The problems with stereo recordings

[PeterSt]

Hi Kirk,

 

To me it occurs that you never considered that this can (wrong: it will) be caused by your system ?

 

No need to listen to John D. et al, because he got his experience from explicitly tweaking the data - think DSP like (although this never is his goal - it just happens along with what he does). Also, he explains it by terms of distortion, while I would never do that because I don't know which "setting" is the truth (John does not know that either, although I'm sure he hopes he knows that - haha).

 

If we leave out the tweaking/changing of the data, I could show you the very same wild changes. They work for width and indeed for depth just the same and if you tempt me a little, also for height. All what is required is changing the behavior of the audio playing PC somewhat. Or even better: change the USB cable to the USB connected DAC. People with our Lush^2 cable will readily confirm this, because it is what this configurable USB cable was made for.

Might you own one, I could tell you the configuration for hardly any stereo image at all. Or super hard panned (which indeed is the least realistic, unless we talk Beatles ;-).

 

The truth will be the relative realistic distance between artists/instruments. So if you know that, be it for the Dead or LZ, you could tune your system for that distance, and you will undoubtedly see that in that "setting" the remainder starts to fit nicely just the same (kick drum sounds best, snare has the realistic punch, etc. etc.). Partly this will be a mind thing because the explicit unrealistic part was removed (you won't be annoyed). Obviously next up will be the next important now (for your mind) audible issue. 

 

Nice hobby it is !

Peter

 

 

 

[DougAdams]

When you attend a concert, whether an orchestra or a rock band, there is no "diamond of sound", really, like there is in a home stereo setup; if there were, many ticket buyers would never hear the performance as intended. So why are things panned left or right on a recording of a concert? Wherefore the convention?

 

Of course, recordings are completely artificial; they are not *the live performance* you attended; so, is the idea to provide more "presence" to an otherwise fairly monolithic monaural recording or some other crazy idea inspired by early stereo hi-fi demonstration records?

[rando]

On 9/17/2020 at 4:10 AM, kirkmc said:

I saw enough Grateful Dead shows to know that no one ever heard it like that.

 

How many of them did you see in close proximity to this box set playing?  🤪😵

 

Tend to avoid anything (re)mastered in this style.  Speculation why it exists could be rampant and vigorously pursued.  Personally prefer to just move on and not waste any more time on even good music that has been made unenjoyable.  Same as with any other poorly conceived or realized release.  Nothing to see hear*e   

 

Not so long ago a member here who, at least pre-Covid, lived in NYC had the outright balls to tell me there was no live music there worth listening to.  Ha, I let that hang knowing just how important to the live experience unique trickery of a nature similar to that central to this topic is for touring musicians Stadium shows use visuals heavily, auditorium shows mix visuals with audible trickery, and intimate club shows go deep into crafting erudite audible experiences.  I'm talking about the top tier of touring pro musicians with audio professionals in tow that have spent months crafting a package nobody else can recreate.  Live music as it should be and usually requires traveling to or living in a major city to experience.  Potential for out of body attendance at GD concerts of lore might factor in too.  🤪😵    

 

The static nature of a recording mastered in a style using hyper exaggerated separation nullifies any interest I might have in a similar experience happening live.  $20K ego packages that involve standing on stage 100' away from a rockstar who allows you to stare at them for 29 contractually obligated seconds before vanishing is basically in the same league.  What makes a good recording or a good live experience is not contained in either.  Taste and belief systems may vary.      

[danadam]

5 hours ago, kirkmc said:

I guess I'm not surprised that my attempt at initiating a discussion about stereo imaging and mixing has morphed into "I can hear the difference in hi-res files."

Now you can add "USB cables" to that too 😞

[danadam]

5 hours ago, kirkmc said:

I'm comparing any venue of pretty much any size (other than very small), where no one really hears individual instruments on one side or the other, with the approach of mixing discrete channels to a sided dominance.

I guess that's similar to piano recordings, where piano spans from left to right. I also don't know why they do it like that.

[kirkmc]

5 minutes ago, danadam said:

I guess that's similar to piano recordings, where piano spans from left to right. I also don't know why they do it like that.

I was going to mention that, but I couldn’t remember any specific recordings where that is done. That is the height of ludicrous. 

[bluesman]

On 9/17/2020 at 5:10 AM, kirkmc said:

Sometimes I listen to jazz piano trios where the piano is very far to the left and the bass and drums to the right, and it sounds artificial. With all this talk about wanting recordings to sound like music as it is performed (yes, I know, the catchphrase is usually "as the artist intended," but I would argue that the goal is more to make it sound like it was performed), and griping about mastering and other alterations to music, does no one care about this exaggerated use of the stereo effect?

I believe the goal is most often to provide a recording that will sound "real" when played back. Unfortunately, that's an elusive goal, and many widely differing standards are used to decide how close to that goal a given recording comes.  Ping-pong stereo and use of spatial effects that are never part of a live performance are there to dazzle the plebes and techies.  But they have no place in the recording and reproduction of live music meant to sound as it was created.

