"They are here" vs. "You are there"

Hi Bryon - you have once again started a very interesting thread indeed, and while I have not yet been able to read all of it yet (which I will do as soon as I get a better chance), I do have one immediate comment on the recording aspect, something I don't think anyone has brought up yet.

The very biggest effect on the sound of the recording, even one where very few mikes were used, is the mixing, particularly in today's world of digital recording. Two different engineers (or the same one, for that matter!) can and will create a completely different sound from the exact same mike placement in the same hall from the same live session. I cannot emphasize this enough - most people, even audiophiles, have absolutely no idea how much the mixing has to do with the final sound, and how different it is from what the mikes are picking up. This is where the engineers love to get very creative, putting their own personal stamp on the recordings. There are times when this is a good thing, but unfortunately they are very few - most engineers nowadays create digital mixes that often sound nothing like the sound in the hall they recorded in. Sometimes the conductor will have a big input into the sound of the mix, sometimes not, and even if he/she does, there is still the limitation of the initial set-up in the first place, which usually the conductor doesn't get involved with, leaving it to the engineer. Which is almost never a good thing, IMO.

I am looking forward to reading the rest of this thread, looks like there are alot of interesting comments so far!

Hi Learsfool. Your initial comments about the role of mixing are well taken. Onhwy61 brought up something similar when he pointed out that many recordings have no real ambient cues, but only "synthetic" ambient cues added during mixing. Al and I both posted some thoughts about that regrettable fact, which you may find relevant, when you get a chance to look.

Glad that you are joining the discussion.

I wonder whether, as a generalization, speaker designs that emphasize time-alignment are better at presenting ambient cues, all other things being equal. Do you think so?

I'm not certain, but my suspicion is "no." I would guess that lack of time alignment would not obscure ambient cues, it would just change their sonic character, in a manner comparable to its effects on the sonic character of the initial note.

I say that because of the different time scales that are involved. Given that sound propagates through air at roughly one foot per millisecond, the arrival times at the listener's ears of wavefronts that are launched from non-aligned speaker drivers would most likely differ by less than a millisecond. While reflected sound in a hall typically arrives at the microphones many milliseconds after the direct sound.

Lack of time alignment would change the timing or phase relationships between the "fundamental frequency" of a note and its overtones/harmonics, thereby affecting its sonic character, but I believe that effect would apply similarly to both directly captured and reflected sound (although of course the frequency balance of the reflected sound may differ from that of the directly captured sound).

It's interesting to note in these Wikipedia writeups on the Haas Effect and the Precedence Effect that our hearing mechanisms have thresholds demarcating different kinds of responses when similar sounds arrive at our ears with timing differences of approximately 1, 2, 5, 10, 30, 50, and 80 milliseconds.

Best regards,
-- Al

I say that because of the different time scales that are involved. Given that sound propagates through air at roughly one foot per millisecond, the arrival times at the listener's ears of wavefronts that are launched from non-aligned speaker drivers would most likely differ by less than a millisecond. While reflected sound in a hall typically arrives at the microphones many milliseconds after the direct sound.

Good point, Al.

Cbw – I have reread your posts in an effort to construct an argument that expresses your objection. Here is my best guess…

(Cbw-1) Increasing some colorations, like brightness, increases the audibility of ambient cues in the recording.

(Cbw-2) Increasing the audibility of ambient cues in the recording enhances the illusion that “you are there.”

(Cbw-3) Therefore, increasing some colorations enhances the illusion that “you are there.”

(Cbw-4) Therefore, increasing neutrality does not always enhance the illusion that “you are there.”

If this argument expresses your objection, then I think your conclusions are correct, but those conclusions don't constitute an objection to my views. While increasing neutrality may not ALWAYS enhance the illusion that "you are there,” in my view, it USUALLY does. To see this, it’s first necessary to look at premise (Cbw-2)...

