The June 2013 issue of Stereophile has a letter to the editor entitled, "There is no Absolute Sound". I highly recommend you get the issue and read the letter. It's not about the periodical of the same name. Instead it's about exactly what's been discussed here at some length; the illusion of stereo reproduction on your home system and the fallacy of the 'your-are-there'/'they are here' endeavor of what I perceive as a fringe portion of music lovers.
But musicians never get obsessive about gear or instruments, do they?
Forum needs irony tags for Pano.
I suppose I reside firmly in that fringe. Have since the mid 1980s when I first heard it done so brilliantly. Will have to read the article to understand why it's a fallacy.
Agreed but Blumlein stereo itself isn't capable of delivering more than a reminiscence of reality. Important spatial cues are missing and/or encoded in a distorted way.
I suppose I reside firmly in that fringe. Have since the mid 1980s when I first heard it done so brilliantly. Will have to read the article to understand why it's a fallacy.
Understood! Every demographic has its fring portion.
My signature line is a statement about music being the only universal language 'spoken' by mankind; regardless of ethnicity or country of origin. I can't think if another form of communication in writing that is understood by all musicians. Well, morse code perhaps
"No reference" is a little strong in my opinion. We're finely honed to recognize human voice. Likewise a lifetime of handling materials builds an internal reference of their resonant signature. After years of only hearing violins reproduced, it was a shock to learn these wood boxes with tensioned strings have a strong wood box signature and not the screeching cat noise of most multi mic 'hi-fi' recordings.
Likewise depth and localization. We might not know the exact metrics of the original recording venue but we can still judge if the reproduction chain meets the minimum standard of presenting a plausible, if wrong, illusion.
Measurement for this system would ideally have to be done on a quiet day after a thorough ear cleaning by the Dr. But how would this system cope if your ears were in any different condition from the day you measured them?
If your hearing acuity changes with volume and day to day life presents very loud and very quiet environments sometimes in random order, do you measure when you get home and then play music? Again how will it cope as your hearing normalises? How will the system know what frequency extremes you have been subject too and how fast/what order your brain normalises each one of them?
Couldn't this system also potentially ruin actual live performances for the listener? Say it decided a tweak was needed in the freq. range of a violin and a notch was added to the response, then you go to listen to your favourite string piece at a recital. You have effectively trained your brain violins sound one way only to screw up REALITY. Now I know that my brain would figure out it was a violin being played (eventually), but wouldn't that then put you in the position of wanting to correct your home system to sound like reality, thus negating the whole proposition anyway?
I may have confused myself again
If your hearing acuity changes with volume and day to day life presents very loud and very quiet environments sometimes in random order, do you measure when you get home and then play music? Again how will it cope as your hearing normalises? How will the system know what frequency extremes you have been subject too and how fast/what order your brain normalises each one of them?
Couldn't this system also potentially ruin actual live performances for the listener? Say it decided a tweak was needed in the freq. range of a violin and a notch was added to the response, then you go to listen to your favourite string piece at a recital. You have effectively trained your brain violins sound one way only to screw up REALITY. Now I know that my brain would figure out it was a violin being played (eventually
), but wouldn't that then put you in the position of wanting to correct your home system to sound like reality, thus negating the whole proposition anyway? I may have confused myself again
Last edited:
Agree. It's the "Plausible" or "Seems Real" that's my goal. I don't know exactly what the original sounded like, but if the playback can achieve plausible, or even uncanny, over and over again, I count it as good.
The terms plausible and seems real are both good synonyms for ILLUSION. It's the degree of illusion one strives for that separates the music lovers from that 'fringe' element I wrote about earlier.
Our hearing is an abstract we learn to correlate with reality. Is this not equivalent to an illusion?
If the image is distorted somewhat it doesn't preclude the room from disappearing and the recorded conditions coming through. When performers are plausibly situated in a location that's phsically impossible for the room itself, doesn't this mean it's working? Image distortion isn't everything.
