of a singer who is completely in the zone. You don’t get to see the sweat dripping down Buddy Rich’s face during one of his marathon solos. You don’t have collective experiences like everyone leaning forward to hear the last notes of the first movement of Mahler’s ninth symphony. These are essential parts of the concert experience.

If you want to close your eyes in an attempt to have an “objective” experience, you are entitled to do so but you’d be missing out on most of the experience. On the flip side, if you try to evaluate music reproduction equipment purely subjectively, you are missing out on so much.

Please stop. You talk nonsense. The proof.

 

[agiletiger]

Please stop. You talk nonsense. The proof.

You post Youtube clips as proof????????????

 

[charleski]

Has anyone here truly been convinced the a real person was singing or a band playing in their room from a stereo speaker system

I remember the time I first heard Glen Gould playing the Goldberg Variations. After a few minutes I became convinced there was someone muttering outside my window, which was spooky as my flat wasn't on the ground floor...
So not 'playing in the room', but very close .

 

[agiletiger]

I remember the time I first heard Glen Gould playing the Goldberg Variations. After a few minutes I became convinced there was someone muttering outside my window, which was spooky as my flat wasn't on the ground floor...
So not 'playing in the room', but very close .

Double edged sword. The better my system got, the louder Gould got!

 

[ADU]

I will try and make myself as clear as possible now. Let's say stereo recording captures & reproduces 30% of the spatial cues (you might say 50% or 60%, let's not argue about details) to what extent is there value in pursuing ever more accurate equipment to the signal, if the signal itself ends up being the most flawed part of the equation?

Howdy Digby,

I suppose I look at the above somewhat pragmatically. Stereo systems are fairly easy and inexpensive to set up. Given that fact, it makes sense to do most music production in stereo, because it's one of the most easy and affordable formats for a music consumer to reproduce.

Does this mean that other delivery formats are not worth exploring? Imo, the answer is no. A large number of people now have multi-channel systems in their homes, and those could also be used for music production as well.

Stereo is the lowest common denominator though that can give you at least some sense of width and dimension to a recording, beyond mono. And many people find it more than adequate for their enjoyment of music recordings.

Our intention is to enjoy music (or even sound generally), accurately reproduced through audio equipment. To what extent is stereo reproduction the ultimate bottleneck in this end?

It's no bottleneck or impediment at all, if the recording is produced and mastered in stereo.

 

[Cote Dazur]

"it was as if the singer/band was in the room"

Interesting post, stereo, with all the limitations, on some well recorded performance in the right room with a good setup, even with vinyl (with all the vinyl limitations) the experience can be very impressive! In comparison to what we are usually sonically exposed to, it can feel like “being there”, but in comparison to really being there, not even close.
It is just an expression, unfortunately some people inexperienced in listening to good stereo set ups, can take it literally, we should avoid using it for the sake of our great hobby.
It is not even the goal, all we can expect is a faithful recreation of the recording.
All that said, the mind is a powerful tool, if by closing their eyes a listener can believe he his transported to where it all happened, all the power to them, but you don’t need stereo for that, a cheap fm radio or cheap headphones will do the trick just as nicely, the brain is doing all the lifting.
For me, all I ask from my nicely acoustically treated dedicated stereo room set up, which vinyl or digital media, is to make it interesting.
Yesterday, this recording: Blue Light 'til Dawn.

made it particularly interesting and satisfactory.

 

[Gregss]

Hello,

While we can argue if stereo is "good enough", IMHO it is good enough to be more enjoyable than many "live" performances. Why: poor venues, only some can be in the sweet spots for the performance and environmental and crowd noise. Many venues have really poor reflection control and large bass resonances to boot.

This touted idea that all live performances are great is garbage. Again IMHO. I have been to concerts that unless you already know the words being sung, could not possibly hear them well enough to know what was being sung. Stereo, with decent quality recording (not always a given for sure), is quite able to be enjoyed.

FWIW,
Greg

 

[ahofer]

Hello,

While we can argue if stereo is "good enough", IMHO it is good enough to be more enjoyable than many "live" performances. Why: poor venues, only some can be in the sweet spots for the performance and environmental and crowd noise. Many venues have really poor reflection control and large bass resonances to boot.

This touted idea that all live performances are great is garbage. Again IMHO. I have been to concerts that unless you already know the words being sung, could not possibly hear them well enough to know what was being sung. Stereo, with decent quality recording (not always a given for sure), is quite able to be enjoyed.

FWIW,
Greg

I'm with you on Rock concerts, generally, and many jazz venues. Classical venues are usually better, although there are some exceptions. And of course there's the beeping hearing aids problem from older audiences...

 

[Tks]

Don't get what the whole "stereo not good enough" critique is all about...

