|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
64.252.143.248
In Reply to: RE: Measurements are not equivalent to perception posted by KlausR. on October 25, 2010 at 07:44:35
Sure, but wouldn't the most accurate loudspeaker then be the one that reproduces the perspective on the recording? Which in most good recordings is an orchestra perspective, actually more like the perspective from an imaginary balcony over the front of the stage.
Follow Ups:
In my book the reference, in the sense of faithfulness to the original, is indeed the recording, not the live event. But whatever your reference is, the technical goals for loudspeakers should be clear: flat response, correct time alignment, low distortion, live-like SPL possible.
How are orchestras recorded? Close mike for every instrument, one mike for each instrument section, one or more mikes at different positions in the audience, what? Is the final mix representative of a particular seat in the hall?
Klaus
It varies, from a single stereo pair flown above the front of the orchestra to individual mics for the instrument sections and soloists. While it's possible to screw anything up, in general, the simpler the mic technique, the better and more natural the recording.
You can't put conventional microphones where the audience would be, it doesn't sound right. The microphone doesn't "hear" what the ear does.
So in the first case the mike would capture the sound similar to the sound at the conductor's place? No one in the audience knows how it sounds at the conductor's position, and worse, no one in the audience knows how it sounds at a position above the front of the orchestra.And in the second case the result is determined by what knobs the sound engineer turns and how he turns them, being similar to no position in the hall at all? No one knows how it sounds at this virtual position.
So what's the use of taking live concert as reference when no place in the audience is close to what the recording technique delivers?
Klaus
Edits: 10/26/10
I think you're making it out to be more difficult than it is. On a good pair of speakers in a reasonable acoustic, you'll hear pretty much what the microphone records. If the instrument is recorded from 2" away, it will sound like it's coming from the plane of the speakers. If it's recorded from 30' away, it will sound like it's coming from, if not 30', then 20', as it would in real life, since the brain tends to misjudged distance.
For a clear example of this effect, listen to the cow bell recordings on the Stereophile test disks. You can hear the distance of the cow bell as it moves from the front to the back of the stage. Different microphone techniques are used and while they produce different perspectives, it's a matter of precise location.
In practice, naturally mike recordings do a fairly good job of putting the orchestra on a simply miked recording where it should be -- at a distance from the listener, And they maintain, approximately, overall balance and timbre. The speakers aren't reproducing the sound from below, but from the front, and this reduces though it doesn't entirely eliminate the effect of the unusual microphone perspective.
In my experience, multi-miked recordings are less successful at producing an illusion of reality. They rarely sound natural, either in tonal balance or spatiality.
Sure, nothing can create a completely convincing illusion, particularly in the case of two channel stereo since two channels can't produce the sense of envelopment one hears in a concert hall. But the best recordings, played on the best speakers, have an uncanny ability to transport the listener into a different space.
Howdy
I'd like to complement you on your ability to stay on topic and keep your posts both useful and reasonable. I strive to do as well but often fail :)
In spite of the previous paragraph I'd like to offer a slightly different experience:
I have an amazing number of well recorded surround SACDs which give a much more realistic (in the sense of being there) experience than this thread might lead one to believe. (Don't get me wrong I also have the a lot of ping-pong MC recordings and completely artificial recordings: some fun, some not.) To me it obviously more realistic to hear the orchestra clearly in front of you while at the same time hearing applause all around you... I know it sound like being there because I have listened to a lot of live performances as well as participating in bands, choirs, etc.
In my case I simply have well engineered equipment and minimal processing: no time alignment, no room correction, no diversion of bass to a sub. I just put four speakers up at equal distance from the sweet spot on as big of a circle as would fit in my room. There is no issue of soundstage depth or width, you are just there...
-Ted
Thanks, I've been in so many Internet food fights over the years that I go out of my way now to keep things reasonable.
Which, however, isn't necessary here because I agree with you 100%. Two channel stereo can be very impressive, but there's no way it can transport you into the concert hall. At best, it's like peering through a window.
Also, as J. Gordon Holt used to point out, you can't get the tonal balance right on all material with two channel stereo. Flat response works well for small ensembles, but you need a 2-4 dB downward slope for orchestral material.
I seriously envy you your SACD collection! Multichannel is on my list, but I have so much to do just to reconstitute my two-channel setup that it's going to be a while before I can swing it. Maybe when I get my permanent speakers -- I've been using a pair of MMG's as temporary speakers since I can't fit my old Tympanis in my new room, and I'm thinking that I may end up using the MMG's for surrounds, if they fit.
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: