Forest OR the Trees – Perspectives of The Absolute Sound

[stehno]

As some may realize, our listening skills can vary quite widely in high-end audio. And though some may not realize it, without a clear target on the wall high-end audio pursuits can seem like wandering aimlessly in the desert so-to-speak.

In the past few months I’ve been dabbling with my iPhone and a Shure MV88 USB microphone while trying some in-room recordings and I’ve posted a few of those in-room recordings here and there with some interesting responses. Moreover, I’ve also had the privilege to listen to some others’ in-room recordings and I can’t say enough how beneficial some of those in-room recordings can be. They can really provide some insight into what others are listening to and what they understand about playback sound quality. But I think it really helps all of us if we all took a few in-room recordings and just played them back on our own computers just to get a better understanding of a smart phone’s limitations and potentials of in-room recordings. With a little understanding and a bit of imagination, I suspect some of us could better appreciate how in-room recordings can help in high-end audio forums.

That said, and upon viewing / listening to others' in-room recordings both here and elsewhere, it seems clear to me that the definition of the absolute sound indeed has different meanings to different people.

For example. I've listened to some others’ in-room recordings and in a number of cases thought the sound seemed wonderfully rich and detailed and quite musical. At first. Then within moments there was clearly something odd and unnatural about what I was hearing. I concluded what I was often times hearing was a seemingly wonderfully detailed presentation with a tad bit of what sometimes seemed an almost unnatural hint of ambient info. By unnatural, I’m implying that the ambient info almost seemed like it was added as an after-thought or after-effect to the in-room recording.

In those nice but unusual in-room recordings what I heard was perceivably numerous recording mic's and closely mic’ed live performances. In fact, when I researched one of the recording labels, sure enough, I was able to confirm that is indeed their practice. So even though in-room recordings don’t tell all, I thought what I was hearing might be akin to watching a live event like the Kentucky Derby on the guardrail right next to the track with the horses stampeding thunderously by within just few feet of me where I could feel and hear every hoof pound into the ground, the horses’ heavy breathing, etc, almost as though I was a participant (the trees). But for the thousands in the audience, they don’t really hear much of the individual trees but rather more of the forest as a collective whole. And in the case of some in-room recordings it’s almost like I’m hearing the trees and the forest simultaneously which to me is about as normal as a traffic light illuminating red and green simultaneously.

So I guess what I’m talking about here is that recording techniques e.g. closely mic’ed, numerous mic’s vs 2 or maybe 3 mic’s at a distance, etc, as this alone gives a certain listening perspective. Additionally, I’m also talking about the limitations and potentials of a given playback system and how much of the ambient information remains audible at the speaker as this too contributes greatly to a certain listening perspective.

So many audiophiles claim to routinely attend live performances, yet it seems the one thing many quickly forget after the live performance is the listening perspective of being in the audience with a good distance between themselves and the performers up on the sound stage.

As a fundamentalist in many ways, I find I am most engaged in a playback listening session when the music label also seems to take a fundamental approach toward engineering a recording via microphone techniques, e.g. placement, quantity, etc. Reference Recordings, Telarc, Stockfisch, Tacet, and Windham Hill are just a few of the number of recording labels I appreciate. Not that a closely-mic’ed live performance (the trees) sounds bad as it can be very engaging and very telling of a system’s potentials, but to me such nearfield recordings / listening perspectives just sounds unnatural unless perhaps I was the conductor or one of the performers on the sound stage.

Anyway, I’ve provided below a handful of in-room recordings that hopefully demonstrate a more of the forest rather than the trees perspective in the pursuit of The Absolute Sound.

When listening to anybody’s in-room recordings, I think some valid questions you might ask yourself include:

• Should a playback performance sound more like the performers are in your living room (thick, rich, just feet in front of you, almost overly dynamic and detailed, flowing toward you as individual trees, etc) or in an expansive recording hall (light, airy, expansive, on-the-move, flowing toward you more as a collective whole forest, but also a perceived thinness, etc)?
• Based on what you hear here, just how far away do you perceive your ears to be from the performers?
• Based on the volume of ambient info, what do you suppose might the rough dimensions and type of the recording venue?

How do your responses mesh with the amount of ambient information you hear? More importantly, does the performance seem to jive or make sense based on your interpreted ratio of venue, distance, and volume of ambient info?

Note:

• These are all recorded with the playback system’s volume levels around the 97db mark using a single stereo mic attached via USB to the iPhone which is centered and about 12 feet in front of the speakers.
• Unless otherwise noted, all recordings are off-the-shelf Redbook PCM.
• In-room recordings of this type (an abundance of air and distance) via a smart phone will add much to a perceived thinness to the presentation.

