For the true concert hall experience it would be necessary to inject coughing into the recording. At a couple of concerts I decided to count the number of coughs in the audience, and the number in Rattle's Band, and _per capita_ , audience members were about 100 times more likely to cough than a musician, so I concluded that playing an instrument improved health.

audiophiles don't listen to music, they listen to equipment!

For the longest time, my only version of Led Zeppelin's Physical Graffiti was a needle-drop I had made of the vinyl on cassette. Eventually, I got the CD but all of the sudden it had a different impact on me for some reason. I chalked it up to the change in format and eventually got used to the way it sounded even though something ate away at me just a tiny bit every time I listened -- it barely registered but it was still there. A couple of years ago, I dug out my old cassette deck and hooked it up to my system and found a box of recorded cassettes I had been holding onto. That needle-drop was among them and it eventually found its way into the deck. The second Custard Pie started playing I felt something click back into place and I couldn't quite figure it out right away. But all of the sudden, it felt just...well, right. I listened through right to the end with the joy that only comes from rediscovery but still I was taken aback at how a needle-drop on a crappy Memorex cassette somehow sounded better than every other version I owned. I switched over to the CD and finally it hit me -- my needle-drop was playing the album slower. It was almost imperceptible, but enough for part of my brain to pick it up. Turns out the version of the album I had fallen in love with all those years ago was actually "wrong". Everything is subjective when it comes down it, man.

"Like a demented frog with a substance abuse problem" You are one hilarious Man. That had me, thanks.

audio enjoyers: I use your equipment to enjoy the music of others. "audiophiles": I use your music to enjoy my equipment.

I want to tell you a story that, in my opinion, fits the theme of your channel very well. Once upon a time, in the seventies of the last century, in the Soviet Union there lived a man who really liked the performance of a famous pianist. He followed him during his tours and recorded his performance on his old tape recorder right in the concert hall. I think it was even a monophonic tape recorder. It is not at all difficult to guess that the sound quality on these recordings was below average, but due to the fact that the performance itself was very good, it can be said Talented no one cared about the sound quality. I have two records of Beethoven's Fifth Symphony, one is new and the other is old. Music from an old worn-out record instantly evokes emotions for me. Music does not touch at all. Of course, the performers and recordings on both records are different. I often listen to the old record and never listen to the new one. Audiophilia should be fun! As soon as audiophilia starts to hurt, get rid of it! Don't suffer from Audiophilia - it's wrong!

I heard the dancing clarinet the first time through... but given the playful nature of the piece, I took it as a special effect. But David and Betty are right, if the goal is to reproduce a concert via home replay it is indeed a fault. Special effects should never be added to "accurate" recordings. 1:45 ... David is correct that most audiophiles treat their recordings as perfect. A reasonable person might be astonished to know how much money has been spent over one recording that isn't perfect. When doing service calls, I would sometimes get called in to solve problems with "bad sound quality", only to find out the call was about one song or one album out of hundreds that sounded just fine. "Why doesn't this sound right" ... And you might even be surprised to learn that _"Because it's a bad recording"_ was not an acceptable answer. These audiophile guys actually expected me to fix their systems so it did sound okay... which, of course, would have disastrous results for literally all of their other recordings at which point my bosses would get a call complaining that I screwed up their systems. Then, when I declined to make changes to their systems, they would call and complain that I refused them service. Unlike audiophiles when I was younger today's batch are truly some strange little hamsters. Where one either brought some technical skill into the hobby or acquired it soon after, todays breed are technically ignorant to a level I would never have imagined back then. Many don't even know the most rudimentary things, like the difference between AC and DC or the simple math of Ohm's law. But even worse, a goodly number have set any real skill aside, choosing instead to believe the magical pseudoscience of "high end" companies marketing departments and the bumbling appraisals of marketing touts come product reviewers. If you've ever noticed that most of the truly expensive audiophile products can be installed without tools you know how well these snake oil vendors have read their markets. Of course, like any conglomeration of individuals with only one common interest, the audiophile group has it's high priests as well. By and large these self-deified advocates of consumer victimization boldly spout the made up science of dubious vendors and decry the well established understandings of how stuff actually works. My favourite line is "Science is a lie. My ears know best" ... Ignoring, of course, that it is science itself that gave them the objects of their displaced worship, to begin with. But, worship is like that. Nobody wants to believe their gods are imperfect or their enthrallment is less than brilliant. Strange little hamsters, indeed.

