Mind Stretchers
"KH" wrote in message
...
On 6/6/2012 5:55 PM, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
big snip
I just hope upon hope that some of the correspondents are not right, that
it
is just a matter of taste and I am tilting at windmills.
I haven't seen any correspondents saying that it is *just* a matter of
taste. Quite the opposite. Everyone has acknowledged that there are many
areas, especially in the recording process, where clearly things can
improve. What is clear, however, is that you consistently refuse to
acknowledge that preference plays a major role, and thus there simply
cannot be any universally acknowledged *best*, or most realistic
presentation.
I haven't talked all that much about preference, that is not the point of
the thread. I couldn't have refused to acknowledge preference's role in
audio.
There HAS to be something more scientific about it than that.
There is nothing remotely unscientific about evaluating and understanding
listener preferences, and recognizing how such preferences impact the
universality or efficacy of any particular engineering solution. As long
as you continue to think there is *a* single correct way to create
realism, you will be tilting at windmills.
Didn't talk about a single best way, acknowledged many times that there are
many ways to make a recording, for example, such as Blumlein, spaced omni,
ORT-F, etc. Just talking about what is audible about speakers and rooms, and
attempting to offer a new way to look at the big picture of sound in rooms
and compare that to the live situation.
I offered in the What Can We Hear thread that the spatial nature of sound
was the main stumbling block, or difference, between live and reproduced. I
said that we can hear speaker positioning and different radiation patterns
and offered some reasons for certain positioning and the result of
mis-positioning them. If a hole in the middle effect is a matter of
preference, then more power to you. If a boxy sound in speakers is a
preference, then hey.
For me, it really helps in my recording efforts to be able to "see" sound
patterns or the probable implications of microphone positioning or technique
w respect to the final result, because often I cannot hear that final result
until I get home and produce the recording and play it on my big system. On
the recording site, all I have is a headphone to make sure the channels are
all working and I am getting some good strong signal. I place the mikes
more visually than anything else, because there is no monitoring setup
isolated from the performers.
In setting up a home audio system, I appreciate a more visual understanding
of sound as a basis for room treatment, speaker selection, and positioning.
Within all of those ranges, there are a lot of possible preferences, but
that was not what I was hoping to talk about, and you are right, that would
be pointless.
If ANYBODY got ANYTHING out of this thread, please tell me.
Gary Eickmeier
|