If you can't hear this then you're not an audiophile [See description for link to followup video] 

There is NO problem. It's not a problem at all except to you. Your ignorance is making what is common use into a problem. That's weird - & is not representative of reality in song production. If you're really an audiophile you're stepping outside your field & commenting on a completely different field but spouting ignorance. You're in no position to comment on the recording business & it's techniques - having already demonstrated you don't know your stuff. Other producers have commented here also - producers who know their craft.

@@SeanWysemanalso sounds perfectly fine in mono so I don’t know what exactly is the point other than to pontificate on needless bs caused by other needless bs

@AudioMasterclass - Most entertaining, but I must take a ittle bit of an issue. I manufacture high-end analog components. I'm also a musician, and have played numerous instruments in bands & orchestras of all denomination. I know what real music sounds like in all manner of venues. I simply don't quite understand your fixation on imagery. I'm listening to my workshop set-up which is basic & limited, but hilariously good! Everyone is gobsmacked by the realism - I played the CD of a sadly late friend, Nigel Richard; bagpipe builder and player extraordinare. He (without provocation) said it sounded just exactly as it did in the recording studio. Amazing what O/B's and concrete walls can acheive. My workshop isn't very large - maybe 5 x 7 metres with the O/B's maybe 2.5 metres from me, situated roughly 1/3rd along the 7mtr, with me near the end wall. The OB's & I occupy that 1/3rd the space, the remainder of which is occupied by the apparitions of melodic performance. A nicely recorded small set up even taken from youtube can sound unnervingly real: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-8mCCMhuKEYw.html&ab_channel=JasonMraz ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-oIyVu0Ucz8U.html&ab_channel=SouthernRaised Well, they genuinely could fit in my room, and they do. Take that second track - the banjo starts right in the far right corner of the room from me. Sounds real - it's there. Rest is kinda mushed towards the centre left with the vocals about a metre forward. Nothing great going on with the imagery here, so why does it sound this good? Without paying autistic levels of scrutiny to imagery (I can feel roughly where it is, and thats no where near the speakers) and I get a strong impression of presence. Go to the first track. Practically mono. In these sort of live gigs, the speakers could be anywhere but I'm pretty certain I'm hearing the best version taken straight from the mixer desk and post eq-d. Pretty sure it's not the imagery that's doing it for me now? Neither of the above tracks require ear-splitting volume - you should always listen at realistic levels for acoustic music. Unfortunately for those desiring of orchestral levels of performance, some 106dB will be required. I don't believe that imagery is as important as you appear to insist. Yes, I have tracks that move backward & forward, left and right. Sure it's a factor, but it's certainly not the most important - otherwise mono would be entirely redundant.Is there no such a thing as a mono oriented audiophile?

@@jamesportrais3946 The guy doesn't know his stuff. He doesn't know that there are 3 distinct disciplines & 5 more sub-disciplines that are normally divided up among as many people. Sometimes you get someone who does it all. But those jobs are divided up - even in the mind of the person that wears every hat. I'm one of them that often does every stage himself because I'm good a them. But when he enters the dialog with a bold & blatant statement that "you're not an audiophile if you can't hear this" - which is really clickbait because it's false. You can find all kinds of misinformation on YT & this is a perfect example. A guy grandstanding with an opening headline that knows not what & audiophile is. Then says you're not one if you can't hear this. Ridiculous. No audiophile is accurately described as such. It may be an audiophile who's using his mixing appreciation skills - but that's not an audiophile's domain - figuring out if the mix engineer should have made the right artistic choice. That's not an audiophile that's making those observations even if he considers himself an audiophile - he's not talking about the fidelity of the sound - which is what defines an audiophile. Why is important to make the correct distinctions - it's not that important unless you want to communicate it to others. Then it's important that you know the roles & definitions or you'll not gain an credibility by not knowing your topic more deeply than the public you are communicating with. This guy doesn't know his topic.

