Of late, I have received a number of comments from customers that can be paraphrased as follows:
"I realise the system(source, amp and or speakers) might not be accurate, but I have enjoyed the music through it more so than with so-called textbook systems."
Now I realise this could be based on a defensive mechanism, reaction formation, where we shun what we cannot achieve or get, or it could be that our expectations of the textbook system's performance could be unrealistic. Still, another piece I read on a blog of a small recording studio made me think about the topic again. This is also related to previous threads about the nonlinearity of our hearing and natural recordings(with two mics etc).
https://trptk.com/behind-the-scenes-recording-b-ach/https://www.avforums.co.za/threads/non-linearities-in-our-hearing.104244/page-3https://www.avforums.co.za/threads/...aturally-stereo-recorded.104266/#post-1138870
The idea of true the source and a system that does nothing except translate the recorded signal without adding or taking anything away has always been troublesome. After thinking about the loudness curve and reading the responses even more so. If playback levels approach the sound levels of the original performance or maybe the same level as it was mastered, the idea of a linear system will make more sense, but that is not something that one can easily achieve(in daily listening in various contexts etc), and we still have not resolved the issue if we are taking the performance or the mastered recoding as the baseline.
In the TRPK studio article, however, a new can of worms was opened in my mind. The author states the following:
And then carries on as follows:
From another blog post
It would appear that we are not getting the music as performed but as recorded with the effects of all the discretionary decisions the recording and mastering engineers make.
Could it be that when we attend a live performance, the imaging is diffuse, and the soundstage is well also a non-issue? If recordings, mastering processes, and our equipment try to create perfect, pinpoint imaging and a 3d soundstage etc, we intuitively know that it is not real and, therefore, a manipulated copy of what we hear would experience in the natural world. When at a performance, we would experience time smearing and all the nasties we try to engineer out of our playback systems. The sound of the timpani bass drum will arrive later than that of the first violins etc. If we t
A system that is less textbook and not so precise, therefore, might on some level take us out of the pressure cooker of perfection and closer to the real-world experience of music, and we therefore relax and enjoy the music more?
Have you had such an experience of a lesser system being more enjoyable than a supposedly perfect system, and what would be at play if so?
(by the way, the approach, equipment and artist of the TRPTK studio look great although I have not yet sampled it)
"I realise the system(source, amp and or speakers) might not be accurate, but I have enjoyed the music through it more so than with so-called textbook systems."
Now I realise this could be based on a defensive mechanism, reaction formation, where we shun what we cannot achieve or get, or it could be that our expectations of the textbook system's performance could be unrealistic. Still, another piece I read on a blog of a small recording studio made me think about the topic again. This is also related to previous threads about the nonlinearity of our hearing and natural recordings(with two mics etc).
https://trptk.com/behind-the-scenes-recording-b-ach/https://www.avforums.co.za/threads/non-linearities-in-our-hearing.104244/page-3https://www.avforums.co.za/threads/...aturally-stereo-recorded.104266/#post-1138870
The idea of true the source and a system that does nothing except translate the recorded signal without adding or taking anything away has always been troublesome. After thinking about the loudness curve and reading the responses even more so. If playback levels approach the sound levels of the original performance or maybe the same level as it was mastered, the idea of a linear system will make more sense, but that is not something that one can easily achieve(in daily listening in various contexts etc), and we still have not resolved the issue if we are taking the performance or the mastered recoding as the baseline.
In the TRPK studio article, however, a new can of worms was opened in my mind. The author states the following:
"I have this weird obsession with trying to make a mix as pure as possible, mixing in spot mics only if absolutely necessary. This obsession, like many of my habits I created over the years, at the university where I studied at. Aside from having the luxury of studying under some of the most knowledgeable people in the field, most students do not have that much gear so you’d have to make due with as little as possible. At some of the (pop/rock) studios I’ve worked at in the past, the opposite tendency was usually well-represented — an acoustic guitarist would sometimes have five, six, or even eight microphones all around them, as the final “sound” was made on the mixing desk rather than acoustically.
I’ve never really understood why, to be honest. Yes, setting up a large number of mics means that one of them will probably have a decent sound in it, and you can mix them together to get some kind of representation of an acoustical balance. But it’s never the same as just a good main set of mics, no mixing, no editing, just plain and simple. By mixing signals with different timings and characters, you run the risk of adding distortions, interference, and weird phase issues to your precious mix. And yet, so many of my esteemed colleagues do exactly this, even for classical music. Rather than having their main array serve as 99% of the sound, it’s mixed in with all the spot mics that are used, to create something often artificial-sounding. Of course, there are a few engineers out there who enjoy the minimalist approach; with Morten Lindberg from the Norwegian label 2L as the most famous example. He never uses any spot mics, but instead he tweaks the entire setup and layout of the ensemble in such a way he doesn’t need them."And then carries on as follows:
"What’s great about these large diaphragm mics is that they have quite a bit of directionality in the upper frequency range. This means that by just simply adjusting their rotation, angle and position, you can greatly alter the sonic balance and character, without adding any additional mics. In this case, we turned around the main left microphone to face the cello to give it a bit more clarity. For each ensemble, we also added podiums of various heights to get the musicians closer to or further away from the main mics; also in an effort to adjust the balance and make it perfect in the main mics. These are just some of the tweaks one can do rather than just simply adding another microphone and trying to piece it together in the mix. And the result is often much better than any mixed-together recording!"From another blog post
"When you add up two microphone signals, not only do you add the noise of both microphones (which can lead to a whole lot of troubles in itself), but you also get two impulses. Say, a violinist is playing 1 metre away from Mic A, and 2 metres from Mic B, then the sound coming from their violin reaches one mic roughly 3 milliseconds later than the other, creating a double impulse. This blurs the sonic image of the violin, and can possibly create comb filter issues as well. Things get even worse when adding, say, four or five microphones to the mix. Suddenly you get five impulses from one instrument, each at different intervals. Now, multiply that by an entire orchestra… And that’s not even the worst case scenario. I’ve seen orchestral recordings with over 20 microphones placed on stage.
To the technically astute of you, yes, of course, when mixed [I]well[/I], you shouldn’t have [I]too[/I] many issues in that regard. Sure, the soundstage gets blurrier and comb filtering may subtly appear, but the real “fun” starts when these signals are mixed in too loud, which I’ve seen done more often than not. This is the reason that [B]if[/B] we use more mics than just the main microphone system, we make absolutely sure that they’re very deep down in the mix as to not interfere with the acoustic balance. We won’t solve balance issues in the mix; that’s what the recording session is for. If the balance doesn’t work, move around some of the players in the ensemble until they do."It would appear that we are not getting the music as performed but as recorded with the effects of all the discretionary decisions the recording and mastering engineers make.
Could it be that when we attend a live performance, the imaging is diffuse, and the soundstage is well also a non-issue? If recordings, mastering processes, and our equipment try to create perfect, pinpoint imaging and a 3d soundstage etc, we intuitively know that it is not real and, therefore, a manipulated copy of what we hear would experience in the natural world. When at a performance, we would experience time smearing and all the nasties we try to engineer out of our playback systems. The sound of the timpani bass drum will arrive later than that of the first violins etc. If we t
A system that is less textbook and not so precise, therefore, might on some level take us out of the pressure cooker of perfection and closer to the real-world experience of music, and we therefore relax and enjoy the music more?
Have you had such an experience of a lesser system being more enjoyable than a supposedly perfect system, and what would be at play if so?
(by the way, the approach, equipment and artist of the TRPTK studio look great although I have not yet sampled it)
Last edited:
