Recordings Indistinguishable From Real Thing

[bdiament]

Hi Jud,

 

Channel Classics lists mics used among the various pieces of information in the thorough provenance they have for each of their DSD downloads. Would love to see the rest of industry follow this example insofar as it's possible.

 

It's easy with Soundkeeper. I always use the same matched pair of QTC-1s, separated by a baffle of my own design. I discuss the spacing and how I arrived at it in the article I cited.

 

While this info *can* be useful with minimally mic'd recordings, with most typical recordings and for most "civilians" with *any* recordings, I'm not sure how useful it is. Two engineers using exactly the same gear (a theoretical concept as I don't know of any two that do things the same way) will very likely produce different sounding results.

 

Perhaps Chris' idea of the engineer's resume would help. Then again, how about birthplace? ;-} (I hail from the Bronx.)

The most useful info of all might be the engineer's track record, what they've worked on that an ordinary audio civilian might be familiar with. That might prove the most useful "reference" of all.

 

But on second thought, even that has its limitations. For example, many recordings involve more than one engineer. What one does impacts the work of the other(s).

 

Best regards,

Barry

Soundkeeper Recordings

Barry Diament Audio

[Jud]

Hi Jud,

 

 

 

It's easy with Soundkeeper. I always use the same matched pair of QTC-1s, separated by a baffle of my own design. I discuss the spacing and how I arrived at it in the article I cited.

 

While this info *can* be useful with minimally mic'd recordings, with most typical recordings and for most "civilians" with *any* recordings, I'm not sure how useful it is. Two engineers using exactly the same gear (a theoretical concept as I don't know of any two that do things the same way) will very likely produce different sounding results.

 

Perhaps Chris' idea of the engineer's resume would help. Then again, how about birthplace? ;-} (I hail from the Bronx.)

The most useful info of all might be the engineer's track record, what they've worked on that an ordinary audio civilian might be familiar with. That might prove the most useful "reference" of all.

 

But on second thought, even that has its limitations. For example, many recordings involve more than one engineer. What one does impacts the work of the other(s).

 

Best regards,

Barry

Soundkeeper Recordings

Barry Diament Audio

 

To me, it's something like back in the day when I was looking for high end audio stores: Nothing is conclusive in itself, but all these pieces of information offer clues. The mic brand is perhaps analogous to the brands a store carries - potentially indicative of compatible thinking. I do vividly recall an experience at one high end store where I walked into their main listening room and saw hugely expensive pieces of equipment and speakers lying on their sides and backs all over the floor, and various other dealers who very obviously did not set up speakers to best advantage, or who had connections all running into some big patch bay. Then there were other dealers, unfortunately fewer in number, who had their rooms set up carefully, with only one set of speakers in the listening room at a time (to prevent resonance from other speakers adding to or interfering with the sound from the models on test).

 

And like an audio store, though various items of information can offer clues, you have to experience it (go to the store; listen to the recording) to know for sure.

[RobbieC]

Hi Robbie - I think it's necessary to state that what's heard via mic feed is different from the actual live event.

 

I like your enthusiasm for this topic and the fact you have a deep technical understanding of the theories. However I disagree that a live performance can be captured and played back transparently. I.e. live v. recorded are indistinguishable.

 

Lets use the London Symphony Orchestra as our test subject. How would you go about recording and playing the material from LSO so it's indistinguishable from the actual event?

 

I'm seriously interested in the topic. Please don't take my question and disagreement as an attack at all.

 

Chris, I'm not sure if you mean that you do not believe a live performance can ever be captured and played back transparently or that to date no live performance has yet been captured and played back to a sufficient degree to call transparent. I will say that I believe it is possible to create "perfect" recordings using current technology with one caveat...the microphone.

 

I have written about the importance of microphones and cables before (I have stated in the past that they are subject to the same four requirements found in Post #1 and everything physical, including wire and air, acts as a filter to some degree). I say caveat because I cannot speak of the sufficiency of current microphone technology as I have limited knowledge in that area. I have, however, proposed before here (as a thought exercise) the use of laser microphones along with very high sample rate ADCs. Together, they would eliminate both coloring (at least at this stage) and the need for an analog anti-alias filter, which in itself can introduce phase shifts and perhaps impart a coloring to the signal. Sound, of course, results from the propagation of a pressure wave arriving at the ear. A laser microphone would work by detecting statistical changes in the position of air molecules and, therefore, would not have coloring as such since there is no diaphragm or other physical component with mass that must start and stop in time with changes in air pressure other than the air molecules themselves meaning flat frequency response with no sensitivity to any particular frequency and no resonance beyond what already exists in the air at the venue.