@@SeanWyseman I'm in your camp Sean, but I'm not certain he needs to be eviscerated 😛 - I can see why you were annoyed, but the guy is trying to promote his channel/business. We only learn through mistakes, and the modern culture of cancellation hardly allows any degree of growth. I think the guy has 10 years on me which would mean that his formative years would have come from the late 70's-80's when "specifications" sold typically solid-state amplification. Let's not forget that only a couple of decades previously, your audio aspirations would be curtailed by a furniture-centric wife. I've seen "high end" radiograms from the late 60's/early 70's that had speakers, radio, TT, O/R tape recorder, fridge & cocktail bar (seriously!) all built in. I'm sure you can see where I'm going with this. Early SS equipment sounded on the whole _shyte_ but measured brilliantly. This was the era when the likes of Krell was king; megawatts & miniscule distortion combined with practically unlimited bandwidth & vanishing noise. All very nice, but sounded crap. Sandpaper treble, paper mids, bass that you couldn't distinguish from external traffic (you got pumped when you thought a truck on the road outside was part of the plot) and absolutely no depth - your program was nailed to a perspex sheet between your probably three-way speakers with seriously _shyte_ crossovers. Everything we hated about early CD players was encapsulated in this meandering mess. What that equipment _could_ do was image. Inherently more consistently reproducible semi conductors meant consistence throughout the bandwidth. This means that a fixed pan-point is less likely to wander with varying degrees of frequency. If that's your only selling point, might as well push it - so they did. Sean, I don't think our man has ever heard a proper stereo soundscape. My experience for more than a few decades has been one that you feel you could walk into. More than a few visitors go looking to the rear wall in order to find additional speakers that aren't there. Funny thing is, being O/B's, they turn around and hear the same phenominon! I'd like our man to pay a few visits to very different set ups and gain a little experience. His writing, or rather talking doesn't smack of someone who's heard a Class A single ended micro-Watt set-up for example. Your thoughts Sean?

Exactly.

I noticed it but still enjoyed the music!

​@@seymourclearlyme 2

That was my take on it. I noticed the panning movement but figured it was intentional. Sometimes they make the sound fields uneven on purpose to add a sort of "dimensional" effect.

@@MrR2185 when I saw the nice pastoral video image I imagined that the clarinet was a little rabbit jumping from here to there, is this music programmatic?

Keep doing what you're doing. I thought it sounded great.

It is a beautiful recording. I heard the stereo field 'wandering' on the soloist but I don't think it's a negative because it does seem to more faithfully represent how one would perceive the sound if one were in the room with the group and the soloist was expressively moving his body as he played (which it turns out he was). I have been a musician all my life and have both performed with various sizes of groups and listened to many performances in-person, and the details of the musical experience (in-person) differ considerably with even small changes in one's position in the room, let alone the habits and idiosyncracies of the players. I don't consider myself an 'audiophile' exactly (and can't afford really nice equipment anyhow) but I appreciate the clarity - in a recording such as this one - of a faithful representation of how the music would be perceived if I could have been in one of the better spots in that room where it was originally performed. Thanks!

That's fascinating, Robin Breuglemans. I don't know if you saw my earlier comment, and those of others, but there is definitely a group of people who found the slight movement of the clarinet to be entirely natural, and added character to the recording. Thanks again for your comment.

Since we Americans don't use "a recording" and "a mix" interchangeably, I assumed the "problem with the recording" was the noise at 1:17.

I am fond of my old BM10s. I know they weren't the most popular near/mids, but I like them. I have just moved onto Neumann NDH 30 for hp monitoring. It is the first time in a long time I have fallen in love with a tech purchase. I adore them!

me too

Spooky Cosmic Interference

You so-called musicians! Stop 'playing' music and get serious! How insensitive, dull, blunt, and deaf do you have to be if those constantly swaying, rocking, shaking fluctuations escape your sense of hearing??? Trained ears? Trained to tolerate the most vile torture of your auditory apparatus! How can it be, you're impervious to the oscillating atrocity of the Doppler Effect when the clarinet is swaying from side to side - and more so at varying speeds! Pleeeeeaase, get me some of those MIDI files, you mentioned! Are there any with NO MUSIC in them, at all? I'll add them to my huge collection of recordings of 4′33″.

I like @shanedk's explanation. Imagine being seated in a small recital hall listening to the soloist with no amplification or accompaniment. The movement of the instrument might sound a great deal like this solo on the recording and it's an important part of any live performance. I suppose the problem is exacerbated because the instrument seems to move but the orchestra does not. I always learn a great deal from Audio Masterclass (and I did this time as well), but I'm willing to accept what was "wrong" with this recording as something that might be very difficult to "fix" while accurately capturing both the nuanced solo and the orchestra.

