Volume

[Charlie Jefferson]

I'm finding a nagging and recurring question keeps plaguing me when I listen to my hi-fi for any length of time. In all the years I've been listening to recorded music and buying equipment to play it on, I've always pondered the ultimate question of, "what should it truly sound like?". The idea of equipment offering a neutral sound, adding or taking away nothing from the recording as committed to "tape", meant little to me until I started to ponder this question. I know what live music sounds like: you are presented with a sound that a human controls with a piece of equipment (instrument, mixing desk, amplification etc), but with recorded sound I struggle. The recording is both a representation and an approximation of a sound. Sometimes rock albums have the comical Tap-esque instruction attached, to "Play Loud". What is "loud" in any objective sense? How truly realistic can a recording be and at what volume is this attained, if at all?

 

[idc]

The art of the recording engineer/producer is key to how realistic a recording is. Most tend to use monitor speakers with a flat frequency response and makes sure that all of the instruments being played can be heard. Headphones have a toned down high frequency response as higher frequencies attenuate quicker than low. Hence you hear the treble and your neighbour may hear your bass.

Then you have to capture the essence of the band. So Neil Young and Crazy horse are recorded live playing together in a shed, but the far more 'refined' Pink Floyd record each member separately and down to individual sound effects, before that lot is mixed together.

Where you put the microphone has a huge influence. Mellow acoustic will have microphones up close and personal. A microphone inside a kick drum will be different to one in front or above a drum kit.

So the recording is realistic if the time is taken to make it so.

 

[Richard Allen]

Charlie Jefferson:I'm finding a nagging and recurring question keeps plaguing me when I listen to my hi-fi for any length of time. In all the years I've been listening to recorded music and buying equipment to play it on, I've always pondered the ultimate question of, "what should it truly sound like?". The idea of equipment offering a neutral sound, adding or taking away nothing from the recording as committed to "tape", meant little to me until I started to ponder this question. I know what live music sounds like: you are presented with a sound that a human controls with a piece of equipment (instrument, mixing desk, amplification etc), but with recorded sound I struggle. The recording is both a representation and an approximation of a sound. Sometimes rock albums have the comical Tap-esque instruction attached, to "Play Loud". What is "loud" in any objective sense? How truly realistic can a recording be and at what volume is this attained, if at all?

Charlie, I've pondered this one as well. Having worked at both ends of the business as a studio and live engineer and at this end as a speaker designer.

There's no doubt that the live end of it all is a bit special. I remember recording this female artist quite a few years ago and she sang her heart out!. Her manager looked at me at the end of the track in total disbelief and said "****! Did you get all that??". I said yes and we proceeded to the mixdown. An amazing and emotive track!.

At this end of the business, I think that those 'Play Loud' comments are what the producer prefers. There is no doubt that at higher levels, the bass response improves due to the movement of larger columns of air in the room. Some rock and pop tracks need this to present the whole track as it should be but loud is relative. With good speaks and electronics and good room placement, 'loud' can be anything more than background. My interpretation of it is a volume level that you can only focus on the music due to the fact that it is too loud to be able to be doing other things at the same time so you are immersed in what you are listening to and paying attention to it. Just my take on things. Not technically proven.

 

[drummerman]

Just to accurately reproduce the sound of a plucked guitar string you need a very capable hifi. Something like a drum kit in full flight is difficult to play for most domestic hifi unless you have a supreme system and speakers capable of handling exteme transcients.

I attend gigs normally twice a week. Volume and quality differs. It's visceral and you normally feel the music as well as hear it. Not really feasible in most homes nor good for the hearing.

 

[idc]

With regards to actual volume, I think that many volume controls are not actually that good. There have been discussions on the forum about that before, where most find the usable range is only in the 9 to 12 range and fine tuning can be very difficult. A decent volume control is vital for a decent amp.

With regards to recording, I think that live is completely different to studio. The sound quality for rock and pop is usually much better in the studio than live, but for classical, acoustic and vocals I think that live wins.