Article: What Does It Actually Sound Like?

[The Computer Audiophile]

View full article

[JoeWhip]

Having been in a recording studio and listened to the effects particular mics can have on sound, I can attest how important the choice of mics are. 

[ted_b]

Yes, but the choice of mics happens wayyyyyy before we decide to buy/stream/steal/pirate/copy/borrow/listen to the damn recording.  The "damage" or sonic inprint, is done.  It's a nice-to-know aspect of recording, but no one asks us. 

[fas42]

My take is that whatever was used to make the recording in the first place is part of the creative process ... they can do what they like! But IMO the job on the other end, at playback time, is actually pretty simple, in concept - it should add zero to the "signature" of what that initial creative process engendered - it's a "two wrongs don't make a right" type of thing. Of course, if one wants to be 'creative' about what one hears, be part of the "toning" process, then that's perfectly okay as a hobby activity, 🙂.

 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

4 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

 

We frequently hear audiophiles proclaim they know what instruments sound like and thus by extension if a component is reproducing that instrument correctly or incorrectly. I've always thought such talk was rubbish because not only do different versions of instruments sound different (ask a violinist if the Molitor Stradivari sounds different from the Lord Wilton Guarneri del Gesù), but the microphones used to record these instruments have a huge impact on the final sound. What's more, the placement of the microphone(s) has a huge impact on the final sound reproduced in one's home system.

 

I agree it is absurd to "proclaim" what the *actual sound* was like unless you were *actually there*. However, it does not follow that one does not know what real sound is like. This holds true irrespective of different versions of instruments being played; or different mics used to capture; or recording techniques utilized, all of  which will for different but obvious reasons, influence the sound.

 

 

4 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

How are we as audiophiles and music lovers supposed to have any idea what something is "supposed" to sound like?

 

 

All one can do is compare it to the experience of a real instrument/voice in a real space. This still applies even for studio produced albums that strive (and IF they strive) to emulate realistic sound through a collaboration between the artist, the recording engineer and mixing/mastering engineer. Some would argue it is better than the real sound, as in enhanced in some way to make it sound more 'realistic' or life like.Put another way, it is analogous to a painter that paints to convey emotion and evoke memories of a real experience rather than merely capture its literal form.

 

The alternative is a machine analysis of fidelity to the input signal and I for one am not buying that, notwithstanding that it is a legitimate theory and lofty goal.

 

4 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Dr. Chesky is fascinated by audiophiles who obsess about the sound of their cables, AC power, magic rocks, or isolation stands, but rarely consider the choices of microphones engineers use to make recordings!

 

The phenomena are not mutually exclusive, the difference with choice of microphone is that it is simply out of our control

[PYP]

I've always been interested in how some talented individuals can get great recorded sound in different settings.  A musician friend who plays weekend gigs locally, told me that the "sound guy" is all-important to his band and that the few times he has had a real professional the difference was immediately heard.  He explained how one talented fellow, listened, then moved one mic stand a few inches.  Everything fell into place.  

 

And I'll never forget listening to Albert King as a small venue in NYC.  I immediately thought the sound was pretty bad.  A few minutes into his first song he stopped and asked, "Does this sounds like sh** to all of you?"  There was discussion at the controls after which he said, "OK, that's much better" and continued to play.  

 

Sometimes these folks can get great sound from lesser equipment.  In Monterey (CA), there is a little recording studio/small event location/tea spot.  The event room isn't big and has lots of hard surfaces.  I was just taking note of how bad that must be, then the owner played some video in his studio setup.  The sound was wonderful (!?).  The owner also always has music playing in the courtyard.  The speakers, wire, and setup, looks pretty basic.  But the sound is wonderful (maybe its the tea  ).  He built the studio himself.  

[fas42]

Pop recordings from previous decades, say the 70's, are a pretty good litmus test ... vocals were straightforward back then, no fancy manipulation compared to what we get these days. If the lead voice "sounds like a real person", right theeere, and not have the sense of coming over a radio, then you should be getting fairly close ...

[firedog]

I think your point is not only mistaken, but the whole concept is irrelevant to what I think you are trying to get across. 