The illusion may happen when...well, actually it happens anytime, everytime:
everyone constructs his reality on its own way.
Then there are the social matters, culture, common behavior and common sense etc etc. and then there is music, which is something created by the man along its millennial evolution. Music reproduction happens in human history about 100 years ago, which is quite nothing...
And what is music reproduction ? It's the possibility to repeat an event that has happened in another time, in another place. This obviously creates some ambiguity in the human mind. Exploring the technique and bringing this to a level that reproduction fullfills in giving the same emotion that may happen at a live event, well, that's something to think about. Mic'ing technique may even enhance the ability to bring more satisfaction when hearing an instrument playing, it's not every time detrimental. And there's the fact that you listen the same event played twice, one in the hall and one in your room; and also played at that time and then, now. Where's the illusion ?
It's some sort of binary events, living together and transmitting ( propagating trough the air) at very low velocity, that's where the evil may enter, changing the cards and altering the sequence. A minuscule changement brings enormous fracture in what we feel. The ability to recognize and recreate an emotion ( in music) involves memory first etc etc
patterns, sequence, those can't be mic'ed (of course!) because you subtract time which is the basis of the unwinding of the music.
everyone constructs his reality on its own way.
Then there are the social matters, culture, common behavior and common sense etc etc. and then there is music, which is something created by the man along its millennial evolution. Music reproduction happens in human history about 100 years ago, which is quite nothing...
And what is music reproduction ? It's the possibility to repeat an event that has happened in another time, in another place. This obviously creates some ambiguity in the human mind. Exploring the technique and bringing this to a level that reproduction fullfills in giving the same emotion that may happen at a live event, well, that's something to think about. Mic'ing technique may even enhance the ability to bring more satisfaction when hearing an instrument playing, it's not every time detrimental. And there's the fact that you listen the same event played twice, one in the hall and one in your room; and also played at that time and then, now. Where's the illusion ?
It's some sort of binary events, living together and transmitting ( propagating trough the air) at very low velocity, that's where the evil
may enter, changing the cards and altering the sequence. A minuscule changement brings enormous fracture in what we feel. The ability to recognize and recreate an emotion ( in music) involves memory first etc etcpatterns, sequence, those can't be mic'ed (of course!) because you subtract time which is the basis of the unwinding of the music.
Tom is right, there is no reference to make a comparison to. We are used to hearing the human voice LIVE, not recorded - and certainly not mixed with other elements. Not many here have ever heard a live recording, or ever been in a mixing and mastering session. Most folks here have never attended a live recording, and then heard that same recording on their system. So no, there is no reference - your system and room(in isolation I might add) are the only reference you really have
Did you know the number of microphones is not related to how a violin sounds? It is the choice of microphone and its placement that dictates that. Do you know that 99% of the classical recordings done today use a multi-microphone setup? One of the interesting things about participating in these forums is listeners love to blame the recording, but don't like to talk about the drawbacks of their own system. When something does not sound like it should to an individual listener, it must be the recording.
Depth and localization are not fixed. It is different for each recording based on the microphone placement and choice of the microphone. A Blumlein set up will have different imaging than a Decca Tree setup. A XY setup will have a different spatial picture than spaced omni's. And any combination of microphone placement techniques will have yet a different spatial picture. So there really is no frame of reference that sets imaging up as a known sonic characteristic. We have not even started on stage and hall geometry, acoustics, or various other sonic parameters.
So for the person sitting in front of a pair of speakers, too many variabilities leaves you with no reference as Tom accurately states.
That's the reference.
Not to burst that bubble but I hear it daily.
Yes. yes and yes, and most of those recordings demonstate the same flaw across systems as diverse as direct/ribbon hybrids, full range drivers and Etymotic IEMs designed for accurate field monitoring.
Those limts are stereo's, not reproduction in principle.
That poor, standardized, market and economically driven recording techniques strip those references does not logically entail it's impossble to preserve them to a convincing degree in principle.
