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

[fas42]

What you in fact 'see' is what the microphones saw - if it's a jumble of acoustics, from each mic seeing something different, that's in fact what's there in the final product. Which is why I use the term, "layers" - each layer becomes very distinct, having its specific acoustic, and other characteristics - when a system is sufficiently resolving ... no matter what the engineers do to try and eliminate that identifiability, little cracks of what was used still peek through - and the ear/brain can work out what it all means, 🙂.

 

If you don't want the "naked truth", then add 'seasoning', via the setup - which is what what most people do anyway, whether intentional or not 😉. Personally, I'm happy with hearing "everything!" - if you do this the right way, you still get tonality, imaging, soundstage - the works! That it is a major mismatch from what someone in the recording studio wanted is irrelevant, to me ...

[jiminlogansquare]

22 minutes ago, fas42 said:

That it is a major mismatch from what someone in the recording studio wanted is irrelevant, to me ...

A very PoMo/death of the author position you have staked out here. One to which I actually am kind of sympathetic and even agree with on any given day. I should not have gone so far with the normative language. An audiophile "could" or "might wish to" attempt to realize the soundscape intentions of the studio, not "ought to." It is after all a hobby designed to bring pleasure. But if a listener wants to honor the intentions of the artist more or less, then maybe they can. Or maybe that is impossible. I don't know the answer. I do know that we live in an imperfect world, filled with constraints of many categories.

[firedog]

5 hours ago, bluesman said:

The problem is that unless it is stated in liner notes etc, you simply don't know exactly what the performers, producers, engineers et al wanted you to hear. 

This reminded me to the McCartney album "Press to Play", where in the vinyl version he included a detailed map/diagram of the mix of each song and where he wanted each instrument was placed in the soundstage - this is apparently what he gave to the mixing crew to help them along.

[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

[jiminlogansquare]

52 minutes ago, Bill Brown said:

 

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

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.

 

This then leaves the issue of artistic intent regarding the soundscape (my term for soundstage + locational imaging). I propose that matters even, or perhaps especially, for how a pop record gets made. Pop artists at least sometimes make intentional decisions about the soundscape (and sure, many or most probably do not care ... but some evidently do). While I am not arguing you *must* care about the artist's intent in this context (or any context), as my dialogue with @fas42 above makes clear, one *could* reasonably desire to hear soundscapes - even in studio pop recordings - as close to the artist's intention as possible, because one finds that honoring the artist's intent enhances their enjoyment of the art. This goal is optional, and some greater minds than mine have said it's not possible to know, or pure hogwash to even talk about, the artist's intent. But I leave that discussion for another day.

 

An artist who made intentional efforts to craft *this* particular soundscape rather than *that* one, or any other one, at the digital audio workstation would certainly agree that they worked hard to obtain a particular result that they desired. All this while acknowledging their position as a public, commercial artist, meaning that their work won't be curated and displayed in a "sound museum" but instead played on millions of car radios and iPods, etc. They realize most of their audience probably won't be listening on equipment ideally suited to or capable of accurately, consistently delivering the (artificial) soundscape they intended, because most people just don't care. But the artist must also be aware that many in their audience *will* care to do that, and will put in the effort and pay the money necessary to assemble an audio system that will deliver that result. 

 

@firedog's post above I think shows that at least in that instance Paul McCartney was working this way, intentionally crafting an artificial soundscape to make an artistic point. This is how he wanted his music to sound, ideally, and so he did the work to ensure it at least could be so heard. And he documented his intent in writing, which of course is unusual.

 

And then there is the issue of how to know when your system is delivering the goods. Would Sir Paul be pleased with how well your stereo reproduces his carefully-crafted artificial soundscape, were he to pop in to your listening room one day? You can't know with absolute certainty,  yet I did propose in an earlier post a method for how to at least aim in that direction, which was to voice your system using recordings where you *do* know the artist's intent (e.g., as McCartney wrote it out, or in the liner notes and session photos accompanying a more "audiophile" recording). Get the soundstage and imaging acceptably good (or great!) with that method, then relax in the sure knowledge that you have done all you can to accurately reproduce recorded soundscapes in your home. The key assumption I am making is that voicing in this way would ensure soundstage/imaging accuracy for all or most recordings. I can't take my analysis any further, and I am willing to accept this assumption ... and also willing to have it disproved. 
 

Cheers!

[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

[atmfrank]

Thank you. Recording, mixing, mastering any music is part of the creative process. And so is the art of reproducing, equipment selection, speaker placement, tweaking here and there, etc, etc. The results will always be a limitation and only an approximation of what the intended results were supposed to sound like.