 

Also, we must mention that there are two fundamental ways in which to record an event (if we are trying to be indistinguishable from the event in reproduction as opposed to being artistic in our interpretation of the event). The first is to capture the information as close to the source as possible (e.g., close miking). The other is to capture information arriving at the listening location (e.g., binaural capture). Of course those are the two extremes and there lies a myriad of (infinite) possibilities in between. With close miking it is possible to capture the true nature of the source as relates to human hearing without added information such as ambiance of the venue. However, reproduction while faithful to the source would almost certainly not be faithful to the event short of placing the reproduction apparatus in the same relative position as the original source in the same venue under similar conditions and you going there. Hardly practical for our needs. Binaural recording has the potential to capture the true nature of the entire event as relates to human hearing but would require the head transfer function of the listener each of which is unique. Of course, I can imagine algorithms that could modify the signal for any particular transfer function so that perhaps is only a hurdle to overcome and not an impossibility per se.

 

Okay, but what about using two speaker aka stereo for the reproduction? In this case, one must reproduce the pressure wave arriving at the listening position in a faithful way without regard to head transfer functions or even a human being for that matter. Miking choice would have to consider that the reproduction will come from two relatively point sources approximately 2 m apart. In most venues, take LSO for instance, the listener is sufficiently far away from the sound source that pressure waves arrive in a near planar fashion with reflections arriving in any number of ways. It is possible to use two point sources to reproduce the information that existed at the original capture position onto the listening position...but only from the front direction with accuracy and precision. Reflections will either be incorrect since they will bounce off whatever is in the listening room in a fashion unlike what happened in the original venue or they will be absent to some degree or even accentuated to some degree. Now remember if you could go back to the symphonic hall under the same conditions one could arrange an array of speakers in the positions of the original instruments and I guarantee that a listener can be fooled...though again this is impractical. But if there was a position in a symphonic hall (or imagine an open amphitheatre with no ceiling, no walls, non-reflective floor) where there were no reflections then a two point source reproduction apparatus could indeed fool the listener. The listening position would be narrowly defined and at one point only (short of adding active adaptive algorithms to the mix and ignoring possible symmetries) and the listener could not move appreciably due to the venetian effect associated with constructive and destructive interference from two point sources. The listener's head is obviously larger than a point but if we come sufficiently close to reproducing the "planar" wave that existed it should not matter the distance between ears.

 

Hope that I made sense Chris.

[bdiament]

Hi Jud,

 

To me, it's something like back in the day when I was looking for high end audio stores: Nothing is conclusive in itself, but all these pieces of information offer clues...

 

Understood.

 

Best regards,

Barry

Soundkeeper Recordings

Barry Diament Audio

[The Computer Audiophile]

Hi Rob - Thanks for the detailed response. I see more where you are coming from now. Your position is based on theory and can't likely be done in real life. Is that a correct statement? Do laser microphones exist outside of espionage circles and are the any good?

 

 

"Now remember if you could go back to the symphonic hall under the same conditions one could arrange an array of speakers in the positions of the original instruments and I guarantee that a listener can be fooled...though again this is impractical."

 

How would you handle the doubling of environmental factors that results from recording an event and playing that event back in the same location? i.e. A reflection from a wall will be recorded and played back. This same reflection will be doubled by the same wall and sound very different from the real live event.

 

Thanks for engaging me in this conversation. Some of it is far over my head, but I am very interested in the topic.

[mitchco]

Another approach to making Recordings Indistinguishable From Real Thing:

 

Pure Stereo: A Revolutionary Technology for Audiophile-Grade 3D Audio

 

"Pure Stereo is a recent breakthrough in audio technology (licensed by Princeton University) that yields unprecedented spatial realism in loudspeakers-based audio playback allowing the listener to hear, through only two loudspeakers, a truly 3D reproduction of a recorded soundfield with uncanny accuracy and detail, and with a level of high tonal and spatial delity that is simply unapproachable by even the most expensive and advanced existing high-end audio systems."

 

Quite the claim. Makes for a very interesting read.

 

This is the same team that developed BACCH Filters: Optimized Crosstalk Cancellation for 3D Audio over two loudpseakers for David Chesky's Binaural+ technology.

 

Has anyone else listened to: Dr. Chesky's Sensational, Fantastic, and Simply Amazing Binaural Sound Show? As an ex recording/mixing engineer, this is the closest recording to the real thing I have heard to date.

[bdiament]

Hi Rob,

 

...With close miking it is possible to capture the true nature of the source as relates to human hearing without added information such as ambiance of the venue. However, reproduction while faithful to the source would almost certainly not be faithful to the event short of placing the reproduction apparatus in the same relative position as the original source in the same venue under similar conditions and you going there. Hardly practical for our needs. Binaural recording has the potential to capture the true nature of the entire event as relates to human hearing...

 

A few thoughts:

 

I would submit it is impossible for close mic'ing, even with the best mics (whatever one deems those to be) to "capture the true nature of the source as relates to human hearing". Unless one is listening from a position as close as the microphones, the tonality, the entire harmonic structure and the dynamic performance will not sound like what we'd hear in the presence of the performer/instrument.

 

I've often asked folks if they'd like to listen to their favorite vocalist with the ear an inch or less from the singer's lips, to their favorite horn player with their ear in the bell of the horn, to their favorite electric guitarist with their ear up against the grill cloth of a Marshall stack or to their favorite pianist with their head under the lid of the piano and their ear a few inches above the hammers. These are the places from which closely placed mics "listen".

 

Close mic'ing did not arise out of some desire to capture a different sound (either more reflective of what folks would actually hear or otherwise). It came about for a single reason: convenience. It is easier to control the balance in a multichannel mix if there is no "leakage", i.e, sounds from other instruments (or the room) on a given track of the multitrack recorder.

 

For example, drums heard in the guitar microphone would mean that as the mix engineer increased the level of the guitar in the mix, they would also be increasing the level of the drums. Close mic'ing, to take advantage of the inverse square law, avoids leakage, leaving what is essentially just the guitar on the guitar track. Or, in the real world, *primarily* the guitar in the guitar track.

 

Aside from the price paid in tonality, harmonic structure and dynamics in exchange for this convenience, it should also be remembered that in order to take best advantage of close mic'ing, to minimize leakage as much as possible, the pickup pattern of the mics tends to be cardioid or unidirectional. What does it mean when a mic is directional? It means the mic tends to "hear" more of what is directly in front of it and less of what is to its side or behind it. But there is a generally overlooked complication: directional mics tend to still hear what is to their sides and behind them, they just *color* this sound, most often by rolling off the higher frequencies. Granted these colored sounds will be at a somewhat lower level but they will still be part of what is captured by the mic. Experiencing this led me to conclude that in fact, all mics are omnidirectional; it is simply a matter of how much coloration they apply to the off-axis sounds they invariably "hear".

 

As to binaural pickup, while spatial cues -at least laterally- can be very good, here again, we have microphone colorations to deal with. Also, as you mentioned, there is the issue of pinnae, no two folks having identical ones. Further, there is the (to my mind, larger) issue of redundant pinnae. Since every listener has their own (there may be exceptions), listening to a binaural recording involves two sets of pinnae, those on the dummy head containing the mics and those on the listener.

 

So I would submit that while binaural provides an interesting spatial picture, since it will be heard via headphones and two sets of pinnae, it is not capable of capturing "the true nature of the entire event as relates to human hearing". My experience has been that a well implemented stereo array comprised of good, small diaphragm omnidirectional microphones (with a wide bandwidth and fast time response), used in a way that captures all three of the different types of cues our brains use for localization provides both the tonal/harmonic/dynamic response of the event as well as the spatial distribution. All that is required is a playback setup capable of high fidelity to the input signal.

 

Best regards,

Barry

Soundkeeper Recordings

Barry Diament Audio

[esldude]

Not exactly the same as what RobbieC is saying with lasers, but I have played around with light sensitive transistors, photoresistors and even cheap solar cells. You can amplify that and get sound from it bouncing sound off objects that are effected by sound (like the panels of an ESL for instance). Never got serious about it. Have always thought if one wished using a reflective diaphragm and bouncing light off it one could end up with a pretty good mic that way. Of course proof is in the pudding, and I don't have any. A coherent laser bounced off things and these commonly available light sensitive devices are another obvious possibility. I don't see why you couldn't shot a laser across a gap and let the gap be modulated by the air movement to record sound. Don't know of such devices, but they are certainly conceivable without looking at all impossible to do.

 

The extremely simple variations I have made up have suffered from lots of noise. Such detectors are pretty sensitive done right. Car head lights will transmit vibration of the car including enough to make out different textures of the roads they are traveling on.

[RobbieC]

Hi Rob,

 

 

 

A few thoughts:

 

I would submit it is impossible for close mic'ing, even with the best mics (whatever one deems those to be) to "capture the true nature of the source as relates to human hearing". Unless one is listening from a position as close as the microphones, the tonality, the entire harmonic structure and the dynamic performance will not sound like what we'd hear in the presence of the performer/instrument.

 

I've often asked folks if they'd like to listen to their favorite vocalist with the ear an inch or less from the singer's lips, to their favorite horn player with their ear in the bell of the horn, to their favorite electric guitarist with their ear up against the grill cloth of a Marshall stack or to their favorite pianist with their head under the lid of the piano and their ear a few inches above the hammers. These are the places from which closely placed mics "listen".

 

Close mic'ing did not arise out of some desire to capture a different sound (either more reflective of what folks would actually hear or otherwise). It came about for a single reason: convenience. It is easier to control the balance in a multichannel mix if there is no "leakage", i.e, sounds from other instruments (or the room) on a given track of the multitrack recorder.

 

For example, drums heard in the guitar microphone would mean that as the mix engineer increased the level of the guitar in the mix, they would also be increasing the level of the drums. Close mic'ing, to take advantage of the inverse square law, avoids leakage, leaving what is essentially just the guitar on the guitar track. Or, in the real world, *primarily* the guitar in the guitar track.

 

Aside from the price paid in tonality, harmonic structure and dynamics in exchange for this convenience, it should also be remembered that in order to take best advantage of close mic'ing, to minimize leakage as much as possible, the pickup pattern of the mics tends to be cardioid or unidirectional. What does it mean when a mic is directional? It means the mic tends to "hear" more of what is directly in front of it and less of what is to its side or behind it. But there is a generally overlooked complication: directional mics tend to still hear what is to their sides and behind them, they just *color* this sound, most often by rolling off the higher frequencies. Granted these colored sounds will be at a somewhat lower level but they will still be part of what is captured by the mic. Experiencing this led me to conclude that in fact, all mics are omnidirectional; it is simply a matter of how much coloration they apply to the off-axis sounds they invariably "hear".

 

As to binaural pickup, while spatial cues -at least laterally- can be very good, here again, we have microphone colorations to deal with. Also, as you mentioned, there is the issue of pinnae, no two folks having identical ones. Further, there is the (to my mind, larger) issue of redundant pinnae. Since every listener has their own (there may be exceptions), listening to a binaural recording involves two sets of pinnae, those on the dummy head containing the mics and those on the listener.

 

So I would submit that while binaural provides an interesting spatial picture, since it will be heard via headphones and two sets of pinnae, it is not capable of capturing "the true nature of the entire event as relates to human hearing". My experience has been that a well implemented stereo array comprised of good, small diaphragm omnidirectional microphones (with a wide bandwidth and fast time response), used in a way that captures all three of the different types of cues our brains use for localization provides both the tonal/harmonic/dynamic response of the event as well as the spatial distribution. All that is required is a playback setup capable of high fidelity to the input signal.

 

Best regards,

Barry

Soundkeeper Recordings

Barry Diament Audio

 

Barry and I are on the same page and I would say I'd have to agree with him as to what can be done with the current state of the art in microphones since I defer to his superior knowledge. However, the problems you state, Barry, are not insuperable. I've already touched on the possibility of applying unique head transfer functions to the signal to adapt it to the unique listener and also on the problems with close miking. I hope I made it clear that close miking attempts to eschew any other information (such as reflections) other than the instrument/performer itself much as Barry said. I did not mean to imply sticking the mic "inside" the instrument only that it be sufficiently close to effectively cause extraneous information to be drowned out by the high amplitude information coming from the instrument since we were concerned with making the reproduction indistinguishable from the original and not with ease of labor or artistic concerns. The problems with timbre/tonality skew I suspect are due to saturation of the mic in that the diaphragm is asked to move and change direction much faster than it can given its mass and the force attempting to displace it and still keep up with the pressure wave.

