How important is a stereo image?

[Destroyer OS]

Why was that Trolling? You seemed to suggest that power conditioning was more important than the speakers. Are you able to explain what you actually meant?

Those are my goals. I'm not a speaker designer. I can be happy with lots of speakers, but with poor power there's fatigue and less emotional thrill. If you don't start there you don't end up too far.

I of course enjoy good speakers, I'm fascinated by different designs, and will certainly try some out. However numero uno is how long I can sit there.

 

[billshurv]

Ah, I have never suffered dirty power. I am close to the transformer and no major RF sources in the vicinity bar those I generate myself (wifi). Never lived in a city so never had any problems that could have been linked to the mains supply.

 

[Tattoo]

Low very early reflections are essential for imaging. This should be done via directivity and room design with a very smooth, near flat, direct field response. The impulse response of the speakers should be compact, i.e. no group delay. Many speakers will image well in a very dead space - there aren't a lot of early reflections to mess things up - but then the space sounds dead - no spaciousness. It takes a narrow directivity, that must be constant of course, pointed such that the first reflections are minimized and a fairly lively room. This will yield good imaging AND good spaciousness simultaneously.

And yes, I do believe that a good loudspeaker/room setup is independent of the recording technique. Some setups may mask poor recordings, but that's not really an incompatibility as much as it is just a bad reproduction.

And I don't think that recording and reproduction go "hand-in-hand". I only do one, and I take the other as a given. I find no problems with that approach. I appreciate the talents of the recording engineer - he is an artist! Me I am just a scientist, I leave the art to the other guys.

Thanks!

I do a lot of recording, so my mindset is on both sides.

 

[midrange]

There has been a lot in this thread about the listener, and about the sound engineer. I would like to add a word or two for the musician.
I took part in a recording in a church, with a group of about 15 or 20 orchestral musicians and a singer. The producer told us that he was using a single mike, (actually a sum and difference figure of 8 and cardioid set up.) He would not be adjusting the volume, just leaving the level where it was. In short he was not dabbling during or after the recording. What came out was what we put in. It was very exciting for us, like a live performance. I think that could be heard in the performance.
Contrast that with the average studio recording, with the producer and sound engineer deciding to quite an extent, what it is going to sound like. Which is to say not a reproduction of what it actually sounds like in the studio. This is quite depressing for musicians.
There are many on this thread talking about reproducing perfectly what the sound engineer (actually the producer) created, but what this is not, is the actual sound in the studio, simply the sound in the producer's "box". To talk of perfect reproduction in these situations is to talk of a perfect reproduction of something artificial.
I feel that the efforts to create the perfect stereo image are part of the "artificialising" of the original sound to make it more impressive for reproduction.

 

[DF96]

What came out was what we put in.

I assume that was a BBC recording? Back in the 1980s I could go to a Prom one night, then stay at home and listen to Radio 3 the next night and find myself back in the same hall enjoying the next concert in the series.

To get true stereo you need a very simple mike setup. Even a few fill-in spot mikes start to move things away from true stereo, however carefully they are applied.

 

[bentoronto]

There has been a lot in this thread about the listener, and about the sound engineer. I would like to add a word or two for the musician.
I took part in a recording in a church, with a group of about 15 or 20 orchestral musicians and a singer. The producer told us that he was using a single mike, (actually a sum and difference figure of 8 and cardioid set up.) He would not be adjusting the volume, just leaving the level where it was. In short he was not dabbling during or after the recording. What came out was what we put in. It was very exciting for us, like a live performance. I think that could be heard in the performance..

That is a helpful data point (at last). But...

1. Any reason for us to think the engineer you hold up as example was particularly skillful or have the gear for any other sort of recording? I just love the organ recordings I once made (which are terrible by any standard) and like your experience, it sound (to me) exactly like the big church. Not only do they sound exactly the same, but I can see the church perfectly as the music plays. How's that for stereo image?

