natural sounding artifice?

As a tangent to the mp3 thread; what is a 'natural' artificial sound and given that it is artificial, should it even be expected to sound natural?

What I mean is: reproduced sound is artificial, we know that.

But, for some at least, the aim of home hi-fi is to have a 'natural' sounding system. This may mean one that is faithful to the sound of the original instruments but within the constraints of plucking that sound from it's original context (assuming it had one) and dropping them into a entirely different space.

To me the difference between the two files was that one sounded more artificial than the other and I therefore assumed that that was the mp3.

But artificial (in this context) might also mean better suited to it's playing environment. When I'm preparing images for the web some use of unsharp mask makes for a 'better' jpeg on screen. My thought on the mp3 was that it had had some unsharp mask applied.

 

I think it is just a question of preference but there are undoubtedly some additions or distortions that are more objectionable than others.

Then of course there is the question of replaying music in your home as it might have sounded in the studio, or having it processed into a 'nice' sounding little package.
I think many people wouldn't like a warts n all studio presentation in their home - they want the edges burnished away and a little sweetness to balance the sour.

To continue the food theme further, most people will agree on the basics for a tasty curry, or a traditional roast, or whatever, but people add seasoning to taste.
So it is with audio - good technical design gets you about 70% down the road and then it comes down to preference.

Something else to consider.
Play a natural recording of a full orchestra as heard from the listening seat in the concert hall and most audiophiles will find it unacceptably bland and dull.
Add some spot miking on individual instruments and adjust the balance and you'll get a more favourable reaction. In this instance it comes down to reality verses hi-fi attributes. Hi-Fi could once be taken literally to mean faithfulness to the original but today has a quit difference meaning IMO. For me it is now synonymous with impressive.

But there is nothing wrong with any approach.

 

But does that necessarily mean natural = un-impressive?

I'm coming round to thinking that the impressive stuff is there to cover up the fact that doing the natural bit well is actually not that easy.

To come back to the cooking: either you can source really good ingredients: well reared meats, freshly grown veg etc. and cook them sensitively so as to preserve their natural flavours then let these flavours do the work. Or at the opposite extreme pay no attention to the base ingredients but use lots of spice and flavouring to make a tasty dish; indeed in the days before fridges and freezers and ingredients air freighted from around the world this is how we used to cook in England.

To come back to this

Does that mean that the recording and playback process is loosing a huge amount, or that there are a great many other factors at play when we witness a live performance, or that it is our own expectations which are the real issue?

 

I absolutely agree with this. Went to a concert about 6 months ago, in a seating position reccomended by a classical music fan - GrahamN who use to be round these parts.

As you say, compared to a recording I found the overall sound 'effusive' - reminiscent in hifi terms of an omni directional speaker. As you say to me this was a bland , dull experience, I was watching my watch!!

In terms of adding artifice, well live music is so often music which has been mic'd up, amplified, and played through the resident sound system.

If we prefer this, it's not really a question of ''removing veils'' to use that old hifi cliche, rather that we prefer a certain sound and whether or not that is ''high fidelity'' is a matter open to debate.

 

On the other hand, I've got more out of listening to a single voice from the very back of the very top tier* of the Royal Opera House than I ever have from a recording.


*ie. Amphitheatre above the Balcony, Grand Tier, Stalls Circle and Orchestra Stalls

 

The Royal Opera House has one the best and most natural acoustics I have ever heard. There seems to be no where within the theatre it doesn't work. I have stopped going to the Colliseum to see the ENB and ENO as the acoustic is OK but just not up to the ROH. The ROH never leaves me without tears of joy and emotion at some point in the performance.

EDIT :- actually there was one occassion the Colliseum threw me into an emotional reaction and that was a visit by the Kirov and the Mariinski Orchestra, but that was because compared with them we Brits are just amatuers. Everyone talks about the Bolshoi but they are largely now just a tourist attraction where as the Kirov is still *the* business.

 

Richard you should give the Sage a bash, the acoustics are exceptional.

 

The Barbican uses a reinforcing PA (and it can also be used for recordings) because the Barbican is a bit of a dissaster acoustically so it uses in fill from speakers at strategic points. They have semi direction L and R with a central omni and they mix for different points in the auditorium. These mics hang from the roof above the stage.

 

This is where I must dissagree with you as it was the experience of the Royal Opera House and other excellent acoustics like the Paris Opera and even the Albert Hall (which is far from the best) that got me designing semi-omni speakers in the first place. I really do not like this television screen of sound that normal speakers give you between the speakers, and even worse for me is the in your face effects of horns.