I find it helpful to remember that soundstage is mostly an illusion carefully crafted in the studio, as rarely is the entire set of musicians recorded live together. Each part is individually recorded, the parts are mixed together, and then the engineer pans them (or even dynamically moves them around) within the soundstage. Most of what you think you hear never actually happened the way you are hearing it.
Well said, just had a meeting with a very famous music producer in LA who has produced some major tracks in the last decades and these people hate it when music systems make things sound different than the intent. And when the intent is optimized against a particular studio monitor setup, don’t deviate too much from that setup’s sound signature if you want the real deal. I don’t like when a speaker system makes a studio track sound like an orchestra playing in a big concert hall with echos, for example.
@@ThinkingBetter I hope people don't do that. My point was that I've heard people say things like "I can tell exactly where the drummer was in the room." No, you're listening to the best of six different takes recorded in the drummer's closet, eq'd and tweaked to fit an ideal drum sound, and fed through an impuise reverb that makes it sound like it was recorded in Carnegie Hall. The truth is he never left his home, and the band never played in the same room. Everything you hear is an illusion to satisfy a musical vision.
@@ThinkingBetter but isn’t exactly that what the mixing engineers do do often: dry tracks beefed up with reverb to locate them on the virtual stage? So why should I give a shit on the engineers mixing intent and leave sound as mixed if I can improve my very personal listening experience?
@@ThinkingBetter for many records I don't give a shit of that intention because they sound like mixed either by a deaf or in a bad room at least I hope that guy responsible for the record heard something different then the final product
First up .... Paul's Audiophiles guide should be prefaced with the simple statement that reads " Only buy this guide if you live on your own " Secondly ... as a senior recording engineer at Sony Music I confess that our standards of mastering are highly restricted... I was pushing for a seperate autonomous division which only produced high end uncompressed music but management turned a blind eye to it ... good luck with Octave Recordings ... I do hope it takes off big time !! To make it all work you might have to widen your scope of performers ... not only jazz pianists and small relatively unheard of club bands ... 😃
I know there’s much debate on which mastering process is better or if it even matters… but it is interesting that there’s a path of musical production that nobody seems to care about anymore. I really think we need to start taking the quality of recordings and mastering more seriously.
Weird how those 1990s era minimally recorded indie and punk rock recordings that today's streaming services won't touch with a 10 foot pole sounds way, way more natural than the over-compressed pop music of the past 20 years.
@Jingle Nuts WaveLab is mastering software, so I'd highly doubt they'd use something like that to record. Also the 1st version of it was released 10 years after the album. I think the album was actually recorded on a Sony digital tape machine
Thanks for this Paul. Essentially we are in the control of the original sonnemeister! Good to know as as many have their differing ideals and Douglas Larter (EMI) sounds to my ears in large orchestral better in the 1960-70s than those who recorded for Decca (London) which were close miked for brilliance except for the opera soundstage recordings and Mercury (but Fine was a genius!). Enjoyed the posts!
There's also another theory as why some mastering recordings sound awful apart from what Paul stated and without a doubt I agree with him. It's Human hearing fatigue. If the sound engineer is going deaf from being exposed to high dB from blasting speakers/headphones throughout the day in the studio or had a night out with friends in a nightclub, could affect the recording process I assume. Fact thought if I had blasted my ears with loud music, I do have hard time adjusting values for my amateur music, just can't get it right and get frustrated. Need time off. Start again fresh and relaxed.
I think a lot of people in these comments are confusing a stereo image to acoustic recordings. Just because the sound is perceived to be coming from behind the speakers does not mean the original session was far away. The point to to perceive a coherent image that appears to form away from the drivers such that your reproduction equipment appears to not be the source. It is a stereo audio illusion meant for your ears not unlike an optical-stereo illusion is meant for your eyes.
That’s the reason why I nearly always add a slight amount of reverb during listening. I know this is far away from true fidelity, but what is true fidelity along the hole recording, mixing, and mastering chain? It regularly improves my perception of liveliness, adding a (artificial) depth to the sound stage. The trick is do used it at very low intensity and cut out the bass from reverb (it blurs the sound to much). You can either use an external device from the professional audio sector or a plugin if using a pc or Mac as sound source.