2. Unless he put the mic stand on the seat on Row 6 on the aisle, he was as much fishing for a sweet spot as the engineering with the pan-pot. It is likely that recording on Row 6 would make a terrible muffled recording (of course, depending on the hall). On the other hand, nobody goes to a concert hall and asks for a seat 20 feet above the edge of the stage. So when you say it sounds exactly right, you couldn't mean Row 6 (where the mic wasn't) and you probably don't mean your place in the choir (I hope it doesn't mean the sound from there).* I think what you mean is that, if you were sitting in Row 6 (say, while taking a break from the choir), you suspect the sound would be like what you hear when you play the recording at home. Is that right?

3. If his choice of location gave you the warm-fuzzies about the sound, it was at least partly because a mass of voices in that church may record nicely that way.

4. You don't know whatever other tweaking he had to do after the recording. "Just let 'er rip..." is not a feasible technique.

My take-away message from your experience is that a purist mic technique can lead to very satisfying home listening, at least for choirs in churches. But may not be quite that same as being able to meaningfully specify that "what you put in" is "what came out."

Ben
*the acoustics of more than one great hall have been destroyed by conductors who felt their location wasn't getting the sound they wanted; Chicago the saddest example I can recall.

 

[Tattoo]

There has been a lot in this thread about the listener, and about the sound engineer. I would like to add a word or two for the musician.
I took part in a recording in a church, with a group of about 15 or 20 orchestral musicians and a singer. The producer told us that he was using a single mike, (actually a sum and difference figure of 8 and cardioid set up.) He would not be adjusting the volume, just leaving the level where it was. In short he was not dabbling during or after the recording. What came out was what we put in. It was very exciting for us, like a live performance. I think that could be heard in the performance.
Contrast that with the average studio recording, with the producer and sound engineer deciding to quite an extent, what it is going to sound like. Which is to say not a reproduction of what it actually sounds like in the studio. This is quite depressing for musicians.
There are many on this thread talking about reproducing perfectly what the sound engineer (actually the producer) created, but what this is not, is the actual sound in the studio, simply the sound in the producer's "box". To talk of perfect reproduction in these situations is to talk of a perfect reproduction of something artificial.
I feel that the efforts to create the perfect stereo image are part of the "artificialising" of the original sound to make it more impressive for reproduction.

Great post


I see a lot of sound engineers over thinking stuff and making it all sound artificial and very often a lot worse.
Just put the musicians in a room with appropriate acoustics, place mic where it sounds best and press rec. Its not rocket science.

 

[scopeboy]

Great post


I see a lot of sound engineers over thinking stuff and making it all sound artificial and very often a lot worse.
Just put the musicians in a room with appropriate acoustics, place mic where it sounds best and press rec. Its not rocket science.

Reminds me of some classical recordings from 3L. They seem very fond of the close miking, I wish they would just have stuck a couple of mics in the room and not messed with it.

 

[JMFahey]

This does beg the question of realism, or what people think is realism. The problem of spotting mikes is that they are close, which explains how on so many recordings the wind sound as near as the front row of the strings, or even nearer.

Even nearer 🙁

If you listen to a recording where a bunch of microphones is used, one per instrument, and each one is 10 inches from it, forget about "Row 6 seats" sound or imagining ... better imagine yourself on your knees on the stage, with your ears 10 inches from each instrument ... because that's the way you are actually listening.

To boot, with one ear plugged .

You want to record a Row 6 sound experience?

Put a pair microphones at a Row 6 seat position, in one of the classic arrangements (there are many good ones) and push the big red button.

You want to faithfully reproduce such an experience?

a) listen to it with headphones, putting the room out of the question.

b) use properly placed speakers, and kill room resonances (what scopeboy found in that BBC room)

c) being realistic, build yourself as good listening room, and be happy with it.