@@CricksWhiteNoise @shanedk certainly is right in his rather 'emotional' approach to recording technique. As humans we want 'moving' performances. One problem that might arise from moving while recording with several mics is phase cancellation, destructive wave interference. Although wave interference can in some musical situations really be used as a kind of 'natural audio fx control' that can be achieved by merely adjusting the signal's run-time differences when making the mic set-up. With classical music recordings it's something you'd rather want to avoid, usually...

Like Linux users

Imagine a Vegan cross-fitting audiophile, they would literally explode trying to figure out which trait that they should tell you about first.

​@@BlackHatInc especially if they were Scottish 😅

Like Pilots.

I love a reddit comment that states “I purchased *insert basic headphone/speaker* and am officially an audiophile”

Same here. Soloists often express physical movements while playing. Most notably Martin Frost, one of our greatest clarinetists. He moves a lot while playing. So honestly even if its audible, I didnt really "hear" it

Same

same, i've also ery appreciated it very much, for me it was more expressive than a mono variant would be

Great performance. I enjoyed the bass clarinet backdrop.

yeah this man is full of bs

@Dr Curious -- audiophiles are the audio version of Corvette/BMW/Porsche clubs .. (wow! nice chrome, great hemi, super exhaust pipes ...) -- it's all about the impressive array of equipment and the proclaimed results --

@@aBachwardsfellow Yes. Totally. The funny issus for us tend to be the claim of what can be heard in certain situations and the misuse of equipment and setups. Like a 30k speakers in a wooden floored, french doored, square, reverberant listening space, with platinum power cables and 1m long platinum speaker connections. etc.

@@Dr-Curious - Totally! 🙂

when I 'auditioned' my $2,000 PSB speakers back in '92, I thought they were the best sounding in the room sans the $10,000 B&W speakers. I couldn't afford the silver speaker cables for it, but when he connected them to the PSB's, it was like night and day, they just opened up more shimmer, sound stage, imaging, and timber of instruments. You believe what ya want, but I HEARD it myself. Go hear some GOOD speakers and cables, not the mass market crap.

@@trallfraz night and day? sure

To me the whole point this video is clickbait, he even says that he enjoys this recording. Please use the affiliate links in the description. Thank you. :)

The movement can cause a mic to pick up some sounds more and some sounds less, so if he moves away from the mic, those notes will be quieter. But also, the mic will pick up the note a fraction of a second later than when he’s closer, mics positioned further away will also pick up the sound slightly delayed. So it’s not just about the stereo effect but about the dynamics, and tempo of the recording. As a musician who moves a lot, and who works hard on dynamics, tone, and tempo, I’d hate a recording to not represent my hard work.

When i first replied to this comment.... i had just woken up... and i had assumed you meant "the audiophile movement"... But then i realized my mistake xD

It's classical music. It's supposed to be boring.

yeh. its hilarious. i think what we are hearing is desirablee, and trying to remove it is "the problem"

That's how I hear things in person... so... why would I not hear it here? *shrug* "audiophiles" pay for baggies of crystals to wrap around their $1000 cables and I'm just a hard pass on that no matter what it does to the sound. It's weird. It's like telling me crystals heal cancer. I'm sure some folks wish they did (me fucking too) but... uhm... so far no evidence has presented itself.

Exactly. I think that what he didn't understand is that the recording engineer probably *purposely* recorded it with stereo mics to get that life that you mentioned. It makes the recording more interesting.

I wrote a piece of music that features a bridge that builds up to a crescendo following a lead guitar playing a meandering melody... at first I left the guitar in the center of the mix and it felt kind of empty and lacking something... so I automated the panning to make it meander left and right and suddenly that section felt like it came to life. So I can definitely see someone doing this on purpose in this piece of music as well.

this guy gets it :p

Yea, but the dude isn't running left to right, it doesn't really depict the reality of the clarinet being played: not a stereo instrument.

@@LetsGo_Brandon A dude moving the clarinet left to right as he plays *does* make it a "stereo instrument".

Same here... I really don't understand why anything in that track was a "PROBLEM". Probably a wrong categorisation. You're referring more to an issue of setup and interpretation of the audio when recorded through that setup. I was expecting something like, can your audio chain reproduce that issue inherent in the setup? - and I heard the moving clarinet, but I didn't stop to interpret it. I just enjoyed it. If there WAS A difference in the first 2 seemingly identical tracks that an audiophile's system SHOULD have made clear, I guess I didn't hear anything different or different enough to call it out.

