How Close Do You Think We Get To The Real Thing?

[Frank Harvey]

As per the title - how close do you think that a finished studio album gets to the event that actually happened in the studio? Do we get everything the engineer hears? If not why not?

Given that all formats will have their shortfalls, can we capture everything accurately and transparently transfer that to a home format? Presuming one of the available sources today could hold and relay all the information of the original performance, what sort of system do we need to reproduce a lifelike facsimile?

I would appreciate no baiting, especially from the likes of Vlad The Poker...

 

[steve_1979]

I expect that what I'm hearing is better than what they originally heard in the studio. I'm probably hearing more information than what the engineer heard.

Speaker and headphone technology has improved over the past 30 years or so since the majority of music that I listen to was made and the speakers and headphones that I use are some of the finest available.

 

[Frank Harvey]

Ok, for argument's sake, lets base this around a modern day recording - an album recorded yesterday.

 

[Vladimir]

 

[MeanandGreen]

With digital sources we can get exactly what was laid down in the studio as a source. The issues we have mainly IMO are the mastering and production. I think we often hear pretty accurately the information that what was recorded but we don't like what we hear because it's so poorly done.

All recording techniques must use dynamic compression and equalisation otherwise some instruments would completely over power others. It's down to the engineers to get it right at the console first and foremost.

After that if a recording is well done, then our speaker & room relationship is the next limiting factor. I think most of the loss and distortion of the sound occurs in the listening environment, due to the speakers and room set up.

I don't think the source or amplification colours things much at all in comparison to our room/speaker relationship and I think differences in speakers have a much bigger impact than the electronics up to a point.

I think a CD resolution equivilant source and a pair of neutral reference headphones would be as accurate to the studio as possible. I also don't think that such a set up would be all that expensive either.

 

[Freddy58]

It's virtually impossible to know how it sounded in the studio. One would have to have been there, and have perfect recollection to compare. Then, even if we could, would we prefer it to our coloured systems?

 

[lindsayt]

Steve_1979, have you compared your amplification and speakers against typical amplification and speakers used in recording studios 30 years ago?

 

[Ajani]

As per the title - how close do you think that a finished studio album gets to the event that actually happened in the studio? Do we get everything the engineer hears? If not why not?

Given that all formats will have their shortfalls, can we capture everything accurately and transparently transfer that to a home format? Presuming one of the available sources today could hold and relay all the information of the original performance, what sort of system do we need to reproduce a lifelike facsimile?

I would appreciate no baiting, especially from the likes of Vlad The Poker...

I think this question could only be answered by a studio engineer. At best we can guess.

IMO, we are close enough that it really doesn't matter. We can buy excellent sounding systems to suit any budget. We can aim for accuracy or tailor it so suit or preferences as we please. We can use cutting edge tech or buy vintage gear. Anyway you go, it's a great time to be an audiophile.

 

[steve_1979]

Ok, for argument's sake, lets base this around a modern day recording - an album recorded yesterday.

In that case I would say it depends on what speakers the engineers were using. If for example they were using some near field Quested monitors then what they heard is probably quite similar to what I hear as my speakers sound quite similar to Quested's near/mid field monitors and I also listen from just a few feet away from the speakers.

However if they were listening from far away using something radically different like large soffet mounted speakers in an acoustically treated room then what they heard is probably quite different to what I hear.

The same goes for headphones. If they're using Sennehiser HD800's (as many do) then they sound very similar to my HD700 headphones but if they used HD650's (as many do) of some other headphones then they're going to hear something quite different to what I do.

 

[steve_1979]

Steve_1979, have you compared your amplification and speakers against typical amplification and speakers used in recording studios 30 years ago?

If I answer that question I'll get sucked into a long and frustrating discussion where you try to convince me that 30+ year old vintage speakers will sound as good as the best modern speakers.

That's not going to happen. Sorry.

 

[Vladimir]

Steve_1979, have you compared your amplification and speakers against typical amplification and speakers used in recording studios 30 years ago?

If I answer that question I'll get sucked into a long and frustrating discussion where you try to convince me that 30+ year old vintage speakers will sound as good as the best modern speakers.

That's not going to happen. Sorry.

He is thinking big JBLs or Tannoys, but you are probably thinking of smaller Rogers or Celestions. To avoid apples to oranges simply compare 1968 K+H OY to 2015 Neumann KH 420

 

[Ajani]

I think a CD resolution equivilant source and a pair of neutral reference headphones would be as accurate to the studio as possible. I also don't think that such a set up would be all that expensive either.

You can definitely put together an excellent sounding headphone setup for relatively cheap.

 

[ChrisIRL]

As per the title - how close do you think that a finished studio album gets to the event that actually happened in the studio? Do we get everything the engineer hears? If not why not?

