Question on ‘how do we listen’

Discussion in 'Hi-Fi and General Audio' started by Ken, Feb 3, 2005.

  1. Ken

    Ken

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2004
    Messages:
    208
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Perth - Australia
    I have been moving house and have not had a system set up for about a month.

    The new place is temporary for 12 months, listening room is small and cannot accommodate my normal Apogee speakers. I have a couple of alternatives, TDL, Mirage, Monitor Audio.

    Although not having a system set up I did get the opportunity to attend four live concerts, three classical and one none amplified Folky/Jazz. All were in great venues, all were very good centre seats 8-12 rows from the stage.

    A dealer friend of mine set me thinking when he suggested listening to these concerts the way you would listed to audio at home. Mainly close your eyes and concentrate to determine if you could accurately 'PIN POINT' different instruments and performers, I was shocked that I could not. My dealer said he knew I would not be able to pin point performers.

    From memory my Mirage speakers would be closest to the presentation heard at the live concerts.

    A couple of questions;

    Are Hi-fi / Audio systems, accurately able to recreate the soundstage, or do they give us what magazines have taught us what to expect?

    Are we listening for the wrong things?
     
    Ken, Feb 3, 2005
    #1
  2. Ken

    alanbeeb Grumpy young fogey

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2004
    Messages:
    967
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Edinburgh
    I have found exactly the same thing myself when going to classical concerts. The sound is much less 'exact' than reproduced at home on the hifi. Which is why I question the accuracy brigade, and those whose stated intention is to reproduce live performance in the home. They are two mutually exclusive experiences.

    Its possible that placement of instruments and soundstage which you get at home with your hifi are a form of compensation for not seeing the performance, and are an important contributor to the "suspension of disbelief" - even though it is an illusion which is quite different from the reality of a live concert.

    I don't think its worthwhile try to pursue the same sound as a live concert at home.... it might not actually be very good without the visual element! Accuracy and 'like live' are not criteria I think of myself when buying hifi, just whether or not I'm enjoying the music/sound/noise.
     
    alanbeeb, Feb 3, 2005
    #2
  3. Ken

    Tom Alves

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2003
    Messages:
    566
    Likes Received:
    0
    Recordings are not a "live" experience but the result of what various sound engineers & producers think we want to hear. The sound is manipulated to create a saleable recording and as CD is recorded in two channels you will never get the ambient noise of reflected sound (even with 5.1 it is really mixed as though you were in the middle of a crowd) My favourite example is the Rachmaninov 2. I went to see this at the Royal Festival Hall with a young Russian pianist who's approach was somewhat shockingly forceful. Brilliant interpretation, if somewhat away from mainstream. At points he was bouncing of his stool with the force of his playing. Yet when the full orchestra was playing (i.e. not the solo passages) the piano blended into the background texture. Clearly this was what Rachmaninov intended. Now on every recording I've heard of this work the piano is to the fore at all times through out the work. Presumably the thinking is that because you have a soloist they must be heard.

    Or take another classic, the wandering band members. Trumpets play of to the rear right. Yet in the Dies Irae from Britten's War Requiem every so often they have a solo passage and mysteriously appear front and centre. They won't have walked down there so the engineers must have mixed the move. This happens regularly with a variety of instruments.

    Recordings are great for capturing musicians and for presenting playing in a studio but they certainly don't present the "live event" and any attempt to recreate that is inherently flawed and likely to remain so as long as the mixing engineers try to give us what they perceive as "best"
     
    Tom Alves, Feb 3, 2005
    #3
  4. Ken

    Tom Alves

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2003
    Messages:
    566
    Likes Received:
    0
    My father rang a coouple of nights ago. He'd been to hear the Tippet Concerto for Double String Orchestra. It is his favourite piece of music and has been for some 50 years. In all that time he'd never been able to see it live. He was astounded by the way the themes were tossed about between the two orchestra. This was something he knew happened, had heard on record but actually seeing the orchestras helped him to understand fully the arrangements. Actually seeing the musicans take up each theme and pass it over was far easier to comprehend than trying to follow a recording.
     