Same here. The mics accurately recorded the performance. I like a little movement in the stereo image. I thought we were going to be hearing a phasing issue, or something real. Unsubscribe.

You need a dark matter deflector and randomiser to get the most from your system.

@@Coneman3 Flux capacitors help also. 😁

I would agree that things done in the mix are not "problems" per-se. Personally my first thought was I just found the recording to be sub-par due to the strange imaging. I have heard a recording like this one which had a similar issue and that one it actually was a genuine problem. A distant mic was picking up a soloist in a classical music recording, so to "solve" the issue the recording engineer simply mixed them in similar ratios to how the mics were picking up the sound. The result was the stereo image rapidly shifting back and forth depending on which mic was dominant in its sound pickup, which was annoying. I would say in general _actual_ problems are technical issues like a mic partially dropping out in a live performance, clipping due to inadequate headroom or excessive levels, noise or cross-talk due to poor interconnects or interference being received, etc. Things that actually impact what was recorded.

#metoo

​@@Glidedon why have you hashed this reply????

@@sk8razer just agreeing with comment above.

I heard something in between notes almost a soft clicking

Same, definitely must have been the keys, actually kinda ruins the presentation when listening with good headphones, but if not critically listening probably wouldn't have noticed as much if at all.@@frankm3867

That's right but sudden movement like this is uncomfortable to hear and you immediately know somethings wrong with the spacing

@@Sizzer1337 Only because he told you that. I am a mastering engineer & work with this stuff every day. We teach people to create movement not stifle it. You're dead wrong about what you said here as this kind of movement is used all the time. Just google 'automated panning plugins' & take a look at the "wealth" of tools that are designed to help you do just that. You let the guy in the video cause you to decide that this was wrong & a mistake & you designed your comment in agreement with him. It didn't sound wrong or bad to me & people pay a ton of money as a producer to make informed & intelligent observations. I do admire his trick of creating a challenge to acquire the clickbait to attract people to see what the hell he's talking about because even the headline sounds wrong but it's that aspect that makes you want to see what he's trying to say. Problem is he doesn't know where that movement came from or why. He just decided that it was wrong without knowing that people are doing that all the time in music production. Also it appears that he's using a sort of cheap trick by presenting the "you're not an audiophile" kind of challenge - presumably because, for the first time, he actually noticed something he'd not heard before & figured that because he calls himself an audiophile & because he heard it - he can use the headline strategy to make himself appear to be an audiophile you should listen to. Then he blusters about how wrong it is & all that bunk. It sounds just like a musician dancing while playing. At the end of the day there is no right or wrong in artistic choices unless a predetermined standard is applied to it & then you can judge it against that standard. However in this case no artistic standard exists except in the authors head so it's an invalid comparison.

I was wondering if that's what he was on about. I thought it was intentional, or at least not an "issue".

@@Sizzer1337 That would only be after he told you it was wrong. It's not. It's what everyone in the professional world is doing these days. He just never heard it till now - meaning that by his own definition - that he's judging everyone else with - he's not an audiophile - or didn't become one until he heard it. But this sort of thing is not only being a lot it's encouraged & taught. Welcome to the real world. Nice of you to catch up.

Sean, I agree 100%. The movement the artist creates is part of his art, not a mistake. Obviously the 'audiophile' making this video prefers the sound of sanitized studio music over a recording of live music. BTW, I couldn't hear any of the stereo shifting while watching this on my phone! 😂

underrated comment LOL

🤣

I can hear them rusting

i can hear them radiating microscopic particles

I can hear a fart from 10 miles away.

me too, I was searching for any frequencies that are weird

Wasn't bothered at all with the clarinet moving, but found the clipping irritating. Interestingly, I looked up the original and couldn't hear any clipping. Maybe youtube / reencoding messed up the audio there?

The clipping was bothering me too! I guess I was so focused on the texture of the sound rather than how it was produced.

Yeah, it adds a certain flavour and experimentation and mocking joyfulness. I am proud that I could notice it having worked as a freelance audio technician. Unfortunately, the pursuit of perfecting: "I SING A SOOOONG, AND I AM DONE" got tiring. I love it when a band or composition has different expressions of the same work like Iron Maiden. The changes and imperfections develop the piece as a whole. The recording was classical true, but I think one should not take themselves or their work too seriously. A bit of whimsy open new avenues of development.

a n i m e n i m e

It feels like the audio is flossing my brain.

