Here we go again with the “it’s there, you can hear it in the recording, but it’s not there because of why you think it’s there” rationale. The point is that we do hear height information, it varies from recording to recording, and now we are arguing over how it got there. I think we all know by now there isn’t a knob on the recording console that is labeled “Height illusion.”
In another words, it all happens by accident, it’s never intentional on the part of recording/mastering engineers. It’ s just a bunch of random coincidences that happen during the recording process with the end result of hearing height information that was never really recorded in the first place. I’m not one that places much faith in random coincidences that always achieve the same outcome.
My belief is that is exactly that. It can't happen when recording tracks (live or otherwise) because of mic characteristics, and it doesn't happen in the studio or mastering phases. So there aren't many steps left.
The amount of the height illusion varies from recording to recording as I previously stated. They all have them, some just have more height information than others.
I have never heard an instrument or voice that sounded like it was placed too high up in the mix such that the illusion of height was unnatural.
I have a stereo system, so I don’t listen to one speaker. I do play mono jazz recordings and while the sound stage illusion of mono is different than stereo, it still throws a big illusion in my room and I have no recollection of the height of the soundstage shrinking when I play a mono recording.
I have never contemplated the cause and effect of height information and made any connections between hearing a greater sense of the height illusion and correlating that to hearing more high frequency information. Again, we are not arguing it’s there to be heard, we are now down to figuring out why it’s there in the recording. I think the two choices are:
1. It’s a random coincidence ending in the same result (the illusion of height to some varying degree).
2. EQ, high frequencies, phase tricks, reverb, time delay, distortion or some amalgamation of these causes lumped together for a serendipitous result.
I'm a little surprised, for as vocal as you have been about this, you don't seem to know much at all about it.
No, and I never claimed to. One doesn’t need to have experience working behind a console in a recording studio to understand the difference between a good sounding recording and a bad sounding recording or the fact that each recording sounds different from one to another.
I didn’t write any of these down on Friday night when I was specifically listening for differences between the illusion of height from one recording to another. I will jot down some notes the next time I feel like concentrating on parts of the illusion instead of just enjoying the music. And maybe there is some correlation to height versus high frequency content. I will listen for that as well.
That would be helpful and even interesting.
In summary, I think there is some consensus that whatever height information we hear on our stereo systems is in the recording as you stated in the first paragraph I quoted you on in this response. If it was purely a function of our speakers, each recording would have the exact same height illusion in our rooms which they clearly don’t. The illusion is dependent on the recording. Anybody whose stereo system has the exact same height illusion on every recording, please speak up.
A little story, which some may or may not relate to, or appreciate.
When I first got in to recording in the late 60's there were a lot of unknowns and unanswered questions in my mind. Of course, I had my own opinions about which recordings sounded well done, which were lousy and a number of theories of why that was, based on my super-tweaked listening system at home.
As I did more and more engineering in controlled environments I found it extremely difficult to produce anything in the studio that sounded as great as some of my favorite recordings. So I tried to figure out why. I was lucky enough at the time (early 70's now) to be able to listen to a variety of masters from other studios and engineers, and found that apart from studio control room acoustics, they were pretty consistent. But at home they were quite different, some sounding really good, others horrible. I concluded (to my dismay) that my home tweaked system had some problems and set out to figure out what was going on.
As I improved the quality of the equipment (power amp first, then preamp, then wiring, then grounding, etc) I was able to improve its consistency enough that good masters sounded like good masters whether played at home or in the studio. And in accomplishing this I found that all the magic I was hearing at home that skewed my opinions of what was well recorded and what was not, was gone. It was a completely artificial manifestation of my own tweaking and choice of equipment. (sound familiar?)
That one experience set me on the track for choosing equipment and setups that produced great quality on master tapes, and each generation subsequent to those was clearly delineated, as it should be, and what it really was like sonically. Each generation down hill was obvious.
From then on I was very careful in recording/tracking/mixing choices in the studio so they did NOT produce strange artificial results in a typical home system (which would be erratic and unpredictable at best from home to hom), and also a maintain good understanding of what you can and cannot (should and should not) do in recording and mixing.
As I've mentioned before, since then I have been moderately fooled, or even influenced by a particular sound I've heard at home (most particularly on my Mirage M-1 speakers of the late 80's). I enjoyed it, of course, but was quite suspicious it was just the way the speakers projected. With subsequent improvements, a move into a home studio and a more controlled environment, my earlier lessons hit me in the face again.
So here we are. I can readily identify a well made recording, quality of mastering, bit rates and bit depths, transfer losses, etc., just by an objective listen. But there's nothing magical about them. Only so much width and depth can be projected in a sound stage, limited by electrical phase shifts and balance of two signal channels, there is no or little height, and no height at all based on an original live recording or mix down, unless it is introduced at the playback system or room. There's no mystery, no magic, and there is always a logical explanation for what is heard on a recording. Effects, processing, eq, reverb can be discerned and dissected, broken down to more basic elements.
I'm sure a lot of listeners would be disappointed at knowing this, and would enjoy the playback experience less if the 'magic' they hear wasn't there. But it is very hard to hear the 'magic' once you know how it all really goes together and was recorded/produced. I admit, I do miss hearing some of the sounds that I used to marvel over, but they're now replaced with an overall better listening experience (to me as an audio professional). It's really pretty black and white.
--Bill