    Tom Alves, Feb 3, 2005
    #4
  5. Ken

    Mr.C

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2004
    Messages:
    328
    Likes Received:
    0
    I've found this too, Ken, when listening anything from string quartets in intimate venues to a full-on Brahms Requiem in my local cathedral. My conclusion is that 'soundstaging' is an artefact (for want of a better term) of the recording and reproduction processes. As such, the 'soundstage' aspects of hifi are right at the bottom of my list of requirements for a good system - timing, timbre, dynamics, noise floor and so on are what music reproduction are all about for me.
     
    Mr.C, Feb 3, 2005
    #5
  6. Ken

    Uncle Ants In Recordeo Speramus

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2003
    Messages:
    1,928
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    East Midlands
    There is an interesting article by LJK Setright in the latest HiFi World which touches on this subject, where he basically lambasts modern close multi miking techniques for recording orchestras. The point being that you listen to an orchestra from a distance as a whole and in his view that's the way they should be recorded (as indeed they were until the mid 60s or so).

    An orchestra recorded with just a simple two mike setup (the mikes carefully positioned of course) is bound to give you a much closer sound to the real event than modern close miked techniques where the performance is effectively broken into pieces and then reassembled at the mixing stage. You'll lose detail though and I presume that's why they do it.

    Any soundstage from a recording which is anything but a two mike stereo recording is almost by definition an artifact - which means practically everything nowadays and has done for the last thirty or so years and possibly longer.

    PS. I have only infrequently attended classical concerts, but can certainly add with confidence that there is definitely no such thing as an audiophile type soundstage at a rock gig ... and no one gives a damn.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 3, 2005
    Uncle Ants, Feb 3, 2005
    #6
  7. Ken

    Coda II getting there slowly

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2004
    Messages:
    603
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Devon
    Agree with everything here so far (nice to see this thread hasn't descended into farce - yet, here's hoping it lasts).

    Hi-fi doesn't do what live does, so it does other things instead. TV doesn't give you live but it gives you close-ups, replays, slow motion etc. and we have come to accept it as a medium in it's own right.
    I spend far more time listening to the Roberts radio in the office than I do the hi-fi at home. Thing is, the sound coming out of a portable radio is just that and it is enjoyable for what it is, it's not even pretending to do 'live'. At home I am aware of listening to a recording of a live event which then starts to introduce the concerns that have been raised here.
    My current line of thought is to find the most appropriate sound for my home environment, so a question to Alan and Tom: you have both changed/are changing your systems quite drastically, for practical reasons as far as I can gather - are you happy with the current presentation of your sound (as opposed to all the other concerns)? In particular, as I understand it the Quads (Alan) produce/radiate sound in a way which is as close as anything currently gets to real instruments, Ken's Apogees would fall into the same category I guess, are you missing them?

    Also, had a quick look at the Mirage site - they look interesting, like Duevel but with a high tec aesthetic. They have a UK contact, but has anyone heard them?
     
    Coda II, Feb 3, 2005
    #7
  8. Ken

    julian2002 Muper Soderator

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2003
    Messages:
    5,094
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Bedfordshire
    interesting subject however for me both approaches, for want of a better description realistic and artificial, are valid.
    i can aprieciate a distinctly live 'realistic' feel (e.g. underworlds everything, everything) as well as those songs studio 'artificial' versions on the various albums. for me this allows me to better understand, aprieciate and enjoy the music i listen to.
    of course i'm coming at this from the point of view of electronica and 'pop' rather than that of classical where 'soundstage' can actually be part of the musical intent as the mixing stage is an integral part of the artistic process, so if it's missing is it then realistic or not? my head hurts but i still stand by my long runnign statement that if i enjoy it, it's good.
    cheers


    julian
     
    julian2002, Feb 3, 2005
    #8
  9. Ken

    Uncle Ants In Recordeo Speramus

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2003
    Messages:
    1,928
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    East Midlands
    I wouldn't disagree at all, but it does make an interesting twist to some of the stuff that comes out of some of the mags. You know the stuff about how you can place each of the musicians in the soundstage and how that makes it realistic as if what they were listening to actually had a real life analogue. Fact of the matter is that for the most part, the musicians are where they are because that's where the producer decided to place them in the mix - there is no "reality" for it be an analogue of.
     
