[Audio Empire]

On Thu, 24 Feb 2011 03:54:57 -0800, Sebastian Kaliszewski wrote
(in article ):

Kele wrote:
Thank you for replies. You are all sound experts in my eyes. Being
without the technical knowledge, my hope is that you can interpret my
simplistic conveyance of my opinion.

When I walk into the mall and hear music playing, I=92ll focus on it and
know if it=92s live =96 sight unseen.

I think most humans can do that.


As I progress toward the sound (the
central atrium), I become more sure of my guess. Then as I peer down
to the first floor, I see the band playing with PV house speakers.
I=92m hearing amplified (processed) music, but it=92s not as if I were
listening to a recording regardless that I had ever heard the band or
song(s) before. I never heard Floyd live, but Live=92s unique
properties hasn=92t been conveyed by any recording I=92ve heard, to
include all the audio test CD=92s & jazz samplers I=92ve collected via
magazine subscriptions. Maybe my stereo is the weakest link.

Where I live there are numerous sidewalk minstrels of varying talent.
It=92s open air and I=92m able to be arms length from musicians playing
their instruments, even violinists. I=92ve even recorded myself playing
an acoustic guitar. I=92m just saying that we can always get out Live
memory reinforced. I understand what you=92re saying about un-amplified
music as the truest form of live, but either way, I can=92t think of a
time I=92ve been fooled into thinking a recording played back is Live.

It certainly isn't, and I can well believe you. But even if a band playing in
a mall atrium is using sound reinforcement, any live, acoustic instruments in
that group (like the drum kit or a trumpet of a sax) are going to be heard
BOTH from the loudspeakers of the reinforcement system, and directly from the
instrument to your ears because acoustic instruments can play loudly. But in
a concert situation, unless you are up front, near the stage, you'll be
getting pretty much everything you hear via speakers. So that's a somewhat
different animal.

If you're talking about live unamplified instruments then OK. But in
case if aplified music -- many "preformers" use full playback. Are you
sure you've never been fooled?


In the studio, when you can=92t see whether it=92s live or a recording
being played back, you can=92t tell? I would love to experience that.

My brother, who is a professional musician says, he experienced it once
in some specially equipped experimental studio (full 3D sound setup from
i don't know how many speakers (~10) in specially prepared room). That
was with live instruments.
In case of some liveaplified music -- it's not a problem at all.

I would have to follow that recording through the process (to market)
to identify when and where the change occurs. By change I mean when
the recording no longer fools me into thinking it=92s live. I=92d have to
pitch a fit wherever that transition occurs, intentional or not.
That=92s what I=92m trying to ask of you. I know the post-processing
plays a big part. I=92m thinking that each pass through another board
of electronics impacts the sound thus reducing its =93Liveliness=94 =96 eve=
n
in the digital domain.

Microphones, even very good ones, are not perfect (after all, they're
transducers, just like speakers and phonograph cartridges), mixers aren't
perfect, and the analog to digital process is not perfect. And that's just on
the "capture" side of the equation. Usually, the record producer and the mix
engineer can't resist making it sound "better" with EQ and compression and
that adds another layer of abstraction. On the playback side, the already
flawed CD goes through digital to analog conversion. then the amplification
is not perfect and certainly one's speakers are far from perfect as is the
listening room. The fact that we can get any semblance of music from such a
lash-up is more of a miracle than it is anything else. 8^)

This has been proven to be false. There were tests where sound was
passed via components about 20 times and listener was not able to tell
the difference.

Depends upon what kind of processing you're talking about. Analog? I doubt
it, but an A/D - D/A loop? That's possible,

There must be specific culprits that can be
addressed to help eliminate the recorded sound. Does the industry
share the same equipment? Maybe there is bad-actor sound gear that is
most influential at squashing realism.

On the record side, microphones are probably the biggest variable along with
venue and post-capture manipulation. And no there really aren't any standards
for those things.

Sounds like a light tracking record groove idea has already been made
into reality=85 I didn=92t know. Nor did I know that materials other than
vinyl have been tried. With all the nano-technology being developed,
it seemed a good time to ask the question. Since the audiophile
approved CDs do sound better than most, it does stand to reason that
the major problems are upstream. It would probably be more beneficial
to address those first, or the next medium will continue to suffer.


It's Audio Emire's main point, that the problem is upstream. Addidg to
that there is obvious fact that stereo system itself is simply not
capable of full realism.

Yes, that's very true.