Slap on some decent open backs, and get some binaural audio going, and I think that's close enough. You'll see many times online if you watch streamers on Twitch, that someone will have music playlist bots that allow users you queue up youtube links and have music play while the streamer is doing his thing. Some people have linked music tracks on Youtube to where they've edited-in sounds like this and the streamer would think someone is knocking at their door or hammering something lightly upstairs.

It's not a surprise most music today doesn't actually sound like you're standing someone playing music in front of you. How could it, even if you were in the studio booth yourself? Audio doesn't sound real even when you're there on-location in these recording studios due to all the room treatment.

Add to that, the fact that virtually all music has auto-tuning (though I guess "audiophiles" listen to music that's far less auto tuned).

AND finally, and most importantly, the visual-auditory divide being absent (meaning you're not exposed to what is visually occurring, so when in your own home you have the presence of things like reflections, yet the music you listen to has no such thing, it's easy to say "no music I listen to sounds like what it would sound like if I were there", that's only half true because being their also has aforementioned visual reinforcement to cement the stimulus).

 

[ADU]

Don't get what the whole "stereo not good enough" critique is all about...

Slap on some decent open backs, and get some binaural audio going, and I think that's close enough. You'll see many times online if you watch streamers on Twitch, that someone will have music playlist bots that allow users you queue up youtube links and have music play while the streamer is doing his thing. Some people have linked music tracks on Youtube to where they've edited-in sounds like this and the streamer would think someone is knocking at their door or hammering something lightly upstairs.

It's not a surprise most music today doesn't actually sound like you're standing someone playing music in front of you. How could it, even if you were in the studio booth yourself? Audio doesn't sound real even when you're there on-location in these recording studios due to all the room treatment.

Add to that, the fact that virtually all music has auto-tuning (though I guess "audiophiles" listen to music that's far less auto tuned).

AND finally, and most importantly, the visual-auditory divide being absent (meaning you're not exposed to what is visually occurring, so when in your own home you have the presence of things like reflections, yet the music you listen to has no such thing, it's easy to say "no music I listen to sounds like what it would sound like if I were there", that's only half true because being their also has aforementioned visual reinforcement to cement the stimulus).

Some good points, Tks. Alot of recorded music has visual reinforcement though in the form of video. Maybe this is why I prefer listening to most of my favorite music tracks as videos rather than as audio-only files. (?)

 

[Tks]

Some good points, Tks. Alot of recorded music has visual reinforcement though in the form of video. Maybe this is why I prefer listening to most of my favorite music tracks as videos rather than as audio-only files. (?)

Cant tell you how many times soundtracks for movies and shows contain music I thought was great while watching, but vastly less impactful when simply listening. There's always 1-2 tracks that are just great no matter what, but when watching the movie, I almost don't notice the soundtrack because it just blends so well with the content. On soundtrack listening exclusively; I'm able to hear and suddenly realize some music just doesn't hold up all that well on it's own.

This usually isn't true for songs, but instrumental music most definitely.

 

[sonitus mirus]

I have discovered quite a few artists that now reside in my music library from hearing them for the first time while being played as the credits were rolling after a movie or TV show ended.

 

[jazzendapus]

Some already gave answers in a similar vein to mine, but here's my take anyway:

Stereo recordings are a completely wholesome and established art form on their own.

There's a point when musicians+produces+engineers+other staff relevant to creation and production listen to their recorded music, which most importantly and in overwhelming majority of the cases happens in some kind of control room with some acoustic treatment, two speakers (usually monitors with relatively flat FR) and maybe a sub. And when they give their final "OKAY, we're good!" to the sound emanating from those speakers in that environment and stop the process of production, that to me is the sound I'm supposed to reproduce in my own environment, that's the artistic intent I'm interested in and how the people involved are imagining others will hear their creation.

The logical way to reproduce that faithfully is to simply get the same speakers and to recreate the same acoustic environment. It's difficult to achieve perfection, but getting linear speakers+sub and treating some acoustical issues in your room will theoretically often get you pretty close to target. Of course only given the above mentioned assumptions regarding the equipment and environment used at the creators' end are true, which is often not so. Floyd Toole writes about this "circle of confusion" issue in depth.

So funnily enough, in ideal world (where the goal of the listeners is to hear what the musicians intended), there needs to be exactly one single model of stereo speakers that all creators and listeners will use and some kind of unified listening booth that will be used at both ends (it can even be inflatable and portable!). The speakers don't even have to be linear, they simply have to be the same at both ends, in order for listeners to hear the full intent of the creators.

As to the issue of stereo speakers not capable of reproducing the full spatial information - yes, but so what? An enormous amount of musicians are totally content with releasing music in stereo form intentionally and my goal is to reproduce this artistic work faithfully. I don't expect photographs to recreate the smell of the enviornment they capture visually, and they are not less artful because of that...