Me?
Everyday listen with what I have available and call it a day.
If you can't dine on steak au poivre and a good wine, a hamburger and coke (light) will do ... just don't think the the second is more than a very poor substitute of the first.

And for the real thing, I go at least once a year to our Opera House, the Teatro Colón in Buenos Aires, and listen to anything they are playing, live, with my eyes closed.

There's no Million Dollar sound system, of any brand or technology, which sounds like that.

Not the least factor being that the million dollars might buy very good equipment, but my home is not Teatro Colón.

Oh well 🙁 .

 

[esgigt]

Even nearer 🙁

.....

Oh well 🙁 .

True... If you want to experience the real thing... don't stay at home

I also agree with Tattoo and Midrange, what they say about recording practices.. The best recordings I've heard where absolutely not the multi-mic-ed and over-produced albums.

I think it is better to dump the term "soundstage" and focus on how involving the recording is... my 2 cents..

 

[JoeDJ]

Let me just add...
How many of us would much prefer a good mono recording over a bad stereo recording even though the latter has an intended stereo imaging? 🙂

 

[chrisb]

depends on the musical performance

I listen to a particular program on KPLU Sunday afternoons - Ken Wiley's"The Art of Jazz" - the old boy has a fairly substantial collection of the idiom in every format on which it's been recorded. Needless to say some of the material from the 20s through mid 40's is of very poor technical quality, but when the performance is right, all the noise, scratches and lack of dimensionality that stereo can deliver melts away.

Anyone remember the first few recordings by Sheffield - Lincoln Mayorga and friends, Thelma Houstan / Pressure Cooker etc? Meticulously engineered SOTA Live, direct to disc recordings that were much used as demos in hifi shops during the mid - late 70s. Spectacularly good sound compared to the bulk of mainstream commercial recording of the era, with musical performances that felt so careful and restrained that for me they lacked emotional impact. If Thelma Huston blasting out "I've got the Music IN ME" can't get you excited, something's missing. OTOH, another chestnut demo LP used in the same era "Jazz at the Pawnshop" was so vibrant, dynamic and organic that any of its technical flaws were completely irrelevant.

For me imaging only matters if the performance is engaging, elsewise it's just sonic wallpaper / muzak, which of course has its place as well.

 

[rayma]

There are many on this thread talking about reproducing perfectly what the sound engineer (actually the producer) created, but what this is not, is the actual sound in the studio, simply the sound in the producer's "box". To talk of perfect reproduction in these situations is to talk of a perfect reproduction of something artificial. I feel that the efforts to create the perfect stereo image are part of the "artificialising" of the original sound to make it more impressive for reproduction.

Exactly, well said.

 

[rayma]

Anyone remember the first few recordings by Sheffield - Lincoln Mayorga and friends, Thelma Houstan / Pressure Cooker etc? Meticulously engineered SOTA Live, direct to disc recordings that were much used as demos in hifi shops during the mid - late 70s. For me imaging only matters if the performance is engaging, elsewise it's just sonic wallpaper / muzak, which of course has its place as well.

Yes, Doug Sax went so far as to replace the gain pots with fixed resistors when doing the final direct-to-disc recording session.

 

[drmcclainphd]

I find that laughably untrue.

May I assume you are a listener of such? If so, my condolences. I produce it, and with more attention and care to this issue than most. Lest my assertion fall empty, I offer this copylefted (ie. non-commercial) collection. Much of it is decidedly non-pop, but it all gets the same treatment by me. You are, of course, free to find it laughably whatever suits your taste, as humor is quite a healing activity.

Yuri's Night Three Sigma Symphony

 

[midrange]

That is a helpful data point (at last). But...

1. Any reason for us to think the engineer you hold up as example was particularly skillful or have the gear for any other sort of recording? I just love the organ recordings I once made (which are terrible by any standard) and like your experience, it sound (to me) exactly like the big church. Not only do they sound exactly the same, but I can see the church perfectly as the music plays. How's that for stereo image?