I think perhaps you were a bit reductio ad clickbaitum at the outset. On good headphones, yes, it does seem like the clarinetist is dancing a drunken jig. On a well spec'ed monitoring setup, though, in a decently non-intrusive room, it manifests more like vagueness of image--a kind of blobby swimminess. It reads like what you get when you set up a spaced-pair of omnis at a close-mid distance, without either spot mics or a closer coincident pair mixed in for imaging specificity. It's obvious to an audio engineer but not a "civilian" listener--audiophile or not--for two reasons, I suspect. First, the surrounding players mask the effect, which would have been obvious had our dancing soloist been alone in the performing space. Second, and I think more important, laser-etched imaging does not exist in the live concert experience. As you noticed at concert hall, you can locate players broadly left-to-right and back-to-front, but not the same way a spot-mic'ed, pan-potted, properly time-aligned recording can place them on the virtual stage. As you also noticed, if live performances and the entire live auditory experience aren't the ultimate in imaging specificity, they are unmistakable by their tonality. And in my limited recording experience, and extensive listening experience, that more than anything is what most listeners notice most. Especially unprompted. Audiophiles (and civilians) tend to forgive soundstage errors (even though, yeah, audiophiles *say* they exalt it) as long as the recording doesn't commit gross tonal sins. This is why spaced-omni or spaced-cardioid records from the classic era--Mercury, early RCA, Telarc, Decca--sold well and are treasured today, despite their less than pinpoint imaging. It's also why Decca's best, WIlkinson et al, never abandoned the Tree, and took exceeding care when using spot-mics to keep the faders on them barely cracked open, so as not to ruin the spaced-omni tonality. Contrarywise, it's why Decca Phase IV never really appealed. They had pan-potted imaging, but bizarre, comb-filtery, unearthly tonality. It's why, at least in my hypothesis here, your clip didn't raise many suspicions. Not because audiophiles are fakers, but because the overall sound of the recording, not to mention the anodyne nature of the composition, was tonally pleasing. Anyway, my tuppence. (Thruppence?)

Ha! Second row promenader ! Pa ! I'm a front row stander :-) As I said ( twice ) a real recording is a stereo pair - no spot mics at all - really close to the back of the conductor. The curse of a mixing desk has plagued me all my life. I once was allowed in to the sound recording and mixing room at the Royal Albert Hall, while Sir Adrian Bolt was rehearsing 'The Planets'. The audio mic master - the human at the desk, first let me hear a stereo pair set at my perfect position. It was wonderful ! Perfectly reproducing what I actually used to hear standing front row and as close to center as I could get ( by queueing all day - not pushing in ). But then... he started adding spot mics, it got worse and worse - artificial dreadfulness, pulling my ears apart all over the sound stage. The killer blow was dealt when he added what he called 'atmos ' - mics at the back of the hall ! What was he trying to do - kill the sound entirely? It ended up sounding as if I was in the stalls with a tube pointing at the leader of each orchestral section. I may have cried. A hateful experience. The sound chap was really proud of his work though, as was the BBC presumably. Nothing beats attending in real life. Ambisonics get close though.

It seems like some sort of widener was used vs an autopanner on just the flute mic. You can also hear the string section pop inside out randomly. After checking the album as well, you can hear this on every single track... It seems like a "thought out" creative decision vs a random mistake.

Well, different live concert recording engineers have different philosophy and the sound field in a concert hall is also slightly different depending on which row you are seated at. Maybe there should be binaural recordings made at the most expensive seat in a concert.

In graphics design there's also something similar. When a designer gets the option fever and wants to use all the effects photoshop/illustrator/indesign and printing 6 pantones with gloss finish and metallic ink offers, it can and likely will get in the way of the message he or she was asked to get across to the readers. Presentation is key. In audio, if something stands out more than the music itself you run the risk of overshooting your goals, depending on the axiom of course. If the theme is frolicking, prancing and dancing around the stage in an explosion of gaiety then the played clip makes sense. Still this unnatural amount of the solo instrument bouncing around is a bit jarring to my ears, it suddenly appears from one end and then the other creating a discontinuous motion that surprises you but not in a good way. It distracts from the score that was carefully crafted by the composer.

A bit hard to notice for myself, but what I did notice was that the instrument made a greater appearance on the left side of the headphone and some on the right and occasionally fluttered around.

I've been enlightened, entertained and trolled simultaneously.

you're getting more followers by telling them they're wrong - impressive!

I heard the "problem" through my laptop speakers. RCA Victor did some wacky instrument movement tricks with its Stereo Action LPs, of which I own a few. Their recording engineers seemed to have suddenly discovered pan pots and made excessive use of them.

My idea of a true audiophile experience is having the playback sound as close as possible to what it would sound like if the source of the recording was in the room with you.

Thank you for another cold shower. :o :) You carry a lot of useful information in these videos along with the lament. I confess to being guilty of enjoying it every time you say 'audiophile'. :)

perhaps i’m deaf but the clarinet in the “problem” clip didn’t really jump around all that much. they were always located in the left stage. I noticed more some slight rustling in the right stage barely audible

I am a listener with a pretty decent hi fi system. I heard the problem immediately. I prefer it when instrument's and performers are placed firmly where they are meant to be in the sound stage. Of course this does not apply to studio productions of 'popular ' music. Using the stereo stage for EFFECT is allowable particularly in prog rock productions.

It doesn't matter if we're all wrong if the end result is still pleasing to our ears. I also commented on the first video that I could hear the problem but still liked it. The "dancing clarinet" matches the playful character of the song. Let's just consider this a 'happy accident' in the recording. I am not saying this should become a trend. Stuff like the loudness war (and the overall quality of pop music these days) is a lot more annoying.

I had my Kali Audio IN-8 pair about three feet behind me in a few feet apart, and I did notice this wandering Clarinet, but I couldn't put my finger on what to label it, until you said it, weird.

ok... For the previous video and the music sequence, with a cellphone headphone attached to an ordinary laptop I captured that the clarinet was moving all the time. But I didn't think that it was a fault; instead I thought that with the dispersion of the clarinet sound the artist tried to create a much more cheerful atmosphere, as the sound moved all around like a butterfly.

