Most realistic recording...?

[Douglas Whates]

Hi,

There have been a couple of threads on Gearslutz showcasing reference/audiophile recordings, but I'm interested in seeking out the most realistic recordings - specifically recordings where you consider the sound spectrum to be as faithful to real life as possible.

I notice that a lot of audiophile recordings aren't necessarily realistic, but they are very striking, or lucious, or prettified or something. There is definitely a place for that, but I'm currently looking for something else.

So, what would you consider the most realistic recording? I'm looking for the sort of recording that, when played back on a linear monitoring system, the recorded presentation (particularly frequency content) feels very close to real events.

Looking forward to your responses.

Douglas.

[ISedlacek]

First of all - no recording is realistic and it can never be. It is just an imperfect attempt to capture the natural sound into two boxes or ear caps with a help of some electrical devices. The result is always far from realistic and also depends very much on the type of boxes or ear caps you listen on.

Second - due to the above mentioned nature of things, the attempt is always to compensate the lack of reality by some "beautifying", adding a new dimension that the realistic sound in a real space does not have. It does not matter whether it is 100% realistic (it cannot be), but it does matter whether it sounds nice, pleasant, inspiring, harmonious or not. And this is the only principal point to me ...

[Cornchuck]

Most realistic ....Bob Seger "Silver Bullet Live" ....that's as real as it gets.

[Douglas Whates]

I hear what your saying, Ivo, but it's not an aesthetic I agree with.

Originally Posted by ISedlacek

First of all - no recording is realistic and it can never be. It is just an imperfect attempt to capture the natural sound into two boxes or ear caps with a help of some electrical devices. The result is always far from realistic and also depends very much on the type of boxes or ear caps you listen on.

In fairness, I wasn't talking about something being real, but something being realistic - i.e. sounding as if it was real.

Originally Posted by ISedlacek

Second - due to the above mentioned nature of things, the attempt is always to compensate the lack of reality by some "beautifying", adding a new dimension that the realistic sound in a real space does not have. It does not matter whether it is 100% realistic (it cannot be), but it does matter whether it sounds nice, pleasant, inspiring, harmonious or not. And this is the only principal point to me ...

Well, this is something I have an issue with - I sometimes find this over beautification in recordings sickly sweet - like artificial sweetner.

[ISedlacek]

I cannot say it better than Mr. Plush did in another thread:

Originally Posted by Plush

But I'm am one who believes that, at least for orchestral recording, we are creating a sound which mirrors our fantasy of what the sound should be like. At the top rank, engineers and producers want to have fun with the products they offer up, and the finished playback is an enhanced fantasy which aims towards a "full impact, full pleasant-ness effect." One needs to embrace what we all know anyway. The recording is an illusion.

When I first started out, I wanted accuracy and much attention was paid to technical aspects and learning how they should be approached and how the parts of the system interacted. Now, in order to remain focused on the musical experience, and having chosen certain gear, I let it do its job and pay little or no attention to the equipment.

For us, making a mix of orchestral music from a multi-track always involves an analog console, multiple transformer boxes, tube boxes, and then piled on more transformer sound.
Different tweaked reverbs glue the whole.

The above is done to create listening interest in the final product and also to amuse and delight ourselves as the fantasy is pursued.

It is a way to stay interested in the business.
I find that one is more highly paid for creating a fantasy than for offering up an aural photograph.

As my colleague always says: the recording should sound BETTER than the reality. And that´s my basic recording philosophy too ...

[Douglas Whates]

Originally Posted by ISedlacek

As my colleague always says: the recording should sound BETTER than the reality. And that´s my basic recording philosophy too ...

Well, for this thread at least, I'm not interested in this philosophy.

[Douglas Whates]

And for the record, I wholeheartedly believe that it *is* possible to make a realistic recording and recreate it, given the right equipment.

[Russ (Al) Prat]

Can we steer the thread towards what would be the right equipment and recording environment? Or start a new one? I've always been curious, hypothetically speaking, because I would imagine it would require a large (read expensive) studio with good acoustic treatment to make it possible. But I wanted to ask about the feasibility of a 7.1 mic tree that could effectively translate the depth and width of the sound stage. Has anyone done anything like that?RAP

[andy_simpson]

Originally Posted by naturalstudio

And for the record, I wholeheartedly believe that it *is* possible to make a realistic recording and recreate it, given the right equipment.

Presumably you are talking about the possibility of a blind test where the subjects cannot pick real source from reproduction?

In this case, the test itself is absolutely critical.

From 1 mile away, an NS10 playing back a recording of a cello VS a real cello would probably give quite good results.

Reduce the distance incrementally and the results will change correspondingly, probably towards total failure at 10 metres or more, depending on the many other factors at play.

How would you design the test?