Given that all formats will have their shortfalls, can we capture everything accurately and transparently transfer that to a home format? Presuming one of the available sources today could hold and relay all the information of the original performance, what sort of system do we need to reproduce a lifelike facsimile?

I would appreciate no baiting, especially from the likes of Vlad The Poker...

You tell us David, presumably you have access to far higher end gear than many of us will ever get to hear, let alone own.

You would assume the engineer goes for realistic sounding playback ultimately, regardless of what was actually laid down on the day.

What system is the minimum to achieve totally realistic sounding playback in your opinion?

 

[Thompsonuxb]

Not very......

I think the 'engineers' prime target is to make all sounds 'even' in the mix.

Any sense of a true representation of a live recording is lost - try playing a tambourine loud enough to keep pace with an acoustic guitar played with vigour to a song sung with gusto in your living room to give yourself an idea of how much music is 'downplayed' to 'fit' on your stereo.

Few systems really have the power to be 'realistic' dynamically.

That said what we get is more what an artist/engineer would like us to hear or how they heard it originally in their heads.

 

[Al ears]

Not very......

I think the 'engineers' prime target is to make all sounds 'even' in the mix.

Any sense of a true representation of a live recording is lost - try playing a tambourine loud enough to keep pace with an acoustic guitar played with vigour to a song sung with gusto in your living room to give yourself an idea of how much music is 'downplayed' to 'fit' on your stereo.

Few systems really have the power to be 'realistic' dynamically.

That said what we get is more what an artist/engineer would like us to hear or how they heard it originally in their heads.

Quite agree where the album or track is actually mixed as opposed to one of solo guitar where it's possible that only levelling is required.

You get a good representation at the very most.

 

[cheeseboy]

what you hear on your stereo is usually quite different to what they hear in the studio. the mastering usually isn't done in the same studio as the mixing, so what goes out of the mixing studio door then goes to mastering where it will then change again.

I honestly believe most of those serious hifi peeps wouldn't actually like what they heard in a studio because it isn't mastered or "coloured" by the equpiment.

 

[MajorFubar]

Lossless digital distribution like CDs and lossless downloads have the potential to give you an exact bit-for-bit copy of the master file stored on the mastering-engineer's drive. From that point on, it's up to you and your stereo. So depending on your definition of what 'the real thing' actually is (not a trick question but there is more than one answer, all equally valid), the potential exists for us to get it exactly.

 

[steve_1979]

As per the title - how close do you think that a finished studio album gets to the event that actually happened in the studio? Do we get everything the engineer hears? If not why not?

What stage of the process are we talking about here? Recording, mixing or mastering?

My previous answers were based on what the engineer would have heard after the mastering process was compleated and the track is the finished article. Obviously during the recording and mixing process what they hear will, in most cases, sound very different to the finished article which is all that we usually get to listen to.

 

[Blacksabbath25]

I also say with a rock bands the drummers kit would be in a separate room from the band as well as the vocalist in his room then the lead guitarist + bass guitarist would be separate as the distortion between instruments would be over kill and maybe the sound engineer has to tone the volume levels down or distortions will happen that's way I think CDs sounds compressed so you would not hear the full range of a electric guitar with it been plugged into a very loud amp or the other instruments would be lost in the mix

 

[andyjm]

Studio control rooms are generally acoustically dead, and typically speakers mounted in a 'near field' configuration above the desk. Given that the digital chain is lossless, should you wish to recreate the speaker positioning and acoustics of the room that the track was mixed in, there is no reason why you couldn't experience exactly the sound the engineer heard when he mixed the master.

That being said, this has little relationship to the 'real sound' the other side of the glass in the studio. I have spent some time in recording studios, and in most cases those who 'want exactly the sound in the recording studio' really don't want it.

 

[chebby]

So long as i'm enjoying the music then it's not my business what goes on in the studio. That bores me.

I trust that music is recorded and mastered with professional skill and that the personnel involved choose the appropriate tools accordingly.

"Warts and all just as the engineer hears it" doesn't appeal to me in the least and just makes me want to ask why the product of such cutting edge technology and skilled audio engineers should be so 'warty'.

I don't think it is on the whole, but some 'hair shirt' types seem to want it that way as if those 'warts' lend credibilty to their preferred equipment. Harshness is not the same thing as clarity or fidelity. At the other end - of the presentation scale - warmth is not the same thing as fuzziness or lack of focus.

I'll try and sail down the middle - within my limited budget - and my even more limited interest in the monitor choices of studio staff and get stuff that sounds nice to me.

Some people like to buy the very same kit used in studios, and/or bought from pro-shops, to get nearer to the creative end of the music they listen to.