Over my head. If you're this picky it must be awful hard to just enjoy the music.

i don't really care if any of these things are problems :D but what i do know is that the more you play the so-called "problem clip" the more i want to actually stand in this forest and listen to this tune in person

Some rock bands from the seventies created much hilarity by having instruments moving about all over the place. Tubular Bells starts with each instrument in its own space before it wanders over to join its brethren. Supertramp, Pink Floyd to name two, had as much dexterity on the mixing board as they did on their instruments and nobody seemed to mind. As my system has improved, the image between the speakers has solidified considerably, however, that has been of less import to me than the ability to follow the melodies played by each instrument or voice. Having a wide and deep soundstage offers greater space between the individual sounds, making the ability to follow the tunes that much easier. Great tone, also matters and as artefacts have been removed, it has been possible to lift the volume somewhat, lending more impact without fatigue. I would find a dancing clarinet a distraction. I often question why the piano is close miked across several channels with the result that it sounds like you’re standing directly behind the pianist and the sound is moving left to right with the scale!

I did not hear it as a problem when hearing your first video about it. But of course, after you told us what to look out for it was easy to spot. The problem is, like many, I don’t have a problem with it! It is just a creative decision made in the mixing and mastering process, not very drastic but tasteful, adding to the liveliness of the piece. I am used to listen to a lot of modern music where such things are very common and the mixing is always an integral part of the creative process of creating the recording. I would not call myself an audiophile either, I just enjoy decent headphones and equipment when listening to recordings and tend not to like the cheapest stuff. I also prefer listening to stereo recordings in stereo or rather 2.1, saving the multi speaker setup for the multi speaker recordings. I also bought a great little gizmo to remove the standing waves from my sub while being able to place it in the room corner. Apart from that, I mostly just enjoy listening without being too critical.

I love learning about the context of what I can/ can’t likely hear.. what the gear is doing…

For the true concert hall experience, we would need two dozen speakers to blast against a wall and have the sound rebound on it to the listener. Sooooooo......

Disclaimer: I don't listen to classical music so my experience with live recordings and even studio albums probably gives me a bias toward a different style of production (if that makes sense). I think it's interesting that your standard is the realism of the experience when I'm looking for an abstract experience. Even with concert recordings, I'm not imagining the performance or feeling like I'm there. I'm either physically feeling the music or having abstract daydreams play out. I appreciate you sharing your perspective because it never even occurred to me that people would imagine they're at a show despite that making perfect sense. It definitely helps me understand the negative reactions people will have to live recordings or even the performance if they are attending it. For instance, many folks want the music to sound just like the album version. Or at least as close as possible. Anyway, liking and subscribing!

The recording of the clarinet was not wrong. The stereo mixing was wrong. Clarinet stereo width should have been very, very narrow in the overall mix. In my studio, I can put any signal, any part where ever I want, and do whatever to it. Good judgement makes a good mix and final recording. Just my opinion... Good video. Thanks.

That Final Axiom you presented is precisely correct. (Which means you're also wrong lol) Well done. Good video, great response.

Let's face it, audiophilia is not always about the enjoyment of music. For many it is a hobby of stats, specs and very expensive toys such as amps, headphones, speakers, DACs, cables, power conditioners... 🙂

I heard the clarinet problem. I also heard the over-compressed sound quality and lack of depth in the ambience...

Well, outside the critical distance in a concert hall it is more or less impossible to determine directions of sound. Espacially the low frequencies come from everywhere, not only in theory but also in practical experience. And even if we could hear directions; the angle of where the musicians move is so small from a listener in the concert hall, that it wouldn't be possible to notice in an anechoic chamber either.

I find the dancing clarinet a lot less annoying than squashed dynamics and brick wall limiting. They are much bigger faults and yet they are deliberate.

That's the least of the problems. I'm an engineer and this is just a hobby for me. 50 years ago I developed a straightforward method for mathematically modeling, measuring, analyzing, and engineering sound fields with great accuracy. While no two concert halls, no two seats in the same concert hall, no two performances of the same music by the same performers heard in the same seat produce the same sound field, they all have aspects in common that are radically different from the sound fields produced by hi fi recordings heard in a home. The fields are measurably and audibly very different. It isn't the recordings that are wrong, it's the conceptual theory behind the engineering approach that is fatally flawed. No matter how much effort, skill, and money is thrown at this approach it will always fail. The result is a dull flat sounding pale lifeless immitation of the real thing. I've met many of the gurus of this industry and read and heard what others have to say. Frankly IMO none of them have the mental chops to understand the problem let alone solve it.

My axiom is that musicians know how microphones work. If the soloist moved between the two microphones, then that was their intention. I'd say most artists have intentions we dislike so we only listen to the handful of artists we do like

Just because a picture frame on a wall is like window, it is not necessary for it to contain a photograph of a landscape to be “correct”.

I'm not an expert or anything but... From my perspective, if you wanted the most pure replication of a concert hall experience, you could just put an expensive binural mic in the location where people would normally sit. I'd bet the recording would be a cool gimmick for a while but no one would prefer that over what we currently do. I believe that the goal with using many mics to record each individual instrument is to allow someone to master it afterwards and produce a more well rounded balanced song. I really enjoy music that allows instruments to move locations within a 3D soundspace. They make me want to move with the music and make me feel more immersed. The slight movements of the clarinet in this piece makes me feel the same way. At the end of the day, it's all in the eyes of the producer. There's a perfect video example of what I'd call one of the most immersive musical audios that uses movement. Doubt anyone will read this comment but if ya wanna check it out, it's called: 3D Sound - Binural Recording of a Musical Performance on youtube.

