"How can we ever truly know if we are hearing exactly what is on the recording?"

[PeterA]

The further we go (if we are doing things correctly) the more our systems allow us to hear what is in the recording. At the same time the older we get the less we can hear what our systems are revealing in the recording.

Thus we have a perfect happiness in perception and an unseen and ever swaying equilibrium moving in constantly unchanging and soon to be forgotten ways.

This is the ageing paradox.

Excellent post. This reminds me of what my badminton buddies and I discuss. Some of us started playing the game late, say around 30 years old. Now in our 50s, we are slowing down physically, but still learning the strategies of the game, so rather than a slow and steady decline that the great players face as they age, we later-learners are reaching a plateau, as we slow down while learning more. We level off and stay there, oscillating slightly, day to day.

 

[Atmasphere]

...90% is the mic tech and the art/science of mic placement and the remaining 10% is engineering, studio processing, mastering, and transfer to media.

...Or, is he saying that the 90% included all of the above (mic-ing, studio processing, mastering, transfer to media) and the remaining 10% is everything involved in what we do: Room, components, etc.

I'm asking, as I'm curious how big an issue sub-optimal mic-ing technique is as an issue in recording quality-- or lack there-of. And beyond technique, how big an issue is the mic tech itself? I've heard that the technical progress of microphones has a long way to go and is one of the major impediments to the goal of achieving life-like quality recordings.

Actually my point was that we arrived a long time ago at the point where mics, given a direct feed, are so spooky real that the most jaundiced audiophile can be easily fooled by them into thinking its real. As soon as you record it though that spooky thing goes away. And you really do want to place the mics correctly- its easy to hear when they are not!

You all still discussing a hypothetical question that's impossible to answer? Gotta love it. Only on WBF.

IME its not hypothetical and its easy to answer. Maybe its just that the impossible takes a little longer, but anyone on the recording side of the music industry knows what the recording is supposed to sound like. This was never that difficult to answer. Put another way, what if all the recording engineers ever in the world couldn't say how the recording was supposed to sound? The Golden Age of Stereo would never have happened

 

[thedudeabides]

IME its not hypothetical and its easy to answer.

HMMMM. 13 pages and 243 posts later. And it continues on and on. Sure seems easy to me. And what recording engineer in what venue in what acoustic environment on what speakers? If that's the case, I guess only recording engineers who can replicate the environment in which they heard the recording with the master tape and all the ancillary including the tape and other associated gear should have the knowledge to answer this hypothetical. Have fun.

 

[PeterA]

Ralph and others with recording experience are in a better position to answer this question than are those of us who were not there when the recording was made. And yet, improvements in playback continue and we hear more and more of what is on the recording. So, some of us may "know" what it should sound like, but there still seems to be room for advancements, and for the rest of us, those advancements tell us that we have not yet heard all of what is on the recording.

 

[kach22i]

UPDATE: 05/25/2020

This video about mixing explains everything you were afraid to ask.

And now that you know how the sausage is made, will you ever be able to eat it again?

 

[Solypsa]

The records that become great sounding reference tracks that stand the test of time did not happen by accident. Hard work and lots of experience...