[[email protected]]

All this discussion of venue, sound producers, mic herders, knob/slider
jockies, etc. all comes down to what we can call the artist of final
decision. This is the person listening to speakers just before jabbing
the final record button.

It is that event that is the only "honest" event on a recording as the
artist wanted it. For honest reproduction of his intentions having both
an industry reference speaker on both ends of the chain is desired.

Using a digital industry reference sound source played through the
recording speaker, all factors using the same reference can be used on the
reproduction end to reproduce even in more detail the original artist's
intention.

All of the contributions of the venue and soundstaging and all those
contributing to the final product as judged by the artist of final
decision would be there. If he wanted "air" around the sound makers or
strict location of same or relative amplitude or any other factor of his
choosing, it would be their.

The listener would be free to fiddle with his decisions as they desired.
This could include having a digital template that forces the speakers to
reproduce as brand xyz would without the true hifi the above would allow.

Wire, amps, digital sources, etc. are now pretty much matters of commodity
decisions as to functions etc. and not inherent reproduction. Isn't it
time to make the rest of the reproduction chain same? Isn't it time to
have a straight wire with gain from the artist of final decision ear's to
ours?

[Scott[_6_]]

On Nov 11, 1:18=A0pm, wrote:
All this discussion of venue, sound producers, mic herders, knob/slider
jockies, etc. all comes down to what we can call the artist of final
decision. =A0This is the person listening to speakers just before jabbing
the final record button.

It is that event that is the only "honest" event on a recording as the
artist wanted it. =A0For honest reproduction of his intentions having bot=
h
an industry reference speaker on both ends of the chain is desired.

Using a digital industry reference sound source played through the
recording speaker, all factors using the same reference can be used on th=
e
reproduction end to reproduce even in more detail the original artist's
intention.

All of the contributions of the venue and soundstaging and all those
contributing to the final product as judged by the artist of final
decision would be there. =A0If he wanted "air" around the sound makers or
strict location of same or relative amplitude or any other factor of his
choosing, it would be their.

The listener would be free to fiddle with his decisions as they desired. =
=A0
This could include having a digital template that forces the speakers to
reproduce as brand xyz would without the true hifi the above would allow.

Wire, amps, digital sources, etc. are now pretty much matters of commodit=
y
decisions as to functions etc. and not inherent reproduction. =A0Isn't it
time to make the rest of the reproduction chain same? =A0Isn't it time to
have a straight wire with gain from the artist of final decision ear's to
ours?

I'm fine with that........So long as I get to pick the system that
becomes the standard.

[Sonnova]

On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 13:18:23 -0800, wrote
(in article ):

All this discussion of venue, sound producers, mic herders, knob/slider
jockies, etc. all comes down to what we can call the artist of final
decision. This is the person listening to speakers just before jabbing
the final record button.

It is that event that is the only "honest" event on a recording as the
artist wanted it. For honest reproduction of his intentions having both
an industry reference speaker on both ends of the chain is desired.

Using a digital industry reference sound source played through the
recording speaker, all factors using the same reference can be used on the
reproduction end to reproduce even in more detail the original artist's
intention.

All of the contributions of the venue and soundstaging and all those
contributing to the final product as judged by the artist of final
decision would be there. If he wanted "air" around the sound makers or
strict location of same or relative amplitude or any other factor of his
choosing, it would be their.

The listener would be free to fiddle with his decisions as they desired.
This could include having a digital template that forces the speakers to
reproduce as brand xyz would without the true hifi the above would allow.

Wire, amps, digital sources, etc. are now pretty much matters of commodity
decisions as to functions etc. and not inherent reproduction. Isn't it
time to make the rest of the reproduction chain same? Isn't it time to
have a straight wire with gain from the artist of final decision ear's to
ours?


Not possible. The only way you rockers will get to hear what the "artist of
final decision" heard would be for you to listen to the same speakers that
the studio where the performance was recorded listened to when mixing it and
to do so in the same listening environment.

For classical it's not so important as generally, these days, classical is
not manipulated in the control room much and what is recorded is pretty much
what the microphones "heard". If the recording sounds like music in your
listening room through your equipment and speakers, that's probably as close
to the real thing as the recording engineers ever got with their playback
equipment. My experience has been that most studio monitors not only aren't
very accurate, but any decent pair of audiophile speakers will generally
outperform them.

[Peter Wieck]

On Nov 11, 4:18=A0pm, wrote:
All this discussion of venue, sound producers, mic herders, knob/slider
jockies, etc. all comes down to what we can call the artist of final
decision. =A0This is the person listening to speakers just before jabbing
the final record button.

It is that event that is the only "honest" event on a recording as the
artist wanted it. =A0For honest reproduction of his intentions having bot=
h
an industry reference speaker on both ends of the chain is desired.

Much snippage....

So, the same problem arises as with the last attempt to discuss this
issue in "circle of confusion". One cannot control anything but the
front end. And that is thoroughly controlled as it is by the
preferences of the recording engineer and the artists-at-play.
Inasmuch as cats can be controlled without a large leavening of skill,
art and pure blind luck. Imagine that as the generator inside the
nuclear plant, or at the base of the Hoover Dam. Making only the
purest of power for the discriminating user.