In my headphones, I hear a distant orchestra and a giant clarinet. Lat year I sat 5m away from the conductor in a small hall, listening to performances of music by the Scottish Chamber Orchestra, one of the pieces was Copland’s Clarinet Concerto . I could hear a great deal of detail from the clarinet playing but, in your examples, as most music, the close placement of the microphone captures too much detail. This places the listeners virtual ear inches from the instrument. I used to play and still own a clarinet, so I know what it sounds like at zero distance, and it is not the same as at 5 m away, or even more so at 15m back in a hall. The proximity effect in recording gets worse with percussive sounds such as guitar strings being plucked, piano,etc..

If the engineer want us to focus on the notes coming out of the instrument. he would have used an "in-instrument mic". What I think Audiophiles like this recording is because it capture the movement of the person playing the instrument. It is NOT static, and they consider it a good thing. Technically speaking if we are to capture a "dancing performer" of an instrument we have 2x option. 1. He/She do not dance and play as static as possible. 2. The Mic dance with it, you place the microphone in the instrument, on from of their amplifier, you try to control the gain to compensate for the "movement". Now on a recording we do not want that, we want to heard the movement of the musician, it is called the human factor.

With old ears and damaged hearing I don't profess to be an audiophile. I listened to the clarinet (with headphones} and thought perhaps that there separate instruments were making the sound. I didn't identify this as a problem.

I heard it. The problem is extremely obvious. My first reaction was to wonder if my speakers were out of phase. The positioning of the instrument was very wacky from a subjective point of view.

Thank you for the follow up. I just found your channel, so I missed the party, but I am definitely one of those who agreed with you that the original recording is flawed. I'm not an audiophile, never claimed to be, but I do have a strong background in live pro audio...and that kind of movement from a static sound source simply isn't heard when sitting in the audience. A live recording should give me the experience of being there as it was recorded, as closely as possible anyways.

The funny thing is that I listened to that audio from that video on my PHONE while in bed about to go to sleep (I oriented the phone in front of me horizontally so I would hear it in stereo) and I heard what he was talking about IMMEDIATELY!!! I think it's because I have been a recording engineer for many years so I have always been on the lookout for problems.

Concert Hall experience can be replicated. In a purpose built dedicated two channel near field listening chamber with room treatment and room correction. 😊

I listened to it on my hi fi stereo in my home. Big difference from my car. I had to put the speakers really close and angle them in. This recording sounds great to my ears. I do not consider myself to be an audiophile but I do like to listen to music on a good stereo system. The movement of the artists is not quite noticeable to me but you can hear it if you listen closely. I’ve played records that seemed to place instruments on a stage in front of me. It’s like I can tell where the drummer is sitting and where the bass guitar is sitting as if they are on stage in front of me. I get this from a vintage stereo system.

Axioms: an adjacent issue is that of live v studio recordings, and the role of editing. Many (most?) classical performers feel that the presence of an audience brings a quality of communication that is absent in the studio. Herbert von Karajan, however, held that studio recording and editing allows a level of 'technical' perfection that he considered desirable. By 'technical', he mostly meant eliminating mistakes, poor intonation etc, i.e. musical technique - but he also meant correcting poor balance, eliminating extraneous noise etc, i.e. recording technique. Glenn Gould went further, retiring from live performance altogether to concentrate on studio recording; he thought that editing was fine. What's my point? Probably that even great musicians disagree on what a recording 'should' achieve. The corollary is perhaps that a true audiophile might prize a perfect recording of a mediocre performance over a poor recording of a superb performance? ('Discuss' - while I retreat behind the sofa for my own safety!)

I subscribe to the Peter Walker quote: "the perfect amplifier is a straight wire with gain". Whatever a recording is in its best available delivered form, is what it is. Add nothing, take nothing away, just (hopefully) relax and enjoy the music. If this makes me an audiophile, so be it. 😶 However, I neither claim to be one, nor aspire to be characterized as one. 99% of the time I listen to studio recordings of (relatively) modern music. This, as opposed to recordings of "live" stage performances of any artist or genre. So for me any perceived movements between the two channels are simply part of the final recording as it was intended to be, and I pay them no mind. But yes indeed, a clarinet player leaping wildly from side to side on the stage in front of an orchestra would be quite a sight to behold. Therefore, if the goal of the recording is to accurately reproduce the experience of being in the audience, such recording-induced movements are not a good thing. Unless of course the clarinet player was in fact bouncing back and forth on a trampoline at the time... 🤔

The thought of a solo instrument's sound coming from different positions at times and points where that sound is actually embellished by the apparent proximity to another complementary sound is interesting and adds another layer of experience. A gifted mixer could do wonderful things.

Spot mics have their place, but definitely not to reproduce a 'live' experience. During lockdown orchestral recordings were transmitted with each section individually mic'ed. I loved that sound - it gave a composer's ear view of the music. Full detail of all the notes and their interrelation. Wonderful, not a 'live' reproduction of being there with just two ears, a totally different thing. The most important thing though is for people to play and enjoy music in whatever way they can.

Your argument requires that the axiom "the sound should reflect that what the audience in the concert hears" to be true, I'd argue that this is false, factors like where you are seated, to the back, to the side, up front, under a chandelier, etc. will affect what the experience is, if any of those experiences differ from each other then you can not say that there is a true reflection of the experience, only that it is a partial reflection of the experience. I'd argue that the best experience is about where the conductor is, in that case I'd bet you would be able to here the movement.

Audiophillia is having a system good enough that you don’t enjoy recordings, got it

it sounds like a doppler shift "spinning point source" post recording dynamic amplitude effect.

There is an immense amount to learn…

The major problem I find is that since they used two microphones, quite close microphones, now clarinet have it own sound stage in front of the orchestra. In the 50s and early the 60s when for the entire recording they will use no more than 5/6 microphones this will never happen. Nowadays they use much more microphones than is really necessary. In fact this is not the only recording where the soloist is captured on 2/3 microphones and end up with the soloist having a full width presence, usually with a little bit of reverb on the side channels.

This isn't really an "audiophile' issue though. It's a recording and sound engineering issue if it is one at all, and I don't think it is. Also, those Atomos tracks exist. Though they are a bit less random about jumping around than is implied here. They deliberately use positional sound to create an intentional effect to place music around the listener. Sometimes what you're going for with a recording is something you can't get from a live performance. The entire point is to do that. Other times you're trying to get as close to a live performance as possible. It is a preference thing, but it's also art, so sometimes playing around with the medium is the point. Artists have been messing with this since stereo existed, Stix did this with high fi stereo with the "Kilroy Was Here" album back in the 80s for example. Led Zeppelin also messed around with it with stereo drum recording on a few of their albums to create something you couldn't really get from a concert performance. Not every recording is trying to recreate a live performance. As anyone else, I can appreciate the art and understand the intent without liking it. I can dislike something and still say that there isn't something "wrong" with it. I think this is the case here. There isn't anything wrong with the recording, even though I'd prefer a different and more stable mix for it. I don't disagree with you that this is not my preference for a recording of this nature, but I do see the value in doing things you can't otherwise for the sake of art by taking advantage of the unique qualities of the particular medium being used as well.

It comes down to the perceived distance between the performance and the listener. And it works the same in pop or rock music: if you have more space and movement within the stereo imaging you get a much more intimate and the more things bleed into another (not tonally, just in position on the perceived stage) the more "far away" it sounds. Like you were in the second row hearing the difference in the violin facing different directions and if you had been on the other end of the venue you probably wouldn't. But I think this is the magic of recording. You can make a performance sound like you're front of stage or you can make it seem like you're on stage right in the action. And the axiom you brought up is quite useless imho, because then you just would set up a binaural mic at the sweet spot of the venue to achieve exactly that.

A live recording in my mind should be more of a documentary than an attempt at entertainment.

What a pleasure to be learning from an expert.. who loves the music…, I now figure I am a gear nut.., but I do love the music , the skills…🙏🙏🙏🙏

Great follow-up!

As a not-particularly-skilled sax player in a blues band, my hearing ability is vastly better than my playing. This said, while I really appreciate a masterful studio recording, I prefer a less than perfect live performance recording with all of its flaws. For my sensibilities, the live performance is often more emotive and spontaneous. For the live audience, it's more than the notes being played (and recorded), it's the whole vibe picked up from the stage and the audience. Obviously, someone holding up their iPhone and recording the show doesn't cut it. A well-engineered recording of the live performance does. I've recorded in a studio a few times and while the final product is amazing, it's considerably more stifled than being on stage and recording. Being isolated in a recording booth, making sure you maintain the optimum distance from the mic, and not get the body language cues from your band mates and audience, doesn't do much for spontaneity and passion or the performance. Thanks for the video.

Please make a Best Recordings of All Time List of albums for audio-enthusiasts!

"Transforming a Humble Frog into a Majestic Elephant: I thoroughly enjoyed your comments in the two KZfaq videos you dedicated to a recording I made with Roeland Hendrikx. You present it in a Top Gear-style that reminds me of Jeremy Clarkson-little relevant information and a focus on entertainment. Interestingly, it was a German colleague, a stranger to me, who brought your video to our collective attention. He regarded it as an enigmatic and unsubstantiated performance. Can we truly hold him accountable for his viewpoint? Your portrayal as an audio connoisseur in the realm of classical music, committed to furnishing discerning audiophiles with pertinent knowledge, is unquestionably commendable… Nevertheless, I am compelled to scrutinize your modus operandi. Your meticulous approach seemingly suggests a profound dedication to scientific rigour. Yet, it leaves one yearning for specifics regarding the methodology of your listening test: the nature of the acoustic environment, the chosen loudspeakers, the use of calibrated headphones, the conspicuous absence of a dedicated vector scope such as RTW in favour of a plugin, the employment of a professional-grade headphone amplifier, among other intriguing aspects. It piques my curiosity as to why, in your capacity as a specialist, you refrained from requesting a High-Resolution audio file, a decision I would have gladly accommodated and informed you at the same time that the two Schoeps microphones you refer to as the so-called stereo pair with MK 2's are not used for the clarinet. Although you are quite convinced they are but I must disappoint you only the MK 4 cardioid microphone serves as support for the soloist. In my practice, I favour an OCCO main pair , with 2 omnidirectional microphones positioned approximately 530mm apart, yielding a Stereo Recording Angle (SRA) of approximately 110 degrees. This, I must emphasise, is not an extraordinary approach but just craftsmanship and a choice I made. The movements of Roeland, which you've noted, are inherent to the natural gestures of an artist within the principal microphone pair. Is this wrong? In closing, with a touch of naivety, earnestly hoping that, as you continue to share your audiophile wisdom with the world, it is underpinned by a robust foundation. Anything less, I fear, even if you make a 3 th video may sow the seeds of perplexity among those who seek clarity.

