nickbatz wrote:
~~~
"... but also didn't have a great answer why (I'm going to say it again)
the human brain accepts multiple spaces on a recording.
And it absolutely does! Tests have proven!"
~~~
On Monday, March 25, 2019 at 2:54:45 PM UTC-7, Adrian Tuddenham wrote:
... the tests are
highly likely to be skewed.
There again I was being rhetorical - as far as I know there haven't been
any actual tests
Those two statements appear to contradict each other. Were there any
tests and, if so, what exactly did they prove?
You wanted an explanation of why those who do accept it find it
acceptable - I suggested habituation was the most likely explanation. I
used to accept artificial reverb myself when I worked in other fields,
but since I became a recording engineer (many years ago now) I have
learned to recognise it and I don't like it when I hear it.
I think we're talking about different contexts, Adrian. One could easily
say what you're saying about compression - that it sticks out as being
particularly nasty for trained people (especially on acoustic recordings),
but more extreme settings have become part and parcel of the sound people
are used to on pop productions.
I think you are answering your own question here, people who listen to
compressed multitrack recordings with artificial reverb don't notice any
of those things because that is what they are used to - it may even be
what they prefer. People adapt to all sorts of changes in the visual
and audible pathways and these distortion have become the norm for
people who listen to most of the recordings of the last 50 years.
Someone who listens to recordings doesn't even have to think about
whether they are realistic or not - but if you intercepted the sounds of
real everyday life entering their ears and imposed those artificialities
on them, the same person would notice immediately.
--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk