recording method vs sound reproduction

[monteverdi]

There are many good music recordings but especially presently the majority are sounding unsatisfying to awful (no matter which format: vinyl or digital DSD/PCM, no matter which rate and file format). One reason is dynamic compression which is now often discussed but past that I find many recordings sounding artificial, making it difficult to relate to the musical content.

 

I was watching a Youtube video from Floyde Toole

which was dealing with subjective and objective measurements but also with loudspeaker design and room interaction. There were some short remarks about recording practice and the reproduction of music in listening rooms i.e the interaction of loudspeakers and rooms which made me think about the correlation of recording techniques and sound reproduction.

There are 2 ways to reproduce recordings: loudspeakers and head phones.

With headphones there is no room to consider(albeit there are small variations in ear shape) but most recordings are made for and monitored by loudspeakers. Binaural recordings work well with headphones. I made some semi-binaural recordings on my Sony “DAT-man” many years ago and they sounded quite decent despite the simplicity of the recording process (even with loudspeakers). Basically it is a 2 microphone (at the ear position or something approximating it) recording in 2 channels with no or minimal mastering. Binaural recordings are recording the sound at the listening position which is the sound of all musical sources together (direct sound) and the interaction of that sound with the room, so trying to record what one would hear at that position at that time (i.e no manipulation of time, delays, reverb etc. just the acoustical event). The quality of such recording is dependent on the acoustics of the recording room and the position within that room but experiencing that room is part of the musical enjoyment.

Early stereo recordings did something similar but were designed to be listened to through loudspeakers and many (in spite of technical deficiencies of that time) sound wonderful. The same principal applies: 2 microphones (different possible setups) into 2 channels and that is still done by a few small recording companies (like MA) presently and these are in my experience some of the most natural and musically correct contemporary recordings.

One obvious objection against this type of recording is that it records sound in a room and then it is reproduced in a different room thus layering the acoustics of the recording room on the acoustics of the listening room - so one room too many for a natural listening experience.

Most recordings today are made by many microphones close to the musical sources (even several microphones for large instruments like pianos). There were some rare attempts to reproduce each of these channels by a separated loudspeaker in the same or similar space as the recording room but one could argue that even the spacial signature of a loudspeaker would be different from a musical instrument. Normally these multitude of recording channels are mixed to 2 channels (or 5-7) for play back. Especially now with digital technology but also through analog means these recorded channels are mixed using manipulation in level, frequency and time. How it sounds is dependent on the taste of the recording/mixing engineer and the room/equipment used (which could be much worse than the one the listener uses). I think of it that it generates an artificial room through electronic means so not avoiding the 2 sequential room dilemma. It also leads to a lot of manipulations. Like Photoshop in photography these manipulations can yield good results but mostly generate an artificial reality I find very dissatisfying.

 

On this forum there are many with more insight into the recording process than me so I would like them to correct or elaborate on these ideas.

[monteverdi]

The first time I became full aware of the different stereo recordings techniques was when I got Stereophile's test CD 3 in 1995. I guess the art of stereo 2 microphone recording is to match microphone, miking technique, room acoustics and performance.

There are multi miked recordings I find very interesting like Colin Stetson's New history of warfare Vol.2 which uses up to 20 microphones on a single instrument with no overdubs. Here the recording technique is integrated in the musical expression, just listening to that saxophone in the room would be a completely different experience! But for normal acoustic music I greatly prefer what can be achieved with 2 microphones.

[monteverdi]

I just looked through my CD/SACDs how many would be multichannel and I found only 10. So most music I like is not available in more than stereo. I guess if it would be more mainstream classic the selection would be larger.

I heard some demonstrations of multi channel systems (including Isomike)and mostly I found them not better than a good stereo system. The best sound came from a 5 Channel system but then they demoed also using only the 2 front and center channel and I almost preferred it to stereo or 5 channels (this may be depending on the recording). But the intention of that thread is not the difference of stereo or surround but how each channel is recorded: 1 single microphone in the room vs multiple (close) microphones mixed to each channel (one microphone feed could also end up in more than one channel)