 

Directionality is pretty much lost at any concert using sound reinforcement, which covers the Dead and most other performance units in most genres.  The symphony orchestra has a traditional seating arrangement that makes it easy to determine if the recording is spatially true to the performance:

 

 

And the traditional 17 piece jazz band usually follows this seating, as shown by the West Point Jazz Knights:

 

 

Whether you hear the piano from the left in a big band's live performance sans reinforcement depends on the acoustics of the venue and where you're seated.  So it's not surprising that the same applies to the position(s) of the mic(s) used to capture it with a true stereo technique.  And then there's the intended listening position or its simulation, which is established by the way the recording is made.  Is the engineer's goal to give you a front row seat, a seat in the center of the hall, a front center mezzanine box, or something else?  Is the goal to make it seem like the instruments are in your listening room or on stage at Carnegie Hall? 

 

With so many variations in listeners, their tastes, and their systems, every commercial recording is a compromise of many factors assimilated into what the producer thinks will attract the most buyers.  This results in a lot of source material that sounds terrible to most of us, because we're not the typical market for most recordings.

 

The piano that sounds 10' wide because it's drowning in the real or added ambiance of a simulated mid-hall seat may sound as though it's sitting on your desktop when played through near field speakers 4' apart.  One dead giveaway to poor recording technique is clear sourcing of the low piano keys from one side and the highs from the other, since pianos are almost always sitting with the keyboard perpendicular to the audience's line of sight.  Whether it's a grand or a console of some kind, the low strings and the high strings are both at the same position relative to the sides of the sonic image.  And even in the very odd case of a pianist who sits with his or her back to the audience or the orchestra, there's little pitch based localization.  You never hear the keyboard spread between L and R in a live performance, so you shouldn't hear it in a recording.

 

As for effects like a trio with the piano far left and the rhythm section far right, this is often an attempt to create the image of stage side table seating at a live performance.  It sounds contrived to me too, when listening from 15' away in the living room.  But, again, I think this is all part of the sonic experience the producers and engineers are trying to give the listener.  And in well made recordings, the apparent size of the instruments often grows into the space in which you listen.  Listen to Undercurrent or Intermodulation, both great albums by Bill Evans and Jim Hall, to hear how a guitar / piano duo are the "right" size whether you're listening through near field monitors at your desk or on your big living room rig while sitting 15' away.  And then there are recordings like Martin Taylor's early albums, which present the same huge solo guitar image he gets live, no matter where you are in your listening room.  He played a big arch top guitar on those with both magnetic and piezo pickups on it - and he used a stereo rig that made the guitar sound truly gigantic.

I hate the gimmicks too.  But they obviously appeal to a broad range of listeners, none of whom is us.

[PeterSt]

7 hours ago, bluesman said:

One dead giveaway to poor recording technique is clear sourcing of the low piano keys from one side and the highs from the other, since pianos are almost always sitting with the keyboard perpendicular to the audience's line of sight.  Whether it's a grand or a console of some kind, the low strings and the high strings are both at the same position relative to the sides of the sonic image.

 

that

[John Dyson]

14 hours ago, PeterSt said:

Hi Kirk,

 

To me it occurs that you never considered that this can (wrong: it will) be caused by your system ?

 

No need to listen to John D. et al, because he got his experience from explicitly tweaking the data - think DSP like (although this never is his goal - it just happens along with what he does). Also, he explains it by terms of distortion, while I would never do that because I don't know which "setting" is the truth (John does not know that either, although I'm sure he hopes he knows that - haha).

 

If we leave out the tweaking/changing of the data, I could show you the very same wild changes. They work for width and indeed for depth just the same and if you tempt me a little, also for height. All what is required is changing the behavior of the audio playing PC somewhat. Or even better: change the USB cable to the USB connected DAC. People with our Lush^2 cable will readily confirm this, because it is what this configurable USB cable was made for.

Might you own one, I could tell you the configuration for hardly any stereo image at all. Or super hard panned (which indeed is the least realistic, unless we talk Beatles ;-).

 

The truth will be the relative realistic distance between artists/instruments. So if you know that, be it for the Dead or LZ, you could tune your system for that distance, and you will undoubtedly see that in that "setting" the remainder starts to fit nicely just the same (kick drum sounds best, snare has the realistic punch, etc. etc.). Partly this will be a mind thing because the explicit unrealistic part was removed (you won't be annoyed). Obviously next up will be the next important now (for your mind) audible issue. 

 

Nice hobby it is !

Peter

 

 

 

Some things are TRULY difficult to do -- it is easy to make things 'sound good' for me.   That isn't the same thing as 'doing it right', which has been a long and painful lesson.  I don't know everything, but keep on trying...

[bluesman]

10 hours ago, bluesman said:

One dead giveaway to poor recording technique is clear sourcing of the low piano keys from one side and the highs from the other, since pianos are almost always sitting with the keyboard perpendicular to the audience's line of sight. 

CORRECTION: I meant the strings, not the keyboard. The keyboard is parallel to the audience’s line of sight and the strings are perpendicular to it. So high and low strings are all in the same left-right location. The high strings are shorter than the lows, so their centers of vibration are inches closer to the keyboard side in a grand (because the strings are horizontal). In a console (“upright”, spinet, etc), the strings are vertical.  In neither is the location of the strings audible, except perhaps to the pianist.

 

Sorry !