Andy

[Douglas Whates]

Okay, I don't want to sound abrupt here, but I wasn't really asking whether anyone thinks it's possible for a recording to sound indistiguishable from real events - I was merely asking for people to recommend recordings they consider to be the most realistic - i.e. as close to real sounding as possible.

[JEGG]

Originally Posted by naturalstudio

specifically recordings where you consider the sound spectrum to be as faithful to real life as possible.

The problem is that any recording is totally subjective and never realistic-even for the person performing or making the recording. And who's "realism" would be the base point?

One hears things differently day to day. And then there's the issue of how you're listening to the recording, and in what environment. And hearing always involves context, and often listening involves much more than what one takes in with their ears. The qualifications are endless.

A person who's never heard a live orchestra will have a very different sense of realism than one who hasn't. Same with any genre.

There are many people who have never heard an instrument that has not been recorded or amplified.

And in the case of an electronic instrument, what would be "realism"? The sound from the on board (if any) speakers, the sound from headphones, the sound of the instrument amplified? What about an electric guitar?

What about a singer with a big band? The singer would be amp'd, some or all of the band might be amped, what is "realism"? Many orchestras play with reinforcement in orchestra halls. What would be "realism?"

[Douglas Whates]

Originally Posted by andy_simpson

Presumably you are talking about the possibility of a blind test where the subjects cannot pick real source from reproduction?

In this case, the test itself is absolutely critical.

From 1 mile away, an NS10 playing back a recording of a cello VS a real cello would probably give quite good results.

Reduce the distance incrementally and the results will change correspondingly, probably towards total failure at 10 metres or more, depending on the many other factors at play.

How would you design the test?

Andy

The most realistic recordings I have heard tend to have been recorded in small spaces - perhaps because the brain is able to imagine the instrument is there in the listening space. Conversely, I'm yet to hear a recording in a large space where I truly felt I was there - I guess it's too hard to suspend disbelief and imagine yourself in a concert hall when you're in your living room.

[d_fu]

Originally Posted by naturalstudio

I was merely asking for people to recommend recordings they consider to be the most realistic - i.e. as close to real sounding as possible.

Dummy head recordings?

But what is real? The sound you hear in row 47 of a huge auditorium? Right in front ofthe performer in a small jazz club?

[Douglas Whates]

Originally Posted by JEGG

The problem is that any recording is totally subjective and never realistic-even for the person performing or making the recording. And who's "realism" would be the base point?

One hears things differently day to day. And then there's the issue of how you're listening to the recording, and in what environment. And hearing always involves context, and often listening involves much more than what one takes in with their ears. The qualifications are endless.

A person who's never heard a live orchestra will have a very different sense of realism than one who hasn't. Same with any genre.

I totally understand all this conjecture, but I 'm just looking for people to recommend to me what they consider to be the most realistic recording!

[Douglas Whates]

Originally Posted by d_fu

Dummy head recordings?

But what is real? The sound you hear in row 47 of a huge auditorium? Right in front ofthe performer in a small jazz club?

Either or, I suppose. Just realistic for what it is trying to convey.

[joelpatterson]

Okay, OKAY! Here's a recording of a high school jazz band playing the old standard.

This DOES sound just like it did.

[Douglas Whates]

Originally Posted by joelpatterson

Okay, OKAY! Here's a recording of a high school jazz band playing the old standard.

This DOES sound just like it did.

He he - very ironic :P

Actually, that's so bad, I struggle to believe it isn't a profesisonal band pretending to play really badly.

(Oh, and by the way - I don't think it's a particularly realistic recording.)

[joelpatterson]

Well... you asked for it...

[Studiodawg]

Location recordings are subject to humidity, air temperature and other physical factors- not to mention small variations in mic placement. I can record in the same hall with the same equipment and have one recording sound more "realistic" and another sound less so. Recently, a Diva said the recording was "so real", yet I hadn't really changed anything in my set up. It was certainly the contributing factors listed above that made one recording special and another just normal.

[Douglas Whates]

I'm getting all sorts of negative vibes from this thread. Why is realism such a bad thing? Unlike a lot of you (as it turns out) I often strive for making realistic recordings, and I don't think it's a fruitless effort. Sure, it might not sound as good as it could on low end playback systems, but it will sound great on higher end playback systems, and at my current stage as a sound recordist, that's what counts.

[Studiodawg]

As for commercially produced albums, I am at a loss for giving you a recommendation of realistic sound environments. I would trust anything recorded by Bob Katz (ie Paquito D'Rivera, etc.) as being realistic because Katz is a stickler for honest sound.

[JEGG]

Originally Posted by naturalstudio

I totally understand all this conjecture, but I 'm just looking for people to recommend to me what they consider to be the most realistic recording!

A fair point, and I didn't, in fact, answer your question!