@@laurentzduba1298 Probably, a nice comparison. But did you know that there was a piece of SW around the world mastering studios in the early 2000 that had its origin at the Apple labs for encoding/decoding MP3, but never made its way into the final Apple iPod? This SW was often used to add the final sparkling to the sound at the very end of mastering, i.e. right before the glass master files. And many loved the sound it created, even it was heavily lossy encoding the signal. Even on DDD CDs for audiophiles this has been used. So, I do not care about High Res since then if only the recording and basic mixing was done right. But consumers want to get snake-oiled, purchasing new HiFi gear every 3-5 years, only to find out years later that their room sucks. Instead, I use for example an old SPL parametric EQ, the SPL Qure, which was originally built for mastering. In addition to the EQ it has built in a tube analogue circuit to artificially add harmonics to an adjustable bandwidth of the input signal to enhance voices or similar. Switching this circuitry on is just like taking away a curtain from in front of my speakers. If properly adjusted you can hear into the singers throat or into a saxophone’s horn outlet - unbelievable. And it’s all analogue. So, no extra expensive speaker cables, no super-duper power supply, no extra-fancy streaming device, no high-end DAC - just professional PA speaker cables, all low level signaling symmetrical, regular solid power sockets, self-configured PC as streamer with digital audio-routing and enhancement functions, and the built-in DAC of a less than 150 € Alesis Mixing interface. And lots of room treatment (not finished yet). Sound stage is live-like and deep, sound can be altered from razor sharp to cozy with a push of a button, precision is great - and even my wife who is anything but an experienced listener perceives the sound phenomenal, as were my neighbors recently asking if I had a band playing in my listening room when I left the big balcony door unintentionally open while listening.
Interesting challenge to get the final mix to sound faithful to the artist’s intentions on ALL the different playback mediums and listening environments.
I have a set of Martin Logan Motion 15i speakers and one of the first thing I noticed about them is their ruthless ability to show off how good or bad recordings can be. One case in point is the MB's Days of Future Passed. Love the music hate the recording. So listen to these speakers at you own peril - but oh my - when one finds well recorded music it becomes a revelation.
Some excellent modern multi-track recordings can create an illusion of not only of sound coming from behind the speakers, but also in front of - like loud guitar solos - the speakers and even behind your listening chair - even if it doesn't have any speakers there.
I think it's just really a difference in genre, which the question didn't address. So much modern music is mic'd super close now that there just is not distance between the mic and action to have it "behind" the speaker. I'd argue that isn't a terrible thing, though. It's all art and it's all just the will of the mixer's artistic direction.
But it doesn't have to be that way. Talented engineers with a good are not going to put out something flat. Susie Suh and The Palaces Steps are just two modern artists with producers that put out phenomenal work. I guarantee that their work is completely digital but they still manage to form a great image.
AH! Another of my TBA inventions. The soundstage referred to is based on information received at each ear. Exact same info with same timing is mono and the soundstage would be coming from a single speaker in front of you. Add a 2nd speaker separated for stereo and you get the same signal arriving at each ear twice with timing differences. The soundstage will still be in front of you, but not as directly coherent. Some added "depth" because of 2 arrival times. Compared to two mics similarly separated recording one source but with the time delays and other differences from each space. This out of stereo speakers would give a soundstage the mind could reassemble completely and be able to provide an actual soundstage. Unless the recording was done with multiple mics, most typical single close mic'd are "panned" between the channels to provide locational info. Equal mono signal to each channel is considered a "center mix". But it is not really. My invention was to be a 3d panning lever which includes delay as well as level. You could move the source in the 3D space of the soundstage. But at the time CCD bucket-brigades were the best delay techn9ology available.
The quality of the music is always more important than the sound quality of the recording. When it happens together we have audio nirwana. But then, ironically, the sound quality of our stereo setup becomes less important... :)
Paul, for our reference, so that we know what you consider to be bad recordings, can you provide at least a short list of well known recordings that do not sound good in the way that you are referring to?