 

Also, everyone please note that harmonics and overtones in a waveform do not simply arise over distance...they are always there throughout the entire waveform from beginning to end. I know that that statement is not intuitive to non-mathematicians but frequency content such as overtones are not in the spatial (or even temporal) domain but in the frequency domain. Different animal. For example, take an event ten minutes long. Say there is silence for five minutes then a trumpet blast of the note C3 for a moment followed by silence. Harmonic information exist from the beginning (yes, during that silence) until the end. In fact, if the same event was shortened to mere seconds around the blast, the harmonics would be there but changed and yet the C3 note would sound the same to the listener. Why are the harmonics different? What is happening is that the idea of a harmonic is a mathematical one and not a physical world one. We describe the world around us mathematically and it works and works well but it is a description of reality and not reality itself. That's why it is sometimes non-intuitive some concepts in mathematics: because mathematicians dwell in planes of existence that appear quite different than the plane most people see and feel everyday. The frequency domain is a very strange place, the same as inverse space and Fourier space.

 

Getting back on subject, the laser mic is not perfected from what I understand and for now remains theoretical but would not suffer from the problems raised by Barry such as lack of true unidirectionality. A simple modification (such as a tube baffle) would allow lateral isolation and not affect the mic (so long as it is transparent). The way the mic works is that a laser beam is shot across a gap of air that has reflective but inconsequential particles suspended in it such as smoke. A detector somewhere detects minute changes in the intensity of light arriving at it indicating minute changes in opacity in the gap indicating minute changes in air density at the line of the laser indicating compression and rarefaction events indicative of a pressure wave passing by. The device is contained and vibrationally isolated to prevent spurious signals from breezes or vibrations coming from the apparatus itself and compensates for the fact that a laser beam is not a point but a line by using multiple laser trained on a converging point in the middle of the chamber with the detector detecting the intensity of that point. I think that's right anyway...not at university anymore. I think that it is capable of detecting frequencies up to those that have wavelengths longer than the diameter of the beam so that means that the beam can be varied from very fine to thick as needed for whatever purpose. I believe the width acts as a variable low-pass filter but wouldn't bet on it since something doesn't sound right with that.

[bdiament]

Hi Rob,

 

I’ll leave things like software assisted transfer function modifications and laser microphones as “interesting but I need to hear a real implementation first”.

 

The problems with close mic’ing are not related to saturation in the microphone; most modern mics can handle a gunshot at close range. As I mentioned, the tonality, harmonic structure and dynamic performance don’t *sound* the same at close range. This can be easily verified by placing one’s ear in any of the places where closely placed mics are typically placed.

 

Even a short mental consideration will reveal that a pair of mics placed over the hammers of a grand piano will “hear” certain notes (those with strings and hammers closer to the mics) with more prominence than other notes. Further, the sound of a piano, as with most other instruments, comes from several places on the instrument. Adding mics to cover the different places simply adds temporal distortion to the mix. Besides, a virtually infinite number of mics would be required. This problem is handily solved by getting out of and a short distance away from the piano – as a real human listener would hear it.

 

When you have that laser mic, I’d like to beta test it for you if that’s okay. ;-}

 

Best regards,

Barry

Soundkeeper Recordings

Barry Diament Audio

[RobbieC]

Ahhh...I see what you're saying more clearly Barry. I have a grand piano and I know exactly what you mean. My close mic definition is definitely different from yours, but of course, I'm the one using the term incorrectly as you are in the field and good at what you do I might add. I have some of your recordings and they are very good.

 

I wish I could remember who's doing the laser research. If it were mine I would definitely consult someone like you for your take on it to steer me in the right direction. Alas, nope.

 

By close mic I meant one nearer the instrument/performer than the listening position, the two extremes that can be taken. But I needed to make the point that the pressure wave coming from the instrument needed to resemble a point source if it is to be captured by a single pickup. A large instrument takes a bit of distance to resemble a point source whereas a smaller one such as a piccolo hardly any.

[bdiament]

Hi Rob,

 

...I have some of your recordings and they are very good.

 

Thank you for your kindness.

 

...By close mic I meant one nearer the instrument/performer than the listening position...

