Why doesn’t reproduced music sound like the real thing?

[David Matz]

Ever ponder these questions?


- Why doesn’t reproduced music sound like the real thing?
- Why is dynamic range missing from most recordings?
- Why is there excessive detail on some recordings (and thus on some equipment)?
- Should the music producer or the listener be responsible for the quality of the final sound?
- Would it cost more or less to produce really good sound?
- If it sounds good, is it high fidelity?
- What roles do objectivity and subjectivity play in someone liking a disc?

These questions get to the heart of what it means being a music lover vs. an audiophile. Check out this great essay by J. Gordon Holt:

http://www.stereophile.com/historical/864howhifi/index.html

 

[amey01]

I always ponder the first question especially. It baffles me, and a few things I've noticed over the years have made me question this further:

1: I was walking through a crowded shopping centre on a Saturday morning and the PA system sounded "wow" - amazing. I couldn't believe it, and was looking up at the tinny little speakers trying to work out if they'd changed them, or at least what brand they were. Next thing, I turned the corner and it wasn't a recording, but a live band being piped directly into the PA system. That sort of proves that it is not the amplification or speakers that determine quality - it is the source!

2: Whenever I walk past a pub or other live music venue, I can always tell (heck, even a deaf person could tell) if a live band is playing or it is a recording. It is the same speakers, same crappy mixing desk, but if it is live it is instantly recognisable.

For some reason, the recording process is what ruins sound.

 

[C.A.P]

Nothing Compares to live Music. Its the ambiance the aura, the raw edgy sound. The recording studio and the mixer usually mess that up. Although there are a few decent live recordings !

 

[amey01]

Nothing Compares to live Music. Its the ambiance the aura, the raw edgy sound. The recording studio and the mixer usually mess that up. Although there are a few decent live recordings !

NO - because live music goes through a mixer too.

 

[FOUNTAIN]

Maybe it's just me (probably is), but in the few concerts that I've been too over the years, I have rarely enjoyed the live experience vs. the cd/lp experience. The reason for this is because when I'm at home I have the center seat with the volume control in my hand. When I'm at a concert the lyrics are usually hard to understand and the music seems overpowering. Of course, there are many variables that can change a live performance from very bad to extremely good, but I just have not had that experience except for one time. That was when we went to the Fox in Atlanta and we had very good seats watching/listening to Joseph the Technicolor Dreamcoat play. Now that sounded wonderful compared to the crappy version on cd that my wife has. I'm not sure though if the recording could not have been better so that I could make a better comparison. Anyway, I guess my point is that I usually prefer to hear the band at home and save money on drinks and snacks. Uh oh! Does that make me less of a music lover???

Glen

 

[David Matz]

Maybe it's just me (probably is), but in the few concerts that I've been too over the years, I have rarely enjoyed the live experience vs. the cd/lp experience. The reason for this is because when I'm at home I have the center seat with the volume control in my hand. When I'm at a concert the lyrics are usually hard to understand and the music seems overpowering. Of course, there are many variables that can change a live performance from very bad to extremely good, but I just have not had that experience except for one time. That was when we went to the Fox in Atlanta and we had very good seats watching/listening to Joseph the Technicolor Dreamcoat play. Now that sounded wonderful compared to the crappy version on cd that my wife has. I'm not sure though if the recording could not have been better so that I could make a better comparison. Anyway, I guess my point is that I usually prefer to hear the band at home and save money on drinks and snacks. Uh oh! Does that make me less of a music lover???

Glen

Depending on where you sit, a recording can definitely sound better than the live show.

On the other hand, I have been to live shows with terrible acoustics, and I was blown away. Listening to recordings of the same shows later, it was not even close.

 

[tonepub]

I think the biggest reason that recorded music doesn't sound as real as live
(and I'm talking about acoustic instruments in a live space) is because of the spatial cues that your brain taps into when you hear music live.

When I've heard excellent recordings on extremely dynamic systems in a good sized room, it has come scarily close to the real thing.

While there are plenty of differences in opinion with gear, I think the room is a big limiting factor as well as the ultimate dynamic potential of the system.

 

[amey01]

There are definitely aspects of listening at home that I prefer over a live performance - nobody coughing their filthy diseases on me is the primary one.

But on sound quality and raw energy alone, live is just different - recordings don't get close!

 

[ScottGardner]

Blame it on the Beatles ‘Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club band’ …

Up to that point in time the idea behind recording was to capture the performance on tape while it took place. That album marks the point in time where the idea changed from capture on tape to create on tape.

Apart from Classical music most popular recordings today have little relationship to live sound. In fact to a large degree the equipment used is vastly different. Mics , mixers, outboard processing, amplifiers and speakers are all chosen with a different purpose in mind.