RE: (Cbw-2). As I mentioned in a previous post, increasing the audibility of ambient cues from the recording does not NECESSARILY enhance the illusion that “you are there.” In other words, ambient cues BY THEMSELVES are not a sufficient condition for creating the illusion that “you are there.” There are other conditions necessary for creating the illusion that “you are there.” For example, a certain degree of transparency. In my view, colorations that grossly distort a recording in order to emphasize ambient cues probably won’t increase the illusion that “you are there,” since those gross distortions are likely to diminish the illusion that “you are there” in other ways – for example, by reducing transparency.

You may be thinking, “Instead of colorations that GROSSLY distort a recording, what about colorations that SLIGHTLY distort a recording?” In other words, could a small amount of coloration, just enough to emphasize ambient cues, but not enough to significantly reduce transparency, enhance the illusion that “you are there.” I believe the answer to this is: Possibly. This is where, I agree, things become subjective. Whether a small increase in ambient cues at the expense of a small decrease in transparency has the net result of enhancing or diminishing the illusion that “you are there” is probably a judgment that varies from listener to listener. But none of this casts doubt on my view that, USUALLY, reducing colorations enhances the illusion that "you are there." The reason is because reducing colorations tends to increase RESOLUTION. Which brings me to...

Regarding the issue of my “information theoretic” approach to resolution, my view is that resolution can be understood as “information about the music.” If you combine this with my suggestion that increasing resolution increases ambient cues, then you get: Increasing information about the music increases ambient cues, which is something I think is self-evident. But none of this entails that more information, BY ITSELF, is a sufficient condition for enhancing the illusion that “you are there.” As I’ve stated in previous posts, creating the illusion that “you are there” is not reducible to ambient cues. I would now add: It is not reducible to resolution. And it is not reducible to information. Hence, when you say, regarding my definition of resolution in terms of information…

…you would get vastly more information by dumping the low frequencies entirely in favor of enhancing the highs -- you'd maximize the information about the music, but the result wouldn't be music. So I think some other definition is in order.

It does not matter if “dumping low frequencies” would “maximize the information about the music,” (a point about which I am skeptical), because creating the illusion that “you are there” is not reducible to maximizing information, just as it is not reducible to resolution, or ambient cues. In my view, the resolution of (i.e. information about) ambient cues is the PRINCIPAL, but not the only, determinant of the illusion that "you are there." That is why I have spent so much time talking about ambient cues.

Returning to the issue of equipment colorations…

I acknowledge that SOME equipment colorations might enhance the illusion that “you are there.” This is a corollary to the point I made about listening rooms on 9/5, namely, that the illusion that “you are there” might be enhanced when the colorations of the listening room RESEMBLE the colorations of the recording space.

But the problem with relying on room colorations to enhance the illusion that "you are there" is that, while the colorations of recording spaces are infinitely variable, the colorations of listening rooms are largely constant. So even if the colorations of the listening room enhance the colorations of some recordings, they are likely to detract, confuse, or obscure the colorations of other recordings.

A similar problem arises for the use of EQUIPMENT colorations to enhance the illusion that "you are there." While the colorations of recording spaces are infinitely variable, the colorations of any given component are largely constant. So even if the colorations of a component enhance the colorations of some recordings, they are likely to detract, confuse, or obscure the colorations of other recordings.

I believe this limits the effectiveness of using colorations, whether in equipment or in listening rooms, to enhance the illusion that “you are there.” Another drawback, equally significant, to the use of colorations to enhance the illusion that “you are there” is that colorations tend to diminish resolution, and less resolution means less audible ambient cues from the recording itself.

In light of all this, I believe that the practical approach for the audiophile who listens to a wide range of music is to (1) minimize colorations both in the equipment and in the listening room; and (2) increase information about the music, to the extend that is possible. In other words, enhancing the illusion that "you are there" is, with a few possible exceptions, most practically achieved by increasing neutrality and increasing resolution.