 

[Addicted to hifi]

As some may realize, our listening skills can vary quite widely in high-end audio. And though some may not realize it, without a clear target on the wall high-end audio pursuits can seem like wandering aimlessly in the desert so-to-speak.

In the past few months I’ve been dabbling with my iPhone and a Shure MV88 USB microphone while trying some in-room recordings and I’ve posted a few of those in-room recordings here and there with some interesting responses. Moreover, I’ve also had the privilege to listen to some others’ in-room recordings and I can’t say enough how beneficial some of those in-room recordings can be. They can really provide some insight into what others are listening to and what they understand about playback sound quality. But I think it really helps all of us if we all took a few in-room recordings and just played them back on our own computers just to get a better understanding of a smart phone’s limitations and potentials of in-room recordings. With a little understanding and a bit of imagination, I suspect some of us could better appreciate how in-room recordings can help in high-end audio forums.

That said, and upon viewing / listening to others' in-room recordings both here and elsewhere, it seems clear to me that the definition of the absolute sound indeed has different meanings to different people.

For example. I've listened to some others’ in-room recordings and in a number of cases thought the sound seemed wonderfully rich and detailed and quite musical. At first. Then within moments there was clearly something odd and unnatural about what I was hearing. I concluded what I was often times hearing was a seemingly wonderfully detailed presentation with a tad bit of what sometimes seemed an almost unnatural hint of ambient info. By unnatural, I’m implying that the ambient info almost seemed like it was added as an after-thought or after-effect to the in-room recording.

In those nice but unusual in-room recordings what I heard was perceivably numerous recording mic's and closely mic’ed live performances. In fact, when I researched one of the recording labels, sure enough, I was able to confirm that is indeed their practice. So even though in-room recordings don’t tell all, I thought what I was hearing might be akin to watching a live event like the Kentucky Derby on the guardrail right next to the track with the horses stampeding thunderously by within just few feet of me where I could feel and hear every hoof pound into the ground, the horses’ heavy breathing, etc, almost as though I was a participant (the trees). But for the thousands in the audience, they don’t really hear much of the individual trees but rather more of the forest as a collective whole. And in the case of some in-room recordings it’s almost like I’m hearing the trees and the forest simultaneously which to me is about as normal as a traffic light illuminating red and green simultaneously.

So I guess what I’m talking about here is that recording techniques e.g. closely mic’ed, numerous mic’s vs 2 or maybe 3 mic’s at a distance, etc, as this alone gives a certain listening perspective. Additionally, I’m also talking about the limitations and potentials of a given playback system and how much of the ambient information remains audible at the speaker as this too contributes greatly to a certain listening perspective.

So many audiophiles claim to routinely attend live performances, yet it seems the one thing many quickly forget after the live performance is the listening perspective of being in the audience with a good distance between themselves and the performers up on the sound stage.

As a fundamentalist in many ways, I find I am most engaged in a playback listening session when the music label also seems to take a fundamental approach toward engineering a recording via microphone techniques, e.g. placement, quantity, etc. Reference Recordings, Telarc, Stockfisch, Tacet, and Windham Hill are just a few of the number of recording labels I appreciate. Not that a closely-mic’ed live performance (the trees) sounds bad as it can be very engaging and very telling of a system’s potentials, but to me such nearfield recordings / listening perspectives just sounds unnatural unless perhaps I was the conductor or one of the performers on the sound stage.

Anyway, I’ve provided below a handful of in-room recordings that hopefully demonstrate a more of the forest rather than the trees perspective in the pursuit of The Absolute Sound.

When listening to anybody’s in-room recordings, I think some valid questions you might ask yourself include:

• Should a playback performance sound more like the performers are in your living room (thick, rich, just feet in front of you, almost overly dynamic and detailed, flowing toward you as individual trees, etc) or in an expansive recording hall (light, airy, expansive, on-the-move, flowing toward you more as a collective whole forest, but also a perceived thinness, etc)?
• Based on what you hear here, just how far away do you perceive your ears to be from the performers?
• Based on the volume of ambient info, what do you suppose might the rough dimensions and type of the recording venue?

How do your responses mesh with the amount of ambient information you hear? More importantly, does the performance seem to jive or make sense based on your interpreted ratio of venue, distance, and volume of ambient info?

Note:

• These are all recorded with the playback system’s volume levels around the 97db mark using a single stereo mic attached via USB to the iPhone which is centered and about 12 feet in front of the speakers.
• Unless otherwise noted, all recordings are off-the-shelf Redbook PCM.
• In-room recordings of this type (an abundance of air and distance) via a smart phone will add much to a perceived thinness to the presentation.

