1. Home
  2. tech-talk
  3. 198471-134895

Is Sound Stage an artifact of recording?

Yesterday had the opportunity to hear a fine chamber music concert featuring musicians from the NY Philharmonic in a small modern chapel with a slightly domed wooden roof. We sat about 15-20 feet from the musicians. The all acoustic sound was excellent. The Schubert Trout piano quintet  and Brahms piano quartet in G were the program. Afterwards while de-briefing at dinner with an audiophile friend who went with me and our wives, he made the point that despite the excellent acoustics and premier seating he could not close his eyes and see a "sound stage" during the concert. I had noticed the same thing. The locations of the instruments were diffuse. You could not pinpoint the location of the violin as you might expect you could on a good recording of the same work! We agreed that this was not the first time we had noticed this about live music. So I put the question to learned assembly here on Audiogon. Is sound stage something that is invented or perhaps just an artifact of the recording process to help us get the illusion of real musicians playing in front of us. Responses from those of you who have made recordings will be particularly appreciated.

bruce19
Post removed 
tomcarr
1,816 posts
 

I think you're referring more to "imaging" than a soundstage.

Yes, at a live event the images are definitely more diffuse than what I hear on my system.

steakster
2,165 posts
 

Listening in a venue while seated in one location is one thing.

Engineering a recording with multiple microphones in multiple locations is another.

Both respect the music.

lanx0003
1,926 posts
 

It is pleasant spatial cue information stored in the recording. I don’t know why you would label it as an “artifact.” When I attend a symphony orchestra concert, I can clearly hear layering, instrument localization, and depth of soundstage. With proper acoustic treatment in a concert hall to control and diffuse echoes, those spatial cues should be clearly perceptible. Recording and mixing techniques—especially multi-miking—are used to recreate that experience.

Please keep in mind that no concert hall has perfect acoustics. However, some of those imperfections can be mitigated through proper multi-miking and mixing techniques. That might explain why you perceive a difference.  To recap, spatial cues are definitely not artifacts; rather, they are a critical element of recordings.

       

allears4u
191 posts
 

From KISS, to Rush, Peter Frampton, Joe Walsh, and innumerable classical venues and concerts...rarely does live music sound great. Concert symphony is often very disappointing except in one notable sense...its much louder than I often listen to at home. Even so, it reminds me of the over all presentation of the classic floor box speakers produced by Macintosh in the late 70's. Blurry, boomy, muddy, and enveloping. Recorded music specifically made to be reproduced on home systems is uniquely better from anything but tiny venue jazz clubs. Now that can be great depending on your position relative to the band. Most bands or groups of musicians are generally horrible at creating good sound for the audience in a group setting. Therefore, while not reproducible in 99% of live settingsI've heard recorded music is wonderful and much less fatiguing than a boomy concert hall full of coughing, sneezing, whispering humans distracting me from enjoying the vibes. Therefore, I own a very nice home system. (More comfortable chair too) LOL

 

More to discover