Classical music is usually captured in the performance hall and capturing the ambience is important. For most other music the only ambience in the recording is what is put there by the producer/engineer and will be a direct result of the control room acoustics and equipment.

Most if not all classical performances use little or no sound reinforcement equipment and the dynamics are coming directly from the instruments and the acoustics of the hall.

Most other music that has electronics involved must, to some degree, use sound reinforcement equipment. The dynamics is directly controlled by the outboard compressors. In a live situation compressors are used primarily to add punch and help to separate instruments and vocals. In a studio they are used primarily to squeeze the dynamics in an effort create a hotter sounding CD. Radio squeezes it even more to try to make their station stand out.

Any good stereo dealer will ask you which type of music you prefer. The idea is that some components are better suited to one type vs. another. It’s not that simple. If you are going to pick certain equipment to try to achieve the same sound as heard live you would be faced with the problems the recording engineer is faced with. And unless you are that engineer you will not know how best to recreate that event in your home. And even if you did your other recordings made by other people would not match as well.

In my opinion the best you can hope for is a neutral kit that works well for all music and, as much as possible, gets out of the way. Accuracy is the goal. But keep in mind that accuracy in this context has more to do with matching what the engineer heard than what actually took place.

With these and many other issues in mind I think it’s pointless to make value judgments solely on live vs. recorded. I think is all about the music. The equipment’s role is to make it more engaging. Only you can decide if you’re enjoying it.
:music:

 

[RichTeer]

Good questions!

Ever ponder these questions?


- Why doesn’t reproduced music sound like the real thing?

Some excellent questions; I'll only weigh in on the first.

But let's get this out of the way: the "real thing" must refer to the absolute sound, i.e., that of live, unamplified instruments occuring in real space. Any other definition is fraught with all sorts of subjective limitations.

I was walking down a fairly busy street in Edmonton, Alberta, in 2005. I heard the sound of a woodwind instrument playing (a clarinet, I think, but I can't recall for sure now). I immediately knew--sight unseen--that I was hearing a live instrument rather than a recording (or even a live, amplified instrument). And it got me pondering this exact question: how do we know a sound is live vs a recording?

I think it is partly to do with a complete absence of noise from the source, and the resulting dynamics. I think the lack of colourations of any kind also contributes a lot.

Listen to the beginning bit of Pink Floyd's Time from Dark Side of the Moon. Most of the chimes sound like reproductions to me on system, but one of them (the one that chimes about once per second just before the bass kicks in) sounds eerily realistic to me (I have a clock here that sounds quite similar). I suspect that this particular sound is well recorded, steers well clear of any mic harmonics, and is in my system's--maybe my speakers'--frequency sweet spot.

 

[JonFo]

...
In my opinion the best you can hope for is a neutral kit that works well for all music and, as much as possible, gets out of the way. Accuracy is the goal. But keep in mind that accuracy in this context has more to do with matching what the engineer heard than what actually took place.
...

Scott, well put, I Completely agree.

I’d only add that the system must be able to deliver clean dynamics at realistic levels.

This means that even for a single instrument like Piano, there must be kilowatts of power behind the system. The speakers must not break up, and the bass must be deep.

One of the discoveries I made once I finished the Infinite Baffle sub is that realism (a sense of space and of ‘depth’) requires a sub that’s ultra-clean and can do 18Hz and some subsonics.

And regardless of how capable the kit is, the room is supremely critical in achieving any semblance of realism.
As Jeff notes, the bigger the room the better, not only because of longer delays, but from minimized modes and resonances.

 

[ScottGardner]

This means that even for a single instrument like Piano, there must be kilowatts of power behind the system. The speakers must not break up, and the bass must be deep.

Jonathan,

How true. Even the smallest acts these days are using 5000 watts or more. If you look behind the curtains at a big show you could easily see 10 to 20 times that. It is stagering to think that some shows are using more than 100,000 watts of power. If you take a look at Mid-America Sound for example they are using 18 Crown I-tech 6000s (108k) to run their Vertec mains.

:rocker:

 

[risabet]

Scott, well put, I Completely agree.

I’d only add that the system must be able to deliver clean dynamics at realistic levels.

This means that even for a single instrument like Piano, there must be kilowatts of power behind the system. The speakers must not break up, and the bass must be deep.

One of the discoveries I made once I finished the Infinite Baffle sub is that realism (a sense of space and of ‘depth’) requires a sub that’s ultra-clean and can do 18Hz and some subsonics.

And regardless of how capable the kit is, the room is supremely critical in achieving any semblance of realism.
As Jeff notes, the bigger the room the better, not only because of longer delays, but from minimized modes and resonances.