Live music is about a live experience. Recorded music is about an enhanced experience. It will always loose elements of the live music experience, but at the same time can add a level of closeness and intimacy with an artist that a typical venue live experience will lack. The recording/mix and mastering engineers job is to deliver the intended and hopefully most enjoyable listening experience. The purpose of your listening system is not perfection, but greatest enjoyment - often the two go hand in hand to a greater or lesser extent, but each system makes compromises - it is up to you to choose the compromises you can live with and choose the areas where you desire the best possible. The music and the sonic experience you like will likely guide this. I think the production team on the original recording did the right thing. They appear to accept and embrace the idea that it is a recording and not live and chose to deliver an enhanced experience that places you unnaturally close to a soloist giving you a level of access and intimacy with the artist you would never really get otherwise. To be fair, this is quite normal in many orchestral recordings. There is a balance to get it right. We as listeners do not have to agree or accept the production choices made. We choose the recordings we like the most for whatever personal reasons. Your video was never about poor production. It was always about your personal choices vs other people personal choices and that is why we all choose different music, different artists, different systems etc.

I'm reminded of the way that the rise of stereo recordings in the sixties created (along with, of course, the vogue for "psychedelia") a tendency to move instruments about the stereo image quite wildly, guitar solos careening from speaker to speaker, and so on. By the early seventies, recording engineers had calmed down some. Nevertheless, popular music since the sixties rarely attempts to reproduce anything remotely like a "concert" experience. Even live recordings (the ones that are actually and entirely live) reproduce, of course, what's played with tons of amplification and effects. It's possible to record an orchestra in the way one might record a rock band...and certainly, an interesting experiment to do so (although probably not with Bach and such). So I'd say your axiom works only for music which does attempt to reproduce the concert hall experience. Obviously, if music is entirely studio-bound (such as the Beatles post-'66), there's no "concert hall experience" to speak of...and if we want to have a tiny little harpsichord overmatch an entire brass section, well then that's just fine. But I do not think most classical music listeners want that kind of recording!

It's worse than you'd guess. The clarinet sounds phased; I never really heard a "center" image at any point, just video-game ping-pong. But remember - even expensive microphones are stupid. When poorly placed, blended, or time-misaligned, you get problems like this. The clarinet is a "beamy" instrument. Added to that are the resonances even the finest microphones have in those same higher harmonic ranges. Beams, reflections, movements are exaggerated. A main stereo microphone pair (possibly a three-mic Decca tree) are lovely techniques using 2 or 3 omni microphones over the conductor's head -- but this can (and does) mess with the imaging of soloists directly under these microphones. Typically, the best way to fix this (keeping in mind that mics are dumb) is to add a single, properly time-aligned clarinet solo microphone 3-5 feet out from the instrument. This will better "anchor" the image and won't hurt the overall lovely tone of the orchestra, but it will help create a naturally focused image similar to what you'd hear seated, say, house center in row G, H, or I. You can't put the mics out that far because they'll hear something quite different that's out of focus. The goal is to create the illusion of being in that ideal seating. (Solo mic time-alignment is tricky because of the movement, but it can be done.) I'm guessing the engineer/producer never really heard this (due to poor location monitoring) or were caught up in some misguided "audio purity" by not using a solo mic. As an engineer specializing in location classical and acoustic music, I've run into this. All I have to do is pop the "feared" solo mic(s) in and out and producers/conductors typically come around. I've always enjoyed this quote (paraphrased) from Roy Rising, a wonderful audio engineer from yesteryear working in Hollywood: "If you notice the sound, it *isn't* good."

tbh, i like it too. it adds to the expression.

I listened to the original video on a car stereo while driving. I misidentified the problem as phase cancellation from poor mic placement, causing an inconsistent center image I guess I wasn’t that far off, but to be fair I am a trained and experienced audio engineer. I do think that despite this problem, the recording was quite listenable though. I have a very hard time not critiquing the recording process when I listen to music, but I am getting better at it, and a good hi-fi system helps quite a bit to just get into the music.

Heard it straight away on my fairly good Sennheiser headphones via a DAC Magic DAC. The sound jumped left to right and all over the place. It didn't remove the emotional impact of the track for me. Did they mix the two mics to full left and full right panning then?

An argument can be made, no doubt, that creating a recording can be a part of performative expression itself, including additional effects, whether intended or not. A lot of unique and cherished sound styles from the vinyl era exist only due to bad recording equipment and techniques. For example, recording jazz using modern equipment ends up sounding nothing like "classic jazz" from black-and-white cinema, so people often use special filters and tricks to make it sound "properly".

Concert hall experience for me is generally getting up and down out of my seat every 10 minutes to allow an endless stream of weak-bladdered folks to use the restroom.

