On Sunday, August 4, 2013 6:27:55 AM UTC-7, Audio_Empire wrote:
On Saturday, August 3, 2013 6:50:38 AM UTC-7, Scott wrote:
On Friday, August 2, 2013 3:55:15 PM UTC-7, Audio_Empire wrote:
In article ,
Scott wrote:
snip
Again, it does not matter how the imaging got onto the recording.
What matters is how it images during playback. This phenomenon we
call imaging is not limited to music played on acoustic instruments.
This shows absolutely how out of touch with the reality of recording
and playback of music that this poster is.
So says the guy who flaunts his disdain for the music he claims to
know so much about.
He tells me that he thinks
that my entire assertion is wrong, and then he makes a clearly
clueless comment like the one above.
Who is clueless about how pop/rock music images? The guy who hates and
won't listen to it or the guy who loves it and has over 2,000 records
of it? Think about that for a moment.
Imaging, specifically image specificity relies on differences in
volume between right and left channels as well as timing cues and
phase differences to locate instruments in space.
Phase yes. Timing no. Talk about clueless. If there are timing
differences coming from right and left channels you don't get an
image.You get two sounds coming straight off the two speakers that are
out of sync. So imaging is a result of volume and phase properties,
NOT TIMING and one other thing, spectral balance.
When pop/rock
recordings are made, especially those relying on electronic
instruments, each instrument is miked separately, either using an
acoustical microphone such as a condenser mike (for some acoustic
instruments such a drum kits) dynamic mikes (usually for rock vocals)
and piezoelectric contact mikes - often called "frapping" (for some
acoustic instruments) and sometimes direct electronic connection for
electronic instruments like solid-body electric guitars, electronic
keyboard instruments, etc.).
Clearly as someone who hates the genre you have not done your homework
on how pop/rock recordings are made. But even when we are talking
about the ones that are actually made as you describe..IT DOESN'T
MATTER. What matters is what is heard as a result. And as someone who
actually listens to pop/rock music I can tell you from actual
experience rather than pure prejudice that you can get some pretty
fantastic imaging from some of those records.
These instruments are usually acoustically isolated from one another
in the studio space using moveable sound absorption "partitions"
called "gobos" . Each instrument/voice is miked or otherwise captured
separately and each instrument/voice is fed to the recording console
in the control room separately as well and is assigned it's own input
channel on that console. That means that each performer is captured
solo and the volume of each instrument or voice in the ensemble can be
raised or lowered in relationship to others at the desire of the
recording's producer and the engineers. Another parameter that is
controlled at this point is the position of each instrument or voice
from left to right on the two-channel "Buss" - although this is
usually done in the final mix to two channel. by using a control
called a "pan-pot" any of these separate instrument's "channels" can
be placed laterally across the stage from all the way stage right to
all the way stage left or anywhere in between. Given a two channel mix
down, only right to left localization is possible. There is no way to
place one instrument electronically behind or in front of another
instrument or to make one instrument see to be playing, physically
"above" another. This three-dimenionality we call "stereophonic sound"
is, strictly speaking, not possible using this type of recording
capture. Due to phase anomalies which may be accidentally captured
along with the wanted sound, some form of accidental "imaging" that
sounds like front-to-back imaging may end-up in the finished release.
But it cannot be purposely done and is not intentional or planned.
Make no mistake. Whether we are talking about a mix of electronic and
acoustical instruments capture in the above manner, or a symphony
orchestra recorded with a forest of microphones to 48, 64, 0r 96
channels of recording, the final two channel result is in NO WAY
stereophonic sound as it has no three-dimensional aspect to it. It
can't because none was captured. The only way true stereo, and
therefore real imaging info can be captured is by using a stereophonic
recording technique. Spaced omnis, A-B, XY, M-S, ORTF, and Blumlein
microphone techniques will all yield stereo. Multi-miking to
multi-channel monaural sound can yield only two or three channel mono
- right, center, left and that isn't stereo and that has no image.
This is just fact. There are no ifs, ands or buts about it. That this
poster believes that '...it does not matter how the imaging got onto
the recording. What matters is how it images during playback.."
clearly shows that he has no idea what he talking about.
I'm finished here with this argument.
A good call. I suggest you do some homework on how actual real world
pop/rock recordings have actually been made throughout the decades
before arguing any further. And better yet, you might consider
actually listening to some before commenting on how they sound. You
might want to start here and then give some of Bill Porter's
recordings an actual listen.
http://www.analogplanet.com/content/...orter-part-i-0
Here is a quote from that article describing the Bill Porter sound.
"The "Port+Sound" (if something so utterly neutral could be described
as a "sound") issounds like front-to-back imaging may end-up in the
finished release. ultra-dynamic and extremely wide-band. Bass is of
the intestine-shaking variety. The top end seems to sail on into
infinity, without a trace of the pinched, sandy glare found on many of
today's productions. The resulting "see-through," natural presentation
of vocal and instrumental timbre occurs on a soundstage that is
cinemascopic and deep, with individual instruments and Porter
recordings on high end stereos quite frequently. You see that is why
we are NOT clueless but actually are offering really well informed
opinions on the subject. How many Bill Porter recordings do you own
and listen to? I am going to go out on a limb and guess the answer is
zero. Now this is just one of many rock/pop recording engineers I can
point out that clearly show all your assertions about pop/rock music
and the recording techniques used for the genre are complete nonsense.
But there is not enough time in the day or space in this thread to do
so. So I leave you with just one recording engineer you might want to
familiarize yourself with before you argue any further on this
subject.