Indeed, IME the limiting factor has always been the dynamics and noise floor of reproduction. Most good systems I've heard are easily capable of getting the timbre of unamplified instruments correct, where all but the most impressive fall down is in reproducing the realistic dynamic swings and power of the symphony orchestra. A string quartet is easy in comparison as is a jazz combo. For me the real test is in symphonic music and I've yet to be fooled.

 

[David Matz]

I think the biggest reason that recorded music doesn't sound as real as live
(and I'm talking about acoustic instruments in a live space) is because of the spatial cues that your brain taps into when you hear music live.

When I've heard excellent recordings on extremely dynamic systems in a good sized room, it has come scarily close to the real thing.

While there are plenty of differences in opinion with gear, I think the room is a big limiting factor as well as the ultimate dynamic potential of the system.

Very interesting... If I understand you correctly, the spatial cues of the room where the sound is reproduced should approach the room where the recording was made. Is this true? What size room is considered good sized? Thanks

 

[amey01]

Very interesting... If I understand you correctly, the spatial cues of the room where the sound is reproduced should approach the room where the recording was made. Is this true? What size room is considered good sized? Thanks

No, don't agree with this one either. You can hear recorded and live music in the same venue (through the same speakers/amps/mixers and it sounds completely different.

 

[JonFo]

Maybe it's just me (probably is), but in the few concerts that I've been too over the years, I have rarely enjoyed the live experience vs. the cd/lp experience.
...Glen

Glen, I'd have to say I concur. My last concert was a Dead Can Dance live performance in Boston. I live in Atlanta, but traveled to Boston just for this concert.
I was a huge disappointment, way too distorted, really bad acoustics, and crappy mixing.

The new SACD's of this band that arrived a few weeks ago deliver far more musical pleasure on my rig than that show.

Now, I did see them live at the Woodruff arts center (where the ASO plays) here in Atlanta back in ’96 (or so) and it was a great experience, but then I was in third row center, and the Woodruff concert hall has excellent acoustics. That was a lot better than my audio system at the time (which featured Sequels and Velodyne ULD-18’s), so I guess it depends on mix of circumstances and equipment.

 

[OldMonolith]

Have any of you heard the Stereophile CD that includes a cut that is a recording of male voice using a sequence of popular expensive microphones? Each mic is extremely different sounding!!

That recording is a big eye opener and reminder that the transducer at the other end is just as critical as the one at our end!

Not to mention that the live venue process includes consoles that include dozens of cheap opamp stages for the signal to pass through.

So, ever wonder why some recording sound so much better than others? Put on a Chesky or Reference Recordings, or if lucky enough to have one, a Clarity and listen to how a stereo mic pair in a good acoustic space sounds so much more....REAL!! It's all about time or phase coherence. The same thing that tends to attract us to the ML to begin with!!!

OldMonolith

 

[sleepysurf]

Just as watching something in High Def isn't the same as actually being there, so it goes with audio! Recording, whether audio and/or video, will never capture every nuance of reality. Even sitting off-center in a live concert hall is(usually) better than listening to a recording. For the rest of the time, our home audio setups will have to suffice as the next-best thing.

 

[risabet]

Glen, I'd have to say I concur. My last concert was a Dead Can Dance live performance in Boston. I live in Atlanta, but traveled to Boston just for this concert.
I was a huge disappointment, way too distorted, really bad acoustics, and crappy mixing.

The new SACD's of this band that arrived a few weeks ago deliver far more musical pleasure on my rig than that show.

Now, I did see them live at the Woodruff arts center (where the ASO plays) here in Atlanta back in ’96 (or so) and it was a great experience, but then I was in third row center, and the Woodruff concert hall has excellent acoustics. That was a lot better than my audio system at the time (which featured Sequels and Velodyne ULD-18’s), so I guess it depends on mix of circumstances and equipment.

Not to be a snob or anything, but amplified popular music cannot be a live reference IMO. What is the reference in this case? The amps? The mixing board? The speaker stack? In this belief I concur with many others in that unamplified music played in an acoustic space, thanks HP, is the only valid reference for reproduced sound.

 

[User211]

As a guitar player, I often record myself. When I play it back through my system, it actually sounds a lot better most of the time. Why? Because I can crank the volume way beyond the output that my acoustic produces... this makes for awesome listening - honestly!!!

It also sounds MUCH better than most CD releases, even using modest recording kit... so much so it is truely disturbing! How do they manage to make such a mess of it all in a lot of cases? Answer? Compression, over processing and a multitude of other sins...

But is it accurate? Not really - it definately sonds hyped up at louder volumes. And for a matching volume it is obvious it is NOT the real thing. But it IS closeish.