I've been hard pressed to get Madonna's old music to pop. The songs are great but they barely form an image. Her album The Immaculate Collection does form an image, but only because the tracks were remastered in Q-sound which exaggerates the stereo effect and mangles any sense of subtlety as to make them something other than natural. That can be a bad thing or not depending on your tastes.
You're sitting right in front of one of the primary reasons. Mixing desks only have pan pots. There is no 'knob' for depth. You can simulate a bit of it with digital decorrelation plug ins but it's not the same thing as actual recorded depth. Most commercial recordings are all close mic'd to give more control in mixing. Less bleed from other sources. Often the various instruments are recorded individually so that there's no cross talk between them. I've even heard of folks recording each drum individually so that there's no sympathetic resonances from other drums. As you say, most couldn't care less about 3D sound stage. They'll mix left to right to add some breadth and then use a reverb plug in or Izotope Ozone to add an overall sense of depth. But it's not like a true stereo recording that will capture the original instrument placement and soundstage.
Couldn't agree more about the amount of poor digital files out there. When I got my digital system (I have a separate system for vinyl) to a point of imaging well I deleted at least 40 to 50 of my old files as they were just painful to listen to
More than 99% music out there do not have proper soundstage. Most recording studio do not care about soundstage than what is proper soundstage because there is no standard for it so proper standard soundstage according to whom? THX?
@@imral3 well, I only expect that in a live recording of jazz, rock, orchestral and similar. I'm not expecting that on dance, pop, electronic or experimental music. By the way, I'm quite found of spectacular sounding music and most modern music has impressive engineering and sounds incredible even... Unfortunately it's very repetitive and simpleton.
I found that many Pop songs of 70's 80's that I heard on a transistor radio back in those distant times as a kid, later in 2000's found that many of these recordings were great & was able to heard other things in the mix when I re-listened to them years later on FM radio, finding the original Vinyl or CD with an upgraded HiFi ! As Pop music evolved though , its go worse in terms of sound quality...90's was worst i think ...Quote turn up the base ! what base just a noise, and what about " turn up the treble " instead, to hear detail, the 50' s & 60's recordings are fantastic too on a good system even mono
I disagree that the sound stage should always be behind the speakers. A very modern approach to mixing, when necessary, includes placing certain instruments or reverbs or delays in that 3D space that pops out in front of the speakers, and can even feel like it’s wrapping around behind your head. This is achieved sometimes by using stereo widening tools, or stereo miking techniques that put a stereo sound, to varying degrees, out of phase with itself, which makes it pop out of the speakers and sound 3D. When used correctly, it can sound FANTASTIC. And, in fact, opens up a whole new area of real estate that can be used creatively to create separation, depth, and size in a mix. It won’t take long listening to top modern pop or EDM artists to hear what I’m talking about and to realize top mixers do this all the time. The danger in over using stereo widening techniques, or over using the amount of widening, is that when a song is heard in mono, the out of phase material cancels itself out, to the degree that it is out of phase, and can make those elements sound too low in the mix.
One of my Denon test LPs from 1979 has a track where the entire NHK Orchestra played and got recorded in a large anechoic chamber (the world's largest anechoic chamber?).
@@laurentzduba1298 They'd have to be all wearing headphones to hear each other.. Most recordings done in anechoic chambers are done one musician at a time. With multi mic placement around each player. They either wear a single headphone on one ear or open backed headphones to be able to hear themselves along with the cue track. Having the entire Orchestra in there at once would require hundreads of microphones and a chamber the size of a football field. I dont believe it was recorded as an ensemble.
@@drdelewded please yes! on records where the band never entered the same room at the same time you don't need a room at recording time it's added at mixing time and you don't want the intended room, the room of the microphone and the room you listen in added
@@ChiefExecutiveOrbiter just listened to 30 minutes of Aphex Twin while working late. Not to hurt your feelings but it's great on a nightclub, on a concentration session, a relaxing pre sleep stage but I wouldn't bother upgrading my system for background music 😏. And please, I'm not messing with you. I actually would only consider upgrading my system for better surround sound not because of soundstage (and I do own 3 different systems)
Why would most mastering and mixing engineers be AGAINST properly set up stereo systems? I get that most people listen to crappy stereos and heaphones and you need to take that into account, but why would the engineers work *against* hi-fi systems?