It's always happened (and been catered to). The very notion of 'rack systems' in the 1970s was an early instance of emulating the 'pros' (along with their graphic equalisers). The cult of the BBC monitor, from the 1970s onwards, was another manifestation of getting 'closer' to the studio in your own living room.

 

[Vladimir]

It's as natural as cola. There rarely is a real band, or real soundstage. It's all overdubbing, tons of effects, overprocessed to death. If you hear amazing presence and airyness in vocals and plucked strings, it's an effect. The soundstage is just a stereo panning effect, air is reverb. Real vocals and real instruments sound boring compared to the final production result.

A good analogy is Photoshopped and Raw photography. No one in advertising or art delivers raw photography. No one in the music business delivers raw music. Ever heard a Stratocaster without fuzzy distortion? Boring. Everything is flavored and saturated to the max, including the loudness compression that we talk about so much. Exception would be classical music and instrumental jazz. Poppy jazz with Diana Krall, Norah Jones etc. also is saturated with production effects.

So this means I cannot know what the finished product of these popular genres is suposed to sound like because I can't have a reference. Live events, vocals and instruments sound drastically different to studio recorded albums. So how do I know?

Easy.

The engineer is hearing his final mix in his studio on a pair of speakers. I'm hearing the finshed product on a pair of speakers too. Only way we both get to hear the same thing is if we both have neutral sounding speakers with good on and off axis response. Only difference would then be the SPL. In acoustically treated studio they would tend to listen very loud, and us at home for multiple reasons listen at much lower SPL. Of course at home I also have to have the rest of my system neutral, otherwise any added coloration will be presented by the neutral speakers.

Next, one needs to know how vinyl is made (cutting, pressing, several stages of compression and equalization) as well as how digital audio is made. When you know this, you realize that vinyl cannot deliver the same sound the engineer was hearing in the studio. Digital can. So if your source is digital, you can focus on your speakers as the real bottleneck in the system. If you add another transducer in the chain, now you have two bottlenecks that prevent you from hearing what the original recording is suposed to sound like. Two money pits.

Now, a valid question is do I really care if I'm getting accurate and life like sound. What if I prefer what sounds better to me? I guess if it was pop/rock/rnb/hiphop etc. maybe you shouldn't. It's like being obsessive of making the perfect copy of a $7 McDonalds burger at home. Why not even improve it? Isn't that what everyone is doing by using outdated tech like valves and vinyl? Now just pour ketchup, melt some butter, add salt, whatever makes you eat that burger with a smile. The threads how to get metal to sound warmer and nicer at an older age come to mind right now. I doubt when you were young you wanted your metal to sound tame and pleasant.

I personally don't care how rock sounds or if I'm getting it right like in the studio. I often listen to it on terrible integrated speakers in my PC monitor, while streaming from Youtube. Classical music and instrumental jazz, a different story for me. I want them perfect. Why? Because in those genres the studio engineer doesn't go out on the parking lot to hear the final mix in his car as final method of evaluating the quality of his workmanship.

 

[rainsoothe]

So long as i'm enjoying the music then it's not my business what goes on in the studio. That bores me.

I trust that music is recorded and mastered with professional skill and that the personnel involved choose the appropriate tools accordingly.?

"Warts and all just as the engineer hears it" doesn't appeal to me in the least and just makes me want to ask why the product of such cutting edge technology and skilled audio engineers should be so 'warty'.

I don't think it is on the whole, but some 'hair shirt' types seem to want it that way as if those 'warts' lend credibilty to their preferred equipment. Harshness is not the same thing as clarity or fidelity. At the other end - of the presentation scale - warmth is not the same thing as fuzziness or lack of focus.

I'll try and sail down the middle - within my limited budget - and my even more limited interest in the monitor choices of studio staff and get stuff that sounds nice to me.

Some people like to buy the very same kit used in studios, and/or bought from pro-shops, to get nearer to the creative end of the music they listen to.

It's always happened (and been catered to). The very notion of 'rack systems' in the 1970s was an early instance of emulating the 'pros' (along with their graphic equalisers). The cult of the BBC monitor, from the 1970s onwards, was another manifestation of getting 'closer' to the studio in your own living room.

+1. I don't care that the terminology says "high-fidelity". It's just that for me: terminology that refers to stuff that plays back music.

 

[rainsoothe]

Have you ever hear an artist play his cd and make excuses that it does not sound like that when we recorded it?

Lol - yes, actually. And more then once

 

[Vladimir]

The cult of the BBC monitor, from the 1970s onwards, was another manifestation of getting 'closer' to the studio in your own living room.

Getting closer to the broadcasting van in my living room?