I'm a bit worried about this "accuracy" concept. Certainly it would exclude retrofitting an inverse of the ear's frequency response onto the speaker, because the generated waves would not be identical to the source waves like that, and thus not accurate.
Ok, in the studio I have four musicians and a drummer, making music. They are all wearing headphones, and judging their dynamics through these. In addition, to simplify the mix there is a certain amount of acoustic separation, but not booths, or anything absolute. The aforementioned omnidirectional microphone placed in the room would pick up all the instruments, but the balance would vary wildly depending on where it was put, and would never be "right" (you know what I mean by that, even if the word isn't "accurate") anywhere. Because the music was not being played for an acoustic audience. But we have microphones on the piano, the upright bass, the acoustic guitar and the vocals, plus several (quite possibly a totally excessive number) on the drum kit.
Whatever happens each of those microphones is picking up information from the instruments and voice it's not specifically aimed at, with strange delays, reflections from the bodies of its own instrument, phase angles; there went accuracy at one swell foop.
If we're really lucky one of the performances will be judged good enough to use as is; more likely the vocalist will want to redo some parts, or two or more versions will be edited together to make one; certainly not accurate to the performance, and I've not even started adding reverberation, equalisation or dynamic control.
Worse, they decide to add backing vocals and strings. For the strings, they probably can't afford to pay real string players (and if they can, more leakaqe. Most string players can't play in headphones, so they need a loudspeaker with the original recording in it bleeding int their microphone(s)), so use sampled strings, recorded in another studio somewhere else in the world playing a completely different piece. For the backing vocals the original vocalist sings over her own voice, and a couple of the musicians sing along harmonies, but as they're not trained vocalists there's an autotune eating up their off-pitch notes.
Now we have all these sources available to mix, and the illusion we want to create is that somewhere this music existed. Actually, until the mix process (that puts the singer into a synthetic hall, quite possibly puts the strings into a different one, shared by the backing vocals, one of whom has been cloned off from the main vocalist) and, since automation is now universal, the correction of a thousand different errors, in dynamics or even timing, the disguising the fact that the backing vocals on the second chorus were copied across from the first and retimed to match the lead vocal, all of the above judged on admittedly imperfect monitor speakers with a producer, an arranger and all the band explaining to you every note (and why 'I' ought to be louder here.
The final result isn't accurate to anything; the reference never existed, but people can bathe in the illusion, the emotion (and at least here most of the musicians were there at the same time; more often you lay down the rhythm track without even a scratch vocal)
A live recording is barely more accurate. Perhaps you have a second keyboard player doing the strings, so there is two way feedback, but it's still multimic, monitors for the musicians and nowhere you can put a single microphone and get an acoustic balance, no reality to be accurate to.
So, coming down to it, the important similarities are the home loudspeaker compared to the studio monitor, and the taste of the producer (or most determined musician) to the listener.
Ok, in the studio I have four musicians and a drummer, making music. They are all wearing headphones, and judging their dynamics through these. In addition, to simplify the mix there is a certain amount of acoustic separation, but not booths, or anything absolute. The aforementioned omnidirectional microphone placed in the room would pick up all the instruments, but the balance would vary wildly depending on where it was put, and would never be "right" (you know what I mean by that, even if the word isn't "accurate") anywhere. Because the music was not being played for an acoustic audience. But we have microphones on the piano, the upright bass, the acoustic guitar and the vocals, plus several (quite possibly a totally excessive number) on the drum kit.
Whatever happens each of those microphones is picking up information from the instruments and voice it's not specifically aimed at, with strange delays, reflections from the bodies of its own instrument, phase angles; there went accuracy at one swell foop.
If we're really lucky one of the performances will be judged good enough to use as is; more likely the vocalist will want to redo some parts, or two or more versions will be edited together to make one; certainly not accurate to the performance, and I've not even started adding reverberation, equalisation or dynamic control.