Personally I think not all productions were made with the intent of creating a realistic 'soundstage', and that's not necessarily a bad thing. It doesn't necessarily mean those recordings and mixes are 'bad' or that the engineers didn't know what they were doing. Often they know exactly what they're doing, but had different goals. For example producer/mixing-engineer Andrew Scheps (who famously said "Not only is the loudness war over, I won it" 🤣) made many amazing sounding records, and I admire him a lot, but most of his work isn't typically known for creating a realistic sound stage. But his work is known for capturing the artists' intent and to really make all that musical emotion pop out of the speakers (whatever they are) in a really characteristic way. Yeah, sometimes he went a bit overboard (Death Magnetic by Metallica, infamous for being the loudest record ever, hence his "I won the loudness war" joke) So I suppose he isn't well regarded among audiophiles who are looking for a realistic sounding 'soundstage'. I enjoy such a 'soundstage' too, but I can certainly also enjoy other kinds of approaches to music recording too.
Making "audiophile" and, let's name it, "contemporary commercial" recordings are not just the same tasks, they slowly became quite opposite. "Audiophile" quality recordings sound weak and boring without a proper listening environment. So they are hard (equals pricey) to make, their transferability is poor, and the market for them is extremely limited. It's not a good business for sure.
So Paul, Wouldn't it be great if you could get hold of the master tapes (or good copies) of all the classic recordings and re-do them for audiophiles? You would have to be careful to remain faithful to the original mix and sound, but just make it sound better. I wonder if that could be done successfully?
The inescapable truth is that the market for audiophile recordings is so small that it is not commercially viable. No popular artist or major recording label is going to release an album that has the equivalent of a bigger bit bucket than a PCM 16/44.1 CD. 16 bits is capable of at least 96dB dynamic range but I doubt anyone has ever heard a system with such a huge dynamic range. 96dB on top of 30dB room ambience would be in the ear pain region. This is why all mass produced albums have a reduced dynamic range equivalent to about 10dB. A true 96dB recording would be unplayable on most home or mobile systems. Quiet passages would be too low and loud passages screamingly loud.
@Douglas Blake The Place des Art théâtre over here in Montréal is really well built sound wise ! Over years I have for found some pretty good recordings that actually sound *closer* like Decca. Alpha or armonia Mundi We also have our own Analekta wich sounds really good also !
@Douglas Blake Kinda sad a bit but it's still sounds great. We got the Molson center for big venues and la place des Art for well artsy stuff and smaller concerts I went to see Agnes obel and the Gypsy kings there Also went to see thwou Montréal symphonic Orchestra a few times. I
I find it helpful to remember that soundstage is mostly an illusion carefully crafted in the studio, as rarely is the entire set of musicians recorded live together. Each part is individually recorded, the parts are mixed together, and then the engineer pans them (or even dynamically moves them around) within the soundstage. Most of what you think you hear never actually happened the way you are hearing it.
Well said, just had a meeting with a very famous music producer in LA who has produced some major tracks in the last decades and these people hate it when music systems make things sound different than the intent. And when the intent is optimized against a particular studio monitor setup, don’t deviate too much from that setup’s sound signature if you want the real deal. I don’t like when a speaker system makes a studio track sound like an orchestra playing in a big concert hall with echos, for example.
@@ThinkingBetter I hope people don't do that. My point was that I've heard people say things like "I can tell exactly where the drummer was in the room." No, you're listening to the best of six different takes recorded in the drummer's closet, eq'd and tweaked to fit an ideal drum sound, and fed through an impuise reverb that makes it sound like it was recorded in Carnegie Hall. The truth is he never left his home, and the band never played in the same room. Everything you hear is an illusion to satisfy a musical vision.
@@ThinkingBetter but isn’t exactly that what the mixing engineers do do often: dry tracks beefed up with reverb to locate them on the virtual stage?
So why should I give a shit on the engineers mixing intent and leave sound as mixed if I can improve my very personal listening experience?
@@ThinkingBetter for many records I don't give a shit of that intention because they sound like mixed either by a deaf or in a bad room
at least I hope that guy responsible for the record heard something different then the final product
Unless its a binaural live recording
First up .... Paul's Audiophiles guide should be prefaced with the simple statement that reads " Only buy this guide if you live on your own "
Secondly ... as a senior recording engineer at Sony Music I confess that our standards of mastering are highly restricted... I was pushing for a seperate autonomous division which only produced high end uncompressed music but management turned a blind eye to it ... good luck with Octave Recordings ... I do hope it takes off big time !! To make it all work you might have to widen your scope of performers ... not only jazz pianists and small relatively unheard of club bands ... 😃
There should be a disclaimer also stating “Paul knows what he likes but has no idea how it was created. Music is art, not pseudo science or alchemy.”
Remember in the CD days how the CD’s actually had mixing/mastering designations: AAD, ADD, or DDD
I remember being excited when I got a CD that said "DDD" until I quickly realized the more A's the better.
I know there’s much debate on which mastering process is better or if it even matters… but it is interesting that there’s a path of musical production that nobody seems to care about anymore. I really think we need to start taking the quality of recordings and mastering more seriously.
Weird how those 1990s era minimally recorded indie and punk rock recordings that today's streaming services won't touch with a 10 foot pole sounds way, way more natural than the over-compressed pop music of the past 20 years.
@Jingle Nuts WaveLab is mastering software, so I'd highly doubt they'd use something like that to record. Also the 1st version of it was released 10 years after the album. I think the album was actually recorded on a Sony digital tape machine
@@jaydy71 Yes, a Sony PCM-1610. Back then, there was Sony, Mitsubishi, Studer and Soundstream that were the popular choices for digital recording.
Thanks for this Paul. Essentially we are in the control of the original sonnemeister! Good to know as as many have their differing ideals and Douglas Larter (EMI) sounds to my ears in large orchestral better in the 1960-70s than those who recorded for Decca (London) which were close miked for brilliance except for the opera soundstage recordings and Mercury (but Fine was a genius!). Enjoyed the posts!
Shout-out Lancaster, PA!
Love all your Meitner converters! Ed is one smart man.
There's also another theory as why some mastering recordings sound awful apart from what Paul stated and without a doubt I agree with him. It's Human hearing fatigue. If the sound engineer is going deaf from being exposed to high dB from blasting speakers/headphones throughout the day in the studio or had a night out with friends in a nightclub, could affect the recording process I assume.
Fact thought if I had blasted my ears with loud music, I do have hard time adjusting values for my amateur music, just can't get it right and get frustrated. Need time off. Start again fresh and relaxed.
I think a lot of people in these comments are confusing a stereo image to acoustic recordings. Just because the sound is perceived to be coming from behind the speakers does not mean the original session was far away. The point to to perceive a coherent image that appears to form away from the drivers such that your reproduction equipment appears to not be the source. It is a stereo audio illusion meant for your ears not unlike an optical-stereo illusion is meant for your eyes.
That’s the reason why I nearly always add a slight amount of reverb during listening. I know this is far away from true fidelity, but what is true fidelity along the hole recording, mixing, and mastering chain? It regularly improves my perception of liveliness, adding a (artificial) depth to the sound stage. The trick is do used it at very low intensity and cut out the bass from reverb (it blurs the sound to much). You can either use an external device from the professional audio sector or a plugin if using a pc or Mac as sound source.
This reminds me of the Burwen Bobcat plug-in back in 2004 used to make MP3 music files sound more musical.
@@laurentzduba1298 Probably, a nice comparison.
But did you know that there was a piece of SW around the world mastering studios in the early 2000 that had its origin at the Apple labs for encoding/decoding MP3, but never made its way into the final Apple iPod? This SW was often used to add the final sparkling to the sound at the very end of mastering, i.e. right before the glass master files. And many loved the sound it created, even it was heavily lossy encoding the signal. Even on DDD CDs for audiophiles this has been used.
So, I do not care about High Res since then if only the recording and basic mixing was done right. But consumers want to get snake-oiled, purchasing new HiFi gear every 3-5 years, only to find out years later that their room sucks.
