The myth of "The Absolute Sound"

[STC]

6 hours ago, semente said:

 

A multi-channel stereo is stereo with an extra central channel and a few more rear channels (usually) added to pick up ambience; most importantly each channel is reproduced by its own speaker.

 

A multi-mic'ed recording is a bit like listening to a musical event from several places at the same time (next to the violins and next to the violas and next to the cellos and next to the double basses and next to the woodwings and next to the brass and next to the percussion and next to the...) then play back the resulting mishmash-mix over a pair of speakers or 5.

I guess than there is no point asking about channel or object based recording and production....

 

 

[STC]

7 hours ago, Blackmorec said:

Hi STC,

I think the expression is ‘They are here’ where the performers sound like they’re in your room and ‘You are there’ where it sounds like you’ve been transported to the original venue. 

 

Both require that the artistes are very well reproduced because in both cases they are ‘heard to be present either in your room or theirs. 

 

In my opinion, ‘They are here’ is what I get from recordings that do a stellar job with the artistes but capture no venue information like reverb, audience noises etc. In such a case there’s no acoustic information to create the impression of a venue, so by omission of any other information they sound like they’re playing in my room. 

However, as soon as there’s any venue acoustics information reproduced my room is replaced by the impression created by the venue. 

 

‘You are there’ are the recordings I very much prefer. The very best are able to create a very accurate sonic picture of the venue, with the right reverb and decay times to indicate walls and ceilings, with audience noises and air with a texture and atmosphere. Typically the venue thus created will have very different dimensions to your listening room and listening to such recordings often feels like a sudden change in reality....you’re in a different space, with a different acoustic, there’s an audience present and there are musicians playing great music.  This can be especially weird  at the beginning of a listening session when you go from zero to -14dB in a heartbeat. 

 

Where this whole thing breaks down, is when your room has a strong sonic identity of its own, which will tend to dominate proceedings and create mainly ‘They are here’  performances, with the replay room dominating the acoustics you hear.  You’ll know if this is the case, because most recordings will lack a unique sonic venue in which the performance happens and all recordings will sound like they were recorded in a similar venue. 

The other way this breaks down is when your system loses a lot of subtle information about the venue’s acoustics, so cannot create that sonic ‘space’ 

The space is all about the ideal reverberation. About room acoustics, think about the principle behind MP3. It can be masked for “You are there” situation. It is more complex but I don’t think people really cared. 
 

Thanks for the engagement. 

[STC]

On 10/8/2019 at 10:32 PM, Blackmorec said:

Hi STC,

I think the expression is ‘They are here’ where the performers sound like they’re in your room and ‘You are there’ where it sounds like you’ve been transported to the original venue. 

 

Both require that the artistes are very well reproduced because in both cases they are ‘heard to be present either in your room or theirs. 

 

In my opinion, ‘They are here’ is what I get from recordings that do a stellar job with the artistes but capture no venue information like reverb, audience noises etc. In such a case there’s no acoustic information to create the impression of a venue, so by omission of any other information they sound like they’re playing in my room. 

However, as soon as there’s any venue acoustics information reproduced my room is replaced by the impression created by the venue. 

 

‘You are there’ are the recordings I very much prefer. The very best are able to create a very accurate sonic picture of the venue, with the right reverb and decay times to indicate walls and ceilings, with audience noises and air with a texture and atmosphere. Typically the venue thus created will have very different dimensions to your listening room and listening to such recordings often feels like a sudden change in reality....you’re in a different space, with a different acoustic, there’s an audience present and there are musicians playing great music.  This can be especially weird  at the beginning of a listening session when you go from zero to -14dB in a heartbeat. 

 

Where this whole thing breaks down, is when your room has a strong sonic identity of its own, which will tend to dominate proceedings and create mainly ‘They are here’  performances, with the replay room dominating the acoustics you hear.  You’ll know if this is the case, because most recordings will lack a unique sonic venue in which the performance happens and all recordings will sound like they were recorded in a similar venue. 

The other way this breaks down is when your system loses a lot of subtle information about the venue’s acoustics, so cannot create that sonic ‘space’ 

I some how missed this post. I have reiterated many times that a recording will not capture all the venue acoustics unless you have the means to reproduce them from the angle from where they are arrive. A musical 5.1, attempts to reproduce the rear ambiance using a set of speakers placed at the rear half. And more realism of “You are there” when more speakers are added where each carrying/producing the sound from the direction where they originated. 
 

Let’s be realistic, it is impossible to capture the full venue acoustic of a classical recording. If you believe there exist such recording then a single note of the piano should last around 2 seconds long. You will never find such recording because to produce such a long RT you need to reproduce them from many many direction. You can notice the long reverbs in the rear speakers of multi channel recordings. 
 

However, there is another was to reproduce “You are there” experience. “ You are there” means you are in a concert hall or whatever venue the live music would have sounded nice. It need not be the identical hall. For an example, you may have a recording made in Boston Symphony Hall but you can make them sound like playing in Sydney Opera Hall by using the real impulse of the Sydney Hall. In this case “ You are there” is the reference of playing the classical recording in a concert hall. 
 