Very interesting and well said.

 

[PeterA]

Stehno, when reading from my phone, it says each video is unavailable.

Are you saying that a well made in room iPhone recording of a good Redbook CD recording over a good system should sound somewhat thin if the recording is well made and from the perspective of someone listening at some distance from the performers on stage? This is the forest.

And if the iPhone in room recording sounds rich and warm and full of nuance and subtlety, it is an unrealistically close multi mic’d listening perspective and therefore does not sound natural? This is the tree.

I agree with you that much can be learned about the sound of one’s system through an in room iPhone video over YouTube. I do think it helps if we know something about the recording if we are trying to do some comparative analysis. I do not think many people will take up the challenge and suddenly record their systems and post the results on the form. I think most people strongly feel these types of videos are useless and do not want to put their systems out there to be judged in this way. That is understandable IMO.

 

[stehno]

Stehno, when reading from my phone, it says each video is unavailable.

Sorry about that but I've pasted some replacements below.

Are you saying that a well made in room iPhone recording of a good Redbook CD recording over a good system should sound somewhat thin if the recording is well made and from the perspective of someone listening at some distance from the performers on stage? This is the forest.

Rather than thin I think I'd prefer the words light, expansive, airy, and lively. Almost as though you can sense volumes and sometimes tremendous volumes of space from the listening perspective all the way to the performers on the soundstage.

Based on a couple of recent exchanges you and I had about in-room videos, listening skills, and preferences, I almost get the impression that you prefer to listen to the sound of a basketball bouncing in a large carpeted walk-in closet or small living room rather than a very large gymnasium. The ball bouncing in the smaller room will provide a certain warmth and richness with each bounce that the large gymnasium cannot provide. In contrast, the ball bouncing in a large gymnasium will sound less warm, less rich but certainly more open, expansive, airy, lively, and dare I say far more natural.

So just thinking about this, we can replace the basketball with a trumpet or drum kit and then imagine it played in a very small space verses say a large recording hall or concert hall.

Since we're talking listening skills, perceptions, etc, I think it important to note that so many of us have become so conditioned to a particular sound that when we hear something different than what we're conditioned to hearing, we immediately label it an inferior sound when in reality it could actually be a superior sound. Tough thing this highly subjective hobby we have.

And if the iPhone in room recording sounds rich and warm and full of nuance and subtlety, it is an unrealistically close multi mic’d listening perspective and therefore does not sound natural? This is the tree.

It's actually more complicated than that so I really can't take your question at its face value.

Many-to-most recordings we cherish are recorded in large to very large spaces and as result the performance being recorded will induce volumes and volumes of ambient info traveling all about that indeed make it to the recording. However, as you've probably heard me say, many playback systems are so crippled with a much-rasied noise floor that much of the volumes of ambient info embedded in the recording and processed along the input signal path will remain inaudible at the speaker. After all ambient info is the lowest of all low-level detail so it's the first to go inaudible.

So sitting in the listening chair and listening to a playback system with a much raised noise floor, the listener is actually hearing a mixture of ambient info. A remnant of the recording's ambient info that remains audible at the speaker plus the ambient info induced in the listening room. It's a clear mixture of two type of ambient info that actually leads to a confusing playback presentation that can sound somewhat musical but actually lacks a natural level of musicality, magic, believeability, etc. And this mixture of confusing ambient info sources also gets picked up at the smartphone's mic when recording the in-room presentation and this is what we hear when shared in forums like this.

This is why I can't answer your question when taken on its face.

I agree with you that much can be learned about the sound of one’s system through an in room iPhone video over YouTube. I do think it helps if we know something about the recording if we are trying to do some comparative analysis. I do not think many people will take up the challenge and suddenly record their systems and post the results on the form. I think most people strongly feel these types of videos are useless and do not want to put their systems out there to be judged in this way. That is understandable IMO.

Indeed. There are many closed-minded people in this world as well as those who may have ulterior motives so it's to their benefit to give in-room recordings no credence whatsoever.

Anyway, here are a few of those recordings that got dropped. The walkaway of these recordings hopefully is that there should be a reasonable or better distance between our ears and the performance e.g. the forest rather than the trees, the lightness and liveliness of expansive music that can only be heard in larger spaces, hearing a certain expanse or volume of space significantly larger than anybody's listening room, and not hearing even a hint of the listening room's acoustics. Yes, a certain intimacy, richness, and warmth may disappear but that's to be expected if we're actually listening in say a concert hall and we're not on the soundstage.