 

Just like I can identify a specific human voice even when reproduced badly, if I have the listening experience to know what actual instruments sound like, then I can make a good judgement about the quality of the recording/reproduction. The different mics etc, don't change a grand piano into an electric piano,  or even a violin into a viola. Experienced listeners can identify specific types of instruments, and sometimes even accurately differentiate brands of "the same" instruments. The mics used don't change this.

 

If you know a singer's voice well you can identify it, no matter what the mic and even on a really bad recording. 

 

If you are trying to say there's no such thing as the "absolute sound", then I'd agree with you, but that's not the argument you made. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

5 hours ago, firedog said:

I think your point is not only mistaken, but the whole concept is irrelevant to what I think you are trying to get across. 

 

Just like I can identify a specific human voice even when reproduced badly, if I have the listening experience to know what actual instruments sound like, then I can make a good judgement about the quality of the recording/reproduction. The different mics etc, don't change a grand piano into an electric piano,  or even a violin into a viola. Experienced listeners can identify specific types of instruments, and sometimes even accurately differentiate brands of "the same" instruments. The mics used don't change this.

 

If you know a singer's voice well you can identify it, no matter what the mic and even on a really bad recording. 

 

If you are trying to say there's no such thing as the "absolute sound", then I'd agree with you, but that's not the argument you made. 

Not what I said or was trying to say. 

[firedog]

2 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Not what I said or was trying to say. 

 

Well at least two of us didn't understand you, then. 

[Teresa]

Quote

...Dr. Chesky is fascinated by audiophiles who obsess about the sound of their cables, AC power, magic rocks, or isolation stands, but rarely consider the choices of microphones engineers use to make recordings! The microphones are, after all, the first transducers in the recording chain. Their impact can’t be understated. Then there’s the question of how the microphones are placed in relationship to the instruments and vocalists -- everything makes a difference.

 

This is why I prefer the recordings of my favorite engineers and why I like some audiophile labels over others. I trust in them to find the best recording spaces, the best microphones and their ideal placement. As @Audiophile Neuroscience said "the...choice of microphone is that it is simply out of our control"

 

I'll pass on this recording as I could not stand to listen to the 28 versions of The New Appalachians: Wayfaring Stranger with different mic techniques. Besides I already own The New Appalachians: Wayfaring Stranger on Chesky's 30th Anniversary Collection: Complete Set (1986-2016)

 

Dear Dr. Chesky, I'm not obsessed with the sound of my cables, AC power, magic rocks, or isolation stands. I do care about natural sounding recording processes such as your company uses, especially your Binaural+ recordings.

[The Computer Audiophile]

46 minutes ago, firedog said:

 

Well at least two of us didn't understand you, then. 

Understood. No worries. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

9 minutes ago, Teresa said:

I'll pass on this recording as I could not stand to listen to the 28 versions of The New Appalachians: Wayfaring Stranger with different mic techniques.

This album is about education and learning, not sitting down to enjoy the same song over and over agin. 

[Teresa]

13 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

This album is about education and learning, not sitting down to enjoy the same song over and over agin. 

 

I understand that. However, I will have to read other listeners comparisons of different microphone techniques, as I could not mentally handle the exercise of comparing them.

[The Computer Audiophile]

Just now, Teresa said:

 

I understand that. However, I will have to read other listeners comparisons of different microphone techniques, as I could not mentally handle the exercise of comparing them.

No worries. I understand. 

[PYP]

If I remember correctly, there was a Stereophile CD that explored the effect of mics on the human voice.  In that case, I think, it was Gordon Holt's voice.  Back then, I had a pretty basic setup, but could clearly hear the differences.  It seems like a good way to understand how many ways the original sound can be altered during the process of recording it.  Luckily, as commented above, the miraculous instrument - the human ear(s) - can hear through inaccurate or poor recordings.  Sometimes when I take a break from the never-ending search for playback perfection (and hoarding toilet paper), I am amused by memories of favorite songs played on lousy car radios.  Didn't hinder the enjoyment one bit.   

[Kal Rubinson]

21 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

This album is about education and learning, not sitting down to enjoy the same song over and over agin. 

Learning what and to what end?  I fully understand that microphones are not identical in their sound any more than are loudspeakers.  However, do I get a choice of microphones with any particular music recording?  Do I get a choice of how the microphones are placed?