    Uncle Ants, Feb 3, 2005
    #9
  10. Ken

    julian2002 Muper Soderator

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2003
    Messages:
    5,094
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Bedfordshire
    oh i'd agree that if the magazine makes a connection between 'soundstage location' and 'realism' then there is a fair amount of bollocks being talked. however if the positioning of the sound is intended by the artist then to all intents and purposes it is 'real' (as this is the source) and the fact that the kit is reproducing this makes it closer to the artists intent. whether this makes it sound *better* is a different thing though. for example some have stated that a soundstage is distracting them from what they listen for in a piece of music and therefore a system with a smaller or no soundstage will to them be 'better'. personally i find a soundstage pleasing but not vital to my enjoyment.
    cheers


    julian
     
    julian2002, Feb 3, 2005
    #10
  11. Ken

    greg Its a G thing

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2003
    Messages:
    1,687
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Wiltshire UK
    Soundstaging - its purpose and validity - whether created artificially as part of the mixing process or as a result of how a recording is mic'd - is a complex subject with valid arguments for and against. As a feature of a system its not the top of my list, but is something I look for.

    I've been trying to decide why its important to me, especially considering the likelihood that in most cases it is artificial. I think the reason I look for some soundstaging is I find it slightly odd not being able to place the singer or instrument in space if I'm sitting in my living room listening to music (which if seen/heard live would allow me to place the instrument/singer visually).

    Strangely - I guess if a live event is output through speaker stacks the stereo image is probably non existent. But the key point here is in a live setting I can place things visually - I suppose hi-fi soundstaging is a replacement for this.

    If I'm listening to, say, a female vocal and acoustic guitar - if my system didnt present a soundstage I would find the experience of sitting listening almost devoid of purpose - no matter how superb the timbre and atmosphere it would seem weird to me. However if I'm dancing around listening to Carl Craig or Larry Levan the soundstage is completely irrelevant to me.
     
    greg, Feb 3, 2005
    #11
  12. Ken

    ReJoyce ... Jason Hector that is.

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2003
    Messages:
    234
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think realistic scale is far more important than pin-point imaging. If I am playing a piece with a vocalist + guitar then the two parts should sound like they are in a realistic proportion. I don't want a small pinched vocal and a twenty foot wide guitar. Similarly for groups of instruments. I also like my system to indicate how far away from the performers you effectively are. So some pieces place you right in front of the performer (<10feet) and some a lot further away in an ambience. These two extremes should be obvious and non-confusing and to do this aspect justice you require a system that can dothe scale thing I mentioned ealier across all frequencies and the full loudness range. It seems this is difficult to achieve for many designers.

    Cheers

    Jason
     
    ReJoyce, Feb 3, 2005
    #12
  13. Ken

    Uncle Ants In Recordeo Speramus

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2003
    Messages:
    1,928
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    East Midlands
    That's a very interesting point. I wonder if anyone ever did any research on that. If you can SEE what's going on, does your brain kind of create a soundstage that your ears can't actually hear?
     
    Uncle Ants, Feb 3, 2005
    #13
  14. Ken

    7_V I want a Linn - in a DB9

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2003
    Messages:
    2,013
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Great Missenden, Bucks
    Yes, the soundstage on a recording is often artificial but that's beside the point.

    Speakers should be designed so that if you're listening to a voice (or a sax, flute, violin, guitar, whatever) it should sound like it's an integrated whole coming from one location. The voice shouldn't shift or smear depending on the frequencies of the notes and harmonics that are being played. Shifts and smears indicate phase problems or dispersion jumps which are generally a result of badly designed crossovers and/or unfortunate switches from woofer to tweeter.

    A side effect of well designed speakers is that the soundstage on a recording will be more precise than what is heard in an actual live performance - subject to the recording 'sillies' that Tom refers to above.

    So, although precise imagery or a precise soundstage may not be 'accurate', it is often symptomatic of a speaker that is better in other areas.