But to do so, one needs to listen with a certain level of loudness or it's all a moot point. It seems so many listen at lower volumes and I just don't get that. The live performance's ambient info embedded in the recording is the lowest of all low-level detail and when butted up against a much-raised noise floor is the first to become inaudible at the speaker. The exact same happens when we choose to listen at lower volume levels and as a result we're actually unable to hear sometimes half of the performance's music info.

 

[Kingrex]

I'm one of those people that says inroom recordings have no value to me. They tell me nothing about the subtle nuances a properly set up hifi system can offer. They say nothing about the ability to sound like real instruments. It may tell you if a system is way off. But I cant see how it would tell me anything of real value.

 

[sbo6]

Having been in recordings studios year back and done amateur recordings I can say with confidence that the microphone(s) play an integral role in the flavor of the sound output. That, coupled with the fact that our head is not the width of a stereo microphone make a strong reference versus the actual system output mostly meaningless IMO. The closest one can get IMO is a binaural recording like Chesky did approximating the human head and its spacial and physical dimensional effect on sound.

 

[Carlos269]

Having been in recordings studios year back and done amateur recordings I can say with confidence that the microphone(s) play an integral role in the flavor of the sound output. That, coupled with the fact that our head is not the width of a stereo microphone make a strong reference versus the actual system output mostly meaningless IMO. The closest one can get IMO is a binaural recording like Chesky did approximating the human head and its spacial and physical dimensional effect on sound.

Binaural recordings are obviously intended to be played back through headphones or in-ear transducers. You definitely would not want to double up on the Head Related Transfer Function (HRTF) by listening to dummy-head recorded material through loudspeakers.

What most people don’t realize when reviewing in-room response measurements is that microphones do not respond to sound like ears. The human auditory system is a much more complex system, with sound identification, sound localization and sound discrimination processing that in-room measurement responses do not account for or represent. In other words, there is a disconnect between what room measurements indicate and what one actually hears in any particular room.

Most audiophiles don’t know, realize or understand the transfer function associated with the acoustic shadow created by the head and torso diffractions and the resultant interaural level differences, combined with the middle-ear’s acoustic-immittance transmission and perception. Compare to a microphone transducer the human ear is an incredibly complex system; and that is why room response measurements and associated corrective room treatments do not directly correlate with auditory perception.

Listen in a near-field arrangement and let the auditory system’s complex discriminating processing take care of diminishing the room’s affects.

How many here realize that human hearing’s most sensitive region is from 500 Hz to 4 KHz? How many understand the auditory system’s frequency processing and discriminating processing related to sound masking? Masking being the presence of two or more sound waveforms at the same time. When you understand all these things, then the room, first reflections and room boundaries become less concerning.

Room boundary related acoustics is a very complex subject but thanks to our maker he provides us with an auditory system that is even more complex, capable and resolving.

Before you shell out for the bespoke “acoustically treated” room, please do yourself a favor and educate yourself on the principles of psychoacoustics. Simple and complex sound waveforms have 3 basic physical attributes; and those are frequency, amplitude and phase and their room interaction and auditory perception have been modeled with multi-physics finite element methods and the correlation between room response measurements and the auditory system’s response is not a simple one to allow for easy and exacting corrective room treatments. Like everything else in high-end audio……it ends up being an iterative trial and error exercise.

 

[stehno]

Duly noted. But one does not have to "believe" in in-room recordings to discuss and/or evaluate the subject of this thread. Listening to ANY playback system requires some-to-much imagination. Listening to ANY in-room recording requires just a bit more imagination. And yes, it helps to imagine being a bug sitting on your pituitary gland when listening via headphones. But considering the amount of imagination this hobby requires at times, I'm guessing we can all do this.

As for comments on binnaural recordings and playback systems, they make about as much sense as multi-channel playback systems. iOW, not much.

I did purchase a couple of Chesky binnaural cd's a while back when engaging a binnaural proponent just to see what they may sound like on my 2-channel system. See below. (though I didn't do a very good job recording it)

Now I've never listened to a binnaural playback system and it's been a while since I've listened to a reasonably configured multi-channel system but it really ought not matter much. If (and it is so) that our playback system hardware compromise the fidelity of the input signal (they do), then logic should dictate that more hardware induces potentially more sonic compromises, not less. Whether it be a 5.1 or a 43.5 system config or whatever. Quantity alone, especially in a performance-oriented industry rarely improves performance. Perhaps that's why we never see Top Fuel dragsters haulin' ass down the quarter mile strip with a trailer-in-tow or even a coffee maker in the cockpit?

