am i wrong to say that there's still a big gap from experiencing a sound live in a room and hearing it back from high end monitors?

i don't have experience in the latter but i am assuming...

thanks!

 

What do you mean by 'live in a room'?

Studio monitors are made to give you a most neutral and thus compatible impression of a mix/mastering possible.
And of course it sounds different on all other systems, be it in a club, car or living room.

 

i meant being there in the room with the musician instead of a microphone being there.

ears vs microphone+high end monitors kind of thing

 

Right, that's pure sonic chaos.

Seriously, that depends on the room and the music. On one side there's the small practise room with a Rock band, sonic chaos. On the other side there's a concert hall with a classical orchestra, this can sound veery nice. Everything else is somewhere in between.

But of course, especially with more than two mics, it can and most probably will sound different than in front of your monitors.

EDIT: Ah, you mean if lacking this experience is a problem? Can be. As long as you don't know how for instance a real orchestra sounds in a concert hall, you're hardly able to mix it this way.
Also having heard a band or two performing in a studio is helpful. The chaos in a Rock band's small practise room not so much.

 

Last edited: Apr 4, 2021

Same gap there's between a Postcard and Reality..

 

Interesting thought. Imagine a performance by an acoustic guitarist in your home. The source is monophonic, but the room supplies the stereo reverb as it reaches your ears.
Now, what is more realistic when recreating this with all possible accuracy. A single speaker with an immaculate recording of the guitar and the room again providing the stereo ambience....? or a stereo or surround sound reproduction feeding you all the details from the guitar itself to the inclusion of recordings of the room?
Is not the added ambience itself perfunctory unless you are using headphones or listening in a heavily treated room?

 

Not to get into semantics, but can we truly speak about mono sources in real life? Even in anechoic chamber, the guitar string would vibrate in three dimensions, and so will the air molecules, and we hear it with "stereo" ears. Am I wrong?

 

I wouldn't say it's monophonic, but Holophonic,
it emits sound from petty much all its structure and to all directions in 3D..

And that's why it's so difficult to record a Guitar properly,
each position of the mike/s will give you a different sound, but you cannot get everything at once.

A mike only captures a little representation from that recorded spot,
but the whole picture/experience is different..

Other instruments like Flutes or even a Violin are easier to record,
because they emit sound in a more coherent/in-phase way.
But the same thing always applies, so it's always a compromise..


However it can have its advantages too, as you reduce the "breadth" of the experience/phenomena to a smaller representation,
this allows you to use all the audio tools to make something more usable/mixable out of it..

Mixes are just a cut-down yet idealised version of that performance,
where everyting is adjusted to make a coherent/pleasant whole,
but not necesarily represent the actual real-life thing 1:1..

Just like live concerts use Amplification to make everything more even/controlled..

 

Last edited: Apr 4, 2021

Good question. Can we separate the instrument from the environment even if the environment is an anechoic chamber? Is the air itself a component of what we hear? Should I stop using my helium filled room as a studio? I only did it for a laugh anyway.

 

German polka music is best heard in a room where the air is above 80°F & filled with meat farts.

 

And on a leap year's second Full Moon..

 

@samsome I think you are not wrong. e.g. "stereo" is imo just one of the attempts to translate the real thing..

.. just buy Steinway's Spirio. It is as close as it gets..