"The technical reason speakers sound different from live instruments? "
That's very complex matter worth of investigation.
First there are not only technical reasons. You can find many other concerning psychology of music. Stereo image is a kind of phantom not reality. You can listen to Siegfried Linkwitz lecture at BAF 2010 about that:
SIEGFRIED LINKWITZ at BURNING AMP FESTIVAL 2010 - YouTube
The best source about psychology of music is:
Diana Deutsch - Diana Deutsch's Web Page
That's very complex matter worth of investigation.
First there are not only technical reasons. You can find many other concerning psychology of music. Stereo image is a kind of phantom not reality. You can listen to Siegfried Linkwitz lecture at BAF 2010 about that:
SIEGFRIED LINKWITZ at BURNING AMP FESTIVAL 2010 - YouTube
The best source about psychology of music is:
Diana Deutsch - Diana Deutsch's Web Page
Well, you just did.
1 - You've pulled the "McDonalds is the best food" fallacy out to back the industry norm as evidence that it is "best practice".
2 - Except for rock/pop/rap and other forms of synthetic (eg. prog) music every recording starts out with realism as a goal.
3 - It's irrelevant to the OP's question.
So is (was) the slow food movement. Your point?
I'd point out it's not just "ultra hifi symphonic". Back to 2 above, outside the pulp market it is _everything_.
There's a fundamental reason why a loudspeaker will never be able to sound like a collection of live instruments, no matter how good the loudspeaker, the recording or the amplification is. In any collection of instruments, each instrument and/or its amplified output will have its own unique radiation pattern and position within the acoustic space. This radiation pattern is a function of frequency and this, in addition to the instrument's position within the acoustic space, plays a major role as to how this instrument is perceived by an audience. A reproduction loudspeaker can have only one radiation pattern and one position. Therefore it can never imitate a multitude of instruments with different radiation patterns and positions with a high degree of accuracy
You cannot even imitate a live performance consisting of only reinforced sound closely, even if you match the radiation patterns of the original sound reinforcement loudspeakers and those of reproducing loudspeakers. During the original performance, some direct, un-amplified sound will still escape and interact with the acoustic environment, despite the sound reinforcement. Additionally, to ensure that the interaction of the the reproducing loudspeakers with the acoustics is the same as that of the original loudspeakers in their original environment, you must play back each instrument through a similar loudspeaker in a position comparable to the original performance, within a comparable acoustic space. This is not very practical.
Your best chance would be if the original performance was through two loudspeakers, and the instruments are all electric / electronic, i.e. they have no un-amplified contribution to the total sound output. Then make a soundboard recording, and play it back through two similar loudspeakers in similar positions in a similar acoustic space. Again, not very practical.
You cannot even imitate a live performance consisting of only reinforced sound closely, even if you match the radiation patterns of the original sound reinforcement loudspeakers and those of reproducing loudspeakers. During the original performance, some direct, un-amplified sound will still escape and interact with the acoustic environment, despite the sound reinforcement. Additionally, to ensure that the interaction of the the reproducing loudspeakers with the acoustics is the same as that of the original loudspeakers in their original environment, you must play back each instrument through a similar loudspeaker in a position comparable to the original performance, within a comparable acoustic space. This is not very practical.
Your best chance would be if the original performance was through two loudspeakers, and the instruments are all electric / electronic, i.e. they have no un-amplified contribution to the total sound output. Then make a soundboard recording, and play it back through two similar loudspeakers in similar positions in a similar acoustic space. Again, not very practical.
Well, you got me there. Other than the 98% of commercial music, realism is the goal.
You yourself refer to it as the "industry norm" in point #1.
So have the last word. You win.
The remarkable thing is, that in spite of the million and one reasons that have been put forward as to why a recording can't sound realistic, what does happen trumps all of that ... if a system has low enough intrinsic distortion, then the ear/brain without conscious effort can decipher what the events were that were recorded, and build an illusion "inside your head" that's totally convincing, that is as involving and satisfying as listening to "the real thing".
Again, this is probably something that each person has to personally experience to appreciate - it will always fail to make sense if treated as an intellectual exercise, the trying to decide whether it's possible ...
