Natural Sound

[PeterA]

Many recordings don't even record vocal and piano properly. They'll put the singer in the center, the keyboard player's left hand in the left speaker and right hand in the right speaker, so the piano spreads across the entire stage. They'll do the same with drums; half the kit panned right, the other half on the left.

I do find that annoying and know exactly what you mean. This is another reason mono recordings can sound so convincing. The better singer/piano recordings I have place the piano slightly behind and to one side of the singer. The singer is centered and the piano is behind and slightly off to one side, usually the left side. The piano's sound box becomes a nice backdrop for the singer. It is a very strange effect when the low notes are coming from the left speaker and the high notes from the right speaker. The sound is from the hammer strikes and the sound box resonating. I do not really get the sense of a left hand and right hand except from the notes being presented.

 

[Kingrex]

That's pretty much how I've felt many times during concerts with small bands playing acoustic instruments with a singer. Soundstage (which includes depth) and imaging (which includes that concept of "pinpoint") don't attract my attention. Yet these aspects were very important to me when listening to my system. That's why now I have slightly reconsidered my priorities regarding the aspects I need to optimize in my system.

This is why I never bought a BACCH. I seek more a tonal purity over a wrap around soundstage. I do enjoy precision image placement to a degree. When you hear a chorus.and can pick out each singer and where they are standing. I like it. But its more an affect that causes me to spend time assessing my system rather than enjoying it.

 

[hopkins]

I do find that annoying and know exactly what you mean. This is another reason mono recordings can sound so convincing. The better singer/piano recordings I have place the piano slightly behind and to one side of the singer. The singer is centered and the piano is behind and slightly off to one side, usually the left side. The piano's sound box becomes a nice backdrop for the singer. It is a very strange effect when the low notes are coming from the left speaker and the high notes from the right speaker. The sound is from the hammer strikes and the sound box resonating. I do not really get the sense of a left hand and right hand except from the notes being presented.

Same here. I wish more late 50s/early 60s recordings which were made in both mono and stereo versions would be systematically re-issued in digital format in both versions, but that is, sadly, rarely the case.

 

[PeterA]

Same here. I wish more late 50s/early 60s recordings which were made in both mono and stereo versions would be systematically re-issued in digital format in both versions, but that is, sadly, rarely the case.

Yes, and they will sound different. Reissues and different formats usually do.

 

[hopkins]

It seems to me that the effect that the combination of good resolution and soundstage has will really depend on the type of recording you are listening to. It is difficult to generalize. Some recordings will offer great presence and realism of individual instruments, and others will offer a rich texture of different sounds. As Romy said (one thing I do agree with), if the glove fits one finger chances are it will fit all.

 

[Kingrex]

I don't think mono fixes anything. Its more about mic placement and mixing. The engineer is making an affect by panning a drum role from one speaker to the other. Its his art. Maybe you don't like it.

Maybe its the engineers art too, but I dislike all the compression more than anything else. Eddie Van Halen said his records were recorded poorly. I agree. I see what they were shooting for. But all the compression lost a lot of the intonations in his playing that must be burried. They went for a wall of sound.

 

[hopkins]

I don't think mono fixes anything. Its more about mic placement and mixing. The engineer is making an affect by panning a drum role from one speaker to the other. Its his art. Maybe you don't like it.

In the early days of stereo they were still refining their art

 

[PeterA]

It seems to me that the effect that the combination of good resolution and soundstage has will really depend on the type of recording you are listening to. It is difficult to generalize. Some recordings will offer great presence and realism of individual instruments, and others will offer a rich texture of different sounds. As Romy said (one thing I do agree with), if the glove fits one finger chances are it will fit all.

I think it’s about three things.

1. The recording has to be good meaning capturing lots of information in a realistic way.

2. The source component has to extract or retrieve as much of that information as possible.

3. The system components, have to be well chosen so as to not corrupt that information and properly set up to then present the information in a realistic and convincing way to the listen.

It’s basically all about the information captured originally and then properly resolved and presented. Characteristics like soundstaging and scale and position and tone and dynamics will all come through as consequences of playing a good recording on a carefully chosen and properly set up system. Hopefully, if all of that is happening, the listener will have a listening experience similar to what he experiences when hearing live music.

 

[Atmasphere]

Al, I actually think some of this can be determined. One can take a recording and listen to it in different context and get a sense of what is on the recording. In the same way one can take different recordings to a system and understand what the system is doing.

