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
ditusa's avatar
ditusa
2,386 posts
 

@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

wolf_garcia
6,885 posts
 

Stereo mics for orchestral usually but otherwise the soundstage is engineered by the sound mixing...panning...Knob Turner.

 

bolong
962 posts
 

"We are increasingly likely to find ourselves in places with background music. No composers have thought to write for these modern spaces, which represent 30% of our musical experience."

Brian Eno

elliottbnewcombjr
7,700 posts
 

@bruce19 

"You could not pinpoint the location of the violin as you might expect you could on a good recording of the same work!"

The key is live, acoustic, no mics: non-recorded; non-amplified.

They could have left it unamplified, but recorded it with mics hither and thither. Attending the acoustic performance, it would sound to you as it did: but the recording of that performance could definitely have excellent imaging, depth .... soundstage,

depending on IF ’they knew what they were doing’.

And, depending on IF your system/space can present it well.

erik_squires
17,537 posts
 

Well, now we are getting into a more nuanced discussion.  The "wall of sound" developed by Phil Spector was never "realistic."  Certainly an 8' wide left to right recording of the piano keys is something you'd never experience in real life. 

I also take exception to the idea that all of us want a live recreation of music all the time.  Most of the time I DO NOT.  Live dynamic range reproduction of The Cult is just not what I need most of the time. 

One last thing, and this will make some of you apoplectic... the most objectively neutral speakers tend to suffer in terms of perceived imaging, though they tend to reproduce live jazz/orchestral imaging more ACCURATELY. 

BTW, I take no position on what you should strive for or like.  Your money, your sacrifice, get a system that you like to enjoy, but there are a lot of times when the claim is that a listener is striving for ultimate realism... and they aren't.  

More to discover