Again, this is probably something that each person has to personally experience to appreciate - it will always fail to make sense if treated as an intellectual exercise, the trying to decide whether it's possible ...
good to see you have the "suspension of disbelief" thing down - given how much of it is required to read your posts
but it is a psychological trick we willingly engage in - its also easy step out of the mindset, or get knocked out by some perceptual howler in a recording
when critically listening for literal realism we aren't fooled that often
on most commercial recordings you can even identify mixing/production choices with even minimal "literacy" - compression, panning, reverb, the complete mismatch of the recording space or sound engineers' paint job to the acoustics of your living room
but it is a psychological trick we willingly engage in - its also easy step out of the mindset, or get knocked out by some perceptual howler in a recording
when critically listening for literal realism we aren't fooled that often
on most commercial recordings you can even identify mixing/production choices with even minimal "literacy" - compression, panning, reverb, the complete mismatch of the recording space or sound engineers' paint job to the acoustics of your living room
I appreciate that people listen to music in different ways - last night I listened to live music, yes, the really, real thing (!) - solo, classical cello - the player was only 20 feet away from me. Now, this player was highly knowledgable about the music - all the pieces were played without sheet music at all; he understood, technically, just about everything that was interesting about the music. But, ... ...
Let's just say it wasn't the best performance of that type of music I've heard ... I wasn't "convinced" that I was hearing what the composer intended his audience to hear, 🙂. I needed to "force" myself to listen, because aspects of what I was hearing did not sit well with me.
And that is how it happens with reproduced music. A typical system most of the time requires one to "forcefully" listen - but an optimised one doesn't. Yes, in the latter case it is easy to hear "problems" if one chooses to do so - but subjectively it doesn't matter, you have no interest in doing so !
I have live recordings where the sound is appallingly "bad" - overloading of just about everything in sight - but it doesn't matter. The world that the musicians where playing in at the time dominates all the recording flaws, shines through - the issues recede into the background.
Now, if one has a mindset that tunes into everything being correct in one sense, but not in another - like the cello player - then poor recordings may disturb one. For me, that doesn't happen ..
Let's just say it wasn't the best performance of that type of music I've heard ... I wasn't "convinced" that I was hearing what the composer intended his audience to hear, 🙂. I needed to "force" myself to listen, because aspects of what I was hearing did not sit well with me.
And that is how it happens with reproduced music. A typical system most of the time requires one to "forcefully" listen - but an optimised one doesn't. Yes, in the latter case it is easy to hear "problems" if one chooses to do so - but subjectively it doesn't matter, you have no interest in doing so !
I have live recordings where the sound is appallingly "bad" - overloading of just about everything in sight - but it doesn't matter. The world that the musicians where playing in at the time dominates all the recording flaws, shines through - the issues recede into the background.
Now, if one has a mindset that tunes into everything being correct in one sense, but not in another - like the cello player - then poor recordings may disturb one. For me, that doesn't happen ..
Well every time I go to the DSO I make a point of closing my eyes during the performance to enjoy the real soundstage of a real symphony orchestra. The result is inevitably that there is no pinpoint (or even ballpark) localization of individual instruments in space available at the live event. Other than a featured solo performer up front, who can usually be reliably localized in the soundfield, the other components of the orchestra swell and recede as the conductor leads them but the myth of a stable 3D audio scene just isn't there! Perhaps two speakers playing in stereo under the best conditions are able to produce this mythical localizable 3D audio scene, but in my experience it isn't a reproduction of the real event, it is a fictional construct of stereo. A case perhaps where the reproduction is more beguiling that reality!
Agree, no precise localization at Live Music shows, Classical, Jazz or Rock etc.
At small Clubs the only time I hear precise localization is within a certain distance from the performers..
At small Clubs the only time I hear precise localization is within a certain distance from the performers..
In _general_ agreement. It is very venue, instrument and material specific.
We have a very good (acoustically) hall here and soloists - especially vocalists - easy to locate if in the first 20 or 30 rows. Beyond that direction is still clear but the tyranny of distance kicks in. (Maybe we can escape a predator that far away!)
On the other hand, in recitals at a local cathedral anything other than a soloist gets lost in the reverb field more than a few rows back.
In small clubs, the rare occasions you get no "sound reinforcement", voices and instruments are easily placed (Why PA is deemed "necessary" in a 15m x 10m club I don't know - when Buble can sing a capella in a 2000+ seat venue and be clearly heard in the back rows)
Pianos, by their very nature, are not focused - damn things are 9' long and radiate sound everywhere. They are more of a point source at 20 yards than six foot.
Pipe organs in big spaces are an immersive experience. The sound comes from everywhere.
To pick up another thread, some of the most realistic recent recordings have come from competent live recordings for radio (eg. ABC Music show) where the low-res MP3 clearly trumps the album version.
Two examples I can think of are Punch Brothers "Rye Whiskey" & "Movement and location" and Mia Dyson "The Moment" live set (Both August or Sept 2012) where in each case the live recording trumps the album version.
