I think this test has substantial value.
I think we can all agree that listening to speakers is different from listening to a live performance. There are numerous reasons that this might be true. It could be that our recordings are of insufficient quality. It could be that our speakers lack sufficient resolution, or aren't linear enough at true-to-life volume. We really can't say.... but if this test is successful, we'll know that it has nothing to do with resolution or linearity (at least for drivers as nice or better than those being used in the test).
I think a better endeavor would be, can you teach people to tell the difference?
I'm guessing that musicians, recording engineers, and live sound people would do better at this than persons off the street. If so, could they verbalize the differences, and teach the persons off the street the differences?
Remember, there is no such thing as golden ears, only people who have learned to listen.
Raises the bar, makes people more aware, more learned.
What purpose does fooling people off the street serve?
If you can fool people, I think it would be instructional to find out who can be fooled. Can you fool musicians more or less than those that have no interest in music?
You guess.... but is it true? There are so many cognitive biases that can form when you spend so much time surrounded by a thing like working with sound. Maybe well practiced at hearing this and that, but can you tell which this and that is from live and which this and that is recorded?
Hi keyser,
(Edit: Sorry i haven't read the whole thread by now ...)
my "educated guess" would be, that e.g. with string instruments there will be a difference.
Violins e.g. (as a family of instruments) radiate a "lobed" frequency dependent directivity pattern.
Here is an illustration of what i am talking about:
https://www.baunetzwissen.de/imgs/1/2/3/3/3/7/c9a7ef3f6af297c5.jpg
So what you hear in a live performance as "reflections" or "reverb" are not just "delayed copies" of the direct sound reaching the listening seat (audience) ...
The reflections in a "pleasant" musical venue also transport spectral patterns to the listener that may even be "complementary" to the direct sound.
If you capture those reflected sounds partly (e.g. with appropriate level from relevant directions etc. maybe using additional mikes) in a recording, then - if some criteria are met - that recording may sound pretty much "lifelike", when reproduced in an appropriate listening setup (room).
With only the direct sound recorded (due to the non reflective recording venue you use), there should be much of that "spectral complementary" (reflected, delayed, coming from different directions ...) content missing on the recording:
It will sound like "recorded in a non reflective environment" (pretty much) even if played back in a "usual" (say living room like) listening room.
This will affect the perceived "naturalsness" of a recorded single instrument and the "blending" of (especially string) ensembles as well.
Of couse one may try to add "artificial reflections" (e.g. taken from the "direct sound recording" modified by comb filters ...) presented by additional channels in the listening room, to get somewhat closer to the live experience.
Last edited:
Many stereo systems suffer from this vs live IME. I think cause is music recorded and mixed/mastered over speakers with no appreciable floor or front wall bounce effect, then played back at home over speakers with one or both and a large upper bass/lower mid suckout. If the cello has any appreciable line source characteristic, or if the low frequency apparent acoustic center is notably different than the speaker woofer height, then I think you'll hear a notable difference in upper bass/lower mid balance on the speaker.
On recorded music this is most obvious by the missing weight on a piano, IME at least.
A similar effect occurs live as well, not just in the home. I attend a few symphonic concerts every year at the NAC in Ottawa and there is a huge difference in low frequency balance between front row balcony and 15 rows back main floor. I think the conductor balances for main floor, balcony is a bass bloated mess because of the lack of low frequency notch.
I also attend quite a few chamber music concerts in town but in this case go for the balcony when available, balance is just more pleasing and less screechy from the strings
Last edited:
@keyser
as i see, you already mentioned that point i explained in Post #69:
I am curious, which kind of results / impressions you might get, expecially with the anechoic cello recording ...
Maybe a violin (i suspect) - or even violin ensemble - could even be more revealing.
On the other hand it makes a difference, whether your objective is "to fool (at least) some people" or if the the goal is that "experienced listeners" can't tell a difference if loudspeakers and/or musicians play behind a (visually opaque) curtain in that room ...
as i see, you already mentioned that point i explained in Post #69:
I am curious, which kind of results / impressions you might get, expecially with the anechoic cello recording ...
Maybe a violin (i suspect) - or even violin ensemble - could even be more revealing.
On the other hand it makes a difference, whether your objective is "to fool (at least) some people" or if the the goal is that "experienced listeners" can't tell a difference if loudspeakers and/or musicians play behind a (visually opaque) curtain in that room ...
Last edited:
We're just trying to do this demo as well as wel can with the tools that we have. We'll just have to see how convincing it will be.
John Darko from Digital Audio Review is skeptical!
Live music as the ultimate reference? Nein danke! | DAR__KO
John Darko from Digital Audio Review is skeptical!
Live music as the ultimate reference? Nein danke! | DAR__KO
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Keyser, first early reflection affect tonal balance more than later reflections but hard to say which has bigger effect given radiation pattern of cello.
Still a thumbs up here. The nuances of auditory perception are always a surprise but it's hard to see how speakers with obviously flawed first arrival sound can transform into realistically convincing reproducers with the addition of arbitrary room reflections.
This test might not be sufficient but its success seems obviously necessary.
Last edited:
Live music is sure only a test this relevant if you only want to listen to live music that has been recorded with the intention of preserving a live event.
I would say that was a very small proportion of the sounds people listen to on their systems. So just because of that, it is not a particularly relevant test.
personally I want recordings that bring me sounds OUTSIDE of my everyday experience not just to be a substitute for going out . That includes closely mic'd stuff that ordinarily I would never be close enough to experience. I still have fond sonic memories of a theatre show where the band was backstage and the resting area for us stage hands between cues was with a stage black between me and the drum kit. And similarly hiding out of sight in the orchestra pit ready for a quick change over - again sitting next to cymbals. And too, when you stick around and give the sound guys a hand to set up mics on a grand piano and can stand there with your head inside the lid while some guy plays...
You rarely get that attack and clarity of such close up listening and definately never out in the audience where most people get their experience of live music from.
personally I would guess that many people's idea of live sound is actually slow attack and mushy! Because all their experience is coloured by the hall/venue/PA they don't realise the instruments are DI'd through...
Give me unnatural attack and detail any day. It IS there in real live instruments but most people don't hear it because they are too far away.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.