 

My experience has been that mics need to be closer than humans to get the same end result. In other words, if I prefer the sound of a grand piano from, say 6 feet away, I'd need to place my mic array a bit closer to get the impression of a 6 foot distance on the recording.

 

There are a number of reasons for this. To start, unlike a human brain, the mic does not "concentrate" on any specific aspect of the sound, say the piano to the exclusion of other things. It cannot "focus" the way a human can, so at the human's preferred distance, the mic will hear more "distractions". Add my preferred omnidirectional pickup pattern (by far, the most neutral mics in my experience are all omnis) and the room comes into play even more, necessitating a bit more closeness with the mic.

 

Still, I wouldn't define the above as close mic'ing, which, as it is used by 99% of the records in the world, means not closer than the listening position but more like closer than any (sane) listener would be comfortable with. This is measured in inches (or less) and not feet. With the type of mic'ing I describe in the paragraph above, the closest item (say a lead vocal) would never ever be less than two feet from the mic array.

 

Best regards,

Barry

Soundkeeper Recordings

Barry Diament Audio

[RobbieC]

Great stuff Barry.

[Paul R]

Holy modal eigenvalues! This is one of the best discussions here in a long time, and I am enjoying it immensly!

 

Paul

[DaQi]

Holy modal eigenvalues! This is one of the best discussions here in a long time, and I am enjoying it immensly!

 

Paul

 

I too am enjoying this conversation however; there are maybe two different discussions in the original question posed. One is about accurately reproducing the sound waves from a performance. However; there is a lot more to a live musical performance than just the sounds, there is the environment, there is the mood of the listener at that time, there are various other sensory cues as well that contribute a lot to the enjoyment, or not, of a musical performance. So, in my perception, no matter how well the sounds waves are being reproduced, and from the discussion above we can do pretty well at that, it will always be a different experience every time I listen to a piece of music live or recorded and that is part of the ongoing wonder and enjoyment of music that it is always a new and different experience. Not to take away from the technical aspects as it easier to enjoy well reproduced musical recordings.

[Paul R]

I think it was Glen Miller that discovered audiences loved it if they heard the same song, played exactly the same way, each time they performed it. People really love listening to the same performance over and over and over... That is one of the benefit of recorded music of course, as well as one of the downfalls.

 

I'm not sure the goal should always be to record with the utmost fidelity a live performance, though I admit I great enjoy Barry's work. But more deeply, a recording is a performance in and of itself, right? So shouldn't it be enjoyed as the performance it is, not as a pale shadow of the live performance? Maybe that is a difference without a difference, I don't honestly know.

 

As for the technical capability - well, I do have doubts about that. I have heard voices reproduced with such fidelity I could not tell if they were live or recorded. But not complex musical performances.

 

-Paul

[Jay192]

Also, as you mentioned, there is the issue of pinnae

 

One effect I think I've noticed with my omni (speakers) is that is effect seems to be reduced.

 

When you have that laser mic, I’d like to beta test it for you

 

Please also let us beta-listen!

 

I have heard voices reproduced with such fidelity I could not tell if they were live or recorded. But not complex musical performances.

.

 

Perhaps that's why Chris referred to the LSO in his earlier post. I like the chef analogy earlier ... perhaps it is a case of too many cooks or if the food is too complex. As much as enjoy a great symphony, having Carol Kidd or Sara K in the room with me is really hard to beat.

[Julf]

Something that is going to be interesting to watch is the increasing capability of digital processing to "fix" the physical issues. On one hand, digital processing can be used to compensate for limitations and nonlinearities in the original recording, microphones and even recording space - just look at the work that has been done to digitally recreate the original sound from early wax platter and steel wire recordings. On the other hand, digital processing is also getting better at recreating the acoustic space. I am impressed by what can be done with modern digital convolution reverb, based on "reconstructing" the acoustic properties of famous concert venues.

 

In fact, with things like digital convolution, we turn the whole "lossy" concept around - using digital technology to recreate the information that was (partially) lost in a "lossy" analog recording process.

[tomstatham]

Recordings indistinguisable from the real thing? Maybe you should think about

what type of music would sound good in your listening envoronment.

 

A single person playing an instrument and singing is pretty easy to replicate.

It will sound like they are actually there. The Boston Pops is maybe a different

matter. You might not want to have that kind of experience in your house.

