In Reply to: There is no interpretation, just blind live versus recorded tests posted by Soundmind on February 24, 2006 at 17:37:15:
Soundmind:Defining "this hobby" for a second, we are talking about PLAYBACK of recorded material. We buy the players, the wires, the speakers and provide the room. We have NO CONTROL over how the recording process is capturing the live performances.
First of all, not all recordings are live. If people ONLY listen to live recordings, that is THEIR preference but I highly doubt this represents the majority of music lovers and audiophiles.
Secondly, you seem to allude to the concept that "one's choices in stereo components" have the greatest bearing on whether or not a recording will sound 'perfectly' live or not. I think that this is completely false, although it is a very common misconception.
There are soom very good reasons why you don't hear what you hear at a live performance when you listen to a RECORDING of it at home:
a)you are listening through MICROPHONES
b)microphones are placed differently than the human ears
c)very often more than TWO microphones are used - so the recording is NOT A STEREOPHONIC CAPTURE OF A LIVE SOUNDSTAGE with respect to a specific listening position.
d)even if two mics were used, they were probably not 8" apart with a human nose in the middle - this will affect the perceived location of sounds, soundstage "width", etc.
e)your listening room has very different acoustics than the live venue. The reverberations in your listening environment are interacting with any reverberations and delays caught in the recording process.
f)In a live performance there are reflections from the venue hitting you from all sides. Microphone pickup patterns are also very different from the human head/ear combination.
g)even if your speakers are ruler flat in an anechoic environment, your room response will alter what is being reproduced.There is no stereo in existance (nor will there ever BE) which can "fool" someone in a live versus canned music experiment because of this. Perhaps a pair of headphones with a digitally altered (convolved) waveform to simulate the acoustics of the venue - now THAT I could give a chance...
But a stereo system consisting of two loudspeakers? C'mon. You would need a digital correction filter for each recording that completely transforms your room into the acoustical equivalent of the live venue.
Even then, I'd bet I could tell I wasn't there EVERY TIME - blindfold or not.
Cheers,
Presto
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- This philosophy fringes on extreme idealism I am afraid. - Presto 19:27:39 02/24/06 (12)
- Re: This philosophy fringes on extreme idealism I am afraid. - Soundmind 19:47:09 02/24/06 (11)
- Umm Soundmind is not as far off as some of you folks imply... - RGA 21:22:57 02/25/06 (0)
- I honestly don't think that is what the engineers are trying to do... - Presto 20:24:42 02/24/06 (9)
- The current technology may be entertaining, so were all previous technologies - Soundmind 20:57:15 02/24/06 (8)
- And you call yourself an optimist - Dave Pogue 04:15:42 02/25/06 (7)
- If I weren't, I'd buy the best to be had today resigned that this junk is the best man can make - Soundmind 04:30:19 02/25/06 (6)
- If "optimist" = being full of yourself - Dave Pogue 04:39:02 02/25/06 (5)
- Having read your posts, how could I be otherwise. Just like a plain looking girl feels beautiful next to an ugly crone - Soundmind 04:53:38 02/25/06 (4)
- Grow up - Dave Pogue 05:08:49 02/25/06 (3)
- You first :-) - Soundmind 05:25:30 02/25/06 (2)
- Re: You first :-) - Dave Pogue 05:59:40 02/25/06 (1)
- Mid 1948 - Soundmind 06:05:02 02/25/06 (0)