The real truth about recordings

Here it is:

 https://www.stereophile.com/content/assessing-sonic-illusions

@mahgister 

🙂

Very interesting article that correspond to my acoustic experiments in a way...

Thanks to the OP for this article EVERYONE must read and meditate... 😊

This say it all ...

Yet the experience of playing a record is best thought of not as an act of recreation but as an act of original creation. Even a recording of a live event—even if there was an experience in the real world that was captured on tape—what’s on the record is so far removed from what happened then and there that it makes sense to think of it as something new.

quoting Evan Eisenberg’s book The Recording Angel: Explorations in Phonography: "In the great majority of cases," JA quoted, "there is no original musical event that a record records or reproduces."

We must understood that any recording trade-off choices by mic type and location choices among other things dont capture the original acoustic event but a perspective on it.... Then at the end of the playback chain , your system/room TRANSLATE acoustically for the specific ears/brain of the owner the first acoustic trade off perspective... There is no pure high fidelity REPRODUCTION... It is marketing not acoustics ... It is acoustic TRANSLATION with a loss and also with a gain because of the selected accentuation of some aspects of sounds picked by the recording engineer and also which fact is forgotten some trade-off specific set of acoustic choices from the owner room/system tool for this playback translation ...

Finally, the crux of the issue. We audiophiles and serious music listeners are most satisfied (whether we know it or not) not when engineers intervene as little as possible but when they are most successful in pulling the wool over our eyes—when the illusion is complete. Often, that is best achieved with more intervention—more manipulation—not less.

Recording, then, is an act of artistic creation, starting with the earliest and most basic of audio-engineering tasks: positioning the microphones. Tom again: "A spaced-omni setup is probably among the most dependent on the listening aesthetic of the engineer and producer."

I use VPN and I was blocked this morning. Pausing the VPN allowed me to post.

Interesting article.  I honestly don’t care how a recording is made, only that it sounds natural and good.  Like they said in the article, it’s all about how the pieces are artfully put together.

@soix 

That's how I feel about sausage. I just want it to taste good. But tasty sounding recordings are something I want to know more about. 

As I have always said, there are no great "songs," there are only (1) great performances and (2) great recordings. In hi-fi we deal with recordings.
(Actually there a few songs so good that almost nobody could mess them up. Except maybe James Taylor. Taylor could probably eviscerate anything just by thinking about it, the same way Trump declassifies national security documents). 

Understood and agreed - but maybe it goes without saying. You can compare two television sets - one being better looking than the other - without getting into a discussion about editing. It is a necessary evil. The problem pops up when you try and define ‘better’ by saying ‘closer to the truth’. Understanding that truth is not obtainable can be either disappointing or can free you to peruse quality within the boundaries that it is feasible. 

ESP disks have the tag line ‘Artists alone will decide what you hear on their ESP disk’. Sounds good in principle - but anybody who has ventured deeply into their catalog with an open mind would find themselves secretly wishing they had a well trained engineer or producer steering the ship on some tracks. Raw truth, as much as we may say we want to hold up in the air as a paradigm of perfection, isn’t really what we want. 

Read the article, and wanted to add some thoughts in a slightly different vein. All music is an emotional and energy experience. That is the main point. Whether it is a live performance, a studio performance, or a recording of one of those performances, the emotion and energy are the main point and goal.

We can dwell on minutia regarding naturalness, timbre, sound stage, accuracy and on and on, but the real test is does the music, in whatever form, open up the emotion and energy flow that is projected in a way that affects us.

The how and way that is put together and reproduced matter less than that it is effective. Great instruments have a tonality and timbre that is effective only because it allows the emotion and energy flow to be more easily expressed. The same for any performers singing or playing. Those who can transmit an emotional experience and energy flow the best are the most highly regarded. For a recording, it is possible to take poor quality instruments, artists, and recording technology and yet still create a great recording because it is able to create an energy flow to produce an emotional experience that we enjoy. Think of some of the early recordings of the 30’s and 40’s that some may still love and find moving. Are they accurate? Are they natural? It doesn’t matter. They are able to use captured energy flows to create an emotional experience that is enjoyable and that we can feel.

@hickamore. You might not like his music, but James Taylor's albums are superbly played and engineered.

More generally, I don't think there is any single "truth" in recording. Different genres and performances respond to different engineering choices - just as in visual art, realism and abstract expressionism represent different "truths".

Without a Doubt, the recording/engineering involved makes a HUGE difference.

Mic Techniques most important, then .....

When it's involving, my friend and I look at each other and say "these guys knew what they were doing"!!!!

@budjoe 

+1

A close friend of mine who was a dedicated Dead Head and followed them around the country has numerous stories about how much their performances sounded different according to the venue, mic-ing, and what drugs were floating around.

I read the Stereophile article mentioned above.  It has some good points, but I think there are some problems with the viewpoints expressed.

Obviously, there are pop studio recordings that in no way represent a single performance in an acoustically accurate manner, whether due to recording engineering, overdubbing, etc.

But some recordings in various genres are essentially live recordings of everyone playing together at the same time, and these can be recorded in an "audiophile" manner which attempts to preserve (as much as possible) the timbral accuracy and ambience of the original performance.  Or they can be recorded in a more doctored manner, e.g., by separately miking each instrument, adding artificial reverb, unrealistically panning instruments that distorts their spatial properties, etc.

Artists have the right to introduce deliberate deviations from accuracy for artistic purposes, and I can accept some of these (and engage in them myself in many of my own recordings).  But it seems to me that many recording engineers doctor recordings to please the majority of consumers, not audiophiles.  So they presume such things as having a reproduction system with limited frequency response and a narrow space between speakers (for which they exaggerate the panning of drum kits or a solo acoustic piano or guitar.)  These are obvious deviations from accuracy (when the recording is played on a typical high-end system with wide-apart speakers) about which we audiophiles can justifiably complain.  Perhaps some of these reflect the use of nearfield studio monitors that are spaced just a few feet apart. 

Sometimes we can choose alternative recordings (especially of classical music) that contain fewer such deviations.  I don't really care if performance mistakes are edited out or if microphones and their placement inevitably alter the perception of the performance.  I care more about the other aesthetic compromises I mentioned. 

To summarize, it's throwing out the baby with the bath water to conclude that accurate reproduction is somehow a false or unattainable goal with all recordings, just because it doesn't apply to some.

To summarize, it’s throwing out the baby with the bath water to conclude that accurate reproduction is somehow a false or unattainable goal with all recordings, just because it doesn’t apply to some.

The point in the article is not about or against the fact that some recording are less or more natural sounding...

It is about the fact that in live event for acoustic evident reason , the difference in location of the mics ,their chosen type is one event and the ears of the listener located somewhere at a live event is another event , they cannot ever be the same acoustic event...

More than that there is no alleged perfect reproduction by recording being equal to all possible location of the listeners at a live event but add to that the alleged reproduction through a system playback in your room acoustic is in fact an acoustic translation ( an act of creation then in the best case or an act of destruction ) for your specific unique ears/brain... there is no exact reproduction in this chain of events...

High fidelity is a term used in the marketting of gear...

Then you throw the clear acoustics science  baby and keep the illusion of reproduction with  the electronic dirty waters... 😊

More than that there is no alleged perfect reproduction by recording being equal to all possible location of the listeners at a live event but add to that the alleged reproduction through a system playback in your room acoustic is in fact an acoustic translation ( an act of creation then in the best case or an act of destruction ) for your specific unique ears/brain... there is no exact reproduction in this chain of events...

I would say that the listener's choice of speaker and other components may be comparable to the choice of where in a concert hall the listener sits/where the microphones are placed.  Some listeners prefer sitting closer to the performers, some prefer more distance/reflected sound, and their high-end systems may be able to render whichever perspective they prefer.  I've often seen gear reviews that say as much, and maybe some people consciously or unconsciously choose gear based on such preferences.

Of course, the more neutral the listening room/speaker interface, the closer the system will be to reproducing the recording accurately, and maybe perfection is too elusive a goal.

I would say that the listener's choice of speaker and other components may be comparable to the choice of where in a concert hall the listener sits/where the microphones are placed. 

Not at all ...

You forgot that  all components and the speakers sound such and such in SPECIFIC  room acoustic conditions... ( acoustic material content, geometry, size, treatments and acoustic devices  etc no room sound the same at all  and serve speskers in the same way )

And you forgot how the electronic design gear choices will modify the sound...

Of course, the more neutral the listening room/speaker interface, the closer the system will be to reproducing

 No room is neutral... And no speakers sound the same if we change room parameters... Neutral is a relative convenient word we use for specific ears/brain experience of ONE owner... It will not be neutral on the same level for another users  even in the same room ...

There is a strong similarity between recordings and photographs, as a means of artistic expression. They both are based on a real experience, and both become different by virtue of the media they are expressed in.

Each reproduction has a filter, we may like our choice of filters but I suppose it’s like hamburgers. Lots of range of enjoyment but there are still all hamburgers. Thus there’s no real thing to reproduce, just a version. Yet there’s something brand new you should try, and it’s odd this hasn’t been marketed to audiophiles, but atmos music. Think of all those tracks. Sounds, interactions. They all have to basically be pushed to mono. Yeah even stereo is pretty much mono with tricks to give illusions of space, namely lots of reverb. Atmos is object oriented. There is no mix. It’s computed based on your setup. Reverb is set by your configuration You can have 40 speakers. The mixer just says where things go in a 3d space. For me it’s what remastering kind of implies. Not tidying a stereo mix but opening each part of the recording to be heard in a new way.