Article: Realism vs Accuracy For Audiophiles | Part 1: Soundstage

[Bill Brown]

Thank you for the article.  An interesting coincidence and overlap with the "goals when reproducing music" thread.  Certainly reinforces that multi-miking and non-acoustical instruments (or close-miking guitar amps) precludes pursuit of the "absolute sound" (though not necessarily enjoyment).

 

Cool that you mentioned Lomax's recordings.  They can be startlingly realistic.

 

I wonder about your selection of audio recordings that include videos of the performance.  I have realized that watching the performance can fool the eye-ear-brain system re. location (I think the sound is "pulled" by the brain to where it is seen).  Also, less-good sounding recordings aren't noticed as much when the visual system is stimulated as well (maybe sometimes that is nice).

 

Thanks again,

 

Bill

 

 

[Bill Brown]

Your second, third , and fourth paragraphs make perfect sense, excellent.  Unfortunately, I don't understand the first.  My impression was that if using auditory clues to mentally visualize artist placement, visual clues would make the differences that you wanted noticed less apparent (based on micing a set of vibes with numerous microphones and spreading it out in the soundstage).  Though on one you did suggest closing your eyes.  I am probably missing something/what you are shooting for.

 

Bill

 

 

[Bill Brown]

1 minute ago, bluesman said:

I assumed that by "seen" you meant visualized with the eyes, and I think that's correct when just watching & listening to music videos for the experience.

 

Correct.

1 minute ago, bluesman said:

But if we're specifically looking for discord between visible and audible cues, as I suggest be done here, we're less likely to ignore or modulate what we hear because of what we see.

 

Ahhh....this makes sense as to what you were trying to demonstrate.    I was thinking the goal was to demonstrate the artifacts auditorily only, not necessarily in comparison to the true layout shown visibly.   My (big) mistake.

 

4 minutes ago, bluesman said:

If you originally meant that the sound is pulled by the brain to where the auditory cortex "sees" it (rather than the visual cortex), I respectfully disagree.  I think that those who are largely auditory learners and experiencers, as opposed to visual, might do that. But I think that most people are more inclined to go with what they see than what they hear.

 

No, I think the brain pulls the auditory component to where the eyes say it is, as you state.

 

Thank you!

 

Bill

[Bill Brown]

17 hours ago, bluesman said:

I've always loved Yamaha's musical products - we bought our piano in 1980, and here it is today:

 

Hey!  We have one from their conservatory-series as well., bought in the late 90s when a music store my brother was working in was getting out of selling pianos.  Wonderful instrument.

 

Bill

[Bill Brown]

59 minutes ago, bluesman said:

I agree, but only if the source program was recorded binaurally in a venue with excellent acoustics from a location with unhindered 360 degree exposure.

 

This is a thought I struggle with.  Modern, quality speakers are moving towards constant directivity, this a good approach that makes sense to me in terms of room spectral response (the reflections matching the spectral balance of the direct sound).  However, some of my fondest aural experiences were from when I owned a pair of Martin Logan CLS IIs in the mid 90s, that beam, of course, their directivity index (DI) not uniform, but increasing with frequency.  Also, as I noted in the other thread, I have always suppressed very early reflections (VERs).  I want to hear the ambience of well-recorded music and not superimpose confusing room acoustics on top of it.

 

Headphone listening is to me a paradox, the room completely gone, obviously.  Even without binaural recordings, I am able to "get inside" the acoustic and find it wonderful.  This applies to well-recorded classical and old jazz where the performers were together in a real space.  Of course this doesn't apply to hard pan-potted material (The Beatles, etc.) where the "pressure sensation" at the ears is troublesome, though mitigated to at least some degree with crossfeed.

 

Bill

[Bill Brown]

Just now, firedog said:

My Mom had a baby grand  that we tried to sell after she passed. There was no market. Basically had to give it away so as not to pay a piano mover.

 

Wow.  That is unfortunate.  I would have wished there was a musician who would have been thrilled to get it.  In that case I probably would have moved it for them.  Would have been a wonderful gift.  Though perhaps there are less people now who would love to get it.

 

Bill

[Bill Brown]

20 minutes ago, bluesman said:

Almost no one would rather have an old acoustic piano when "...a full-size digital piano with 88 touch-sensitive keys, Bluetooth MIDI capabilities, an iOS app and two improved built-in speakers" can be had for $200 brand new. 

 

I would :)

 

But yes, your post is spot-on and comprehensive, as usual.

 

Bill

[Bill Brown]

@fas42, with all due respect, you are a nut!

 

Bill

[Bill Brown]

13 hours ago, fas42 said:

Right, you've never experienced how convincing speaker playback can be ... got it! 😜

 

Oh Lordy :)

 

Last night I was wondering if it would be interesting to hear your system, and you hear mine (though it is far from perfect).

[Bill Brown]

I was primarily making sure to convey that I don't think my system is the ultimate, but certainly all are far from the realism that is the topic of the article.  Anyone who disagrees hasn't been to a great performance in a great hall.  Good, yes.  Indistinguishable from real, no.