Instead, I use for example an old SPL parametric EQ, the SPL Qure, which was originally built for mastering. In addition to the EQ it has built in a tube analogue circuit to artificially add harmonics to an adjustable bandwidth of the input signal to enhance voices or similar. Switching this circuitry on is just like taking away a curtain from in front of my speakers. If properly adjusted you can hear into the singers throat or into a saxophone’s horn outlet - unbelievable. And it’s all analogue.
So, no extra expensive speaker cables, no super-duper power supply, no extra-fancy streaming device, no high-end DAC - just professional PA speaker cables, all low level signaling symmetrical, regular solid power sockets, self-configured PC as streamer with digital audio-routing and enhancement functions, and the built-in DAC of a less than 150 € Alesis Mixing interface. And lots of room treatment (not finished yet). Sound stage is live-like and deep, sound can be altered from razor sharp to cozy with a push of a button, precision is great - and even my wife who is anything but an experienced listener perceives the sound phenomenal, as were my neighbors recently asking if I had a band playing in my listening room when I left the big balcony door unintentionally open while listening.
Interesting challenge to get the final mix to sound faithful to the artist’s intentions on ALL the different playback mediums and listening environments.
I have to say, if I ever have a band I'll be coming here.
There’s a lot of crap out there 😂. You made me laugh Paul. It’s so true but it’s seldom put so succinctly. I always look forward to your videos 👍
Ya unfortunately the more I put into my system the more I find bad recordings. But eh whatcha gonna do 🤷🏽♂️
I have a set of Martin Logan Motion 15i speakers and one of the first thing I noticed about them is their ruthless ability to show off how good or bad recordings can be. One case in point is the MB's Days of Future Passed. Love the music hate the recording. So listen to these speakers at you own peril - but oh my - when one finds well recorded music it becomes a revelation.
Some excellent modern multi-track recordings can create an illusion of not only of sound coming from behind the speakers, but also in front of - like loud guitar solos - the speakers and even behind your listening chair - even if it doesn't have any speakers there.
A few 70s records like angels egg by Gong have absolutely amazing sound stages. Some of my favorite stuff
Just discovered this channel. So informative and interesting as a producer 🔥
Is there any software tool to test audio sources like cd or digital files? Regards kamran from Islamabad pakistan
If i told you to record my voice for release! Will you change it before release?
I think it's just really a difference in genre, which the question didn't address. So much modern music is mic'd super close now that there just is not distance between the mic and action to have it "behind" the speaker. I'd argue that isn't a terrible thing, though. It's all art and it's all just the will of the mixer's artistic direction.
But it doesn't have to be that way. Talented engineers with a good are not going to put out something flat. Susie Suh and The Palaces Steps are just two modern artists with producers that put out phenomenal work. I guarantee that their work is completely digital but they still manage to form a great image.
AH! Another of my TBA inventions. The soundstage referred to is based on information received at each ear. Exact same info with same timing is mono and the soundstage would be coming from a single speaker in front of you. Add a 2nd speaker separated for stereo and you get the same signal arriving at each ear twice with timing differences. The soundstage will still be in front of you, but not as directly coherent. Some added "depth" because of 2 arrival times. Compared to two mics similarly separated recording one source but with the time delays and other differences from each space. This out of stereo speakers would give a soundstage the mind could reassemble completely and be able to provide an actual soundstage.
Unless the recording was done with multiple mics, most typical single close mic'd are "panned" between the channels to provide locational info. Equal mono signal to each channel is considered a "center mix". But it is not really.
My invention was to be a 3d panning lever which includes delay as well as level. You could move the source in the 3D space of the soundstage. But at the time CCD bucket-brigades were the best delay techn9ology available.
The quality of the music is always more important than the sound quality of the recording. When it happens together we have audio nirwana. But then, ironically, the sound quality of our stereo setup becomes less important... :)
Paul, for our reference, so that we know what you consider to be bad recordings, can you provide at least a short list of well known recordings that do not sound good in the way that you are referring to?
I've been hard pressed to get Madonna's old music to pop. The songs are great but they barely form an image. Her album The Immaculate Collection does form an image, but only because the tracks were remastered in Q-sound which exaggerates the stereo effect and mangles any sense of subtlety as to make them something other than natural. That can be a bad thing or not depending on your tastes.