Falls under the category “It’s not a bug it’s a feature”

I'm an amateur conductor, so I did notice this immediately, but I didn't think it was the "problem" he was looking for.

@Zane Edmunds -- Music -- however it is heard -- is nothing without the contribution of the synthesis of the mind and soul which is perceiving it.

Hearing it live, the sound would also 'wander'

Exactly.... i didnt see this as an issue at all... just made it more lifelike.

Agreed. What's the point of multiple channels if they are not used for things that can't be done with mono? I like the feeling that the musician/music is moving around. I wouldn't have noticed it if I had listened blind, and wasn't bothered by it even when primed to listen for a mistake.

​@@sumerianliger - which comes around to the question -- does the fact that the "wandering" of the clarinet (which is completely natural in a live performance) is identified as the targeted "something wrong" speak to the perfectionist presuppositional mindset (how it "ought" to sound) that plagues the mind of an audiophile? Do audiophiles create their own Sisyphus hell of endless technical diddling to achieve what never existedin the first place? Microphones on the bell of a clarinet?

I'm an enthusiast who learned from others and I continue to learn. I hope that my videos can convey my enthusiasm to my viewers. You can find my further thoughts on this topic here ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-EdDnAnSPQpg.html and here ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-m1VzhiBSv28.html

I am a moderately educated novice and had a similar thought. Sure, you can hear the space, but right or wrong is entirely a judgment.

I really loved the movement too. It actually improved my experience of the piece. Very lively! I heard it at home on my cheap home theatre loud speakers 😂 I guess I've just got good perception.... in fact... listen more closely, and you can hear something that can only be the fiddling of the solist hands or movement of his clothes. I'm not quite sure. There's too much music in the way haha. Oh, and I first noticed the "background" noise with my Sony WH-1000MX4 bluetooth headphones.... yeah you heard that right... bluetooth. No expensive audiophile equipment in sight.

can you hear it? NO! due to the way the youtube algorithm and stereo imaging works.. you absolutely did NOT hear it.. LOL! i was struggling to figure out what this guy was going on about because i didn't hear crap until i actually looked up and found a lossless version of the same song on one of my streaming apps.. i do NOT claim to be an audiophile and most of my equipment is set up specifically for atmos MOVIES and not audiophile music.. i think this is a trick question because it was in straight garbled youtube heavily compressed stereo until i found it in lossless audio.

This video does a great job of showing the difference between audiophiles and musicians.

Solid Romex? Interesting. I'm surprised you don't use stranded 12awg. Is that a cost decision? I wonder if one might hear the difference in frequency response due to skin effect if you A/B with stranded wire. Although I'm willing to bet it isn't drastic and can be compensated for when the studio playback system is tuned to the room anyhow.

Yep. Thought the movement was intentional as well. Because of the visual background image. Thought it was meant to be some invisible forest fairy flying around while playing clarinet (or being portrayed by the clarinet). And of course I also grew up with vinyl records with titles like *This is **---===STEREO===---*

Same; I noticed but didn't consider the location a flaw; instead I was listening for clipping (and cringing because my volume was too high on a couple spikes) 😊 _[edit, typo]_

I humbly disagree, the subtle or at any rate rhythmic swaying of the soloist would not have created a wavering almost doppler effect naturally, the mic placement created that effect.

@eugenebrandon3914 Perhaps if the performer were playing a sine-wave-generating instrument, that doppler effect would be clearer, but the mics aren't too far apart, so in a way it's similar to sitting right up close to the performer - not much more phasing than would occur naturally between your ears. Regardless, I like the way the notes dance!

@@mikec7604 It is a beautiful piece which I would not have noticed any imperfection in recording had it not been pointed out.

@@eugenebrandon3914 Agreed!

Not to mention it would be a great experience with good soundstage headphones

Exactly! I was looking for compression or low bitrate, maybe some interference or noise... But didn't really notice much. Was a bit disappointed when the real "problem" was revealed.

Thank you for saying this, I'm very unknowledgeable on music and I thought to myself is this really "wrong" though and that perhaps it sounds like the physical movement of the instrument irl

I agree and I would categorize my level of listening to audio the exact same as yours.