For example. For sake of argument, I listen to a recording that contains 100% of the music info I hope to hear (just like all recordings). But due to compromises at the 2.1-channel playback system what I hear audibly at the speaker is only 80% of that 100% music info embedded in the recording. If I do nothing to address the compromises at the 2.1-channel playback system, or worse I'm unware of those compromises as some apparently are, and add similar hardware for 10 more channels, then logic would seem to dictate that at best I'm still only able to hear 80% of the music info at the 12.1-channel speakers. Only now that compromised playback presentation is coming at me from a 12 directions.

Yeah, sure, it's a sound that engulfs me but that is an unnatural sound that may tickle my innards because it just may be more exciting/less boring than a compromised 2.1-channel system. But it's still just a phenomena. I'm still no closer to the live performance supposedly and theoretically in front of me than I was with a 2.1-channel system because at best 20% of the music info still remains inaudible. But the reality is that more hardware means more AC current draw and potentially more distortions e.g. even higher noise floor, with a multi-channel system I'm probably more likely to hear only 70% or even just 65% of the music info at the speakers. But the phenomena of the multi-channel sound may still tickle my innards more so it has to be more musical, right?

On the other hand, if I instead address/remedy much of the compromises at the original 2.1-channel system and now I'm hearing 95% of the music info at the speaker for which there would also be greater dispersion of the audible sound not to mention each musical note being that much more complete, how much more musical might that be?

Oh, yeah. Since the lowest of all low-level detail is the ambient info from the live performance much of which is embedded in the recording and is the first of all music info to be rendered inaudible when compromises are introduced, how much more alive / musical might my 2.1 channel system sound if I'm now hearing 95% of all the music info from the recording even if it's just a 2.1-channel config? Especially if in that 95% I'm now hearing at the speaker includes much of the ambient info I was previously not hearing when only 80% was audible?

But any time you multi-channel, sonic holography, binnaural types care to discuss the topic of the OP, I'm all ears.

 

[thedudeabides]

For example. For sake of argument, I listen to a recording that contains 100% of the music info I hope to hear (just like all recordings). But due to compromises at the 2.1-channel playback system what I hear audibly at the speaker is only 80% of that 100% music info embedded in the recording.

Yeah, sure, it's a sound that engulfs me but that is an unnatural sound that may tickle my innards because it just may be more exciting/less boring than a compromised 2.1-channel system. But it's still just a phenomena. I'm still no closer to the live performance supposedly and theoretically in front of me than I was with a 2.1-channel system because at best 20% of the music info still remains inaudible.

Oh, yeah. Since the lowest of all low-level detail is the ambient info from the live performance much of which is embedded in the recording and is the first of all music info to be rendered inaudible when compromises are introduced, how much more alive / musical might my 2.1 channel system sound if I'm now hearing 95% of all the music info from the recording even if it's just a 2.1-channel config? Especially if in that 95% I'm now hearing at the speaker includes much of the ambient info I was previously not hearing when only 80% was audible?

Stehno,

I really like reading your posts but how you can arbitrarily (so it seems to me) assign percentages to what you hear versus what you believe to be on the recording is way beyond my comprehension. Isn't music listening all about emotional connectivity and not mathematics? With all due respect, you appear to have an a analysis / paralysis perspective on music listening and are totally missing the point of owning a nice stereo. Best.

 

[stehno]

Stehno,

I really like reading your posts but how you can arbitrarily (so it seems to me) assign percentages to what you hear versus what you believe to be on the recording is way beyond my comprehension. Isn't music listening all about emotional connectivity and not mathematics? With all due respect, you appear to have an a analysis / paralysis perspective on music listening and are totally missing the point of owning a nice stereo. Best.

Thanks for the note but that was an entirely hypothethical scenario. Well, except for the 100% of the music embedded in a given recording which we know is a given. A recording contains exactly 100% of the music info we hope to hear. Nothing more and nothing less.

As for how much less a percentage than the 100% of the music info embedded in a given recording we actually hear at the speaker is anybody's guess and will vary widely system to system. But presumably it's significantly less that 100% and presumably it is a percentage less. What else could it be?

 

[thedudeabides]

I missed the hypothetical perspective. If so, what insight do you hope to gain?

 

[stehno]

I missed the hypothetical perspective. If so, what insight do you hope to gain?

Ummmm, that was my hypothetical. I don't generate hypotheticals for my own insight.

But to answer your question, not much as usual.

 

[Cellcbern]

I'm one of those people that says inroom recordings have no value to me. They tell me nothing about the subtle nuances a properly set up hifi system can offer. They say nothing about the ability to sound like real instruments. It may tell you if a system is way off. But I cant see how it would tell me anything of real value.

I'm another one - agree with everything you've said.