You're sitting right in front of one of the primary reasons. Mixing desks only have pan pots. There is no 'knob' for depth. You can simulate a bit of it with digital decorrelation plug ins but it's not the same thing as actual recorded depth. Most commercial recordings are all close mic'd to give more control in mixing. Less bleed from other sources. Often the various instruments are recorded individually so that there's no cross talk between them. I've even heard of folks recording each drum individually so that there's no sympathetic resonances from other drums. As you say, most couldn't care less about 3D sound stage. They'll mix left to right to add some breadth and then use a reverb plug in or Izotope Ozone to add an overall sense of depth. But it's not like a true stereo recording that will capture the original instrument placement and soundstage.
Couldn't agree more about the amount of poor digital files out there. When I got my digital system (I have a separate system for vinyl) to a point of imaging well I deleted at least 40 to 50 of my old files as they were just painful to listen to
Watching Paul
More than 99% music out there do not have proper soundstage. Most recording studio do not care about soundstage than what is proper soundstage because there is no standard for it so proper standard soundstage according to whom? THX?
No standard? How bout real life live bands? That's the gold standard.
@@imral3 In a church? An arena? A home studio? A small disco? An warehouse?
@@rusedgin exactly!
@@imral3 well, I only expect that in a live recording of jazz, rock, orchestral and similar. I'm not expecting that on dance, pop, electronic or experimental music. By the way, I'm quite found of spectacular sounding music and most modern music has impressive engineering and sounds incredible even... Unfortunately it's very repetitive and simpleton.
I found that many Pop songs of 70's 80's that I heard on a transistor radio back in those distant times as a kid, later in 2000's found that many of these recordings were great & was able to heard other things in the mix when I re-listened to them years later on FM radio, finding the original Vinyl or CD with an upgraded HiFi ! As Pop music evolved though , its go worse in terms of sound quality...90's was worst i think ...Quote turn up the base ! what base just a noise, and what about " turn up the treble " instead, to hear detail, the 50' s & 60's recordings are fantastic too on a good system even mono
I disagree that the sound stage should always be behind the speakers. A very modern approach to mixing, when necessary, includes placing certain instruments or reverbs or delays in that 3D space that pops out in front of the speakers, and can even feel like it’s wrapping around behind your head. This is achieved sometimes by using stereo widening tools, or stereo miking techniques that put a stereo sound, to varying degrees, out of phase with itself, which makes it pop out of the speakers and sound 3D. When used correctly, it can sound FANTASTIC. And, in fact, opens up a whole new area of real estate that can be used creatively to create separation, depth, and size in a mix. It won’t take long listening to top modern pop or EDM artists to hear what I’m talking about and to realize top mixers do this all the time.
The danger in over using stereo widening techniques, or over using the amount of widening, is that when a song is heard in mono, the out of phase material cancels itself out, to the degree that it is out of phase, and can make those elements sound too low in the mix.
has anyone recorded in an anachoic chamber?
Please no
One of my Denon test LPs from 1979 has a track where the entire NHK Orchestra played and got recorded in a large anechoic chamber (the world's largest anechoic chamber?).
@@laurentzduba1298 They'd have to be all wearing headphones to hear each other.. Most recordings done in anechoic chambers are done one musician at a time. With multi mic placement around each player. They either wear a single headphone on one ear or open backed headphones to be able to hear themselves along with the cue track.
Having the entire Orchestra in there at once would require hundreads of microphones and a chamber the size of a football field. I dont believe it was recorded as an ensemble.
@@drdelewded please yes! on records where the band never entered the same room at the same time you don't need a room at recording time
it's added at mixing time and you don't want the intended room, the room of the microphone and the room you listen in added
@Douglas Blake Google recordings in anechoic chambers and you'll see what Im talking about.
Thats why I listen to electronic music. Don't need special recording equipment or recording rooms.
Ahahah... Well, let me disappoint you because there is audiophile electronic music... You need expensive equipment to get the very best of it! 😁
But it still requires talent.