2. Unless he put the mic stand on the seat on Row 6 on the aisle, he was as much fishing for a sweet spot as the engineering with the pan-pot. It is likely that recording on Row 6 would make a terrible muffled recording (of course, depending on the hall). On the other hand, nobody goes to a concert hall and asks for a seat 20 feet above the edge of the stage. So when you say it sounds exactly right, you couldn't mean Row 6 (where the mic wasn't) and you probably don't mean your place in the choir (I hope it doesn't mean the sound from there).* I think what you mean is that, if you were sitting in Row 6 (say, while taking a break from the choir), you suspect the sound would be like what you hear when you play the recording at home. Is that right?

3. If his choice of location gave you the warm-fuzzies about the sound, it was at least partly because a mass of voices in that church may record nicely that way.

4. You don't know whatever other tweaking he had to do after the recording. "Just let 'er rip..." is not a feasible technique.

My take-away message from your experience is that a purist mic technique can lead to very satisfying home listening, at least for choirs in churches. But may not be quite that same as being able to meaningfully specify that "what you put in" is "what came out."


Bentoronto, you make many assumptions in your response, and have not read what I wrote very carefully.

1) The engineer was very skillful, and had recorded (for the recording company he worked for), extensively in the church . He had spent a long time perfecting this technique in this space, and experimenting with mike positions.

2) Where on earth do you get the idea that I sing in a choir? I even state ORCHESTRAL MUSICIANS. Good grief.

FYI sound engineers often stand in the studio, hall, or whatever to listen to the live sound. Row 6 in the aisle?

3) "Warm fuzzies". This is a patronising insult . WHERE DO YOU GET THIS IDEA?

4) With only one mike there is not a whole lot of tweaking he could do. It was fairly simple music as far as I remember, something like arias from an early opera. No real need for adjustment. Another supposition on your part.

"Just let 'er rip is not a feasible technique." Says who? If you were recording a string quartet playing Haydn, what other technique would you use? Please tell us.

You seem obsessed with the idea that if it is recorded in a church it must be a choir. Air studios in London is just one of many examples of decommissioned and converted churches used by major record companies to record large symphony orchestras. Rosslyn Hill Chapel in Hampstead is a very popular location for recording chamber music because of it's freakishly pleasing acoustic. St John's Smith Square, Henry Wood Hall.....................

 

[Pano]

This synthetic image should not be of much importance to the listener seeking accurate reproduction of music.

Just like a good reproduction of animation and CG is not important because it's not real?

He probably should have tried binaural headphone listening. This is actually the only recording technique with true stereo imaging.

This is actually complete nonsense. Or perhaps just ignorance.

Stereo image is critical and one of the most difficult things to create. This is why poor loudspeaker designs often decry it as irrelevant.

This is actually quite true.

Why is reproducing a synthetic construct less important than reproducing a so-called "real" one? And why would it be any less satisfying?

 

[rayma]

Just like a good reproduction of animation and CG is not important because it's not real?This is actually complete nonsense. Or perhaps just ignorance.

Pretty hostile for a moderator. What does an electronic instrument or recording that has never existed acoustically sound like?
How do you know if it's being accurately reproduced? You don't. Maybe I take the meaning of "high fidelity" a little more seriously than some.

 

[Pano]

Please notice that moderators are just normal members like you when not posting with the cop hat.

What does an electronic instrument sound like? How do you know if it's being accurately reproduced?

What does that have to do with stereo image?

Maybe I take the meaning of "high fidelity" a little more seriously than some.

That would be a simple guess on your part. But since it's such a wide statement, it's hard to argue with. "Perhaps I'm taller than some." 😉

 

[billshurv]

In an attempt to get back on track can I ask what it is that causes some of the posters to decide that they must compromise imaging to get something else in return? I would have thought that (unless budget constrained) you can generally have your cake at eat it if you know what you are doing?