"They are here" vs. "You are there"

Al, I think your comments make a lot of sense. However how do you think this plays out for folks who want to use horn, panel, or line speakers? For example I've heard some folks say that some horn speakers can be 'forward' compared to well designed cone/box speakers, etc.

Because of this I tend to agree with Ballan. IMHO the degree that recordings are forward or accurate (or backward :-)) has far more to do with the practices of the recording engineer than the natural acoustics of the hall, the recording studio or the home environment. Pushing a few sliders around can change everything including the relationship between direct and reverberant sounds and usually does.

Hi Newbee,

Interesting questions.

My understanding has been that "forward" vs. "backward" is essentially a different issue than "they are here" vs. "you are there."

My understanding has been that "forward" and "backward" are primarily matters of emphasis or de-emphasis of mid-range frequencies, relative to highs and lows. That is why in the old days mid-range tone controls were commonly labeled "presence" controls.

While "they are here" vs. "you are there" is primarily a matter, as Bryon indicated, of the proportion of direct vs. reflected sound, which brings time relationships (as opposed to frequency response) heavily into play.

Therefore I agree with the ideas that have been expressed about mic placement and mic characteristics. Those factors, and their relationship to the hall size and its acoustic characteristics, would figure to be the key factors in how realistically hall ambience is reproduced. Assuming, that is, that subsequent processing is not overdone to the point of messing up what the mics have captured.

Best regards,
-- Al

Hi Al. Thanks for your comments. Some thoughts…

The one exception I would take concerns item no. 2. I doubt that it is typically possible for the acoustics of the listening room to resemble those of the recording space in any meaningful way (assuming the recording space is a hall), because the dimensions (and hence the delay times between direct and reflected sound) are so vastly different.

To a large extent, I agree with this. Item (2) - the idea that resemblance between the listening room and the recording space enhances the illusion that “you are there” - was intended to describe a correlation that is largely theoretical. In the real world, the listening room rarely resembles the recording space, except in a very approximate way. As you point out, this is especially true for certain kinds of recording spaces, such a halls.

Having said that, I would stop short of concluding that it is impossible for the listening room to resemble the recording space “in any meaningful way.” It seems to me that sometimes the listening room can resemble the recording space in a meaningful way, in the sense that there are characteristics of the listening room that, to the extent that they approximate the recording space, will contribute to the illusion that “you are there.” For example…

Imagine for the moment that your preference in classical music were confined to orchestral music. In that case, I believe that you would be more likely to create the illusion that “you are there” with a large listening room with a high level of diffusion and a medium to long-ish reverberation time. In contrast, Cbw723’s preference for “studio-recorded material” would be better served with a medium or small sized listening room with plenty of absorption and a comparatively short reverberation time ("acoustically dead," as he describes it). In either case, the resemblance of the listening room to the recording space is only a very rough approximation. But it seems to me that it is a meaningful approximation, in the sense that it will contribute to the illusion that “you are there.”

Of course, all this assumes that the system is playing back recordings with similar recording spaces. In reality, most people listen to a wide range of recordings with vastly different recording spaces. Because of that, I completely agree with your view that, for the audiophile who listens to a wide range of music...

…the overall combination of room acoustics and equipment should be as neutral as possible, to make the listening experience as "you are there" as possible.

My view is that...

1. If an audiophile listens predominantly to one type of music, he should design his listening room (when possible) to approximate the typical characteristics of the recording spaces for that type of music, so as to promote the illusion that "he is there" for the music he usually listens to.

However...

2. If an audiophile listens to a wide range of music, he should design his listening room (when possible) to be neutral, so as to promote the illusion that "he is there" for as many kinds of recording spaces as possible, acknowledging that the more neutral the room, the less likely it is to approximate the recording space of any particular type of music.

Bryon writes:

1. If an audiophile listens predominantly to one type of music, he should design his listening room (when possible) to approximate the typical characteristics of the recording spaces for that type of music, so as to promote the illusion that "he is there" for the music he usually listens to.

I think this depends not only on the venue of preference, but the recordings. I alluded to this before when I suggested one not get carried away. In situations where the ambience cues are subtle or absent, having room reinforcement would likely be beneficial. But in cases where the cues are already strong, reinforcement could become excessive.

2. If an audiophile listens to a wide range of music, he should design his listening room (when possible) to be neutral, so as to promote the illusion that "he is there" for as many kinds of recording spaces as possible, acknowledging that the more neutral the room, the less likely it is to approximate the recording space of any particular type of music.

Again, I think this works in the case of strong cues, but with weak or absent cues, and hard-to-duplicate room acoustics, electronic enhancement may be the way to go. Surround speakers could produce concert hall acoustics even in a smallish room.

In summary, the electronic approach could provide reinforcement that varied by degree, depending on how much was needed, and could support a variety of venue configurations. You could, for example, put a studio-recorded session in a big concert hall (but, of course, at some point you are going to start creating distortions that can't be ignored).

Finally, I'm not sure how much the playback system's coloration is an issue. Assuming the system is good enough to produce playback with a convincing live or nearly live sound (as judged by the system's owner/primary listener), it seems unlikely that the ambience cues are going to be distorted to a point that they become an impediment to a "you are there" experience.

i've always found the recording itself plays the major role.