When it comes to some of these artifacts or properties or attributes, it may well be a combination of recording and system or the way the system is set up in a particular room. Disemboweling it is not easy, and one might not understand the distinction when listening in isolation to a record recording on a given system. But given some effort, I do think as possible to determine what is doing what. This is where people with a lot of knowledge and experience understand more than the rest of us.

A pair of large diaphragm condenser mics are not that expensive these days. Combine with a good mic preamp, some mic stands and a good recorder, using analog or digital and you can solve this particular problem quite easily if you know musicians. This stuff isn't that expensive with respect to what I've seen people put into playback systems. Having your own recording as reference is an invaluable tool!

To clean. To perfect. Totally silent background. Not to say a horn can't be silent. But you don't perceive the hall as well with some dynamic driver. You don't perceive the reverberance in the background of the recording as well. This could also be sensed as a hollowness or echo in a horn. That is replaced with a more contained or controlled background sound. Its gripped. Bass is at times exaggerated. Can be more there than needs to be there. Not quite as quick, but punchy. You could possibly call it guttural or viceral.

I think that depends a lot on the horn! A well designed horn is a very low distortion device! If you have the right one they are very transparent, very relaxed and detailed, ceding nothing to regular dynamic drivers.

Yes, and they will sound different. Reissues and different formats usually do.

Master tapes often didn't get the respect they deserved when stored. They lose some of their vivacious quality over time, which is why if you really want to hear how a particular recording sounded, you have to seek out an original pressing of the pre-digital recordings.

 

[hopkins]

I think it’s about three things.

1. The recording has to be good meaning capturing lots of information in a realistic way.

2. The source component has to extract or retrieve as much of that information as possible.

3. The system components, have to be well chosen so as to not corrupt that information and properly set up to then present the information in a realistic and convincing way to the listen.

It’s basically all about the information captured originally and then properly resolved and presented. Characteristics like soundstaging and scale and position and tone and dynamics will all come through as consequences of playing a good recording on a carefully chosen and properly set up system.

Can't argue with that (but I would add the room in the equation as well).

Hopefully, if all of that is happening, the listener will have a listening experience similar to what he experiences when hearing live music.

This is where things get tricky, because how "similar" is very subjective. Would people even agree that a system A sounds closer than a system B? Maybe, I don't know.

 

[morricab]

Psycho-acoustic effects happen as they will for individuals. Recordings and stereos themselves have no intentionality.

Recordings and stereos indeed have intentionality…are they not made by humans with specific goals for recording and replaying what was originally performed? They can deliberately affect what most people will perceive…it’s not effects happen…they are engineered to deliver those effects.

 

[PeterA]

This is where things get tricky, because how "similar" is very subjective. Would people even agree that a system A sounds closer than a system B? Maybe, I don't know.

Yes, it is a matter of degree. The goal for me is to approach the same experience. When that happens, the emotions and involvement are actually pretty similar. Of course we can always get closer, but I think when one reaches "close enough", he stops searching.

Subjective and objective is a ripe topic for discussion. Both Romy the Cat and David Karmeli have argued that at some level these judgements are objective.

 

[PeterA]

Psycho-acoustic effects happen as they will for individuals. Recordings and stereos themselves have no intentionality.

Tim, I agree with your first sentence. Could you expand on what you mean by the second one? Do you mean they are simply inanimate objects with no volition?

 

[hopkins]

Subjective and objective is a ripe topic for discussion. Both Romy the Cat and David Karmeli have argued that at some level these judgements are objective.

Until they are not, and then those disagreeing must have "misguided aesthetics" as Karen Sumner conveniently explains?

 

[Al M.]

Both Romy the Cat and David Karmeli have argued that at some level these judgements are objective.

Objective? In which way?

 

[PeterA]

Objective? In which way?

I have not asked them to explain this comment further, so I can not answer that. I am curious too. Romy mentions it in his latest video, and David has been saying it for years. I have just discussed other topics with him so far.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Romy the Cat

I know his name is Roman. Or, in this flexible day and age, does he actually identify as a cat?

 

[PeterA]

I know his name is Roman. Or, in this flexible day and age, does he actually identify as a cat?

You would surely be offended and quickly sensor me if I posted the affectionage name David used when he introduced us. Did he ever return you email?

 

[Ron Resnick]

Did [Roman] ever return you email?

no

 

[Ron Resnick]

You would surely be offended and quickly sensor me if I posted the affectionate name David used when he introduced us.

Just for the record, and so casual WBF viewers are not misinformed, I do not censor anybody. I am not involved in moderation.

(I do have a hair trigger on the "Report" button if any post has the slightest whiff of politics.)