The neighbors would probably complain. I've been to concerts that you could

hear from at least a half mile away. That's probably illegal now in most places.

 

--TomS

[orgel]

The Boston Pops is maybe a different

matter. You might not want to have that kind of experience in your house.

 

No way I would want the Boston Pops playing in my listening room. I'd be happy to have any number of other orchestras, but unfortunately, they wouldn't fit. The violists would be whining about getting clipped in the head by trombone slides.

 

--David

[bdiament]

Hi TomS,

 

Recordings indistinguisable from the real thing? Maybe you should think about

what type of music would sound good in your listening envoronment.

 

A single person playing an instrument and singing is pretty easy to replicate.

It will sound like they are actually there. The Boston Pops is maybe a different

matter. You might not want to have that kind of experience in your house.

The neighbors would probably complain. I've been to concerts that you could

hear from at least a half mile away. That's probably illegal now in most places.

 

--TomS

 

You raise an interesting issue.

I don't want the band in my room, I want to "be" in the room in which they are performing, which is no doubt better suited for listening to music (at least I would hope so if folks are going to the trouble to record there... This of course, excludes studios, which tend to be designed more for the engineer's convenience and "control" than for actual listening).

 

That is why I choose my recording venues carefully, with consideration of the type of music to be played and the instrumentation involved. I must prefer a "you are there" to a "they are here".

 

Best regards,

Barry

Soundkeeper Recordings

Barry Diament Audio

[orgel]

I don't want the band in my room, I want to "be" in the room in which they are performing, which is no doubt better suited for listening to music (at least I would hope so if folks are going to the trouble to record there... This of course, excludes studios, which tend to be designed more for the engineer's convenience and "control" than for actual listening).

 

Yes, I think this is exactly what most of us are looking for, with music that can be performed "live." Honestly, though, for some kinds of music, I wouldn't mind if it were recorded in a studio (or studio-like) space, so long as the space had natural-sounding acoustics. Remember that even though chamber music is currently performed mostly in concert halls, the original idea was that it was to be performed in someone's salon. (Years ago, in Salzburg, I got to hear some Mozart string quartets performed in quite a nice baroque drawing room. That was a real pleasure.)

 

Also, even though I guess we like to think of acoustic jazz being performed in a nightclub, many of the great sessions were recorded in relatively simple studio setups with everyone playing together and being relatively spontaneous. Thinking of the classic Blue Note recordings, that's a sound I'm very comfortable with (not that mic'ing and mixes couldn't be improved upon today), and I wish there were more recordings being made like that currently.

 

For albums where the producer, engineer and other technical staff are the ones actually creating the sound (e.g., Norah Jones's latest), well, that's an art form I admired in my younger days but have come to find less and less engaging as the years roll by. In any case, there's really no standard for how that stuff's supposed to sound, so it's a difficult target to shoot at.

 

--David

[bdiament]

Hi David,

 

...Thinking of the classic Blue Note recordings, that's a sound I'm very comfortable with (not that mic'ing and mixes couldn't be improved upon today), and I wish there were more recordings being made like that currently....

 

This (and in a considerably better room than a domestic living room ;-}).

 

Best regards,

Barry

Soundkeeper Recordings

Barry Diament Audio

[The Computer Audiophile]

Holy modal eigenvalues! This is one of the best discussions here in a long time, and I am enjoying it immensly!

 

Paul

 

Paul - You know that's like talking about the pitcher throwing a perfect game even though it's only the 8th inning :~)

[Paul R]

I can vouch for this point, a set of Maggie 1.7s in my living room brought too much of the performance "into the room" for my wife to enjoy, and we had to scale the speakers back a bit.

 

I think the idea of transporting me to the venue is a much better analog that transporting the venue to me. So, most definitely, does Karen.

 

 

Hi TomS,

 

 

 

You raise an interesting issue.

I don't want the band in my room, I want to "be" in the room in which they are performing, which is no doubt better suited for listening to music (at least I would hope so if folks are going to the trouble to record there... This of course, excludes studios, which tend to be designed more for the engineer's convenience and "control" than for actual listening).

 

That is why I choose my recording venues carefully, with consideration of the type of music to be played and the instrumentation involved. I must prefer a "you are there" to a "they are here".

 

Best regards,

Barry

Soundkeeper Recordings

Barry Diament Audio