Listeners hear spatial direction mostly because listeners are sensitive to Interaural Level Difference (ILD), the difference in level between the ears created by ears directional orientation and head shadow, and Interaural Time Difference (ITD), the difference in sound arrival time at each ear due to the distance between ears and the different lengths of the paths sound travels to each ear. Head motion changes to ILD and ITD allow listeners to better differentiate sounds in front from sounds behind. At a live event, listeners hear the location of each musical sound source by natural ILD and ITD and move their heads relative to the sound sources. Both left and right ears hear both left and right speakers. ILD and ITD and head motion locate the speakers. The recording engineer manipulates stereo channel level and time differences to produce an artificial sense of spatial direction heard in the sweet spot. Stereo channel level differences are created by microphone mixing console controls, or stereo channel level and time differences are created by directional microphone orientation and microphone spacing. Stereo channel level and time differences may exceed natural ILD and ITD. At any other location than the sweet spot, the stereo channel level and time differences don't produce the desired effect. Ears are left and right. Stereo soundstage and imaging are limited to the space between left and right speakers. When stereo channels are equal in level and time (L=R) a phantom stereophonic illusion is heard between left and right speakers by the listener equal distance between left and right speakers (the sweet spot) if speakers are not too far apart. No stereo channel level and time differences can create a realistic phantom stereophonic illusion heard to the left of the left speaker or to the right of the right speaker or behind, above, or below the listener. No stereo channel level and time differences can create a realistic phantom stereophonic illusion on the side between front and back speakers or between vertical up and down speakers. Quadraphonics and surround sound are at best independent front and back stereophonic illusions. Amplitude cannot correct time. The stereo channel balance control cannot correct for a listener not equal distance between speakers. Optical depth perception depends on retinal disparity. Two eyes have different perspectives of the same image. The Viewmaster viewer can completely separate the view for left eye from the view for the right eye. Headphones can isolate the left stereo channel to the left ear and the right stereo channel to the right ear, but most stereo recordings are made for speakers. Headphones move with the listener's head.
A View Master? I think that was the name of that toy I had when I was five, you look through the two lenses and see what ever it is in 3D ( I'm 67 now). Loved that device, traveled all over the world in my living room 😀. Thanks again Paul, I hadn't even thought about that question before, and when I heard it I had to check out your answer. And like as always I love learning that I don't know everything the way I thought I did.
Stereo does or can give us the effect of the musicians being and sounding in different locations of the soundstage. It’s called panning. If I want the bassist sound on the left part of the stage I take his channel and pan him to the left a little. Guitar to the right a little and drums usually center. 2 vocalist? Ok. I’d have the female vocal channel panned a little left and the male to the right. By using this technique in recording you can certainly create a virtual and dimensional soundstage that puts all the instruments and vocals in different locations coming out of 2 speakers.
Of course. But it all falls apart when you sit e. g. left of the left speaker. And that was the point of the question. Stereo with conventional unidirectional speakers works only good in a limited part of the room. Concert PAs are usually different as they have to work for a bigger audience in a wider angle.
How many live performances now days are acoustic with no speakers out to the audience?? That's the only time I've heard live music as discussed here, and it's very limited to a small room and audience to hear the actual instrument. Most live performances, especially outdoors, have two speaker sets, left and right, and each instrument or mic is run to one or both speakers at a given mix. and as you move around the "room" the sound changes just as when you move around your listening room at home, usually just on a larger scale. I've been to many a concerts and outdoor festivals and there is definitely a "sweet spot" usually right in front of the sound booth. It's in that spot for a reason.....
Always sit as close to in front of the mixing console as possible! However as they go strictly digital as well, that massive console will no longer be taking up seating spaces.
I have never wanted or even tried to get my system to mimic a live performance. I have heard plenty of really bad sounding live performances. With the exceptions caused by sub-par recordings, my system sounds really good most of the time, and that's all I ever strived to achieve. BTW, I believe live sound was the main goal that engineers were trying to achieve in the early 70's with quadrophonic systems. They had hefty price tags, and in reality were not gobsmacking better at reproducing music than 2 channel systems, so they had a relatively short heyday.
Very true. Another thing I think most people dont consider is that most live performance are relayed to the audience by PA speakers in a huge venue with terrible acoustics. Studio albums on a home stereo can sound much better than live performance IMO. One of the main comeback to people who say us audiophiles are dummies lol
@@Canadian_Eh_I Yes, live concerts generally sounds like crap. I was at the Super Bowl in LA in February and the half time concert was horrible. I’ve also been to many large concerts with Coldplay, Pink Floyd, Imagine Dragons, Eagles, Elton John, Dire Straits, John Mayor etc. and even Diana Krall. A better sounding one was ironically the Blue Man Group concert in Las Vegas and one reason I believe it’s better is that the venue is not too large and is heavily optimized which is never the case when you go to a big venue where huge amounts of concert equipment is setup shortly before the concert. The best sounding music is almost always studio recordings for any music I actually enjoy listening to. Still I love going to concerts but it’s not about the audio fidelity.
@@ThinkingBetter I’ve seen the Blue Man Group in LV a few years ago as well. It was an absolutely fantastic show, however it did not compare to the ‘Who wants to be a Megastar’ show, which I have only seen on DVD. Not sure if that is still playing live anywhere? Would love to see it! And I agree, a lot of live concerts don’t sound ‘as good’ as the studio recordings (if I am even in a position to make that conclusion, tbh), however I’d argue that not many (if any) recordings can translate the energy that comes along with their respective live performances. After all, that’s why we love the live performances in the first place, no? Lastly, it seems to me that a lot of the ‘live’ music references made in audiophile forums pertain to symphony and chamber music or smaller, more intimate venues, that don’t have all that background noise, kids running around, beer splashing and echoing venues . Interesting conversation, btw.
All insightful replies. Apparently, The Blue Man Group producers are on to something, because of all the live performances I've been to , they sounded the best. Another was Dan Fogelberg at a small older theater in Columbus OH. in the late 90's. At one point, it was just him sitting on a stool with a microphone and an amped acoustic guitar. The sound was just about perfect.
@@sveneisenhauer1 Yes, I completely agree on that. Live concerts are much about the atmosphere and not about any audio fidelity. Often distortion is insanely high in the multiple percents and large venues have huge decays smearing the sound. Audiophiles talk about live music is indeed about boring concerts with people sitting down in a seat silently listening. I’ve been to several such concerts and it can be a hit and miss also on audio fidelity. Different seating positions will give you different soundstage and as soon someone is popular, the business side will motivate it into a large venue where PA systems are needed and the room will have decay issues. Thus this audiophile live performance thing is almost a thing of unpopular music from my experience.
I fondly remember Viewmasters as a kid. Thanks for the memory, Paul! It seems to me that the basic difference between live music and stereo is that one if "producing" music. While the other (stereo) is "re-producing," or capturing (as best as can currently be done) an event that happened in a real space and time. Studio recordings are artificial events and are a completely different conversation. It also occurs to me that in addition to the problem of two stereo speakers trying to capture individual performers playing/singing in a real tangible space, there is the additional problem of microphones trying to capture it. And while the sound does, in fact, emanate from instrumentalists and vocalists in a mostly 360-degree radiation field (or as you said, a more cardioid-type pattern), microphones (at their point of capture) are single-point capturing devices (just as most speakers are point-source radiating devices). And while there are bi-polar, di-polar, and omnidirectional speakers that can somewhat "recreate" some of the ambient nature of live music by interacting with the room they're set up in; and while using multiple microphones can also record the ambient space of the venue where the music was originally performed, still there's a certain palpable sense of something lost (maybe irretrievably so, future technologies notwithstanding...). And I think that, maybe, that 'something' has to do with the phase, space, and time domain. That in spite of having a very highly resolving recording medium, as well as playback equipment in the home, there's still something (yet) to be unveiled (literally and figuratively) in the time/phase/space domain. And that, heretofore, we've yet to find a way to convincingly 'place the musician(s)' in our listening room in a holographic, tangible, palpable 'reach out and touch them' kind of way. And I don't think two-channel stereo will ever be able to do that. I stand to be corrected though! As a performing musician who also listens to a lot of live music, it is precisely these qualities that I'm drawn to. In addition to interacting with the other musicians, as well as with the audience. Hmmm, as I was typing those last couple of sentences, the thought occurred to me that a possible missing element might have something to do with artificial intelligence (AI)! For instance, what if, technologically speaking, we had the ability with headphones and goggles, to transport the listener back into an actual live performance? Actually, placing him/her into the concert hall (even down to the seat selection), or stadium/arena/church?
You are over-complicating things. You can create a live sound, by having a band play live, and recording it live.. using Binaural mics (like the 3DIO). This is different from a Studio album... because a studio is only recording each instrument individually... and is not getting the complete 3D Sonic Image, from sound that bounces between and on each different surface. Such as the singers voice, bouncing off of the Acoustic Guitars surface... and even the guitar players face. In Relating this to PCs... its sort of like Raytracing. Raytracing, is the ability for a PC to figure out how 3d models will look, by casting individual light beams, around the "Room". The more light rays that you use, and the more Bounces that you allow... will result in a much more realistic 3D Rendering. The same could theoretically be performed with Sound. Instead of bouncing a light ray... they would be bouncing virtual sound-waves. The sound waves would be changing, not only in direction.. but also, in their shape and sound... depending on what materials they bounced into... (as well as bouncing these waves into each other). Light is much easier to render, because it basically moves in straight lines. Where as sound is created by vibrations, which move through air... and those are FAR more complex "FLUIDIC" calculations. Fluids are very Chaotic in nature... and are very difficult to track, predict, etc... with any degree of accuracy. Again... the environment is also captured, when you use a binaural mic setup... as you are recording the actual sounds of that rooms acoustics. SO.. if your band plays in a large Church, or a Stone Quarry... the way that the recording sounds, will be captured in its true 3d Image. When you play that sound back through high fidelity stereo speakers... you should be getting a very accurate reproduction of that Image. You might have some distortions, by your own rooms furniture, walls..etc... but overall, it will be more than accurate enough, to fool your senses (if you were blindfolded, and the speakers were audiophile grade in reproduction capability). Now... if you want to get even more complex... you could use four mics, that capture sound from four points surrounding a band. And playback, with 4 speakers... which would reproduce the actual 4 point recording. In the very distant future.. it might be possible to take studio style recordings, and map them on to a virtually created environment... and that environment, would be altered based on your personal listening rooms shape and materials... so that the intended sonic image is created. But the amount of processing power, and rendering time for such a feat... is not realistic, for the general publics PC capabilities.
@@johndough8115 I don't think I am over-complicating things at all. And to challenge your point about binaural recordings: while a binaural microphone setup might better capture more accurately the room's ambient cues and spatial relationships, playing binaural recordings back over stereo speakers would diminish much of its intended impact. Binaural recordings are best experienced with headphones only. That way, the left ear is receiving exactly (and only) what the left microphone element captured, including room reflections, etc. And the same with the right ear. When you play binaural recordings over loudspeakers, you can't eliminate the inevitable channel crosstalk (and thereby, distortion and interference). Meaning, that the left ear isn't only hearing the left speaker output, it's also hearing some of the right speaker as well. And there's channel bleed from some of the left speaker's sound getting picked up by the right ear. This interchannel crosstalk greatly interferes with what was originally captured by the microphones. Although granted, this can still be a largely more realistic representation of the recording. But again, binaural recordings are really meant to be listened to via headphones. This is one of the reasons (among others) why binaural recordings have never really caught on, neither with most audiophiles, nor record producers. Another challenge with loudspeakers are the elements of phase distortion, as well as time delay because of both the necessary crossover networks, as well as the number of separate drivers (as well as different driver materials) necessarily used to produce the full power and frequency spectrum of music. While it can be reduced, this phase distortion and time smearing is never totally eliminated; that is, unless you're using a single full-range driver and no crossover. I don't know of any single full-range drivers, with the possible exceptions of the Ohm Walsh unit. I may be wrong about that one too. Maybe also the Martin Logan CLS full-range electrostatic. But full range electrostats have other issues, among them dynamic range and sonic impact. Both phase irregularities and time arrival delay wreak havoc on the subtle ambient, spatial cues, and nuances that make the ear/brain know that it's listening to live music, as opposed to a recording. Again, I don't think that's complicating things. On the contrary, I believe it's getting right to the heart of the matter. I do agree with you, though, that there may be some value and advantage in using computing power (AI?), and using it to map out either virtually created (or even actually storing the sonic signatures and characteristics of performance spaces). Computers will, inevitably, only continue to grow exponentially in their processing power. And it wouldn't have to be cost-prohibitive. Thereby, making it both realistic and practical in some not-so-distant future.
Here's a question that no one seems to ask: The sound of a live performance can vary depending on a venue, whether it's outdoors or indoors, where you're positioned, etc. And I think everyone can agree that there's a certain "mystic" to live sound - a kind of energy that's engaging. However, I would offer this challenge to those who listen to live music. The next time you attend a live event, or if you've recently attended one, ask yourself this - is the sound being produced at that event something you want RE-produced through your speakers and headphones? I ask this because while the excitement and energy and emotion of the live performance can be captivating, the nuances and detail of the music may not be obvious. It's all dependent on where you're located in the venue of course but when I ask myself that question, more times than not, the answer is usually no. For example, if I'm listening to the symphony at our performance center, I can enjoy the music as a whole but if I were to start listening critically, I hear all sorts of imbalances. I know much of that depends on where I'm seated but this is a part of the reality of listening to live music. But would I want to hear that exact production reproduced in my system? Nope, not a chance. Despite the audiophile mantra of reproducing a live event through your system, the truth is - if we're honest - the "fake" sound of a live event might be preferable than listening to it live. This also might come down to how we're SUPPOSE to listen to live and recorded music but as wonderful as a live event can be, sometimes a well-recorded album (studio or live) that allows us to hear everything much more acutely than a live event, would be my preference, to be honest.
Live concerts usually sound like crap because non-audiophile PA gear is used and the sound reflects everywhere while you are not in the sweet spot of where the sound stage is optimum. For music that sounds better live we are generally talking about music such as a classical concert and I don’t really listen to such music a lot.
I like the stereo illusion. You almost never get great sound at a concert. There it is the vibe and enthusiasm that entertains. I like well recorded music with very distinct sound stage.
We are able to regain only that reality signature which is asociated to venue where was done plus additional "by way" added signatures. . Because to get impression of reality it is not enough to listen to instrumant alone like in pure silent open space. Even in open air we need/want other sounds painting the environment like wind, people walking, birds, cars. Always instrument should be positioned in acoustic enviromnment and only that environment helps us to know that we listen to happening in any recognized "reality" ex church. . Oposite case we perceive as artificial and not real. All known to me recordings are made with reverberation emulating any sounding real place. Our system may reproduce all that but sure it could hardly to be exact repetition of our past presence - it is always flatened to more or less two dimensions or put to any limited by imagination 3D space Imagination produces illusion of being in any imagined , may be never at all there existing apparent place, like 30 meters form musicians while original venue was only 20 meters size. No matter the thruth - feeling counts and it is fairly enough. Recording (obviously) wasn't made in our room which we think is our "live scene". So it is our fault. For that reason listening we experience is much more interesting then if all "live performances" would be as "live" as recorded always in our room .
@@user-od9iz9cv1w I think if we want best conncentration on sounds and the music stereo should be omitted beacuse stereo disperse concentration Example when I listen to tapes and they make in each channel separate surprises I always watch balance . I may say that I feel more comfort with mono reception, anyway stero adds location and it is another part of enjoyment
Which is why for me my speakers have to be omni or dipole. What Wendel from Magneplaner calls "power response" I believe? While there is still a sweet spot that is best, as you walk around the room you will still hear all the instruments as complete and separate instruments. Ohms, MBL, ... When you walk into a room energized by them the sound floats around the room. A common practice for box speakers and I believe you use in yours is rear firing tweeters? To add highs to the mids and mainly lows that wrap around the cabinet.
At amplified music venues the sound we heard depended on either the house P.A. & speaker's quality & positioned set up or how the band's own amp/speakers are positioned on stage in front of the audience, especially at larger venues & the explanation here sounds absolutely correct to me, for the given example of 4 hypothetical musicians performing on stage unplugged at a non-amplified performance ...i.e. not heard through speakers. I'm guessing that if your four on-stage sound sources were say, a barber shop quartet, a string quartet, or four accoustic whatever performers, then the nearest to realistic recording of their performance to be heard in your home would come from those 4 close-mike'd musician's individual recorded output layed down on 4 discreet tracks & played back from a 4-discreet track recording, as Paul says here, but specificially through 4 omni-directional speakers & each with a full frequency single monopole radial output height of 6 or more foot tall with each of the 4 omni's placed in the same relative positions of the 4 on-stage performers ...heard in a massive anechoic chamber or a reconstruction of the actual venue ...if you're the pedantic perfection- seeking picky type. A full orchestra recording with an omni-speaker for each player would be an expensive challenge so i'll forget that but If I could here all my favourite quartets this way, on 4 of these theoretically perfect omni-directional speakers, if my room was big enough, if the recordings existed, if I was loaded ...I'd probably enjoy that sound very much. But far too many "if's" in there to hold my breath for
We have a device with a processor , right into our hands. I have used jet audio application , it has built in dsp and there will be more better dedicated dsp available . The highs and mids sound fine but lows get strange when I play it .
Therefore more speakers equals better sound. I have been telling my wife for years I need to buy more. Now have have the proof from the guru himself. Thanks Paul
Excellent explanation. There is an excellent traveling performance art piece called The 40 Part Motet by Janet Cardiff, which does what you described at the end of the video. She recorded the 40 singers of the Salisbury Cathedral Choir singing a work by Thomas Tallis, but recorded them is a completely dead acoustic, with each singer having their own microphone and track on a 40 track recording. She then travels to various places, and replays the recording over 40 individual speakers in live acoustic spaces like chapels and warehouses. I saw the exhibit in New York at a chapel inside The Cloisters, and found it to be a profoundly moving experience.
Great Q& A. Partially due to lack of off axis response causing highs roll off which carry a lot of space cues. If system is doing well and speakers completely disappear, then you can be pretty far out of the sweet spot and still get a distinct sound stage with separation and depth. Not as good but still there.
Think, too, that a live performance is in a "room". Now play back that recording in your room and you have two rooms' acoustics affecting the performance. The original room's bouncing of the sound is also captured by stage mics (to some degree) but that directional information is, as Paul notes, lost to the listener in a stereo field. Methinks this was probably why, along with stricter control over the mixing, that "dead" recording studios were so popular back in the late 60's, the 70's, and 80's. I prefer a more live room or best case a well controlled liveness. Just a personal taste thing.
I don't think his question was answered as he was asking it. At large concerts most vocals and instruments are sung and played into microphones and then the audio is played to the audience via large stereo speakers on each side of the stage. People mid way out aren't hearing the actual singing or instruments being played but rather the concert speakers broadcasting them.
"It's all fake" !.....what a honest and fantastic statement, thank you so much for this, Paul. It is what it is, nevertheless, the ones who can provide us with gear to keep the illusion up to a high level, are still appreciated.
@@stimpy1226 I do as well. But that's a good thing too. Even good recordings played back on good equipment is fake but oh, how wonderful they can sound!
It depends on the live performance and it depends on the speakers/monitors used. If it is an un-amplified multi-player performance, it would take several semi to full omni-speakers of the right type and representative number to reproduce it convincingly using appropriate track-based routing of the instruments or stems. However, if you tried want to convincingly reproduce a live amplified, lets say dual monitor/stack performance, two sets of speakers/monitors would work well.
I can guarantee you a live sound by playing the separate instrument tracks through separate omni directional speakers located where the band member sat for the recording. Multi channel music with special speaker set up unique to that song or album. Maybe 8 speakers? I would have a left and right speakerfor the defining edges of the "show" and then in between maybe 3 for the drums, one on kick, one covering snare, and one or 2 for the cymbals. One for the vocalist or 2 if it's a duet. One for bass guitar, one for lead, one for piano but maybe a stereo setup for the piano in its respected spot on the "stage". So lots of speakers and lots of channels of audio to be played through the respected speaker representative of the particular instrument. Hope I was clear. I have other ideas too with this. Hoping to see a true live reproduction one day.
If you want the sound of live music get a PA system and play music at ear damaging levels. If you want to hear the recording artist conception of what you should be hearing get a hifi.
I was thinking about the answer to this question years before I saw this video. My understanding is that each instrument gives its own sound, so to replicate this you would need a wall of 360° speakers with various sizes and frequencies to replicate it. Then in theory you could replicate many live concerts, surely not 1:1 but for sure better than any Surround Sound and Stereo setup.
Why aren’t recordings available like that?! I wouldn’t mind adding a few more front channels if it gave a fuller listening field. Seems this should have been done decades ago.
That said there exist speakers that are capable of increasing the width of the "Sweet Spot" by not only having wide dispersion but maintaining balance and tone at those wide angles. This requires specialized (rare) tests using a robot arm to move a microphone around in 3d space while mapping frequency respone, amplitude etc at each point... aka not just front and center. This is especially vital in professional stage equipment as a peaking frequency at a given point on stage causes feedback loops :D
Imagine a true 4 channel recording of , say , a string quartet played back on two pair of bipolar or omni-directional speakers set across the stage . That could possibly created a great illusion of a live performance , assuming 4 great microphones & placement for each instrument . Expensive , sure , but what isn't in our hobby ? Active crossovers & mono block amps for good measure .
CDs put in a Blu-Ray player with the settings changed to where vocals are more pronounced can reproduce vocals as they were originally heard in the studio. I think I’m correct, aren’t I?
actually, i , to be honest, have heard one amazing system (stereo) that did exactly that! i have never heard something like that before or since and it has really wrecked it for me to some extent, once heard and never forgotten. the person was a sound engineer and and audiophile of course and he honed his room and system/s to a jaw dropping effect- i did';t need to close my eyes to see the whole performance but it was so shocking that i chose to close my eyes because the musicians were not there when i looked! i listened to an ecm vinyl of terje rypdal (chaser) that was over 13 years ago and its embedded in my mind ever since- ouch!!
Although I'm sure I'll get panned for this, it's true nonetheless. A lot of our perceived ability to place with absolute certainty the location of a musician, especially with larger groups such as symphony's when seeing them live is directly related to the fact that we can also see them. Even if you close your eyes later you have already seen them and your mind knows where they are. Having worked with quite a number of blind individuals over the years I can tell you that when they are unfamiliar with a setting they do not immediately pinpoint where someone is sitting when that person starts speaking to them. Or, if attending a musical event they do not always locate the singer, piano location or guitar location right away and sometimes never quite accurately locate them at all. I have had to turn and reposition many of them to face the right direction. Sight plays a larger factor in how we perceive any event other than just locating the people performing though. The most realistic live recordings I've ever heard were live DVD concert videos with speakers placed behind a 150" screen. Take the sight of the speaker out of the equation and show the band live (recorded, I know) in front of you and it far more closely feels and sounds like being there. You can also walk around the room and the sensation is much less affected by positioning than it is if you don't have the visual cues.
The full spatial image can actually be much better reproduced with a 3 channel system, and a modern surround system works even better. Our ears can be tricked by two speakers, but not very well. Three speakers though, that is enough to really overwhelm your sound processing mechanisms and convince them that sounds are coming from anywhere between the far left and right speakers. With 5 channel and beyond you can really get good placement of sounds in a room, especially with systems like Dolby Atmos. But I don't know how valuable that really is for music. Most live music isn't really a three dimensional experience anyway. Even acoustic performances without any electronic reinforcement don't sound like they're coming from distinct points on a stage. Musical performance venues tend to be designed like a horn with the musicians at the small end and the listeners spread out in front of them, wider as they get farther from the stage. That has the effect of making everything sound like it's coming from one area, the stage, rather than points on the stage. I regularly sit in front of two, three, or more musicians, just a few feet away, playing acoustic instruments in a room that seats only about 100 people, and the distinct position of each player isn't really very apparent at all from the sound alone, because the venue is designed as a performance venue where the sound reflects on such a way that all seats get a very similar sound. It's hard even to tell exactly where in the room the sound is coming from. Those same performers in the lawn outside or in the basement are much easier to place in space, but they rarely ever play in those places. So the idea that we get 3D audio experiences in live performances is largely a myth from what I've seen. It's not happening in most classical performances, and it's not happening, as far as I can tell, in large popular music shows. It's not happening in bars that I've ever been to. So where is it happening?
Live concerts generally sound like crap for anything popular. I was at the Super Bowl in LA in February and the half time concert was horrible. I’ve also been to many large concerts with Coldplay, Pink Floyd, Imagine Dragons, Eagles, Elton John, Dire Straits, John Mayor etc. and even Diana Krall. A better sounding one was ironically the Blue Man Group concert in Las Vegas and one reason I believe it’s better is that the venue is not too large and is heavily optimized which is never the case when you go to a big venue where huge amounts of concert equipment is setup shortly before the concert. The best sounding music is almost always studio recordings for any music I actually enjoy listening to. Still I love going to concerts but it’s not about the audio fidelity.
We have gone backward. In the 70's we had quadraphonic sound, this would get you way closer to your goal, along with 4 Magnapan large panels, 2 at each end of the room. What we really need is 50 left/right channels, that the amp is permanently set to alter the timing/delay. Starting from the front left/right working back to the rear wall, center. So picture your walls in the listening environment to be covered in vertical arrays (50 on the left/same on right). The idea is to mimic that real environment like a concert hall, by recreating the natural decay. Of course then you can take it that extra step with software to create sounds in the entire real environment, from additional microphones in all 50 locations 100 L/R.
Stereo can sound live I’ve heard it but it’s rare. Judging by a lot of comments most audio people don’t know what live sound is anyway so it’s kind of a lost cause.
Its not just about the number of speakers. Its the difference in the Recording. If you use Binaural Mics, and you record all of the players at the same exact time... then you will be getting all of those naturally occurring "sound bounces" (which create the 3d Depth / 3d sound interactions). When a recording studio records... they do each instrument / singer... on a separate track, one by one. And, they do everything they can to Eliminate any of the sound-reflections (image) of the room. Therefore... they are only capturing a sort of Flat image... of each instrument... that they will later "artificially" combine together... But even with their combined nature... the recordings are still "Flat", because they didnt capture the sounds bouncing off of each other, and the room. They didnt capture the ACTUAL 3D IMAGE, of the Sounds. Imagine if you are a singer... and you are standing 3 ft away from an Acoustic Guitar player. Your loud vocal soundwaves will travel in 360 degrees... and will actually make contact with the mans arms, as well as the surface of his very guitar. Heck, if the guitar was not being played... the mere volume of your voice... might cause its strings to resonate a bit, if you are close enough to it, and sing at the resonate frequency. Anyways.... someone that is 5ft away from you and the guitar player... is hearing both of you, and how the sounds bounce and interact with each other, as well as the room that you are in. That sonic IMAGE, is how you hear that 3D Depth of information. And that depth is lacking, with a standard studio recording... because it is simply not recorded, at all.
You're only partly right. & very partly at that. Unless you have a very small venue with there is no FOH involved, & they are using acoustic instruments, this is not true at all considering how modern live sound is reinforced. First you have many bands now, mostly at the behest of the FOH engineer & often with the support of most musicians, are all using IEM on stage to eliminate the stage noise. The FOH sound engineer is then responsible for all of the sound & the spatial location of those musicians on stage with their IEM's. Once you remove any acoustic instruments that are loud enough to be heard above the SPL of the PA system without mics (usually only trumpets, trombones, & tuba's) the spatial location of these instruments is all done with panning & volume along with reverb & delay, & often complex setups to create a sense of spatial movement with multiple panning setups & different length reverb tails. If you can duplicate the SPL levels of live music you can have the exact sound that was had live. I know this for a fact because in the early 2000's when we began installing live indoor venue's we often installed recording systems so that acts could record a complete live set - that, when played back through the house system it was recorded on, sounds exactly like the band is playing it because it's a perfect capture of the exact sound waves that were live in that system when it was recorded. Playing back through the house stereo system it sounds the same as it did live with the exception of the acoustics of the venue are a bit different when the venue is empty. But we can replay a complete 1 hour recorded set to a live audience that sounds identical to when the musicians are playing - because they all use IEM's on state & the SPL of FOH is typically about 93 - 95 DB which eliminates any possibility of the audience hearing stage sound as the venue holds several thousand so the stage is not close enough to hear the vocals (the only acoustic instruments).
Assuming musicians playing unamplified acoustic instruments: even if you had 4 speakers, one for each musician, you would still hear a fake sound if you walk around the room. Conventional speakers don't produce the same sound field of real instruments. Take a guitar, for example: a soundboard creates all the frequencies at once through "ripples" in the membrane, similar to how DML (Distributed Mode Loudspeakers) work. But regular speakers have a tweeter firing in one direction and they quickly lose coherency with the other drivers when you move away from the sweet spot. They have a piston movement, moving the air back and forth rather than ripples in a membrane. No matter how audiophile your speaker is, it will change its sound profile around the room rather quickly, revealing its fake nature. But a soundboard does not change its sound profile around the room that much. You can imitate that effect by taking a soundboard, placing transducers on its surface, then playing piano solo (for example), and when you walk around the room the sound profile is similar to a real piano because it is using a real soundboard. Yamaha and Kawai have that technology (TransAcoustic - Yamaha, AURES - Kawai).
Live music's sound will be directed at you, from no matter where you are positioned in the room. With speakers, the sound is directed at a focal point. If you wanted to move around and hear what you hear when a band is live in the room, then you would need: -- speakers that turn to follow you, and -- microphones all over the place, recording thousands of positions of the sound. In a live environment, your ears are the microphones. You hear the music change as you move around. So to have a stereo do that, the there would have to be countless recordings from every conceivable position, and have the recordings switch as the speakers follow your movements. Such technology does not exist, and if it ever will exist, will likely be many generations from now. There is one fixed position that a recording, together with a stereo, can reproduce. The microphones picked up the sound from one position, and your speakers reproduce the sound from those microphones.
In the comments are So Many Assumptions or Statements that may sound plausible to many a reader on first thought, but upon deeper reflection and application of acquired knowledge of doing and testing by some and upon the test of what is actual reality brings the reality that unfortunately much of the commentary of opinion is respectfully flawed. The benefit of understanding and spotting misinformed thought can be learning and future recognition of flawed analysis early on to improve speed and quality of innovation and being able to sidestep previous pitfalls and misinformation as well as misinterpreted data.
Regarding "Such technology does not exist, and if it ever will exist, will likely be many generations from now." It has existed for years its called "spatial audio" and its built into apples earbuds and headphones... its better than you could imagine. No gimmick.
@@Energine1 spacial audio does not render A realistic reproduction of reality for people requiring a discerning choice. The pre technologies required to travel the path to actual realistic reproduction are 100% complete. It will be interesting to see how much longer the industry players try to hide it from the public.
@@Energine1 definitely and sadly ALIEN 👽 to countless manufacturers. Their designs could be improved drastically. Not only are they 😳 afraid to see it publicly tested against other available technologies but their trolls try to make sure through mockery that no one will take it serious. Problem for certain audio influencers/Reviewers/manufacturers is the proverbial cat is out of the bag.
7 microphones in a small circle pointing at each instrument on a stage or studio will give each channel in a 7.1 system the correct amount of separation and input to fool our minds into feeling like we are in the sound stage. This is not how live music or studios record music. Each mic is slap bang on the instrument for maximum dynamic range and the sound engineer levels them all together according to his or her taste. there are 9.1, 11.2 systems with upper fronts lower fronts, and rears. Well, eventually we could have 360.1 with a looping drive unit that circles the whole room.
Well stereo speakers and system also reproduces sound in a omnidirectional pattern. So in theory if recorded carefully you can create that same sense of space and dimension. There are recordings that can and do create that same sense of space and dimension. The problem is most recordings are multitrack recorded and then mixed to give the desired effect by the artist or engineer and not focused on trying to create the more realistic sense your listening to them from a audience perspective. Adding artificial reverb and delays which sound good but not the delays and reflections created by the position they are playing in. So it’s not that it can’t be recreated, it’s that it’s very difficult for artist to play a piece live, in a good room or hall, so it can be recorded properly to recreate that your there experience.
Not true , only omnipole speakers (and there are not a lot of them) are omnidirectional . Your classical box speaker is only omnidirectional in low enough frequencies with long enough wavelengths that allow the sound to wrap around the baffle . Tweeters beam pretty hard forward in a small angle at high frequencies .
@Douglas Blake Phase-shifting and beamforming equipment can produce an amazingly wide soundstage when used correctly. With your eyes closed, you can hear voices in the center and instruments spread beyond the position of two speakers.
It looks like the Bacch SP system has finally solved this problem of accurate 3d soundstage reproduction, albeit with a few small limitations. It doesn’t add anything to the sound, it cancels crosstalk which (they claim) is what kills the soundstage. R
Live music is always best. That’s why I go to a lot of concerts for the sound and the live experience. Having said that listen to Wishbone Ash 40th anniversary live. Few recordings duplicate the live experience over speakers but there are some that are close.
Omni directional speakers setup might be you best hope. You will need additional hardware. External cross overs that are adjustable. DSP hardware and software and most importantly. You MUST have a love for LOTS OF WIRES. 😀
While listening to Bela Flecks latest "My Bluegrass Heart" a while back I started imagining myself as a cartoon microphone positioned in the center of the arc of musicians. It really increased my focus of all the detail and nuisance. I'd listened to the album at least a dozen times before that, but it made it a whole new experience and brought it full circle, like I was sitting where the microphone was when they recorded the tracks.
JFYI Actually ,IMHHO I Love❤ live music and properly recorded binaural music is AMAZINGLY like being there as I close my eyes I can see all the instruments in the proper places in the room
Huge mistake there : natural instruments are very seldom omnipole sources . A kick drum is a dipole . A violin will even change its dispersion dependent on the frequency . What is true , is that omnipole speakers are much better at creating a soundstage that is independent of the seating position compared to traditional box speakers with non constant directivity (beaming of mid to high frequencies). So the real reason why stereo cannot sound live is because speakers cannot simulate the different (and dynamically) changing directivity of each instrument
I agree that typical ported speakers can mimic a live music space to a degree. I changed my preamp to a better one that can reproduce a more broad frequency response and singers directivity in the room plus reverb was evident EVERYWHERE! Basically.
@@JoseMorales-kr2ed Awesome accomplishment. I achieved the same result with sealed box speakers by using a crossover that plays the music out of phase and accentuating the difference with an equalizer. Also, by playing one channel a little louder than the other and accentuating the other channel with a higher EQ, results in even greater separation and instrument differentiation. Good luck!
There's not a stereo system on the planet that can convince me that I'm listening to live performance. A short time ago I got to hear Mozart's symphony # 41 jupiter live. Um mind blown 😆 lol. I know the piece inside out. Listening to fake versions lol. But live.... Wow
WAIT A MINUTE , recorded music is fake because , one it's muitr-tracking and two the use of audio compression to keep all the sound levels around the same so that the tracks don't overwhelm each other
Billie Eilishs live at the Hollywood bowl sounds really great in atmos on Disney+, it captures the ambience of the venue very well. I know you have a respectable theater system, I would love to hear your thoughts on this recording
That's IT!!!....Dolby Atmos. I have Dolby Atmos built into my Samsung phone. I use VLC as my player, make a somewhat flat EQ for whatever speaker setup I am listening to using a "pink noise" track. Once that's done, I then another app called "°SOUND° Beautifier" which uses some compander "black majick" to finesse the audio. So the audio "toolchain" is: VLC EQ--->°SOUND° Beautifier--->Dolby Atmos. All this Magick fvckery makes me feel like Amar Bose!🤭 No. But Seriously, I've had a teeny bit of audio re-mastering experience....took a bigass stack of vinyl records and digitized them. Not in any "normal" way mind you!!! Did a special "surface treatment" of the vinyl ran the output audio through a carefully arranged chain of DSP audio plug-ins in a computer program. When the process was complete, the resulting audio track had the "Era Appropriate" sound of the time period that it was recorded in as well as ZERO Pops, Clicks or Hiss. I now put the audio on to play and completely forget that it came from a vinyl source!!!
If you hear a live performance that is loud and only heard through a PA system, a live recording of that can sound very close. Multi channel mixes tend to emphasize the audience to the sides and rear. Unless it's Peter Gabriel and a tamborine goes all around the room and any sense of realism goes straight down the toilet.
Get your self Sennheiser Ambeo max sound bar with a good sub. One source direction of music. If someone told me I'll did this I would have called them mad. Never enjoyed muzic better.
2 channel was just a limitation of vinyl. It was never deemed the best speaker array for reproducing live or recorded music. It's mind boggling that we continue to use it for new recordings given we moved past vinyl 40 years ago, and have been primarily using digital formats for 20 years now.
Live music that is magnified by amps and speakers is mostly terrible. The Hollywood bowl is almost perfect with no amplifier. Great speakers can almost do it.
My 3 sound rooms sound live sometimes better Heard a poka band at a picnic I had the disc my room sounded way better lots of watts and lots of speakers thats the way I like it and some bose 901s to boot.
Headphones are best for me plus, now with Dolby Atmos & Dolby headphone we are getting closer to making you feel like you are at a concert but we still have a very very very long way to go.
Ummmm....there are sweet spots at live performances too, riiiiiiiight? Unless you are filthy rich and Mariachi band has you surrounded and follow you everywhere you go?
Paul can explain complex things in a simple way without being insulting. That's a gift.
Excellent pick of question and even better the answer!
Listeners hear spatial direction mostly because listeners are sensitive to Interaural Level Difference (ILD), the difference in level between the ears created by ears directional orientation and head shadow, and Interaural Time Difference (ITD), the difference in sound arrival time at each ear due to the distance between ears and the different lengths of the paths sound travels to each ear. Head motion changes to ILD and ITD allow listeners to better differentiate sounds in front from sounds behind.
At a live event, listeners hear the location of each musical sound source by natural ILD and ITD and move their heads relative to the sound sources.
Both left and right ears hear both left and right speakers. ILD and ITD and head motion locate the speakers. The recording engineer manipulates stereo channel level and time differences to produce an artificial sense of spatial direction heard in the sweet spot. Stereo channel level differences are created by microphone mixing console controls, or stereo channel level and time differences are created by directional microphone orientation and microphone spacing. Stereo channel level and time differences may exceed natural ILD and ITD. At any other location than the sweet spot, the stereo channel level and time differences don't produce the desired effect.
Ears are left and right. Stereo soundstage and imaging are limited to the space between left and right speakers. When stereo channels are equal in level and time (L=R) a phantom stereophonic illusion is heard between left and right speakers by the listener equal distance between left and right speakers (the sweet spot) if speakers are not too far apart. No stereo channel level and time differences can create a realistic phantom stereophonic illusion heard to the left of the left speaker or to the right of the right speaker or behind, above, or below the listener. No stereo channel level and time differences can create a realistic phantom stereophonic illusion on the side between front and back speakers or between vertical up and down speakers. Quadraphonics and surround sound are at best independent front and back stereophonic illusions.
Amplitude cannot correct time. The stereo channel balance control cannot correct for a listener not equal distance between speakers.
Optical depth perception depends on retinal disparity. Two eyes have different perspectives of the same image. The Viewmaster viewer can completely separate the view for left eye from the view for the right eye.
Headphones can isolate the left stereo channel to the left ear and the right stereo channel to the right ear, but most stereo recordings are made for speakers. Headphones move with the listener's head.
A View Master? I think that was the name of that toy I had when I was five, you look through the two lenses and see what ever it is in 3D ( I'm 67 now). Loved that device, traveled all over the world in my living room 😀. Thanks again Paul, I hadn't even thought about that question before, and when I heard it I had to check out your answer. And like as always I love learning that I don't know everything the way I thought I did.
Stereo does or can give us the effect of the musicians being and sounding in different locations of the soundstage. It’s called panning. If I want the bassist sound on the left part of the stage I take his channel and pan him to the left a little. Guitar to the right a little and drums usually center. 2 vocalist? Ok. I’d have the female vocal channel panned a little left and the male to the right. By using this technique in recording you can certainly create a virtual and dimensional soundstage that puts all the instruments and vocals in different locations coming out of 2 speakers.
Of course. But it all falls apart when you sit e. g. left of the left speaker. And that was the point of the question. Stereo with conventional unidirectional speakers works only good in a limited part of the room. Concert PAs are usually different as they have to work for a bigger audience in a wider angle.
How many live performances now days are acoustic with no speakers out to the audience?? That's the only time I've heard live music as discussed here, and it's very limited to a small room and audience to hear the actual instrument. Most live performances, especially outdoors, have two speaker sets, left and right, and each instrument or mic is run to one or both speakers at a given mix. and as you move around the "room" the sound changes just as when you move around your listening room at home, usually just on a larger scale. I've been to many a concerts and outdoor festivals and there is definitely a "sweet spot" usually right in front of the sound booth. It's in that spot for a reason.....
Always sit as close to in front of the mixing console as possible! However as they go strictly digital as well, that massive console will no longer be taking up seating spaces.
Pretty much all classical concerts
@Taco MTV Unplugged just means the bands use acoustic instruments, but it’s still amplified in the studio
I have never wanted or even tried to get my system to mimic a live performance. I have heard plenty of really bad sounding live performances. With the exceptions caused by sub-par recordings, my system sounds really good most of the time, and that's all I ever strived to achieve. BTW, I believe live sound was the main goal that engineers were trying to achieve in the early 70's with quadrophonic systems. They had hefty price tags, and in reality were not gobsmacking better at reproducing music than 2 channel systems, so they had a relatively short heyday.
Very true. Another thing I think most people dont consider is that most live performance are relayed to the audience by PA speakers in a huge venue with terrible acoustics. Studio albums on a home stereo can sound much better than live performance IMO. One of the main comeback to people who say us audiophiles are dummies lol
@@Canadian_Eh_I Yes, live concerts generally sounds like crap. I was at the Super Bowl in LA in February and the half time concert was horrible. I’ve also been to many large concerts with Coldplay, Pink Floyd, Imagine Dragons, Eagles, Elton John, Dire Straits, John Mayor etc. and even Diana Krall. A better sounding one was ironically the Blue Man Group concert in Las Vegas and one reason I believe it’s better is that the venue is not too large and is heavily optimized which is never the case when you go to a big venue where huge amounts of concert equipment is setup shortly before the concert. The best sounding music is almost always studio recordings for any music I actually enjoy listening to. Still I love going to concerts but it’s not about the audio fidelity.
@@ThinkingBetter I’ve seen the Blue Man Group in LV a few years ago as well. It was an absolutely fantastic show, however it did not compare to the ‘Who wants to be a Megastar’ show, which I have only seen on DVD. Not sure if that is still playing live anywhere? Would love to see it! And I agree, a lot of live concerts don’t sound ‘as good’ as the studio recordings (if I am even in a position to make that conclusion, tbh), however I’d argue that not many (if any) recordings can translate the energy that comes along with their respective live performances. After all, that’s why we love the live performances in the first place, no? Lastly, it seems to me that a lot of the ‘live’ music references made in audiophile forums pertain to symphony and chamber music or smaller, more intimate venues, that don’t have all that background noise, kids running around, beer splashing and echoing venues . Interesting conversation, btw.
All insightful replies. Apparently, The Blue Man Group producers are on to something, because of all the live performances I've been to , they sounded the best. Another was Dan Fogelberg at a small older theater in Columbus OH. in the late 90's. At one point, it was just him sitting on a stool with a microphone and an amped acoustic guitar. The sound was just about perfect.
@@sveneisenhauer1 Yes, I completely agree on that. Live concerts are much about the atmosphere and not about any audio fidelity. Often distortion is insanely high in the multiple percents and large venues have huge decays smearing the sound. Audiophiles talk about live music is indeed about boring concerts with people sitting down in a seat silently listening. I’ve been to several such concerts and it can be a hit and miss also on audio fidelity. Different seating positions will give you different soundstage and as soon someone is popular, the business side will motivate it into a large venue where PA systems are needed and the room will have decay issues. Thus this audiophile live performance thing is almost a thing of unpopular music from my experience.
One of the best explanations I have heard.
I fondly remember Viewmasters as a kid. Thanks for the memory, Paul!
It seems to me that the basic difference between live music and stereo is that one if "producing" music. While the other (stereo) is "re-producing," or capturing (as best as can currently be done) an event that happened in a real space and time. Studio recordings are artificial events and are a completely different conversation.
It also occurs to me that in addition to the problem of two stereo speakers trying to capture individual performers playing/singing in a real tangible space, there is the additional problem of microphones trying to capture it. And while the sound does, in fact, emanate from instrumentalists and vocalists in a mostly 360-degree radiation field (or as you said, a more cardioid-type pattern), microphones (at their point of capture) are single-point capturing devices (just as most speakers are point-source radiating devices).
And while there are bi-polar, di-polar, and omnidirectional speakers that can somewhat "recreate" some of the ambient nature of live music by interacting with the room they're set up in; and while using multiple microphones can also record the ambient space of the venue where the music was originally performed, still there's a certain palpable sense of something lost (maybe irretrievably so, future technologies notwithstanding...). And I think that, maybe, that 'something' has to do with the phase, space, and time domain. That in spite of having a very highly resolving recording medium, as well as playback equipment in the home, there's still something (yet) to be unveiled (literally and figuratively) in the time/phase/space domain. And that, heretofore, we've yet to find a way to convincingly 'place the musician(s)' in our listening room in a holographic, tangible, palpable 'reach out and touch them' kind of way. And I don't think two-channel stereo will ever be able to do that. I stand to be corrected though!
As a performing musician who also listens to a lot of live music, it is precisely these qualities that I'm drawn to. In addition to interacting with the other musicians, as well as with the audience.
Hmmm, as I was typing those last couple of sentences, the thought occurred to me that a possible missing element might have something to do with artificial intelligence (AI)! For instance, what if, technologically speaking, we had the ability with headphones and goggles, to transport the listener back into an actual live performance? Actually, placing him/her into the concert hall (even down to the seat selection), or stadium/arena/church?
You are over-complicating things. You can create a live sound, by having a band play live, and recording it live.. using Binaural mics (like the 3DIO). This is different from a Studio album... because a studio is only recording each instrument individually... and is not getting the complete 3D Sonic Image, from sound that bounces between and on each different surface. Such as the singers voice, bouncing off of the Acoustic Guitars surface... and even the guitar players face.
In Relating this to PCs... its sort of like Raytracing. Raytracing, is the ability for a PC to figure out how 3d models will look, by casting individual light beams, around the "Room". The more light rays that you use, and the more Bounces that you allow... will result in a much more realistic 3D Rendering.
The same could theoretically be performed with Sound. Instead of bouncing a light ray... they would be bouncing virtual sound-waves. The sound waves would be changing, not only in direction.. but also, in their shape and sound... depending on what materials they bounced into... (as well as bouncing these waves into each other).
Light is much easier to render, because it basically moves in straight lines. Where as sound is created by vibrations, which move through air... and those are FAR more complex "FLUIDIC" calculations. Fluids are very Chaotic in nature... and are very difficult to track, predict, etc... with any degree of accuracy.
Again... the environment is also captured, when you use a binaural mic setup... as you are recording the actual sounds of that rooms acoustics. SO.. if your band plays in a large Church, or a Stone Quarry... the way that the recording sounds, will be captured in its true 3d Image. When you play that sound back through high fidelity stereo speakers... you should be getting a very accurate reproduction of that Image. You might have some distortions, by your own rooms furniture, walls..etc... but overall, it will be more than accurate enough, to fool your senses (if you were blindfolded, and the speakers were audiophile grade in reproduction capability).
Now... if you want to get even more complex... you could use four mics, that capture sound from four points surrounding a band. And playback, with 4 speakers... which would reproduce the actual 4 point recording.
In the very distant future.. it might be possible to take studio style recordings, and map them on to a virtually created environment... and that environment, would be altered based on your personal listening rooms shape and materials... so that the intended sonic image is created. But the amount of processing power, and rendering time for such a feat... is not realistic, for the general publics PC capabilities.
@@johndough8115 I don't think I am over-complicating things at all. And to challenge your point about binaural recordings: while a binaural microphone setup might better capture more accurately the room's ambient cues and spatial relationships, playing binaural recordings back over stereo speakers would diminish much of its intended impact. Binaural recordings are best experienced with headphones only. That way, the left ear is receiving exactly (and only) what the left microphone element captured, including room reflections, etc. And the same with the right ear.
When you play binaural recordings over loudspeakers, you can't eliminate the inevitable channel crosstalk (and thereby, distortion and interference). Meaning, that the left ear isn't only hearing the left speaker output, it's also hearing some of the right speaker as well. And there's channel bleed from some of the left speaker's sound getting picked up by the right ear. This interchannel crosstalk greatly interferes with what was originally captured by the microphones. Although granted, this can still be a largely more realistic representation of the recording. But again, binaural recordings are really meant to be listened to via headphones. This is one of the reasons (among others) why binaural recordings have never really caught on, neither with most audiophiles, nor record producers.
Another challenge with loudspeakers are the elements of phase distortion, as well as time delay because of both the necessary crossover networks, as well as the number of separate drivers (as well as different driver materials) necessarily used to produce the full power and frequency spectrum of music. While it can be reduced, this phase distortion and time smearing is never totally eliminated; that is, unless you're using a single full-range driver and no crossover. I don't know of any single full-range drivers, with the possible exceptions of the Ohm Walsh unit. I may be wrong about that one too. Maybe also the Martin Logan CLS full-range electrostatic. But full range electrostats have other issues, among them dynamic range and sonic impact.
Both phase irregularities and time arrival delay wreak havoc on the subtle ambient, spatial cues, and nuances that make the ear/brain know that it's listening to live music, as opposed to a recording. Again, I don't think that's complicating things. On the contrary, I believe it's getting right to the heart of the matter.
I do agree with you, though, that there may be some value and advantage in using computing power (AI?), and using it to map out either virtually created (or even actually storing the sonic signatures and characteristics of performance spaces). Computers will, inevitably, only continue to grow exponentially in their processing power. And it wouldn't have to be cost-prohibitive. Thereby, making it both realistic and practical in some not-so-distant future.
Here's a question that no one seems to ask: The sound of a live performance can vary depending on a venue, whether it's outdoors or indoors, where you're positioned, etc. And I think everyone can agree that there's a certain "mystic" to live sound - a kind of energy that's engaging. However, I would offer this challenge to those who listen to live music. The next time you attend a live event, or if you've recently attended one, ask yourself this - is the sound being produced at that event something you want RE-produced through your speakers and headphones?
I ask this because while the excitement and energy and emotion of the live performance can be captivating, the nuances and detail of the music may not be obvious. It's all dependent on where you're located in the venue of course but when I ask myself that question, more times than not, the answer is usually no. For example, if I'm listening to the symphony at our performance center, I can enjoy the music as a whole but if I were to start listening critically, I hear all sorts of imbalances. I know much of that depends on where I'm seated but this is a part of the reality of listening to live music. But would I want to hear that exact production reproduced in my system? Nope, not a chance.
Despite the audiophile mantra of reproducing a live event through your system, the truth is - if we're honest - the "fake" sound of a live event might be preferable than listening to it live. This also might come down to how we're SUPPOSE to listen to live and recorded music but as wonderful as a live event can be, sometimes a well-recorded album (studio or live) that allows us to hear everything much more acutely than a live event, would be my preference, to be honest.
Live concerts usually sound like crap because non-audiophile PA gear is used and the sound reflects everywhere while you are not in the sweet spot of where the sound stage is optimum. For music that sounds better live we are generally talking about music such as a classical concert and I don’t really listen to such music a lot.
I like the stereo illusion. You almost never get great sound at a concert. There it is the vibe and enthusiasm that entertains.
I like well recorded music with very distinct sound stage.
We are able to regain only that reality signature which is asociated to venue where was done plus additional "by way" added signatures. . Because to get impression of reality it is not enough to listen to instrumant alone like in pure silent open space. Even in open air we need/want other sounds painting the environment like wind, people walking, birds, cars. Always instrument should be positioned in acoustic enviromnment and only that environment helps us to know that we listen to happening in any recognized "reality" ex church. . Oposite case we perceive as artificial and not real. All known to me recordings are made with reverberation emulating any sounding real place.
Our system may reproduce all that but sure it could hardly to be exact repetition of our past presence - it is always flatened to more or less two dimensions or put to any limited by imagination 3D space Imagination produces illusion of being in any imagined , may be never at all there existing apparent place, like 30 meters form musicians while original venue was only 20 meters size. No matter the thruth - feeling counts and it is fairly enough.
Recording (obviously) wasn't made in our room which we think is our "live scene". So it is our fault. For that reason listening we experience is much more interesting then if all "live performances" would be as "live" as recorded always in our room .
I prefer a well mastered stereo image to live performance. Bingo Randall!
@@user-od9iz9cv1w I think if we want best conncentration on sounds and the music stereo should be omitted beacuse stereo disperse concentration Example when I listen to tapes and they make in each channel separate surprises I always watch balance . I may say that I feel more comfort with mono reception, anyway stero adds location and it is another part of enjoyment
Which is why for me my speakers have to be omni or dipole. What Wendel from Magneplaner calls "power response" I believe? While there is still a sweet spot that is best, as you walk around the room you will still hear all the instruments as complete and separate instruments. Ohms, MBL, ... When you walk into a room energized by them the sound floats around the room.
A common practice for box speakers and I believe you use in yours is rear firing tweeters? To add highs to the mids and mainly lows that wrap around the cabinet.
Great question, great answer!
At amplified music venues the sound we heard depended on either the house P.A. & speaker's quality & positioned set up or how the band's own amp/speakers are positioned on stage in front of the audience, especially at larger venues & the explanation here sounds absolutely correct to me, for the given example of 4 hypothetical musicians performing on stage unplugged at a non-amplified performance ...i.e. not heard through speakers.
I'm guessing that if your four on-stage sound sources were say, a barber shop quartet, a string quartet, or four accoustic whatever performers, then the nearest to realistic recording of their performance to be heard in your home would come from those 4 close-mike'd musician's individual recorded output layed down on 4 discreet tracks & played back from a 4-discreet track recording, as Paul says here, but specificially through 4 omni-directional speakers & each with a full frequency single monopole radial output height of 6 or more foot tall with each of the 4 omni's placed in the same relative positions of the 4 on-stage performers ...heard in a massive anechoic chamber or a reconstruction of the actual venue ...if you're the pedantic perfection- seeking picky type. A full orchestra recording with an omni-speaker for each player would be an expensive challenge so i'll forget that but If I could here all my favourite quartets this way, on 4 of these theoretically perfect omni-directional speakers, if my room was big enough, if the recordings existed, if I was loaded ...I'd probably enjoy that sound very much. But far too many "if's" in there to hold my breath for
We have a device with a processor , right into our hands. I have used jet audio application , it has built in dsp and there will be more better dedicated dsp available . The highs and mids sound fine but lows get strange when I play it .
Therefore more speakers equals better sound. I have been telling my wife for years I need to buy more. Now have have the proof from the guru himself. Thanks Paul
Excellent explanation.
There is an excellent traveling performance art piece called The 40 Part Motet by Janet Cardiff, which does what you described at the end of the video. She recorded the 40 singers of the Salisbury Cathedral Choir singing a work by Thomas Tallis, but recorded them is a completely dead acoustic, with each singer having their own microphone and track on a 40 track recording. She then travels to various places, and replays the recording over 40 individual speakers in live acoustic spaces like chapels and warehouses. I saw the exhibit in New York at a chapel inside The Cloisters, and found it to be a profoundly moving experience.
The 40 Part Motet ruclips.net/video/38ORiaia9r8/видео.html
Thats incredible thanks I had never heard of it. Reminds me of the famous "wall of sound" concert series.
When I heard Paul saying quartet, my mind instantly went to string quartet. Then he did the drum action and realized he was just talking about a band.
Great Q& A. Partially due to lack of off axis response causing highs roll off which carry a lot of space cues. If system is doing well and speakers completely disappear, then you can be pretty far out of the sweet spot and still get a distinct sound stage with separation and depth. Not as good but still there.
This is what I get with my system, one can sit quite off the sweet spot and still have a good image, it is a largish room though
Think, too, that a live performance is in a "room". Now play back that recording in your room and you have two rooms' acoustics affecting the performance. The original room's bouncing of the sound is also captured by stage mics (to some degree) but that directional information is, as Paul notes, lost to the listener in a stereo field. Methinks this was probably why, along with stricter control over the mixing, that "dead" recording studios were so popular back in the late 60's, the 70's, and 80's. I prefer a more live room or best case a well controlled liveness. Just a personal taste thing.
I don't think his question was answered as he was asking it. At large concerts most vocals and instruments are sung and played into microphones and then the audio is played to the audience via large stereo speakers on each side of the stage. People mid way out aren't hearing the actual singing or instruments being played but rather the concert speakers broadcasting them.
I’ve been to live concerts where the acoustics were terrible and I’d rather go home and listen to my system
🤔
"It's all fake" !.....what a honest and fantastic statement, thank you so much for this, Paul. It is what it is, nevertheless, the ones who can provide us with gear to keep the illusion up to a high level, are still appreciated.
I totally agree with that
@@stimpy1226 I do as well. But that's a good thing too. Even good recordings played back on good equipment is fake but oh, how wonderful they can sound!
Amazing Assumptions
A good argument why dipole and omni-directional speakers sound best.
It depends on the live performance and it depends on the speakers/monitors used. If it is an un-amplified multi-player performance, it would take several semi to full omni-speakers of the right type and representative number to reproduce it convincingly using appropriate track-based routing of the instruments or stems. However, if you tried want to convincingly reproduce a live amplified, lets say dual monitor/stack performance, two sets of speakers/monitors would work well.
Truly outstanding!
I can guarantee you a live sound by playing the separate instrument tracks through separate omni directional speakers located where the band member sat for the recording. Multi channel music with special speaker set up unique to that song or album. Maybe 8 speakers? I would have a left and right speakerfor the defining edges of the "show" and then in between maybe 3 for the drums, one on kick, one covering snare, and one or 2 for the cymbals. One for the vocalist or 2 if it's a duet. One for bass guitar, one for lead, one for piano but maybe a stereo setup for the piano in its respected spot on the "stage". So lots of speakers and lots of channels of audio to be played through the respected speaker representative of the particular instrument. Hope I was clear. I have other ideas too with this. Hoping to see a true live reproduction one day.
If you want the sound of live music get a PA system and play music at ear damaging levels.
If you want to hear the recording artist conception of what you should be hearing get a hifi.
That's why I don't go to live performances and why I love my stereo set. Oh, and the noise of the audience is another reason for staying at home :-)
I was thinking about the answer to this question years before I saw this video.
My understanding is that each instrument gives its own sound, so to replicate this you would need a wall of 360° speakers with various sizes and frequencies to replicate it. Then in theory you could replicate many live concerts, surely not 1:1 but for sure better than any Surround Sound and Stereo setup.
Thats why i prefer Quadrophinic since my first amplifier. in the past, even with 2 speakers, I put them across the room and not to the front.
Why aren’t recordings available like that?! I wouldn’t mind adding a few more front channels if it gave a fuller listening field. Seems this should have been done decades ago.
That said there exist speakers that are capable of increasing the width of the "Sweet Spot" by not only having wide dispersion but maintaining balance and tone at those wide angles. This requires specialized (rare) tests using a robot arm to move a microphone around in 3d space while mapping frequency respone, amplitude etc at each point... aka not just front and center. This is especially vital in professional stage equipment as a peaking frequency at a given point on stage causes feedback loops :D
Imagine a true 4 channel recording of , say , a string quartet played back on two pair of bipolar or omni-directional speakers set across the stage . That could possibly created a great illusion of a live performance , assuming 4 great microphones & placement for each instrument . Expensive , sure , but what isn't in our hobby ? Active crossovers & mono block amps for good measure .
I’m just here to point out the pika on the screen.
Great answer. Thanks for sharing.
CDs put in a Blu-Ray player with the settings changed to where vocals are more pronounced can reproduce vocals as they were originally heard in the studio. I think I’m correct, aren’t I?
Maybe the viewer should listen to omnidirectional speakers, like the Bloomline Omniwaves or Ohm Walsh' speakers. That is pretty damn close.
Yep , close but still not perfect and basically a lot better in freeing you from sitting exactly in a sweet spot
Those Omniwaves blew my mind. You could hear the sound above you. The guy had a recording of fireworks. Amazing..
actually, i , to be honest, have heard one amazing system (stereo) that did exactly that! i have never heard something like that before or since and it has really wrecked it for me to some extent, once heard and never forgotten. the person was a sound engineer and and audiophile of course and he honed his room and system/s to a jaw dropping effect- i did';t need to close my eyes to see the whole performance but it was so shocking that i chose to close my eyes because the musicians were not there when i looked! i listened to an ecm vinyl of terje rypdal (chaser) that was over 13 years ago and its embedded in my mind ever since- ouch!!
Although I'm sure I'll get panned for this, it's true nonetheless. A lot of our perceived ability to place with absolute certainty the location of a musician, especially with larger groups such as symphony's when seeing them live is directly related to the fact that we can also see them. Even if you close your eyes later you have already seen them and your mind knows where they are. Having worked with quite a number of blind individuals over the years I can tell you that when they are unfamiliar with a setting they do not immediately pinpoint where someone is sitting when that person starts speaking to them. Or, if attending a musical event they do not always locate the singer, piano location or guitar location right away and sometimes never quite accurately locate them at all. I have had to turn and reposition many of them to face the right direction. Sight plays a larger factor in how we perceive any event other than just locating the people performing though. The most realistic live recordings I've ever heard were live DVD concert videos with speakers placed behind a 150" screen. Take the sight of the speaker out of the equation and show the band live (recorded, I know) in front of you and it far more closely feels and sounds like being there. You can also walk around the room and the sensation is much less affected by positioning than it is if you don't have the visual cues.
Brilliant explanation!!
The full spatial image can actually be much better reproduced with a 3 channel system, and a modern surround system works even better. Our ears can be tricked by two speakers, but not very well. Three speakers though, that is enough to really overwhelm your sound processing mechanisms and convince them that sounds are coming from anywhere between the far left and right speakers. With 5 channel and beyond you can really get good placement of sounds in a room, especially with systems like Dolby Atmos.
But I don't know how valuable that really is for music. Most live music isn't really a three dimensional experience anyway. Even acoustic performances without any electronic reinforcement don't sound like they're coming from distinct points on a stage. Musical performance venues tend to be designed like a horn with the musicians at the small end and the listeners spread out in front of them, wider as they get farther from the stage. That has the effect of making everything sound like it's coming from one area, the stage, rather than points on the stage. I regularly sit in front of two, three, or more musicians, just a few feet away, playing acoustic instruments in a room that seats only about 100 people, and the distinct position of each player isn't really very apparent at all from the sound alone, because the venue is designed as a performance venue where the sound reflects on such a way that all seats get a very similar sound. It's hard even to tell exactly where in the room the sound is coming from. Those same performers in the lawn outside or in the basement are much easier to place in space, but they rarely ever play in those places. So the idea that we get 3D audio experiences in live performances is largely a myth from what I've seen. It's not happening in most classical performances, and it's not happening, as far as I can tell, in large popular music shows. It's not happening in bars that I've ever been to. So where is it happening?
Live concerts generally sound like crap for anything popular. I was at the Super Bowl in LA in February and the half time concert was horrible. I’ve also been to many large concerts with Coldplay, Pink Floyd, Imagine Dragons, Eagles, Elton John, Dire Straits, John Mayor etc. and even Diana Krall. A better sounding one was ironically the Blue Man Group concert in Las Vegas and one reason I believe it’s better is that the venue is not too large and is heavily optimized which is never the case when you go to a big venue where huge amounts of concert equipment is setup shortly before the concert. The best sounding music is almost always studio recordings for any music I actually enjoy listening to. Still I love going to concerts but it’s not about the audio fidelity.
We have gone backward. In the 70's we had quadraphonic sound, this would get you way closer to your goal, along with 4 Magnapan large panels, 2 at each end of the room.
What we really need is 50 left/right channels, that the amp is permanently set to alter the timing/delay. Starting from the front left/right working back to the rear wall, center. So picture your walls in the listening environment to be covered in vertical arrays (50 on the left/same on right). The idea is to mimic that real environment like a concert hall, by recreating the natural decay. Of course then you can take it that extra step with software to create sounds in the entire real environment, from additional microphones in all 50 locations 100 L/R.
Stereo can sound live I’ve heard it but it’s rare. Judging by a lot of comments most audio people don’t know what live sound is anyway so it’s kind of a lost cause.
Great answer
Its not just about the number of speakers. Its the difference in the Recording. If you use Binaural Mics, and you record all of the players at the same exact time... then you will be getting all of those naturally occurring "sound bounces" (which create the 3d Depth / 3d sound interactions).
When a recording studio records... they do each instrument / singer... on a separate track, one by one. And, they do everything they can to Eliminate any of the sound-reflections (image) of the room. Therefore... they are only capturing a sort of Flat image... of each instrument... that they will later "artificially" combine together...
But even with their combined nature... the recordings are still "Flat", because they didnt capture the sounds bouncing off of each other, and the room. They didnt capture the ACTUAL 3D IMAGE, of the Sounds.
Imagine if you are a singer... and you are standing 3 ft away from an Acoustic Guitar player. Your loud vocal soundwaves will travel in 360 degrees... and will actually make contact with the mans arms, as well as the surface of his very guitar. Heck, if the guitar was not being played... the mere volume of your voice... might cause its strings to resonate a bit, if you are close enough to it, and sing at the resonate frequency. Anyways.... someone that is 5ft away from you and the guitar player... is hearing both of you, and how the sounds bounce and interact with each other, as well as the room that you are in. That sonic IMAGE, is how you hear that 3D Depth of information. And that depth is lacking, with a standard studio recording... because it is simply not recorded, at all.
Ohm speakers are probably the closest to musicians in the room. 360 degree dispersion.
You're only partly right. & very partly at that. Unless you have a very small venue with there is no FOH involved, & they are using acoustic instruments, this is not true at all considering how modern live sound is reinforced. First you have many bands now, mostly at the behest of the FOH engineer & often with the support of most musicians, are all using IEM on stage to eliminate the stage noise. The FOH sound engineer is then responsible for all of the sound & the spatial location of those musicians on stage with their IEM's. Once you remove any acoustic instruments that are loud enough to be heard above the SPL of the PA system without mics (usually only trumpets, trombones, & tuba's) the spatial location of these instruments is all done with panning & volume along with reverb & delay, & often complex setups to create a sense of spatial movement with multiple panning setups & different length reverb tails. If you can duplicate the SPL levels of live music you can have the exact sound that was had live. I know this for a fact because in the early 2000's when we began installing live indoor venue's we often installed recording systems so that acts could record a complete live set - that, when played back through the house system it was recorded on, sounds exactly like the band is playing it because it's a perfect capture of the exact sound waves that were live in that system when it was recorded. Playing back through the house stereo system it sounds the same as it did live with the exception of the acoustics of the venue are a bit different when the venue is empty. But we can replay a complete 1 hour recorded set to a live audience that sounds identical to when the musicians are playing - because they all use IEM's on state & the SPL of FOH is typically about 93 - 95 DB which eliminates any possibility of the audience hearing stage sound as the venue holds several thousand so the stage is not close enough to hear the vocals (the only acoustic instruments).
Assuming musicians playing unamplified acoustic instruments: even if you had 4 speakers, one for each musician, you would still hear a fake sound if you walk around the room. Conventional speakers don't produce the same sound field of real instruments. Take a guitar, for example: a soundboard creates all the frequencies at once through "ripples" in the membrane, similar to how DML (Distributed Mode Loudspeakers) work. But regular speakers have a tweeter firing in one direction and they quickly lose coherency with the other drivers when you move away from the sweet spot. They have a piston movement, moving the air back and forth rather than ripples in a membrane. No matter how audiophile your speaker is, it will change its sound profile around the room rather quickly, revealing its fake nature. But a soundboard does not change its sound profile around the room that much. You can imitate that effect by taking a soundboard, placing transducers on its surface, then playing piano solo (for example), and when you walk around the room the sound profile is similar to a real piano because it is using a real soundboard. Yamaha and Kawai have that technology (TransAcoustic - Yamaha, AURES - Kawai).
That’s right a 4 man bands and a quad system still rules! Yeha
Live music's sound will be directed at you, from no matter where you are positioned in the room.
With speakers, the sound is directed at a focal point.
If you wanted to move around and hear what you hear when a band is live in the room, then you would need:
-- speakers that turn to follow you, and
-- microphones all over the place, recording thousands of positions of the sound.
