How should music sound?

[graaf]

Hi-Fi is about realistic sound reproduction ever since Hartley invented the term in 1927

[DrDyna]

Originally Posted by graaf

Hi-Fi is about realistic sound reproduction ever since Hartley invented the term in 1927

I guess the debate is about who or what in the performance -> recording chain is due the effort of adherence to realism.

Is it conveying the "realism" of the original recording, even if it's terrible?

Is it taking what we're given on a recording and trying to juice what our mind perceives individually as "real" out of it?

Different people have different ideas about which it should be. It's just one of those things that has a right and wrong answer depending on who you ask.

[Pano]

I don't want to sound defeatist in my answers, but I just don't think #1 is really achievable. For me, it's not even desirable. It's not wrong, it's just not my concern because I can never know what it was.

Maybe to achieve #1 we could

1. Build a listening room that is like a mastering suite
2. Buy a pair of Altec Coax for old recordings
3. Buy a pair of Genelec monitors for newer recordings
4. Swap between the two depending on the recording
5. Buy master tapes when we can

No need for anything fancier, better, different.

[graaf]

Originally Posted by DrDyna

I guess the debate is about who or what in the performance -> recording chain is due the effort of adherence to realism.

Is it conveying the "realism" of the original recording, even if it's terrible?

then is it conveying its lack of realism?

Originally Posted by DrDyna

what our mind perceives individually as "real" out of it?

reality is intersubjective, our perception is fundamentally determined by our physiology and Hi-Fi is for humans - beings with human hearing physiology

I am with Linkwitz: "Unbiased listeners have no difficulty recognizing accurate sound reproduction, even with hearing damage or with hearing aids"

[SL obviously means realistic when uses the adjective "accurate"]

realism is not about microscopic details or reproducing of >20 kHz overtones

a lot of the so called HiFi equipment is pretty good at reproduction of microscopic details or reproducing of >20 kHz overtones

[Elias]

Originally Posted by DrDyna

I guess the debate is about who or what in the performance -> recording chain is due the effort of adherence to realism.

Is it conveying the "realism" of the original recording, even if it's terrible?

Is it taking what we're given on a recording and trying to juice what our mind perceives individually as "real" out of it?

The recording cannot contain the 'realism' unless it is a dummyhead recording matched to your own torso, head and pinnas.

In all the other cases the 'realism' can only be finalised by the influence of the interaction of the speakers and the listening room.

This of course gives a lot of freedom to the end user for adjustements with his speakers, room etc..

[DrDyna]

Well, what I mean by that is really that, depending on which part of process we're after a faithful reproduction of is what determines an individual's definition of realism.

For instance, someone might say that a colorized version of a black and white movie is more realistic, however to another individual, realism might mean "seeing it exactly as one might have seen it in a theater on opening night."

We can attribute the same things to audio recordings, it depends on the individual's definition of realism.

[puppet]

Originally Posted by Elias

In order to compensate for all these intended departures, you use the B&K target curve ? And it works ?


- Elias

I think you're misunderstanding the use of the curve. It's not intended to alter recorded content ... it's intended to persuade a given set of loudspeakers into a specific in room response. It's a "house curve".

[JRKO]

Originally Posted by leadcoma

1) How the mastering engineer intended it to sound.

2) How the voice(s)/instrument(s) sounds live in the environment targeted by the mastering engineer.

Without physically attending the recording session you cant do either. Unless you and your room/system are the sole target audience for the recording that is. In which case please can I come over to listen?

Originally Posted by leadcoma

3) How the voice(s)/instrument(s) sounds live in an environment I prefer.

4) How I want it to sound.

If it doesn't sound how you liked you'd change it until you did (unless you're a sadist)

In short: you want it to sound realistic & alive in your room.

[gedlee]

Originally Posted by DrDyna

For instance, someone might say that a colorized version of a black and white movie is more realistic, however to another individual, realism might mean "seeing it exactly as one might have seen it in a theater on opening night."

Coloring a B&W movie is more like converting a mono recording to stereo, there is some justification for both. But changing the audio playback is equivalent to readjusting the color on a color movie to make it more red or grenn because you "like it better". There is one color setting that "reproduces" the original best and thats all. Its not a preference thing.

[sofaspud]

ooo yeah I like that reply