Went to a Bela Fleck gig when they were over here a few years ago. Pressed in like sardines, but the sound was really quite good for all that. Not too loud, not too soft. Live Art is a fair representation of what I heard, but even cosied up with a glaas of my favourite poison, it's not quite the same. But, if I close my eyes and click my heels together 3 times, I can believe (I can believe...)
I've been to other gigs where I had to leave after the first song - deaf FOH engineers can really ruin a gig for everybody.
I've been to other gigs where I had to leave after the first song - deaf FOH engineers can really ruin a gig for everybody.
The more listening I do to different speaker systems the more convinced I am that flat response is one of the least important performance parameters. As long as it is not grossly out of line (such as parts of the spectrum being essentially absent) things like dynamics, compression, internal reflections and imaging seem to have more to do with a plausible result.
)I think almost all cogent points have been made in this interesting thread somewhere. But here's a further thought on the question of reproduction of a live event. I think recordings can be judged by how well they are reproducing the score. No kidding. (I think good-music reviewers are judging recordings on that kind of basis when they say, "Dudamel's performance was...." meaning he played Chavez like Chavez meant to be heard.)
Recording staff follow Beethoven's score and where the flutes are doing something important, they crank up the flutes. Which is what a good conductor does (and they might be colluding with the recording staff to ensure this happens on the recording). And which you do in a concert hall.... it's called "attention."
Seems odd to me to think that Ambisonics or stuff like that can bring hall sound (without further human tweaking) into your little room or even into your headphones.
Even with my high-end nearly-all-electrostatic system, I have rarely heard from "down the hallway" a guitar, flute, let alone a human or piano really in my music room.... except when my mind was dull and then briefly. I believe it is just not possible even in theory to make from stereo speakers what perception psychologists call "an equivalent stimulus."
Ben
Recording staff follow Beethoven's score and where the flutes are doing something important, they crank up the flutes. Which is what a good conductor does (and they might be colluding with the recording staff to ensure this happens on the recording). And which you do in a concert hall.... it's called "attention."
Seems odd to me to think that Ambisonics or stuff like that can bring hall sound (without further human tweaking) into your little room or even into your headphones.
Even with my high-end nearly-all-electrostatic system, I have rarely heard from "down the hallway" a guitar, flute, let alone a human or piano really in my music room.... except when my mind was dull and then briefly. I believe it is just not possible even in theory to make from stereo speakers what perception psychologists call "an equivalent stimulus."
Ben
Last edited:
My goal has always been to be able to realistically reproduce well-recorded live music for as many genres/venues as is possible. Whatever is on the recording is what I'd like to reproduce: nothing more--but nothing less. If the recording was done badly then it's a bad recording, no matter how much I'd like it to be a better recording. Perhaps EQing recordings after the fact can make bad recordings sound less bad, but I generally don't waste my time trying to do this - I find that it's better to find better recordings of different music to listen to.
Be aware that there is a difference between the ability to accurately reproduce well recorded live music--to playing typical recordings that are marketed to the general consumer population on a system capable of accurate live music reproduction.
Whatever the recording, mixing, and mastering engineers decide to put on disc is another issue that I cannot control except by "voting with my feet".
I listen to a lot of classical acoustic recordings, well-recorded world music, and acoustic jazz combos. Not so much popular music since this is where the real excesses of big music corporations show up as truly awful recordings.
YMMV.
Chris
"Loudness War" Dynamic Range Compression & The DR Database - Observations
It is nice to learn your feelings on the matter. But you seem to ignore massive amount of previous comment suggesting it is an "oversimplification" to say things like "realistically reproduce" as if that were a meaningful statement.
Ben
I answered the OP's question with my opinion (which was the question as I saw it) - ignoring nothing that was said above, but clearly disagreeing with the opinions that you seem so fond of "correcting me" on.
I had assumed that this is a forum that coolly discusses issues without resorting to, well, "debate" (a form of zero-sum game).
If you would like to know why I answered the way I did, I'd be happy to elaborate. However, if disagreement is not welcome here, then pardon my response.
Chris
Nevertheless, the goal must still be to achieve it. It's the only way to come close enough to at least experience glimpses of it. From there, your imagination takes over. If you have to work at it, the system sucks.
This is but one of the reasons why I responded as I did above. The alternative position to this view is a tautology: "I like it the way that I like it."
I believe that this question arises because those that would like to be congratulated on diverting from that stated goal, seeking instead approbation. This includes statements on "enhancing the recorded sound field", like Bose and even dipole radiating loudspeakers. I simply don't agree that this is my goal.
I recommend going to a live acoustic concert of a larger music ensemble and listening carefully, taking notes on what your ears hear--and what they don't hear. I think that you'll be surprised by what you find. Take along a hand-held SPL meter and set it on fast response, then watch it carefully.
Chris
Last edited:
Perhaps I might understand that this is your perspective, however I'll agree to disagree that "...there is no way stereo speakers in your room" cannot realistically produce a sound field almost indistinguishable from the real thing for many/most music sources.
One source that I find is very difficult to reproduce realistically is a large string orchestra, particularly violin sections. This is a very rich and non-steely breathing timbre that I've yet to hear reproduced realistically.
Grand piano is also very difficult to do well: I find that the recordings themselves are not very well done. I've heard a few good grand piano recordings very close to real life--but they are extremely dynamic recordings with no compression applied.
Most loudspeaker types cannot handle the natural dynamic range and imaging demands of these realistic recordings. I'll leave it to the reader to ascertain which type can.
Chris
There's the rub. I have, um, lots of "classical" recordings, including some that I heard "live" in rehearsal and performance. None of the recordings capture the "original sound" in a way that allows its exact reproduction in my listening room. Quite a number of them, however, capture the music in a way that allows for a satisfying and believable listening experience (which is not necessarily what it sounded like "in the hall" . . . while that is nice to be able to accomplish I also sometimes like the clear-and-immediate "sound" of a seat on stage, and some recordings capture that better-than-life).
"Reproduced" sound is a separate art . . . simulation of "you are there" is just one part of it (although if you can accomplish that part the rest is pretty easy).
I believe that this is the source of much of the disagreement found here: almost no company puts out recordings that are "realistic". By way of example, see the following disc from the DR Database:
Album details - Dynamic Range Database
Note that one version of this disc is almost exactly 10 dB higher in dynamic range (crest factor) than the other one. But guess which one you get to buy? The other disc was clearly a "mistake" by the mastering engineer in release. But both recordings are very, very high in dynamic range for any disc that you can buy.
I've found that few people listen to large venue acoustic music at concert volume levels--they want music that sounds nice in the background or on their earbuds: they don't buy uncompressed, unprocessed acoustic music.
Chris
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.