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

I've argued this many times.  The reality of live orchestral music does NOT yield the hyper accurate positioning that audiophiles crave.   It is NOT actually "realistic."  I am reminded of Japanese director Kurosawa who added smoke to a live volcano.  His point was that while filming you could literally feel the heat of the volcano, but theater goers would not so the smoke would compensate for the lack of somatic sensation.   

I think it's fine to look for a system that makes up for the lack of visual information, but don't blame the live orchestra for not imaging well enough! :) 

@erik_squires  So glad you tuned into this discussion, I was thinking of you as I listened to the Occasional Sound podcast  I referenced above when William Low, founder of Audioquest mind you, stated that Furman made the only power conditioner worth anything for the home listener. Now with that I risk derailing my own discussion.

So to get us back @8th-note  

We are kidding ourselves if we think that the goal of our systems is to recreate the live experience

My thought is that this is possible but it is inextricably tied up with what we are listening to. Solo guitar (acoustic)and  singer, absolutely possible to get close to live with a fairly modest system.  The liberating thing about this is that genres like Rock, Pop, electronic that never existed in a "live" space freedom to be listened to on any system with equal validity because the listener and their choice of playback device are participating in the creative act. They are "freeing" the music from it’s electronic encapsulation. 

So there are instances where some of us want to be fooled into thinking we are listening to a live performance. It can be done with limitations, but there are many others, if not most, where we can free ourselves of the audiophile bs that we are missing something. No, we are creating something along with all the other who contributed to that particular recording.

@elliottbnewcombjr Another pet peeve is when they record/present a Piano full keyboard left to right, like the biggest piano in the world. Ridiculous.

I am with you bro' but I guess it is a representation of what it sounds like to the pianist, eh?

@lubachl Wrote:

One aspect of live performances that most recordings cannot match however, are micro dynamics.  That is one reason I prefer high efficiency horns for my home system over conventional speakers.

I agree!

Mike