My answer: every recording I've heard is equally "most realistic" and equally "least realistic."

Providing I heard the material "live" that was recorded, I can reconstruct reality from the 3 inch speaker in my mono table radio.

In that sense, every recording is my "most realistic" one since I could reconstruct reality from all of them.

And if I (or anyone else) didn't hear the "live" material recorded, then each recording, by default, would be the "most realistic" even if each recording was unrecognizably different. Even if parts weren't heard, vocals missing, etc., there would be no way of determining what the reality was. All the recordings would be "most realistic."

"Unreal" not just "least realistic:" Anything put together by layered multi tracking: The mix is something that never existed at the same time and place.

And anything that was multi mic'd? No realism there either. We only have two ears.....

Most realistic for me? Any recording made with a flat omni and an extended flat response figure of 8 mid level matched. Reason being: Live sound exists in "single points." The listener's head is at that point, and creates "stereo" from two ears and a head.

MS with omni most closely delivers that point. The listeners head provides delay and frequency shaping. But even that relies on speakers/monitors, amps, environment, etc. If the monitors were crossed slightly ahead of the usual listening position, more points are generally available with more accurate amplitude differences.

So, would I prefer everything be recorded that way? No. Other recording techniques are often more aesthetically pleasing and useful.

(About baffle recording techniques-which I like!-not accurate either-that's putting a head like object into the recording and playback chain twice-if the listening is done on monitors/speakers. Only the listeners head should be operative-that's why coincident techniques are most realistic for speakers/monitors.)

[nightscope]

Originally Posted by naturalstudio

I was merely asking for people to recommend recordings they consider to be the most realistic - i.e. as close to real sounding as possible.

Hi, Douglas,

Sure. Let's not get bogged down in the semantics of "realistic". It means something entirely different to different folks.

"The Who Live At Leeds". Sounds pretty "realistic" to me but I wasn't at the gig so who knows. Sonny Landreth's "Grant Street" is a superbly "realistic" representation of his performance in Lafayette. In no way does it come across as "prettified" or "beautified".

"The Trio Of Doom - Live", Tony Williams, Jaco Pastorius, John McLaughlin. Mildly "realistic".

Away from rock. Any Julian Bream recordings made in Wardour Castle's chapel.

Miles Davis - "The First Quintet", 1956. Wes Montgomery & Wynton Kelly Trio - "Smokin' At The Half Note", 1965.

The list is endless. Engineers have been making things sound very "realistic" while recording on wax cylinders tho tape to digital for generations. As I'm sure you're aware. To determine just how "realistic" would require one to be present at a given performance and then judge it against a listen to the recorded track. Which would be a purely subjective call. Obviously.

regards,

ns

[Studiodawg]

Thanks to Nightscope jogging my brain...Charles Mingus "Pithecanthropus Erectus" sounds like you could be on stage with the orchestra.

[nightscope]

Originally Posted by Studiodawg

Charles Mingus "Pithecanthropus Erectus"

Hi dawg,

Thanks. For nothing. :>. I guess I'll have to go get it. Never heard it. More expense!!

I like new old music.

ns

[Jim vanBergen]

Originally Posted by d_fu

But what is real?

I agree with Daniel on this question. Reality is subjective, to the recordist, the performer, and every one of the viewer/audience members.

As an engineer, I want to capture reality. Like a photographer, I want to control the viewer's experience, and emphasize certain strong parts, while downplaying any weakness in the performance, hall, or recording chain.

[JEGG]

Originally Posted by Jim vanBergen

As an engineer, I want to capture reality. Like a photographer, I want to control the viewer's experience, and emphasize certain strong parts, while downplaying any weakness in the performance, hall, or recording chain.

When you "control the viewer's experience, and emphasize certain strong parts, while downplaying any weakness in the performance, hall, or recording chain", that is not "captur[ing] reality."

I hope it's obvious that I'm playing devil's advocate here. My own goals are the same as Jim's!

[d_fu]

Originally Posted by JEGG

And anything that was multi mic'd? No realism there either. We only have two ears.....

This equation is a bit too simple, IMHO... Mics don't hear the way ears do.

[boojum]

Following this thread makes me think the best recordist is going to be a lot like a master portraitist. To capture the person exactly, but to also make them look wonderful, without it being noticeable. So, too, the recordist. And that is the magic the really great ones get paid the big bucks for.

[aracu]

An mp3 was posted a couple weeks ago recorded with the Neumann dummy
head, sounded very realistic through headphones, giving a sense of how
far the instruments were from each other and from the listener.

Some recording situations are better off with electronic manipulation for esthetic
reasons, although others can benefit by sounding as true to the original source
as possible.

For that type of recording probably a simple, high quality recording chain in a very
good sounding space is desirable, with musicians that produce a good mix of volumes
together.