[The Computer Audiophile]

5 minutes ago, Kal Rubinson said:

Learning what and to what end?  I fully understand that microphones are not identical in their sound any more than are loudspeakers.  However, do I get a choice of microphones with any particular music recording?  Do I get a choice of how the microphones are placed?

Wow, a little grumpy this morning Kal :~)

 

If people want to understand what different microphones sound like and what different microphone placements sound like, they can learn from listening to this album. I understand that you have zero interest in such learning, but many find the information helpful. The more I understand about recordings the more I like to listen. Just like after reading the 33.3 books about an album, I like to listen to the album. I listen with a new lens and view into what happened during the recording.

 

Using your logic, you are likely not interested in learning anything about items that you can't choose. Not my style, but certainly fine if that's what you like. 

 

 

[Kal Rubinson]

16 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Wow, a little grumpy this morning Kal :~)

Yes.  Happens often these days.

16 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Using your logic, you are likely not interested in learning anything about items that you can't choose.

Actually, I would put that differently:  I am likely not to be interested in learning about items that I cannot use.  There are exceptions for issues of general curiosity and that might apply here. 

 

However, aside from this academic offering and considering the multiplicity of factors that contribute to the sound of regular recordings, how can one extricate the selection of microphone as a factor?   I cannot although I have listened to recordings like the Chesky in the past.  I have been privileged to audition session recordings using different microphones and placements, thanks to Tom Caulfield, but there are no such options for buyers.

 

So an understanding that (and how) different microphones sound different is fine but, given  that, I prefer to learn from experience which engineers and producers consistently make recordings I like and to buy recordings from them.

[The Computer Audiophile]

11 minutes ago, Kal Rubinson said:

Yes.  Happens often these days.

Actually, I would put that differently:  I am likely not to be interested in learning about items that I cannot use.  There are exceptions for issues of general curiosity and that might apply here. 

 

However, aside from this academic offering and considering the multiplicity of factors that contribute to the sound of regular recordings, how can one extricate the selection of microphone as a factor?   I cannot although I have listened to recordings like the Chesky in the past.  I have been privileged to audition session recordings using different microphones and placements, thanks to Tom Caulfield, but there are no such options for buyers.

 

So an understanding that (and how) different microphones sound different is fine but, given  that, I prefer to learn from experience which engineers and producers consistently make recordings I like and to buy recordings from them.

Understood. 

[PYP]

21 minutes ago, Kal Rubinson said:

I prefer to learn from experience which engineers and producers consistently make recordings I like and to buy recordings from them.

 

Wish I had that opportunity.  What a great learning experience for an audiophile.  That would be my ideal.  In the absence of that experience, I do enjoy reading about how the recording was made, when such information is available.  

 

Have you written an article about what you have learned?  Vicarious experience would be appreciated too.   

[Kal Rubinson]

18 minutes ago, PYP said:

Wish I had that opportunity.  What a great learning experience for an audiophile.  That would be my ideal.  In the absence of that experience, I do enjoy reading about how the recording was made, when such information is available.  

 

Have you written an article about what you have learned?  Vicarious experience would be appreciated too.   

I have not written about it explicitly but I usually make an effort to identify producers in my record reviews and in comments about recordings used in equipment reviews.  Most of what is valuable comes from the simple habit of making note of who is responsible for the recordings that I most like. 

[sdolezalek]

The following graphic helps me mentally think about both what is possible and how much can degrade between the performance and what we hear.  Obviously I'm missing lots of items of importance like the cables (;-) ) the power supplies, the network, the computer, etc.  

[DuckToller]

36 minutes ago, sdolezalek said:

The following graphic ...

I like the idea of visualization very much!
One point that is not precisely covered: a very revealing "great" system may dismantle a lot more of the flaws from very bad recordings, making it clearly bottom line of very bad instead of giving a somehow mediocre output.
Personally, I heard a very bad CD pressing from Mike Oldfield's "Tubular Bells" on a then - around 2000 - very expensive - appr. 70k $ - system, and it was just gruesome what this experience did to all my pleasent memories of that wonderful piece ....
Best, Tom

[Kal Rubinson]

3 hours ago, sdolezalek said:

Nice but you might find a space in the first triangle for including the number and positioning of the microphones.