If the objective is to faithfully reproduce the experience of hearing the instrument as played, the movement, or more specifically it's effect on the recorded sound is significant. However, on this recording the panning sounds as though the musician has sprinted the full width of the stage. Not a problem to my aging ears but an interesting and obviously unrealistic effect.

was wondering what the ticking was as well. I was focusing more on that than the panning of the clarinet which didnt bother me at all.

@@claudiobrt652 yeah I liked the panning of the clarinet. It wasn't wildly moving around and felt fairly centred

I had to look for this comment to validate to myself that I was also hearing the keys clicking and totally thought that was the issue. I heard the panning but really just thought that it gave it more of a spatial feel, so I didn't think of it as a negative.

At first I thought it was the little noises too but that's part of the performance.

The clicking is what I head but I assumed it was the instrument, not the recording.

@@OskarHersch I didn't hear anything amiss, but it is possible that given the distance to the mics, that the mechanical thingies on the clarinet are what you might be hearing. Do they jibe with his solo?

@@OskarHersch Yeah to me that sounds like the keys on the clarinet being pressed somewhat vigorously

@@OskarHersch the "weird clicking" is what the keys of a clarinet sound like

I feel the at 1:17 like wobbly sounds.

@@OskarHersch I'm hearing a subtle doubled 'brush' tapping sound at 1:12-1:13 and again at 1:14, again at 1:15 and some other place too? (Listening on a Sennheiser G4ME ONE through a bog standard TRRS connector into a laptop)

I agree, The movement is part of the life of the performance.

Exactly what i thought the actual position of musician seems fixed but sounds like he's moving his instrument as he plays very well recorded.

Unfortunately, the phone I listened to this on only had one speaker so I could not hear the wandering

@@dolphaskelly9665 Have your tried waving the phone about in time to the music while it plays? 🙂

right? having the recording be perfectly center makes it kind of boring. I don't find this a problem at all.

It does give it a sort of "an actual human played this" feel. You can tell it's not just computer generated with samples

We do not want to hear zombie robots performing, do we?

It *was* a studio recording. In classical music, it is the convention for players to sit or stand still as they play - wandering around causes any amount of difficulty with the balance the conductor has worked so hard to achieve.

Then you are not an audiophile.

Hi, I am Joe....Hi Joe....I am an audiophile.....thanks for joining us Joe, you are safe here......tell us about your first...................

what do you mean by that? You have ceased to enjoy music listening with the best possible quality, or you have stopped believing that incremental changes in the playback chain matter?

@@duel5071 Probably means that being pedantic about things that no one but you can hear isn't constructive. If you point out a quirk, everyone will hear it. If only you know of that quirk, either no one else will notice, or they'll enjoy it as a feature. Being overly perfectionistic and looking for improvements in redundant places is *not* the same thing as as valuing quality. Confusing the two creates a HUGE waste of time, money, and sanity.

@@guidXenoCat yeah but audiophile listening, if we are going to use a made up term, shouldn't be defined as investment in redundant places, and shouldn't let people who do that call themselves audiophiles, or we shouldn't even use the word. Best quality playback is a real thing though

@@duel5071 Like most things in the world, a word loses its definition when the wrong groups identify with it. People who actually care about quality and create it reasonably have been kicked out of the audiophile squad. When I hear 'audiophile' nowadays, I think "person who thinks the color of a guitar neck effects tone" (which is quickly disproven with a spectrograph, but these people would rather play games of superstition than use real science).

you didn't spot it because its a personal preference, there is no problem with the recording, which you strangely seem to have agreed with regarding your statement, i suggest reading Robin Breugelmans very polite comment who was involved in recording this captivating performance as you put it ;)

thx for this comment, i will try in my recordings to add it a little bit

And if you wanted to fake this from an isolated track you could always do it in post processing pretty easily.

@@turkeyguy0 i think i will try both, and see if the digital version is capeble of what i do when playing without to much effort

@@tavarno I don't think the point should be adding imperfections for the sake of them. As the late Bob Ross said, they're 'happy little accidents'. Not necessarily something to strive for. In the end, there's a reason why orchestras and musicians in general do many rehearsals and takes before the final recording and/or playing live.

@@omnirhythm i know, but for me this playing sounded very natural, so if adding some imperfections makes the result more natural, i have to try it. Bit probably it will sound just bussy

Definitely credit where credit is due there!

