Real vs. Reproduced Sound. How Close? ..What Percentage?

[fas42]

Current system, which is just digital active speakers, can't so far ... but previous setups have produced what I call competent sound - after a great deal of effort goes into optimising them ... I wouldn't put a percentage on it; but the intention is that the playback rig gives zero clues that it's the source of the music being heard - the automatic corollary is that a truly "live" feel is generated.

 

The LIAR (Listening In Another Room) test is quite easily passed - hardest is to then move from there to directly in front of the speakers and have the illusion fully maintained; there is nowhere then for any disturbing, distortion anomalies to hide, and one's brain easily picks that it's "fake".

 

I came across a rig at an audio show that did the Buddy Rich solo thing extremely well - full SPLs intensity, transient bite, punch were all there ... this had a very powerful amplifier, and top notch speakers ... so it certainly can be done ...

 

It's not that particular recordings produce an illusion - it's the ability of the playback chain to completely get out of the way, and merely reproduce what's on the track with minimal contamination that makes it happen. In this sense, swing orchestra recordings from the 30's can deliver a powerful sense of live music happening in front of you - but such captures require very pristine SQ of the playback chain; something which is not trivial to do ...

[fas42]

1 hour ago, Digi&Analog Fan said:

Great response! What I would add to ability of getting out of the way of the music is "dynamic jump". If I was trying to guess whether the sound of drum playing is real or simply a recording, if it was a recording, I think I could always tell because with a real drummer the dynamic range of the strikes are immediate and I mean iimmediate! My ears can always hear the fraction of a second that it takes for the dynamics of a loud thwack to "build" when its coming from a speaker. With real drumming the dynamics don't seem to build, they just sound "immediate" loud. For me its always the sure giveaway and I do not have to think about it for long. The drums, they have a sudden immediacy that I have never heard a reproduction have. Like a car going from 0 to 60 in instead of a measurable time; just instantly. The other thing I think is that for how simple an instrument a cymbal is, it seems to be the darndest instrument for gear to reproduce properly. It should sound 100% metallic, never diluted with shushy white noise. I think I could always tell on those. Of course the system you heard could. have been the one that would have been the first. I couldn't picture being fooled on drums though, but it would come closer than fooling me on a symphony orchestra, that's for sure.

 

It's all about the treble ... 😉. The "immediately" loud is because the treble is being done right - that's what the ear/brain reacts to. Same thing with cymbals - the "white noise", or a saucepan being whacked quality, is a giveaway, very time - if the rig has a problem.

 

Unfortunately, this is the hardest thing to get right in playback - "obsessive" attention to detail is necessary; but get it working as it should, and the rewards are great ... 👍.

 

1 hour ago, Digi&Analog Fan said:

 

  You are right on equipment itself not having openness etc. The openness is just there on the recording, and only the best equipment lets it come through entirely without any hindrance. Probable the forte of my system is image height. If you listen to instruments playing where there is like a 100 foot ceiling , like one of the buildings I know locally and have listen to live music in. The sound just goes higher and higher up. The microphone must be able to catch and pick up this amazing height of sound. Depth doesn't seem to go 100 feet back in my opinion. Or the microphones don't seem to pick it up. Mic's sound like they do height better than depth to my ears

 

 My system can pass the live vs. test even in the same room with many recordings, but it also depends on who's the listener. It would be harder to fool someone like you or myself.

 

The depth and height cues are picked up from the reverberance in the the recording space - our lifetime of listening to live sound has taught us humans how to interpret what we hear; if sufficiently clear in the playback, our minds 'understand' the space we're listening to.

 

A system working well gives excellent depth, I've found - even 100 year old recordings have captured this information ... this creates some remarkable listening experiences, at times.

[fas42]

There are different types of depth in recordings - in olden times they had to use techniques of physical distancing various instruments from the single microphone, so that the latter didn't overload. And you can hear this in action - the musicians arranged in layers, with the drums at the very, very back of the room - this comes through clearly, with the drummer being behind everyone ...seemingly somewhat isolated from the rest of the musicians.

 

And another presentation style are the studio productions with heavy multi-tracking; multiple acoustics overlay each other, with the action within each layer at a different distance back, depending upon how the engineers organised it. Even though this sounds like it could be jarring, it actually works out fine - the mind integrates all the facets; and it works as a soundscape.

 

This should come across irrespective of the distance of the speakers from walls - the room you're listening in "disappears" in terms of how it shapes the sound you hear, at a certain SQ level.

 

 

[fas42]

It's not whether it sounds like a group playing on a stage, say - but whether individual instruments in the mix are convincing - do the vocals sound like a real person singing, do the drums make all the right noises; does a string section used for some occasional backing come across as exactly what the instruments should sound like?