How should recorded music sound when replayed in your listening room?
This question arises from a side discussion in another thread, suggesting itself as a topic worth exploring.
A common expression is that it should sound like live music - but if so, what does that mean to you? Standing pressed against the stage in a small venue?Sitting in the middle a third of the way back in a hall with good acoustics? Is there a difference with recorded acoustic music and recorded amplified music?
Some people say something along the lines of: āI prefer xxx because it makes the music sound more exciting.ā If that fits you, what is it that some piece of kit or system does to the music that makes it exciting? Does all music need to sound exciting?
Another common expression is that it should sound musical as opposed to hifi. Or it should have musicality - But what do these actually mean to you? After all, music by definition is musical, and isnāt whatever you are listening through a hifi system?
Close but no cigar. For me, recorded music is an approximation to live music. I think that room acoustics are what hold systems back. For ne, tonality and PRaT are key.as is sound stage.
When itās right, itās right, and you will know it. And like Woodford Naim does it for me.
Whenever my analytical mind gets triggered there must be something wrong with the setup.
If Iām completely honest, Iāve never quite understood the constant references to reproduction mimicking live music. Sometimes live music sounds like complete sh*t, as Iām sure most of us will know.
For me, I want superb production, soundstage and imaging - give me that and Iām generally happy.
Warmth/engagement vs āhifiā (or perhaps, analogue vs digital) is just a matter of personal taste and I like a balance between the two.
I think in a great many cases that is true - the room is as much a part of the system as any other component, something not everyone recognises. Of course It is possible to do a lot to improve room acoustics, subject to willingness.
Given that most music today is created by individuals sitting in different rooms recording their respective parts separately and at different times, it should sound like whatever the sound engineer compiles when they add up the tracks. Live music should sound like it sounds in the venue where it was recorded.
How should music sound? I think essentially it should be enjoyable. But does this mean? I think that itās an emotional response, which has many influences. I suppose people will weight these influences differently, and they might vary from day to day.
I leave the examination of techniques and interplay between the instruments / performers to others to discuss.
For me live music is not the apotheosis - not because the musicians are not performing at their best, they may well be, nor because the acoustics of the venue may be suboptimal, but because the atmosphere detracts from the music. I realise that many crave this atmosphere as being at the heart of the musical experience.
This is a personal response; but it takes me back to my acoustic studies when analogue was king. Nowadays, my analogue system does not sound as good as my digital system; but at least I donāt have people coughing and spluttering, or phones going off, around me. But I miss those analogue days, when PRaT ruled.
However, my favourite live recording is of Matt Malloy at his pub in Westport, Ireland, where the atmosphere creates a wonderful musical experience. Oh I am so full of contradictions.
Your system takes a product ( the stream , cd , lp ) then adds its character. Then between the speakers and your ears your room adds its character ,then throw in personal preference , physical limitations of your hearing system , eg deteriorating hearing or medical conditions ā¦.
Is it any wonder we cannot agree on much and there are hundreds of options and permutations .
It should sound the same as the mix laid down that was signed off by the artist. How I shall ever know that I have no idea, but for me there is a sound that adds clarity to every note, as well as all notes linking to each other to produce the ātogethernessā that makes me stop and listen. Naim has always done this well for me, digital streaming has been an absolute eye opener in itās ability to extend that Naim capability. Separate but together, is the only way I can describe it.
Re the live thing, I have never believed that a studio recording can ever sound live, as in sitting in an audience and listening to a live show. Live recordings are different in that I want to experience the atmosphere at the live concert, as well as the music. That can make all the difference with an otherwise technically poor recording.
Curious - I donāt think I āhearā anything when reading a book, not even when reading dialogue! (And if it is a good book I donāt hear what s going on around me!)
I used to play in a band many years ago and we often recorded our efforts with a single omnidirectional microphone. Playing those back many years later on a system much better than the one I had at the time is quite revealing. One thing that comes across clearly, is how dynamically compressed and lifeless many commercial recordings are, compared to a raw live recording, even though the mics and equipment used were relatively basic. It pleases me that my Naim system allows the dynamics of music to come through unrestrained, providing the recording/editing/mastering are up to scratch. My recently acquired Rhino hifi box set of Jethro Tullās first 5 albums shows what can be achieved, if the engineers, producers etc really want to pull out all the stops and release a product where they are invested in sound quality and this was from analogue tapes recorded on in 1968-1972. Now if I compare this to a brand new release of a live band I saw at Ronnie Scottās in London recently, which sounds relatively flat and compressed in comparison, probably recorded and mixed digitally, then released on vinyl, it just goes to show that we are at the whim of the production chain after the musicians best efforts. So to answer your question, āHow should recorded music sound?ā, I donāt think there is a definitive answer. It depends is the best I can do.
Iāve always understood the āFiā in HiFi to refer to āFidelityā, so for me I seek a convincing picture of the musicians in the room, or perhaps better, seen through a window in my room. With an orchestra I want to hear and be moved by the whole band but also be able to listen into what the flautist or horn player is doing towards the back of the orchestra. With a smaller group such as a string quartet or piano recital, Iām hoping for an experience like being in the same hall as the performer(s) and relatively close to them.
One interesting issue of sonic taste is how much of the acoustics of the recording venue should get into the recording. Iāve usually found BBC recording engineers include more of the sound of the chapel theyāre in for choral evensong than, for example, Deccaās multi-microphone approach affords and I sometimes miss the hall contribution. I have some CDs of choral music recorded by John Rutter in the Lady Chapel of Ely Cathedral, a venue he chose specifically for those recordings and when listening to them I do want to experience the combination of clarity and resonance for which the chapel is famous.
Exactly