@@rusedgin Yeah his name is aphex twin. The reason I upgraded my stereo
@@Bob-Fields well let's assume there are talented electronic musicians that do know how to record their music 😉
@@ChiefExecutiveOrbiter just listened to 30 minutes of Aphex Twin while working late. Not to hurt your feelings but it's great on a nightclub, on a concentration session, a relaxing pre sleep stage but I wouldn't bother upgrading my system for background music 😏. And please, I'm not messing with you. I actually would only consider upgrading my system for better surround sound not because of soundstage (and I do own 3 different systems)
Why would most mastering and mixing engineers be AGAINST properly set up stereo systems? I get that most people listen to crappy stereos and heaphones and you need to take that into account, but why would the engineers work *against* hi-fi systems?
Personally I think not all productions were made with the intent of creating a realistic 'soundstage', and that's not necessarily a bad thing. It doesn't necessarily mean those recordings and mixes are 'bad' or that the engineers didn't know what they were doing. Often they know exactly what they're doing, but had different goals.
For example producer/mixing-engineer Andrew Scheps (who famously said "Not only is the loudness war over, I won it" 🤣) made many amazing sounding records, and I admire him a lot, but most of his work isn't typically known for creating a realistic sound stage. But his work is known for capturing the artists' intent and to really make all that musical emotion pop out of the speakers (whatever they are) in a really characteristic way.
Yeah, sometimes he went a bit overboard (Death Magnetic by Metallica, infamous for being the loudest record ever, hence his "I won the loudness war" joke)
So I suppose he isn't well regarded among audiophiles who are looking for a realistic sounding 'soundstage'. I enjoy such a 'soundstage' too, but I can certainly also enjoy other kinds of approaches to music recording too.
Are you getting blocked PS Audio? Just wondering, seems like many are. Can imagine why, this is a free speech place, right?
Making "audiophile" and, let's name it, "contemporary commercial" recordings are not just the same tasks, they slowly became quite opposite. "Audiophile" quality recordings sound weak and boring without a proper listening environment. So they are hard (equals pricey) to make, their transferability is poor, and the market for them is extremely limited. It's not a good business for sure.
So Paul,
Wouldn't it be great if you could get hold of the master tapes (or good copies) of all the classic recordings and re-do them for audiophiles?
You would have to be careful to remain faithful to the original mix and sound, but just make it sound better.
I wonder if that could be done successfully?
There’s already a whole industry that does this, Mobile Fidelity, Acoustic Sounds, etc etc.
@UCCgT5GSLEjjHOhXPVeWfSOQ
Is Mobile Fidelity still around?
Haven't seen anything from them for many years.
@@Hare_deLune Sure. mofi.com/
This is precisely what engineers like Bob Ludwig and others are doing...
Thanks for the info.!
The inescapable truth is that the market for audiophile recordings is so small that it is not commercially viable. No popular artist or major recording label is going to release an album that has the equivalent of a bigger bit bucket than a PCM 16/44.1 CD. 16 bits is capable of at least 96dB dynamic range but I doubt anyone has ever heard a system with such a huge dynamic range. 96dB on top of 30dB room ambience would be in the ear pain region. This is why all mass produced albums have a reduced dynamic range equivalent to about 10dB. A true 96dB recording would be unplayable on most home or mobile systems. Quiet passages would be too low and loud passages screamingly loud.
Fine, I'll go along with the premise that my commen to the last video didn't trigger this one.....hehehe......
A lot of crap is an understatement
Whats yur fav food?
Like all dysfunctional relationships, it’s not you :-)
I find that ALOT of classical music recordings sound soo far away Its very hard to find good ones
@Douglas Blake No why the question ❓
@Douglas Blake at first I thought it was my system but now that I have something decent Now I know it's the recordings
@Douglas Blake The Place des Art théâtre over here in Montréal is really well built sound wise ! Over years I have for found some pretty good recordings that actually sound *closer* like Decca. Alpha or armonia Mundi We also have our own Analekta wich sounds really good also !
@Douglas Blake Kinda sad a bit but it's still sounds great. We got the Molson center for big venues and la place des Art for well artsy stuff and smaller concerts I went to see Agnes obel and the Gypsy kings there Also went to see thwou Montréal symphonic Orchestra a few times. I
What is meant by " bass reflex"
dont mean to be that guy, but cant you read these off a tablet instead of wasting paper?
What a grasp of the obvious!
No!!!!!