I think this comes down to the panning problem. I think each track or channel from microphones should always be panned to the exact point they were placed on the stage, and that those be preferably omnidirectional microphones. This also solves recreating time difference of a signal in different microphones and creates more realistic and vibrant width of stage You'd think they wouldn't mess this up after Decca practically perfected the technique.

I heard it like that and thought the clarinet was way forward and pictured a butterfly darting about

The Hammond Organ is my thing and the inventor, Laurens Hammond, hated the use of the Leslie Speaker with his wonderful instrument. He thought it should be pure and unadulterated and did not get on with Don Leslie and his spinning device "ruining" the sound of the Hammond. So, as you must know, when they are put together the sound is magnificent, theatrical and thrilling. Innovation is key to producing new and unusual sounds to enhance our musical experience and it is the same with the orchestra and all forms of music. You do not need an axiom, just your ears and your appreciation.

Maybe my hearing's just damaged but I can barely even hear the stereo imaging effect you described in this video and the one it followed-up lol.

headphone is not a Stereo trasducer... they are Binaural trasducer, so is obviusly that with Headphone the "problem" is more obvius and can be to much. with simulator, and with stereo monitors put in correct way in my studio, with good room processing, the effect is pleasant. but it is enough to turn on or off a room and monitor speakers simulator (as well as a headphone "rectifier") to understand it...

I have been a music producer for over 40 years and I’d like music fans to understand something fundamental, something maybe shocking. We producers are part of the performance we work so hard to present to a listener. We’re part of the band. We do that almost universally with the original performer’s blessings. They hire us to make the sound listeners hear. Virtually no one wants their recording to sound just like what is heard by any member of the audience at a live performance. We both insist that our result is better than that. I really don’t know where the word ‘faithful’ came to be associated with music recording. It is the goal of no one.

You are correct that the issue is not an audiophile issue as the stated goal of an audiophile is to replay recordings as transparently as possible. This enters the realm of mastering tracks from multi track recordings. Ideally, you would have multiple channels recording the player in close proximity, and then average them out to create an even image that is levels correct. Alternatively, you could choose to isolate each channel and amplify the image swaying from left to right to create and exaggerated image that maintains the correct level as it tracks the subject. All of which is out of the audiophiles control. This is typically why I suggest to people that for 90% of their listening content, they are far better off investing in a quality stereo setup over a home theater setup. This is because 90% of your listening is only mastered for stereo image which is two channels. 5.1 and up to 7.4.2 is only reserved for movies and high quality ones at that. This is the most important thing in our control. Play the correct channeled content on the correct channel equipment.

So effectively what you're saying is they had two mics on the clarinet and they were panned too far left and right such that the appearance of the clarinet was unrealistically wide and as such all movement is exaggerated. I have the same problem when using piano samples on gigs where they have panned the low end hard left and the high end hard right, meaning that with a large PA the piano appears 50ft wide. Not accurate, this is why I send most of my acoustic sounds on a gig to the sound man in MONO such that they can position my sound in the mix where I am situated on stage. Then my keyboards emanate from the same area where I am physically situated leading to a more natural stereo image

Comparing the sound movement of a clarinet and a violin is wrong in itself. Violins shoots quite large compared to the very focused sound coming from the clarinet's bell. Of course both of them will sound much different when moving, violin being more subtle and the clarinet much more obivous. Have someone play the clarinet right in front of you and ask them to move around when they play and do the same with a violin player and maybe you'll catch what I'm saying. I don't think this is a mistake; it would mean the audio engineer can't even use PAN correctly or choose his mics correctly.

You are correct, it is absolutely silly for a soloist to sound like it is flying around the sound field lol Oh and you would not notice that soloist in the violin concert because of parallax, in the recording sometimes this can happen because the relative distance from instrument to microphone is much larger than the same movement in apparent movement relative to the seat in the concert all

I wasn't sure what you were asking. I heard distortion in the strings which means input levels were too high. I also noticed a Lack of low end meaning a bad mix of volumes overall. The engineers weren't good. Compression won't fix pinning meters on strings. Then again I was listening on my phone. I can hear the bouncing clarinet though.

Small groups of chamber musicians often move around and you can hear that, as one is often close to them.... its a question of intimacy, big orchestra versus close small groups. Mozart wrote many of his pieces for small groups of friends to play, as well as full orchestrations of the same music. Just my two penny worth, I do get your point though, and many thanks again for all the great videos. All the best Joseph

Where "immersion" in the music is the audiophile context, pop audio quizzes are "out of context". There's no reason any given audiophile would notice a recording flaw while not also being immersed in the music, or even if did notice, give any attention to it... unless or until they were "immersed" in the music, in which case they'd rave about how good their equipment was to reveal the flaw... 😉

With the comparison of the second recording, I hear it now more distinctly than before. I hear what you mean and I'm starting to agree with you. There's a warble there that lends the solo more of a wacky inflatable tube man feel, than the prancing along in a forest feel that was the intention of the piece.

Audiophiles are concerned about audio reproduction. This is a recording problem not a reproduction problem so it's not an audiophile problem.