Right? It was more immersive, giving a spatial audio feel to it. I liked it, sounded more organic and less sterile.

100% agree... I didn't hear it (the "problem") the first time, not because it didn't go unnoticed, but rather because I found it natural and appealing. This is a problem only to someone that believes it to be a problem.

I didnt hear it at the start because i had to turn my phone around to hear the L and R channel. And not mono.

I heard that too! I thought for sure that was what the problem was. I had to check the comments if anyone else might've heard it too!

thats the setup of the listener taking a roll in the play

yeah first i thought it came from the actual clicking of the clarinet but a few of them actually sound like pure digital audio glitches. anyway i was also certain that was the problem

Maybe that's what it was there for.

It's impossible for notes to bounce around like this in performance and the massively unstable stereo image is a consequence of the recording technique. I can't disagree with people's tastes though and if anyone likes it, then they like it. I'd go back to the point of my video though that anyone interested in audio would spot, or would like to have pointed out, that the degree of movement of the soloist in the stereo image is very unusual in a classical recording.

@@AudioMasterclass "It's impossible for notes to bounce around like this in performance" "the degree of movement of the soloist in the stereo image is very unusual' I am confused as I find these two quotes contradicting. I agree with @XPotatoPotatoX when they claim to want to hear the notes bounce around as performed. Two mics are positioned in front of the soloist: one to the right and one to the left. The soloist is moving while playing so the mics pick up different frequencies at different intervals. Is your argument that the recording was done wrong on a technical standpoint or is it coming down to your own preference of thinking sounds, especially in classical recordings, should be locally centered? You start off by saying at the beginning of your video that if you can't hear the issue in the recording then you may not be an audiophile or that you've wasted your money on your audiophile equipment, but I am having a hard time discerning whether this video is just another audiophile's opinion or if there was actually a technical error.

You can find my further thoughts on this topic here ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-EdDnAnSPQpg.html and here ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-m1VzhiBSv28.html@@jb8478

Except it's NOT technically incorrect. This sort of thing is being taught to emerging mix engineers. Yes you are right that it's purely a creative decision & there are no technical rules against it either.

You're wrong, because on a technical level, this is perfectly fine. I'm an audio engineer, and not only is this stereo imaging an ok thing, it actually enhances the performance. The job of the audio engineer is always to enhance and fully replicate the nuance of the performance. Audio engineers are creative professionals too, and this decision was used to put more emotion in the performance. Not only is it not technically incorrect, in this specific scenario with how the rest of the mix is structured, I would say the imaging of the clarinet is preferred. There are some super technical things here or there that he doesn't talk about, but mostly, it's really good.

If the sound engineer didn’t want the stereo image, then they wouldn’t have spent the time setting up the microphones in such a way as to capture the stereo image. I’m not a professional, but I do spend some time behind a deck at my church. I do a bit of stereo imaging, but mostly just panning a single channel so that each vocalist or instrument has a position within the stereo field. If the engineer didn’t want the lead instrument moving around, them they would have set up a single mic and set its position within the mix.

@@StolenJoker84 Precisely! & well stated. I'm a pro & I've been saying all along that the movement is intentional - regardless of what he used to create the movement - it was achieved by choice. It's not an accident. It may provoke the personal taste of the author of the video - but not everyone is going to have the same taste or experience. Those of us who are professionals have a deeper perspective but at the end of the day - subtle but noticeable movement is a major component, a hallmark if you will, of an ideal recording.

@@SeanWyseman Yeah. When he said there was a “problem” with the recording, I expected it to be something like some kind of faint static or some kind of distortion in the overall sound … not “This instrument is moving ever so subtly around the sound stage” (I personally didn’t hear it, but that could be that I was using Bluetooth headphones to listen). Then, when he went and explained the why, my thought was “And you still think it’s a problem with the recording?!?”

what did you focus on? I didn't hear the "problem! til it was revealed either, but the squeaks from the clarinet, and the tone being blown too harshly a few times.

Is there any use of me asking hearing strangers on the internet what I asked in hearing people middle school "What's it like to be able to hear with two ears, listen to stereo things 'Properly'?"

I was looking to a little clipping of audio or problem with compression on some frequencies or problem with general audio rather than a music itself. As rock/metal fan panning is natural and it add new layer of complexity. I'm no audiophile I have cheap headset.

If you're experienced you'd not have thought it wrong even if you noticed it.