Worse, they decide to add backing vocals and strings. For the strings, they probably can't afford to pay real string players (and if they can, more leakaqe. Most string players can't play in headphones, so they need a loudspeaker with the original recording in it bleeding int their microphone(s)), so use sampled strings, recorded in another studio somewhere else in the world playing a completely different piece. For the backing vocals the original vocalist sings over her own voice, and a couple of the musicians sing along harmonies, but as they're not trained vocalists there's an autotune eating up their off-pitch notes.
Now we have all these sources available to mix, and the illusion we want to create is that somewhere this music existed. Actually, until the mix process (that puts the singer into a synthetic hall, quite possibly puts the strings into a different one, shared by the backing vocals, one of whom has been cloned off from the main vocalist) and, since automation is now universal, the correction of a thousand different errors, in dynamics or even timing, the disguising the fact that the backing vocals on the second chorus were copied across from the first and retimed to match the lead vocal, all of the above judged on admittedly imperfect monitor speakers with a producer, an arranger and all the band explaining to you every note (and why 'I' ought to be louder here.
The final result isn't accurate to anything; the reference never existed, but people can bathe in the illusion, the emotion (and at least here most of the musicians were there at the same time; more often you lay down the rhythm track without even a scratch vocal)
A live recording is barely more accurate. Perhaps you have a second keyboard player doing the strings, so there is two way feedback, but it's still multimic, monitors for the musicians and nowhere you can put a single microphone and get an acoustic balance, no reality to be accurate to.
So, coming down to it, the important similarities are the home loudspeaker compared to the studio monitor, and the taste of the producer (or most determined musician) to the listener.
i couldnt go through all the topic (i will tho) but i found that hearing changed through the day. Im not sure if the change is at sensorial level or just at the processing level in the brain but if i am tired i hear different than when i am rested, if i was exposed to high noise levels i hear different than the time i wake up so on and so forth.
Wonder if OP considered these aspects.
Wonder if OP considered these aspects.
One can't like and enjoy both? I there something you're not telling me? Are music and illusion mutually exclusive?
Hi Pano
I would think they are not mutually exclusive but more like synergistic, if you can hear Dianna Krall standing there right in front of you, that may make it more enjoyable.
In the way old days, I heard a demo of some recordings at Don Davis's house that he made with tiny microphones in a persons ears. One was walking around at the Indy 500 during time trials and it really made the hair stand up on he back of my neck. Unfortunately, this only worked for one person, with speakers aimed up from the floor on either side (minimizing your ear's pina response). Still, it was amazing, a sonic hemisphere that really was somewhere else..
Funny too, I have a recording I made with a microphone array thing I have been working on that was at a friend’s BBQ a few years ago. It was his some and some other kids (ages about 9 to 16) playing Irish folk music.
I love one track in particular, not because of it’s professionalism or musicianship but because of nearly the opposite, because it sounds so live, so real, even when the neighbors air-conditioned came on it was cool..
Our old web site at work used to have a place I could put a few recordings like the fireworks but I don’t think they got around to that on the new one.
Best,
Tom
Hey are you going to Infocom?
I would think they are not mutually exclusive but more like synergistic, if you can hear Dianna Krall standing there right in front of you, that may make it more enjoyable.
In the way old days, I heard a demo of some recordings at Don Davis's house that he made with tiny microphones in a persons ears. One was walking around at the Indy 500 during time trials and it really made the hair stand up on he back of my neck. Unfortunately, this only worked for one person, with speakers aimed up from the floor on either side (minimizing your ear's pina response). Still, it was amazing, a sonic hemisphere that really was somewhere else..
Funny too, I have a recording I made with a microphone array thing I have been working on that was at a friend’s BBQ a few years ago. It was his some and some other kids (ages about 9 to 16) playing Irish folk music.
I love one track in particular, not because of it’s professionalism or musicianship but because of nearly the opposite, because it sounds so live, so real, even when the neighbors air-conditioned came on it was cool..
Our old web site at work used to have a place I could put a few recordings like the fireworks but I don’t think they got around to that on the new one.
Best,
Tom
Hey are you going to Infocom?
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.