Then you will having a Rebecca Pidgeon recording which most probably made in a studio with artificial reverbs. The studio is ideal for recording but may not sound musical enough for enjoying live show. The ambiance in a live show is different which can be around 1second long. This kind of music played in our room can give the impression of “They are here”.  

 

 

[STC]

28 minutes ago, semente said:

 

It took a lot of effort to convince you of that. 😋

Really? 

[STC]

7 minutes ago, fas42 said:

What a bizarre concept - trying to make a  recording made in Boston Symphony Hall sound like playing in Sydney Opera Hall ... I'm perfectly happy with hearing the Boston location come through loud and clear, from the recording ... an apples and oranges listening experience, getting both at once, 😉.

With the PC speakers you have, you will hear not only the actual Boston acoustics but tell the mics position. In case you are still confused, recordings only have reverbs of the hall and no human could identity a hall based on the reverbs. The only information that you could get is the relative size of the space where the recording was made. If you are still adamant, I can give recording made in different halls and you take a guess. 

[STC]

19 minutes ago, fas42 said:

The point is not to identify the hall - for me at least, 🙂. Rather, it's not to confuse the acoustic that one is aware of, that's coming through from the recording - adding aural cues that are 'faking' where the sound was recorded to me can't be a good thing, if they contradict to some degree what one hears in the playback, that was picked up by the microphones at the time.

 

With a system in good shape, before a note is played one can sense the space where the musicians are sitted, or standing - there is always a background murmur of room 'sound'; which sets the mood for what follows ... it''s a shame to then contradict this 'information', by throwing up another, simulated room ambience.

 You don't have system in good shape to begin with.  

 

Firstly, you told you will be happy with Boston acoustics as if you know what Boston acoustics is. Now you are telling there is no point identifying the hall when you were asked to identify the halls. Now you are claiming that even before a single note is played you could sense the space. Do you even know what is reverbs and background noise? 

 

And then you are contradicting yourself again by saying that throwing another ambiance is shameful while just before that you admitted you couldn't identify the hall. All in room listening is throwing up another room ambiance unless you are in anechoic chamber. The point is you do not know the difference while I could demonstrate different room acoustics with a click of the mouse. The listeners now know the difference and not one single person liked the studio like dead ambiance despite for tens of years that was the sound of the high end setup. You are giving opinions after opinion without having heard the difference and all that with a laptop speakers too. 

[STC]

5 minutes ago, fas42 said:

We'll never see eye to eye, ST. You want the recording to sound like something that you've decided on; I just want the recording to sound like itself ... turns out that the acoustic that's contained in the recording is interesting in its own right, and that is what I get the pleasure from - hearing what is happening in the spaces, that were perhaps very creatively manipulated; that changes from recording to recording.

 

Note, you're not keeping up ... current laptop is right down on SQ, not useful except for the most obvious things. And I am always referring to a proper setup, not the laptop, when I talk about the subtleties of acoustics, etc.

I would like to see eye to eye and therefore asking you to come up with one workable solution. 
 

 

[STC]

3 hours ago, fas42 said:

Okay, as a real world, "workable solution" - if I had the money, I would go out and buy Dutch & Dutch 8C active speakers ... from all reports, this is mighty close to a one box solution. Then I would see how sensitive it was to the qualities of the digital feed, and select the best approach there - next step, how sensitive to mains supply, and other electrical interference; and do what was necessary to give adequate robustness. On the way, work out the best approach for mounting the cabinets on a surface, that gave best stability.

 

Then, step back and have a good listen .. what weaknesses still remain? I would prefer not to have to dive into the box; but if it is clear that something has to be sorted, internally - then such would be necessary. And what happens there is completely unknown; because it would depend on what I found ...

 

So a studio monitor is your reference. For someone who claimed that they can hear the essence of the recording from any position now suggesting a studio monitor. And now DSP is okay in the playback chain? You are amazing, Frank!

 

 

 

[STC]

1 hour ago, gmgraves said:

As a recording engineer, I’ve heard every kind of studio monitor. The ones sold AS studio monitors sound awful (JBLs, RCA Labs, Altec Lansing, etc.). Home speakers used as studio monitors fare better. For instance, Paul Stubblebine Studios in San Francisco used B&W 801s, and I’ve seen Magnepan MG 20s used in studios as well. 

They serve a difference purpose. Studio monitor is meant to listen for errors, level, mixing balance, mono compability  accuracy. They are designed differently so that the  crossover is placed before the power amp which will be more accurate to serve the recording engineers needs. 
 

Usually there will be two types of speakers used. One for mixing and one to listen to the final sound. All recordings were made to listen not in studio environment!  
 

Generally, the preferred FR curve is slopping downwards. But IMO, this is only true for classical. Often hifi speakers designed with elevated bass and HF because that what people like. Audiophiles make a small percentage of main stream music buyers. The general population prefers elevated lows and highs. Just look around how the EQ adjusted in a typical non audiophile home listeners. You will see they look a flatten U. 

End of the day, money is everything. Unless the studio could afford the best equipment for the different jobs, they often settle in between.