In a live environment, your ears are the microphones. You hear the music change as you move around. So to have a stereo do that, the there would have to be countless recordings from every conceivable position, and have the recordings switch as the speakers follow your movements. Such technology does not exist, and if it ever will exist, will likely be many generations from now.
There is one fixed position that a recording, together with a stereo, can reproduce. The microphones picked up the sound from one position, and your speakers reproduce the sound from those microphones.
In the comments are So Many Assumptions or Statements that may sound plausible to many a reader on first thought, but upon deeper reflection and application of acquired knowledge of doing and testing by some and upon the test of what is actual reality brings the reality that unfortunately much of the commentary of opinion is respectfully flawed. The benefit of understanding and spotting misinformed thought can be learning and future recognition of flawed analysis early on to improve speed and quality of innovation and being able to sidestep previous pitfalls and misinformation as well as misinterpreted data.
Regarding "Such technology does not exist, and if it ever will exist, will likely be many generations from now."
It has existed for years its called "spatial audio" and its built into apples earbuds and headphones... its better than you could imagine. No gimmick.
@@Energine1 spacial audio does not render A realistic reproduction of reality for people requiring a discerning choice. The pre technologies required to travel the path to actual realistic reproduction are 100% complete. It will be interesting to see how much longer the industry players try to hide it from the public.
@@davidcross890 👽?
@@Energine1 definitely and sadly ALIEN 👽 to countless manufacturers. Their designs could be improved drastically. Not only are they 😳 afraid to see it publicly tested against other available technologies but their trolls try to make sure through mockery that no one will take it serious. Problem for certain audio influencers/Reviewers/manufacturers is the proverbial cat is out of the bag.
7 microphones in a small circle pointing at each instrument on a stage or studio will give each channel in a 7.1 system the correct amount of separation and input to fool our minds into feeling like we are in the sound stage. This is not how live music or studios record music. Each mic is slap bang on the instrument for maximum dynamic range and the sound engineer levels them all together according to his or her taste. there are 9.1, 11.2 systems with upper fronts lower fronts, and rears. Well, eventually we could have 360.1 with a looping drive unit that circles the whole room.
Well stereo speakers and system also reproduces sound in a omnidirectional pattern. So in theory if recorded carefully you can create that same sense of space and dimension. There are recordings that can and do create that same sense of space and dimension. The problem is most recordings are multitrack recorded and then mixed to give the desired effect by the artist or engineer and not focused on trying to create the more realistic sense your listening to them from a audience perspective. Adding artificial reverb and delays which sound good but not the delays and reflections created by the position they are playing in.
So it’s not that it can’t be recreated, it’s that it’s very difficult for artist to play a piece live, in a good room or hall, so it can be recorded properly to recreate that your there experience.
Not true , only omnipole speakers (and there are not a lot of them) are omnidirectional . Your classical box speaker is only omnidirectional in low enough frequencies with long enough wavelengths that allow the sound to wrap around the baffle . Tweeters beam pretty hard forward in a small angle at high frequencies .
@Douglas Blake Phase-shifting and beamforming equipment can produce an amazingly wide soundstage when used correctly. With your eyes closed, you can hear voices in the center and instruments spread beyond the position of two speakers.
It looks like the Bacch SP system has finally solved this problem of accurate 3d soundstage reproduction, albeit with a few small limitations. It doesn’t add anything to the sound, it cancels crosstalk which (they claim) is what kills the soundstage. R
Dolby 5.1 or 7.1 needs sweet spot, too?
Love the videos. Anyone else see the $2 speakers?
Live music is always best. That’s why I go to a lot of concerts for the sound and the live experience. Having said that listen to Wishbone Ash 40th anniversary live. Few recordings duplicate the live experience over speakers but there are some that are close.
The Flecktones Live at the Quick is pretty darn good.
Yeah, crappy pa speakers
@@Harald_Reindl Your crappy lol
Very good explanation.
Is that why created surround sound?
Just invited the entire orchestra or Band to come to your house and play live..
Would it work to use two omni-directional microphones and two omni-directional speakers?
VueMaster slide reels. I have a massive collection of vintage scenic reels.
Paul it's called a kaleidoscope
Omni directional speakers setup might be you best hope. You will need additional hardware. External cross overs that are adjustable. DSP hardware and software and most importantly. You MUST have a love for LOTS OF WIRES. 😀
Great explanation, thanks 👍
Maybe the old bose 901's could help here.
I remember those. They did a good imitation of “live.”
Another resons is the way the engineers mix it.
Hear, here, Paul!
What animal is in to monitor?
Thanks Sir for the info
Live = You are the microphone that records.
Stereo = The microphone is at a fixed point.
While listening to Bela Flecks latest "My Bluegrass Heart" a while back I started imagining myself as a cartoon microphone positioned in the center of the arc of musicians. It really increased my focus of all the detail and nuisance. I'd listened to the album at least a dozen times before that, but it made it a whole new experience and brought it full circle, like I was sitting where the microphone was when they recorded the tracks.
JFYI Actually ,IMHHO I Love❤ live music and properly recorded binaural music is AMAZINGLY like being there as I close my eyes I can see all the instruments in the proper places in the room
For EXAMPLE
Binaural audio by Robert Schulin the NUT CRACKER SUITE on headphones 😁
There are not a lot of true "omnidirectional" speakers around, I can only think of the mBL "radialstrahler" "pods" at this time.
A kaleidoscope
Viewmasters we’re awesome 😋
Bose audio?
Huge mistake there : natural instruments are very seldom omnipole sources . A kick drum is a dipole . A violin will even change its dispersion dependent on the frequency . What is true , is that omnipole speakers are much better at creating a soundstage that is independent of the seating position compared to traditional box speakers with non constant directivity (beaming of mid to high frequencies). So the real reason why stereo cannot sound live is because speakers cannot simulate the different (and dynamically) changing directivity of each instrument
They can....
I agree that typical ported speakers can mimic a live music space to a degree. I changed my preamp to a better one that can reproduce a more broad frequency response and singers directivity in the room plus reverb was evident EVERYWHERE! Basically.
@@JoseMorales-kr2ed Awesome accomplishment. I achieved the same result with sealed box speakers by using a crossover that plays the music out of phase and accentuating the difference with an equalizer. Also, by playing one channel a little louder than the other and accentuating the other channel with a higher EQ, results in even greater separation and instrument differentiation. Good luck!
Steve Guttenberg will disagree. Ohm Walsh speakers are omnidirectional the answer
There's not a stereo system on the planet that can convince me that I'm listening to live performance. A short time ago I got to hear Mozart's symphony # 41 jupiter live. Um mind blown 😆 lol. I know the piece inside out. Listening to fake versions lol. But live.... Wow
Mr. David Blackmer. dbx Soundfield 1a. Mr. Bob Carver ....sonic holography. Nuff said.
Nice Otter
Gautam is pronounced "gaw-tum"
Some music is recorded in Dolby Atmos aimed at solving this issue but it hasn’t won much audiophile appreciation.
Yes , they messup lows .
WAIT A MINUTE , recorded music is fake because , one it's muitr-tracking and two the use of audio compression to keep all the sound levels around the same so that the tracks don't overwhelm each other
Billie Eilishs live at the Hollywood bowl sounds really great in atmos on Disney+, it captures the ambience of the venue very well.
I know you have a respectable theater system, I would love to hear your thoughts on this recording
That's IT!!!....Dolby Atmos. I have Dolby Atmos built into my Samsung phone. I use VLC as my player, make a somewhat flat EQ for whatever speaker setup I am listening to using a "pink noise" track. Once that's done, I then another app called "°SOUND° Beautifier" which uses some compander "black majick" to finesse the audio. So the audio "toolchain" is: VLC EQ--->°SOUND° Beautifier--->Dolby Atmos. All this Magick fvckery makes me feel like Amar Bose!🤭 No. But Seriously, I've had a teeny bit of audio re-mastering experience....took a bigass stack of vinyl records and digitized them. Not in any "normal" way mind you!!! Did a special "surface treatment" of the vinyl ran the output audio through a carefully arranged chain of DSP audio plug-ins in a computer program. When the process was complete, the resulting audio track had the "Era Appropriate" sound of the time period that it was recorded in as well as ZERO Pops, Clicks or Hiss. I now put the audio on to play and completely forget that it came from a vinyl source!!!
4:04 four omnidirectional speakers
If you hear a live performance that is loud and only heard through a PA system, a live recording of that can sound very close. Multi channel mixes tend to emphasize the audience to the sides and rear. Unless it's Peter Gabriel and a tamborine goes all around the room and any sense of realism goes straight down the toilet.
Get your self Sennheiser Ambeo max sound bar with a good sub. One source direction of music. If someone told me I'll did this I would have called them mad. Never enjoyed muzic better.
Live is real stereo is fake!! Good one!
Get a set of ohm Walsh speakers 😂
Why stereo can't sound live and
Why mono can't sound dead 🤣🤣🤣
2 channel was just a limitation of vinyl. It was never deemed the best speaker array for reproducing live or recorded music. It's mind boggling that we continue to use it for new recordings given we moved past vinyl 40 years ago, and have been primarily using digital formats for 20 years now.
Nonsense - two channel has nothing to do with vinyl but the fact your head has two ears and everything else it timing and volume
Live music that is magnified by amps and speakers is mostly terrible. The Hollywood bowl is almost perfect with no amplifier. Great speakers can almost do it.
Your ears have to match the Microphone locations.
My 3 sound rooms sound live sometimes better Heard a poka band at a picnic I had the disc my room sounded way better lots of watts and lots of speakers thats the way I like it and some bose 901s to boot.
Anyone who does not have a speaker per musician - including for a full symphony orchestra - is clearly not a true audiophile! :)
Headphones are best for me plus, now with Dolby Atmos & Dolby headphone we are getting closer to making you feel like you are at a concert but we still have a very very very long way to go.
I have a live record that sounds extremely similar to the bands live performances. The being All Them Witches - Live on the internet
gootam
Ummmm....there are sweet spots at live performances too, riiiiiiiight?
Unless you are filthy rich and Mariachi band has you surrounded and follow you everywhere you go?
Viewmaster