I did notice the clarinet bouncing all over the place, but I listen to so much electronic music that I just assume weird stereo effects in a recording are intended. Because I don't listen to acoustic music, my focus is not on high fidelity recreation of live acoustic music. Synthetic music is freed from the constraints of trying to create a facsimile of physical reality. For me, the ideal concert hall experience for amplified music is an acoustically treated room and the best sounding pro audio sound system available. Unfortunately, very few music venues actually provide that experience.

music recorded in the last 60 years in the vast majority is a collage (mix) of multiple recordings through microphones, direct inputs and sound effect, trying to create some simulated 'stereo stage' more or less realistically, but at free will of artistic decisions at the mixing. Microphones standing centimeters from the source register a different sound than from what an audience hears meters away. The clarinet recording sounds as if we were sitting immediatly at the musicians feet, but nobody gets tickets to sit there. As for Atmos or any other spatial audio, leave it for cinema. A solution to a non existent problem in music. Like 3D movies.

Stereo has caused so many problems to us audiopiles.

I don't know, man. In the concert room, I can see the guy move around. If he moves so drastically that the mics are picking up 80% left, then maybe it should be so. In the listening room, I can't see him. Maybe this stereo image movement is just what I need to get that dimension back, emulated through my ears as my eyes are unable to see

Perhaps if it was re titled "Flight of the Demented Frog". You have actually convinced me on this recording, you are right. The bouncing is rather extreme and I can't imagine listening to it with headphones. When I watched your original video I kind of shrugged it off, but if I was more into classical I would see that as a flaw. I think a lot of people made the same mistake I did, assuming it was "you can't actually hear the difference between good and bad equipment". It's actually "this audiophile recording is pretty bad". Most people did notice it, but I think it would be the classical buffs who would say "wait, that sounds wrong".

The SOUND of that "bad" clip is OK- not distorted or noisy. Musically, it is also OK. What's wrong is the recording technique, or more properly, the mic technique. I don't know why a recording engineer would place a stereo pair that close to the soloist and have them hard panned left and right so that the motion of the soloist would be exaggerated in the stereo image. A single mic would have been ideal in terms of a proper stereo perspective. There's many other mics more broadly spaced around the orchestra that you will get plenty of depth and "hall sound" from those in the mix (but they must be set up properly, too!) There are many "audiophiles" that rarely go to live acoustic orchestral performances and who would never realize that this sonic perspective is all goofed up. In a big hall - a typical symphony settings - when sitting anywhere in the audience you're not going to really hear the sound of the soloist moving around if they emote during their performance. The overall size of the space and your distance relationship to the soloist and to the walls will not let you really hear "motion" in the sound. In an opera as the performers run to and fro, you'll hear directional cues from that. Now, in a smaller venue, with maybe a string quartet or a jazz ensemble, you might hear some motion- but not "ping pong" effects. In the case of a pop or rock performance, it's all electronic anyway, you'll hear whatever the producer / sound mixer wants you to hear.

Doesn't it also depend on where you are seated in the concert hall? I don't believe that there can be any such thing as replicating concert hall experience - everything is different in the two environments - seating position, acoustics, sound pressure, etc etc.

I don't disagree with this perspective despite not considering it completely wrong to have the sound swaying from side to side. In my head Id like to imagine I am as close to the soloist as posible, and I believe that is why having a wide soundstage that makes you feel like you are surrounded by the orchestra to be very moving (literally hehe)

I like the idea of the an instrument traveling around the stereo image but not but not varying from note to note. It can add another dimension to the music. Think flight of the bumble bee with a flute moving around your speakers like a bee flying around you.

What you didn't say was the reason for this "dancing about" of the clarinet. BTW, I listened to this piece on my PC with a Dell sound bar. The speakers are about 40cm apart. I identified the "fault" on the first listen, but it wasn't bouncing about as much as you suggested. Probably due to the short distance between the two speakers.

So what does this make you? An audiophilologist? Anyhow, no stereo recording will ever reproduce realism. It is impossible. Only with multiple mics, channels and mirrored playback component is this possible. What you hear live is the net effect of what is going on in that room from you position and you know it's live because of how it sounds from where you are listening, whether that position changes or not. Whatever techniques the audio engineer tries, it's always going to be a compromise due to the extremely limiting fact of how the recording is achieved, mixed and mastered. So if, in the case of this clarinet flying about, the engineer had a bad case of mike bleed or was deliberately panning or miking to capture all the directions the clarinetist turned during playing, well that's annoying for sure. But since you're sensitive to all of this, in such a way as to get rather worked up, I'd say you're more of an audiophile than most people who call themselves as such.

I recently watched a KZfaq review of a pair of speakers. The reviewer was using a recording of a live performance of a Jaz quartet. I’d actually attended that gig, stood about 5 rows from the front. Anyways, the reviewer remarked that he could hear the vocalist swaying. I can con confirm that at that gig, she did sway, but I couldn’t hear it, because she was singing into a solo Mike which she was holding. So, when she moved, the Mike moved with her. Plus, she was singing into a Mike which transmitted her voice over multiple static speakers around that Jaz lounge, so anyone present would have heard in the most part her voice reproduced via those static speakers. Hifi, or high fidelity represents the degree of exactness to which something is copied. If the production crew or audio technicians artificially introduce left to right channel time differences to mimic swaying, are they not deviating from the original? Very much like your instrumentalist dancing around th stage. If an audiophiles goal is high fidelity, does this not go against the grain. All that having been said, how many recordings do audiophiles have of performances they actually witnessed? So that’s probably why they’re not overly concerned with the recording!