One question that always pops into my head when listening to my headphones is that what I'm listening to while amazingly detailed, doesn't represent reality in most cases. The more I think about it the less time I spend listening during that session. (Couldn't find a better forum for this question; apologies for those who require them.)
The issue at hand seems to be in the recording practices used by studios for vocal and small ensemble, and to a lesser, but still existent degree pure electronic works. When I listen to music with vocals, most times the singer is mic'd very close usually within a foot. This sounds good on speakers because you want the origination of the sound to be at the position of your speaker, but this often sounds quite bad with headphones. I feel as though a close mic'd vocalist is singing as though they were filling a music hall, but at a distance of 1 foot from my ear. Volume isn't an issue because that is easily fixed, but the acoustics and detail (too much!!) is significantly wrong.
This effect is less noticeable with instruments, especially acoustic, but still quite glaring. The reason for the reduction has to be from the practice of instruments being mic'd from further away more regularly than vocals. Guitars with overly accurate scratchings and brushes of the hand moving against the body; Clarinets and Saxaphones (among others) with, to greater and lesser degrees, key clicks; Brass instruments with such piercing force as to deafen you even at low volumes; These are all examples of what I am referring to.
Now many might say "Hey that's the real stuff there, man. Just cause you can't hear it from the audience doesn't make it less accurate. I prefer it be there because it makes me feel inside the music", which is perfectly acceptable from a personal preference standpoint, but from a recreation of a concert or even small chamber setting, this is wholly inaccurate. You would not hear the key clicks, the passing of air through the lips of a singer, the rubbing of the hand on a guitar even in a living room setting.
On the other hand we have recordings of large ensembles which by their very bulk necessitate distance micing. These recordings, to me, represent far more accurate, more interesting, and simply more fun music to listen to. Almost all classical music fits into this category, many large jazz groups and choral groups land here also. I never realized why I prefer listening to these types of recordings more than others until I put words to these feelings I'm describing in this thread. Surely in a large orchestra there are all the aspects I described above with the miscellaneous noises, yet the audience does not hear them, but it doesn't make it less real.
I wonder if the recording industry would ever change to group micing even very small ensembles such as rock bands of 3-8 players from a respectable distance of at least 5 feet to give the recording better depth and less clutter. I'm not an expert in recording studio design, but I have a feeling many of the recording rooms are sound proof, with heavily damped walls, floors and ceilings to give the clearest recording possible. To me the best recordings are usually those done in a less than sterile place, with group distanced micing and all players active at the same time.
Does anyone have any thoughts on this topic?
edit: Case in point - Brubeck's Time Out, which many consider to be a great recording, was recorded as seen in these pictures, yet remain intimate without extreme detail from clicks, brushes, etc.
The issue at hand seems to be in the recording practices used by studios for vocal and small ensemble, and to a lesser, but still existent degree pure electronic works. When I listen to music with vocals, most times the singer is mic'd very close usually within a foot. This sounds good on speakers because you want the origination of the sound to be at the position of your speaker, but this often sounds quite bad with headphones. I feel as though a close mic'd vocalist is singing as though they were filling a music hall, but at a distance of 1 foot from my ear. Volume isn't an issue because that is easily fixed, but the acoustics and detail (too much!!) is significantly wrong.
This effect is less noticeable with instruments, especially acoustic, but still quite glaring. The reason for the reduction has to be from the practice of instruments being mic'd from further away more regularly than vocals. Guitars with overly accurate scratchings and brushes of the hand moving against the body; Clarinets and Saxaphones (among others) with, to greater and lesser degrees, key clicks; Brass instruments with such piercing force as to deafen you even at low volumes; These are all examples of what I am referring to.
Now many might say "Hey that's the real stuff there, man. Just cause you can't hear it from the audience doesn't make it less accurate. I prefer it be there because it makes me feel inside the music", which is perfectly acceptable from a personal preference standpoint, but from a recreation of a concert or even small chamber setting, this is wholly inaccurate. You would not hear the key clicks, the passing of air through the lips of a singer, the rubbing of the hand on a guitar even in a living room setting.
On the other hand we have recordings of large ensembles which by their very bulk necessitate distance micing. These recordings, to me, represent far more accurate, more interesting, and simply more fun music to listen to. Almost all classical music fits into this category, many large jazz groups and choral groups land here also. I never realized why I prefer listening to these types of recordings more than others until I put words to these feelings I'm describing in this thread. Surely in a large orchestra there are all the aspects I described above with the miscellaneous noises, yet the audience does not hear them, but it doesn't make it less real.
I wonder if the recording industry would ever change to group micing even very small ensembles such as rock bands of 3-8 players from a respectable distance of at least 5 feet to give the recording better depth and less clutter. I'm not an expert in recording studio design, but I have a feeling many of the recording rooms are sound proof, with heavily damped walls, floors and ceilings to give the clearest recording possible. To me the best recordings are usually those done in a less than sterile place, with group distanced micing and all players active at the same time.
Does anyone have any thoughts on this topic?
edit: Case in point - Brubeck's Time Out, which many consider to be a great recording, was recorded as seen in these pictures, yet remain intimate without extreme detail from clicks, brushes, etc.