Where can i get some of these low-viscosity electrons? Do they leak out of your amps, cables and speakers, so need occasional topping-up?

A sticky solution to a fluid problem!

Lol, you need to add quantum phase correctors to your setup!

@@mauricegold9377 I have seen then next to the flux capacitors at the audio store.

@@c128stuff Audiophile air is a much better upgrade, it has a specially selected blend of nitrogen and oxygen isotopes that resonate in phase with the music thus making the sound more transparent, it's like a veil has been lifted when listening to music.

You're right of course, it is faithful to what the artist played. It isn't so faithful to what a concert-goer would hear though, even in the front row, and I speak as a concert goer who likes to get as close to the front as possible. DM

This.

@@AudioMasterclass Absolutely right. Your average concert goer will not be standing 1 foot away from the flutist. So no matter how much he moves around, it will still sound like a point source to the audience. This is a problem with the sound engineers basic recording philosophy, rather than a problem with their, or your, or my equipment. However, some recordings are not meant to recreate the sound of a live show from the perspective of the audience. Here we have at least three different philosophies - the "purist", who only wants a perfect recreation of the studio sound as the engineer intended, the "live", who wants to recreate the concert sound, and the "control", who wants absolute control over the sound; to mold it as he sees fit. Lets consider surround sound to be part of the "live" philosophy. To the purist, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the recording, as long as his equipment places the sound exactly where the engineer intended. The live might be "blown away" by the movement within the sound stage, or disappointed that there is movement at all (like yourself). The control may or may not care at all. He just wants it to sound as he wants it to sound. The movement may be aggravating only if he wants to fix it to a particular spot.

@@AudioMasterclass That's really the point, isn't it? Musically, we want to hear the clarinet from a distance, as a unity. Even from the front row, we don't hear it panning left and right, with high notes going to the extremes, and the bass notes falling in the middle. And we don't hear the (wandering) clarinet as being wider than the orchestra. Our brains process the sound so that the clarinet appears to be coming from where we see it being played. And the gyrations are very small.

@@AudioMasterclass While I agree that it might be what the artist wanted, the movement was so exaggerated that I actually believed that it was meant to be an intentionally *cheap trick.* The background picture/video lured me into considering that the clarinet was the acoustic depiction of an invisible forest fairy, flying left and right through the forest. And yes, my tracked the presumed location as it moved. I know I should have closed my eyes while listening.

Correct. It was a good creative decision most likely made by the mix engineer.

I always try to be as concise as I can but let's be real, sometimes the story just needs a little extra room to breathe! Think of it as the director's cut, the extended edition, the bonus features... you get the picture. Besides, who doesn't love a bit of anticipation? It's like waiting for your favourite dessert to arrive at a fancy restaurant - sure, you could gobble it down in minutes, but where's the fun in that? And hey, stretching it out means you're getting more entertainment for your time, right? It's like getting a two-for-one deal, but with laughs instead of lattes. So sit back, relax, and soak it all in - we're in no rush to reach the end credits. And who knows, maybe by the time we get there, you'll have mastered the art of patience... or at least picked up a few new exercises for your audiophile muscles! Thanks for sticking around for the long haul!

The real Elephant in the room.

I understand this, but that’s most likely due to the 6’1” parlor grand in my small living room. Oops. I should have spelled “parlor” as “parlour”

"Sinatra doesn't move pianos"

You can find my further thoughts on this topic here ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-EdDnAnSPQpg.html and here ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-m1VzhiBSv28.html

This is why if you're compressing a stereo signal, the two channels of the compressor must be linked so both channels are compressed the same amount. Otherwise, as you say, the stereo image will be unstable.

I'm no sound engineer but a mere musician and I obviously noticed the movement of the clarinet, but I was looking for an actual issue and couldn't find any. The reveal was more like: You think that this is a problem?? ^^ Maybe you can hear a bit of noise-floor but that could be on my side. The clarinet solo has no issues imho whatsoever, it is lively and captures all of your attention, one could argue about the width of the stereo image of the solo instrument, there was one single lower note that was way out to the left and almost sounded like it was coming from another source, but I absolutely love it exactly the way it is. It keeps you quite literally glued to the instrument, like you follow it with your ears. Could you do it differently? Sure. Could it be as great? Maybe. It's a decision that has been made and then been executed brilliantly.