And to agree with Enzo & others - get out regularly to listen to live, non-reinforced music.
It is only 2% of the musical experiences available, but it is the only point of reference that exists.
Last edited:
Have you listened to speakers other than the Zaph SR-71s?
A well designed high sensitivity speaker system may get closer to what you are looking for.
A well designed high sensitivity speaker system may get closer to what you are looking for.
Or use an amplifier that in standard form that can operate at high power levels without distorting - the audiophile approved term is "effortless", 😉 - at least one brand capable of such is Bryston ...
I would argue that they DO. It's mostly the recordings that don't.
Take a mic and saxophone and record it - stay close. Then play it back over one of your speakers. I'd bet it sounds a lot like a sax.
Recording instruments in a live space is a whole new ballgame. Therein lies much of the trouble.
Take a mic and saxophone and record it - stay close. Then play it back over one of your speakers. I'd bet it sounds a lot like a sax.
Recording instruments in a live space is a whole new ballgame. Therein lies much of the trouble.
Regarding what the OP actually asked about , 'why speakers/recordings do not necessarily sound more like a live instrument, when standing near them', that happens for a variety of reasons. Mainly, I would think, is that recordings are intended to reproduce what an instrument(s) would sound like from the viewpoint (soundpoint?) of a seated audience member listening to the performance, not that of a fellow band member seated/standing next to a fellow performer.
Instruments produce a mixture of very subtle sounds that you will undeniably hear when standing very near the instrument when it is played. However, those nuances are far too subtle to be heard at the distance of the average audience member. When musicians constantly complain that their instruments on a recording don't sound quite right they need to remember this. They have been playing these instruments for a very long time, and the intimate sound an instrument makes, when they play it, will be drastically different than what an audience member hears. Especially when you throw in bone conductance, experienced by reed/brass musicians.
Recording and mastering instruments so that they sounded like you were right next to them would produce a very strange sounding recording/perspective. In fact the vast difference in sound from what an audience member hears, and what the musicians hear is partly what has always hampered me from learning various instruments. They sound so radically different when playing them, as opposed to listening to them, and it completely inhibits me, lol. Drums, for instance, sound great, even at a small distance away when listening, but the extra subtleties I pick up when trying to play them completely throws me off.
Perspective is everything.
Instruments produce a mixture of very subtle sounds that you will undeniably hear when standing very near the instrument when it is played. However, those nuances are far too subtle to be heard at the distance of the average audience member. When musicians constantly complain that their instruments on a recording don't sound quite right they need to remember this. They have been playing these instruments for a very long time, and the intimate sound an instrument makes, when they play it, will be drastically different than what an audience member hears. Especially when you throw in bone conductance, experienced by reed/brass musicians.
Recording and mastering instruments so that they sounded like you were right next to them would produce a very strange sounding recording/perspective. In fact the vast difference in sound from what an audience member hears, and what the musicians hear is partly what has always hampered me from learning various instruments. They sound so radically different when playing them, as opposed to listening to them, and it completely inhibits me, lol. Drums, for instance, sound great, even at a small distance away when listening, but the extra subtleties I pick up when trying to play them completely throws me off.
Perspective is everything.
I was saying this (or trying to) in post #5.
Accurate reproduction would take a spherical array of microphones around each instrument, and then a spherical speaker with drivers placed respectively, again for each instrument. Perhaps if a very rich person were really interested in doing this, it could get done. Also, this ignores bleed into each mic from the other instruments, unless you record only one instrument at a time.
Only "truly" all-electronic recordings (as by Larry Fast/"Synergy," Isao Tomita, Wendy Carlos and such) are ever recorded this way, with the instrument output going straight to the recording device. and then mixed down to stereo. If your listening room uses the same speakers, is the same size, and uses the same room treatments as the recording's mixing and mastering room(s), then what you hear is very close to what the mixing/mastering engineer(s) heard. Those recordings are interesting in their own right, but it's really hard to call this sound "reproduction."
Just about every other electric or electronic instrument I can think of (electric guitar, electric piano, Hammond organ/Leslie, even all-electronic music synthesizers played in on-stage of many studio situations) go through an on-stage amplifier and speaker near the musician, then that speaker is miced for the PA system. The amplifier/speaker is considered part of the instrument for most of these, and they will have a contribution to the total sound much like amplified acoustic instruments.
Depends what you are trying to reproduce - I would put the sphere of microphones around the listening position.
But you neatly illustrate the problem of stereo trying to reproduce a tensor field with two amplitude-only recordings.
It's the same as the difference between a hologram and a stereoscopic (eg viewmaster) image.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.