When I attend live orchestra performances, it is clear that a specific orchestral layout has been established which everyone around the world adheres to. Thus, when microphones are correctly positioned and a recording is made, that acoustic image is captured and a decent, well set up audio system will replicate that sonic image which matches what one would have experienced at the live performance assuming your seat was roughly in the center position somewhere directly behind the conductor.
Where imaging becomes problematic and is discussed in a foolhardy and somewhat ignorant manner by so-called audiophiles, is when studio recordings are made. Clearly there is a lack of understanding regarding the manner in which a band, artist or ensemble make a recording. Sometimes, not all members are present in the studio at the same time. A case in point would be when artists on different continents collaborate on a track. One artist may lay down the basic track in New York whilst the collaborating artist records their contribution in London. A sound engineer then does the final mix and post-production of the track. How would one “image” that track? Any image that may be present will be an artificial creation inserted by the sound engineer. Why then this obsession with imaging? The artists / bands / composers do not consider “imaging” when writing music which is about the lyrics and or music, is meant to stir ones emotions and allows each listener to mentally create whatever image the music inspires in them.
Even when everyone is in the same studio at the same time, it does not necessarily lend itself to a sonic image that can simply be captured through correctly placing the microphones. I attach a photo herewith which illustrates one scenario in which the musicians are scattered around the studio with acoustic panels separating them in order to capture various instruments clearly and without interference. The drum kit is behind the brown panels with a window against the back wall. Again I ask, how would you image this? Hopefully this will help some to rethink their unrealistic expectations regarding “imaging” and begin to focus more on the enjoyment of the music as intended by the recording artists.
Where imaging becomes problematic and is discussed in a foolhardy and somewhat ignorant manner by so-called audiophiles, is when studio recordings are made. Clearly there is a lack of understanding regarding the manner in which a band, artist or ensemble make a recording. Sometimes, not all members are present in the studio at the same time. A case in point would be when artists on different continents collaborate on a track. One artist may lay down the basic track in New York whilst the collaborating artist records their contribution in London. A sound engineer then does the final mix and post-production of the track. How would one “image” that track? Any image that may be present will be an artificial creation inserted by the sound engineer. Why then this obsession with imaging? The artists / bands / composers do not consider “imaging” when writing music which is about the lyrics and or music, is meant to stir ones emotions and allows each listener to mentally create whatever image the music inspires in them.
Even when everyone is in the same studio at the same time, it does not necessarily lend itself to a sonic image that can simply be captured through correctly placing the microphones. I attach a photo herewith which illustrates one scenario in which the musicians are scattered around the studio with acoustic panels separating them in order to capture various instruments clearly and without interference. The drum kit is behind the brown panels with a window against the back wall. Again I ask, how would you image this? Hopefully this will help some to rethink their unrealistic expectations regarding “imaging” and begin to focus more on the enjoyment of the music as intended by the recording artists.
