In Reply to: Fetcher Munson Curve vs. the notion of high-frequency extension posted by Duster on March 22, 2021 at 05:25:18:
Especially if they are placed too close to the instrument/vocalist, or at an unnatural listening angle, so that they capture more treble "detail."
Examples of the former include the tiny breath and saliva noises of a singer's lips, finger squeaks on strings, the clicking of the keys on woodwind instruments, creaking of the harpsichord mechanism, the bubbling of spit in a horn's mouthpiece, the sound of the flautist's breath over the soundhole, as separate from the body sound of the flute, chairs creaking, pages turning, etc.
Example of the latter: consider how many orchestral string sections are recorded with microphones suspended overhead. These mikes capture ALL of the higher overtones of the fiddles, which the audience -- at approximately 90 degrees off axis -- hears only after they are reflected/diffracted/diffused by the ceiling over the stage. What gets recorded thus sounds much shriller than what you would hear from the fifth row at the venue.
These are just a few instances of why the experience of hearing recorded music is so fundamentally different from the live experience. And of course recordings themselves vary hugely depending on far more acoustical and electrical factors than can be listed here. I figure a "neutral" playback system will tell you the truth about all of them, whether they are shrill or dull or hyper-detailed or murky or whatever. A system that sounds "soft" enough to render bright recordings more palatable might easily turn the best recordings into pastel mush.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Microphones capture all kinds of "detail" you never hear in a live acoustic performance - Brian H P 12:47:32 03/22/21 (0)