A Copernican View of the Turntable System

It seems that in a live performance one is very rarely (if ever) as acoustically aware of space between musicians or their three dimensionality. My suspicion is that hifi compensates for the visual stimuli that is provided in a live performance with the over emphasis of these audible features. Small ensemble acoustic or vocal performances might be the occasional exceptions to this.

Its been my impression that there are several things that can contribute to this- how a recording is made (many are un-natural) and how well its details are reproduced. For this subject though, let's throw out the un-natural recordings, at least for now.

What I have have found is that as a system looses the ability to reproduce low level detail (and consequently ambient information) the result is that the musicians in the ensemble tend to have a quality if a cardboard facsimile rather than the real person. So spaces between the instruments are larger, making the individual instruments seem to be in greater relief.

Now as the system attains greater ability to reproduce ambient information, that information tends to flesh out the performers and fill the spaces in between. This causes the soundstage to *seem* less distinct, until one realizes how much more reflection information is being reproduced!

Of course in a real music situation, the ambient information is seamless with the instruments themselves, but I think a lot has to do with the space in which the music occurs. Having done a lot of recording and listening in such spaces locally, I don't think I can agree with the comments in quotes, at least with the recordings I have heard- I hear the imaging information quite easily in those rooms and halls, whether live or recorded!

Atmasphere,

Thanks for your thoughts on the matter and - I think - I agree. My early morning comments were confused at best. Acoustic space/venue; the method of delivery (location and quality of microphones, amps and/or speakers); proximity to performers and the quality of the relevant recording are the most important things concerning imaging and staging. My distraction was with psychoacoustics and what we listen for when playing hifi.

Ironically, I suspect it was the question of un-natural recordings that initiated my outpourings here: I have recently been treated to a diet of some overly produced (what I am reliably informed is) popular music with my children - Madonna most memorably. I think we can put aside 'system limitations concerning low level and ambient detail' here: not withstanding your interesting experiences and views.

More awake and a little less short

Thanks

Dear Dgob: What we hear at home through our each one audio system is what microphones " heard " and that are way near the " stage/venues " that our seat position in the music hall.
In the other side the " micros " are not only sensitive but with wider frequency range that ours ears. As a fact there are many reasons why we heard what we heard at home against in live concerts and its differences.

regards and enjoy the music,
raul.

Ralph, I believe there is one more factor in the perception of three-dimensionality or spaciousness -- how close one sits for a live performance. One season as an experiment I chose different seating locations for each of a half-dozen concerts by our local symphony. The variations in sonic effect were sobering. Unless I was front-center, I din't hear the live spatiality I hear in some recordings.

I think a major influence in the awareness/desirability of soundstage and spaciousness was Harry Pearson at TAS. Those descriptions could be counted upon with every review he wrote. Then I learned that his preferred seat at Carnegie Hall (and I must suppose other venues) was row 2 or 3, dead center. Well, that explained a lot.

Now, how ironic that most older recordings were made with 1-3 primary mics which were better able to capture the natural sonic space of the program, even when home audio equipment did not product it so well. But currently with (some) improvements in the equipment which better allow spatiality to be reproduced, everything is multi-multi mic'ed and channel mixed so that artificial reverb must be added to provide any sense of three-dimensionality.

Raul,

I totally agree and, I suppose, have tried to suggest some of that in my comments. I suppose I did not really note the importance of differences between the individual listening room and concert hall on scale/volume and acoustic behaviour and how this alone impacts on attempts to exactly reproduce the live experience of a large number of recordings. I have tried to reflect on this on other threads but not so well in my above outburst, which was fueled largely by tiredness and irritability I think.

Nevertheless, my views that there are clear distinctions and that there are inevitable psychacoustic factors when reproducing performances through hifi are getting form and clarification through some of the interesting responses that it is raising and yours is a well considered and much appreciated one.

Many thanks again