    All IMHO of course.
     
    7_V, Feb 3, 2005
    #14
  15. Ken

    greg Its a G thing

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2003
    Messages:
    1,687
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Wiltshire UK
    Interesting comments Steve.

    I agree the soundstaging on a recording is likely (or definitely) to be artificial and therefore not "accurate" to the original performance (if there was a performance) and in which case a system which reproduces this aspect of the recording is not to be considered accurate to the performance.

    However a system which doesnt reproduce this aspect of the recording is not faithfully reproducing what's on the disk AND is not closer to the original either. Surely if its on the disk a system should be able to reproduce it?
     
    greg, Feb 3, 2005
    #15
  16. Ken

    PeteH Natural Blue

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2003
    Messages:
    931
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    South East
    The pinpoint, unrealistically super-sharp imaging you hear with recorded music has little to do with the kit you play it back on and lots to do with the way it's recorded. When you listen to an orchestra (or whatever other acoustic music) in a concert venue a large proportion of the sound you're hearing doesn't come direct from the instruments, but reaches you via reflection from the walls or (especially) the ceiling. Obviously, the sound taking a longer path will take longer to reach you, so some 'timesmear' results, and ultimately echoes etc too. The important effect of this for the present discussion is that when the sound is reaching the ear from multiple directions and arriving at slightly different times it becomes more difficult for the ear to locate the sound source precisely, hence the kind of 'misty' focus you tend to get in large concert halls.

    However, when music is recorded there are usually microphones much closer to the instruments than the typical listening difference. Only the direct sound is significant in these conditions, because the reflected sound is at a much lower relative level - hence, it unsurprisingly becomes possible to locate the sound very precisely in space, in the same way that if you had your ear two feet from the bell of a trumpet you'd have no difficulty in determining exactly where it was. These very sharp images are then mixed together by the recording engineer to produce the final ultra-precise sound.

    As to whether it's a good or bad thing, well, does it really intrinsically have to be either? Purists balk at the idea of the sound not being an exact replica of what you hear in the concert hall, but there are many examples where there are advantages - notably when you have solo voices pitched against an entire orchestra, where live you'd either have to neuter the orchestra or lose the voice from time to time. In general, of course, composers try to organise their orchestration to allow the soloist to be audible - but often this is for expediency rather than through artistic choice, and with a sympathetically and tastefully produced recording a greater degree of freedom is possible.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 3, 2005
    PeteH, Feb 3, 2005
    #16
  17. Ken

    Coda II getting there slowly

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2004
    Messages:
    603
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Devon
    According to the people at Mirage (see Ken's original post) the split is 30% direct 70% reflected, details here: mirage speakers
     
    Coda II, Feb 3, 2005
    #17
  18. Ken

    greg Its a G thing

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2003
    Messages:
    1,687
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Wiltshire UK
    My previous comments touch this - ie. taking as given (using a classical recording as an example) that the process of recording, mixing, mastering, shipping (on CD), and then reproducing through a hi-fi system is unlikely to provide an experience similar to being seated in a concert hall...
    ...do we agree that a "proper" system should (amongst other things) be capable of reproducing the imaging which is present on the disk and in that sense strive to be somewhat faithful to the recording if not to the original experience?
     
    greg, Feb 3, 2005
    #18
  19. Ken

    Philip King Enlightened User

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2003
    Messages:
    399
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    1288125 - 6411755
    Just a quick comment, there is a Swedish recording comany called opus3 that use one mic when recording. Not only are they really good recordings of interesting bit of music but they are really popular CDs for testing hifi as there come with listening notes highlighting what ascpets of "hifi" should be apparent on each recording, e.g timbre, soundstage etc.

    Kinda on topic the listening experience is very different with these CD's and therefore closer to live performances
     
    Philip King, Feb 3, 2005
    #19
  20. Ken

    Philip King Enlightened User

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2003
    Messages:
    399
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    1288125 - 6411755
    Added IMHO
     
    Philip King, Feb 3, 2005
    #20
Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.
Similar Threads
Loading...