 

That you discount the impact of acoustics in a small room is telling.  OTOH, if you enjoy your system, then more power to you, I am happy for you.  Connecting with music, after all, is the whole point.  I could listen to my favorites on an AM radio.  But.....I am fairly confident that your impression of high fidelity reproduction wouldn't be broadly shared.  I would bet my left nut that your system can't convey the realism of the performance I am thankful to have experienced in the Musikverein 2 years ago.  Just ain't happenin'.

 

I am sitting at our kitchen island cooking pizzas in the oven (wife is rounding and not coming home this evening), drinking a cold beer on a Friday evening, listening to music (Jason Isbell currently) on a B&O bluetooth speaker and enjoying the music.  Engaging, sins of omission only (put it on an oven mitt to decrease some tubbiness in the bass), can forget about the reproduction and simply enjoy.  Yay!  But it ain't real.

 

Best,

 

Bill

[Bill Brown]

Happy to read that you may get to experience that hall @mForMusic, oh to have that hall (and performers) close by.

 

Your last two sentences are interesting.  I have always enjoyed the acoustics of the halls I have been in (of varying quality), as it is always, by definition, "real."  There may be some truly bad halls where close-in micing is the only option, that's ok.  But I do wonder if a skilled engineer could still capture something perhaps more "real."  I should note that EMI recorded fairly close (and with some "glare"), but still get heavy rotation because of the roster of performers they had.  Still has to be all about the music.

 

Bill

[Bill Brown]

1 hour ago, fas42 said:

Yes, a recording can easily sound better, a lot better than the "real thing"

 

No way.  Not for acoustic music, i.e. acoustic instruments in a real space.  That is the absolute sound in relation to which all reproduced music should be judged.  Maybe if you are referring to electric instruments over a PA?

 

I listened earlier to Muddy Waters' Folk Singer, an astoundingly good (all acoustic instruments) recording, with space, dynamics, and tone. Now Bruckner.  To have been present when these recordings were made would make what I have listened to today absolutely pale in comparison.  To be a fly on the wall listening to Muddy and Buddy making music?!?  No doubts; no ifs, ands, or buts; I question your sanity if you think otherwise.  Hell, I have had (and many other listeners also report) many experiences where after hearing live music I couldn't listen to my system for a few days except casually, realizing how far I was away.  If you think your system is good enough to avoid this you are either high or (happily) delusional (and I guess if that is true, what the hell, enjoy it).

 

Frankly, and I don't want to be an ass (though there are nurses who would say I am good at it!), but your contributions to this thread don't measure up to the level of the article written by @bluesman.  Just don't fit.  So much of what you write is vague and circular, lacking important details that would allow the reader understanding and to assess the merits.  Well, perhaps I am thinking of your recent writings on other threads also, not just this one (? the "Goals when reproducing music" one- they are related).

 

Hell, maybe you actually have achieved nirvana and possess the secret to awesomeness.  In the context of the high levels of reproduction that this article discusses and aspires to, I have to wonder about your system (and I am NOT talking $ or "mine is bigger than yours" stuff).  You write on this site voluminously, so would you please take the time to describe your system from front to back with a simple drawing of your room and a few pictures?  I (we?) need something concrete.  Show us how you have done it!  Without this , I am have to suspect that the emperor has no clothes.

 

Speaking of voluminous writing, I have been on a roll lately.  I probably need to shut up and go back to my preferred lurking and listen to music or read a book.

 

Bill

 

Wow, put it into shuffle mode to write and "My Rifle, My Pony, and Me" from Rio Bravo with Dean Martin and Ricky Nelson came on. Ahhh.  That will soothe the savage beast. :)

[Bill Brown]

12 hours ago, jiminlogansquare said:

Can you say whether - in your experience - many, some, only a select few - recording techs are intentionally trying to sculpt a sonic image by how they place mics, etc. regardless of whether that image is intended to reflect the reality of the recording event (the space, the placement of musicians, etc.)? Maybe they not only want an "artificial" soundscape, but they definitely want *this* artificial soundscape and not *that* one, and they take intentional and specific technical steps to ensure that they obtain the result they seek.

 

I think "yes" in classical recordings.  In pop, etc., they record individual instruments separately (in space and often time), have vocalists in booths, etc., then create a soundstage (artificial) in the digital audio workstation.

 

Re. prioritizing soundstage v other qualities in our systems, I think both, but the first priority for me is accuracy to tonal qualities (i.e. if I could only have one).  Even before stygian bass- "you have to get the midrange right."  As I think about it, I would rather listen in mono with proper frequency balance and tone than excellent soundstaging without it.  I think quality performers want this too, their tone, "own voice" is perhaps the most important thing to them.

 

Bill

[Bill Brown]

3 minutes ago, jiminlogansquare said:

I agree, but the promise of high fidelity stereo reproduction is that you don't have to compromise. It's a "both ... and" not an "either ... or." So while soundstage and imaging precision might be of secondary importance, they could still be something you want to pursue and obtain, once you have the other factors you have listed under control.

 

I agree with everything you wrote in your nice post, and am thankful that yes, I/we are able to pursue all of the aspects of recorded music. :)

 

Bill