Now, add 100 - 500 miles of power-grid and all the conversions and
transformations. That would be the 'everything else' between the
recording and the end-user's ears. Possible that there is some
linearity betwixt the two - but not likely. And even so, the industry
does try to (or at the very least pretends to try to) achieve that
linearity anyway. Imposing some fixed series of settings or against a
single rigid model smacks much of institutionalizing incompetence via
arbitrary standards.

Point being that if the front end is where the art both as the 'music'
and the recording of it is expressed, all the back end need do is
reproduce that as closely as possible without reference to 'forcing'
speakers to do anything much more than play what goes into them.

Anyone here remember Mark Twain's notes on how Riverboat Captains
unionized?

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

[Scott[_6_]]

On Nov 11, 5:47=A0pm, Peter Wieck wrote:
On Nov 11, 4:18=3DA0pm, wrote:


Point being that if the front end is where the art both as the 'music'
and the recording of it is expressed, all the back end need do is
reproduce that as closely as possible without reference to 'forcing'
speakers to do anything much more than play what goes into them.


Given the fact that a speaker is fed an electrical signal that is
essentially two dimensional (time and amplitude) and the speaker
converts that to acoustic energy into a three dimensional space so you
have essentially a four dimensional output and we have room bounderies
which will inevitably interact with the speakers out put AND we have
the issue of speaker/listener position AND we have speaker interaction
(providing we are not talking mono), given these facts...... your
simple task for the speaker proves to be anything but simple..

But really... all the back need do is please it's owner.

[Tom[_21_]]

Scott wrote:
On Nov 11, 5:47=A0pm, Peter Wieck wrote:
On Nov 11, 4:18=3DA0pm, wrote:


Point being that if the front end is where the art both as the 'music'
and the recording of it is expressed, all the back end need do is
reproduce that as closely as possible without reference to 'forcing'
speakers to do anything much more than play what goes into them.


Given the fact that a speaker is fed an electrical signal that is
essentially two dimensional (time and amplitude) and the speaker
converts that to acoustic energy into a three dimensional space so you
have essentially a four dimensional output and we have room bounderies
which will inevitably interact with the speakers out put AND we have
the issue of speaker/listener position AND we have speaker interaction
(providing we are not talking mono), given these facts...... your
simple task for the speaker proves to be anything but simple..

But really... all the back need do is please it's owner.

Wouldn't you have to be in the same size room, with the same wall &
ceiling materials to exactly duplicate the sound of the original
performance. Kinda tough for a symphony.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Nov 11, 8:25=A0pm, Tom wrote:
Scott wrote:
On Nov 11, 5:47=3DA0pm, Peter Wieck wrote:
On Nov 11, 4:18=3D3DA0pm, wrote:

Point being that if the front end is where the art both as the 'music'
and the recording of it is expressed, all the back end need do is
reproduce that as closely as possible without reference to 'forcing'
speakers to do anything much more than play what goes into them.

Given the fact that a speaker is fed an electrical signal that is
essentially two dimensional (time and amplitude) and the speaker
converts that to acoustic energy into a three dimensional space so you
have essentially a four dimensional output and we have room bounderies
which will inevitably interact with the speakers out put AND we have
the issue of speaker/listener position AND we have speaker interaction
(providing we are not talking mono), given these facts...... your
simple task for the speaker proves to be anything but simple..

But really... all the back need do is please it's owner.

Wouldn't you have to be in the same size room, with the same wall &
ceiling materials to exactly duplicate the sound of the original
performance. =A0Kinda tough for a symphony.- Hide quoted text -

That wouldn't work either. you would have to match the acoustic output
of each instrument along with the same radiation patterns. There is no
practical way to record the actual total acoustic output of any
instrument that isn't electric to begin with. Hifi isn't about a
literal recreation of an original acoustic event. it is about creating
an aural illusion of an original acoustic event. Very different.

[Peter Wieck]

On Nov 11, 10:24=A0pm, Scott wrote:

But really... all the back need do is please it's owner.

Yabbut - that would be too simple. This blather about 'standards' (at
least to me) is not much more than endorsing already established
avoidance behavior on the part of the industry so that it will no
longer have to even pretend to be creative - and at the same time
crush any actual creativity as exists within it.

Hence the reference to Mark Twain.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

[Andrew Barss]

Scott wrote:
: On Nov 11, 8:25=A0pm, Tom wrote:
: Scott wrote:
: On Nov 11, 5:47=3DA0pm, Peter Wieck wrote:
: On Nov 11, 4:18=3D3DA0pm, wrote:
:
: Point being that if the front end is where the art both as the 'music'
: and the recording of it is expressed, all the back end need do is
: reproduce that as closely as possible without reference to 'forcing'
: speakers to do anything much more than play what goes into them.
:
: Given the fact that a speaker is fed an electrical signal that is
: essentially two dimensional (time and amplitude) and the speaker
: converts that to acoustic energy into a three dimensional space so you
: have essentially a four dimensional output and we have room bounderies
: which will inevitably interact with the speakers out put AND we have
: the issue of speaker/listener position AND we have speaker interaction
: (providing we are not talking mono), given these facts...... your
: simple task for the speaker proves to be anything but simple..
:
: But really... all the back need do is please it's owner.
:
: Wouldn't you have to be in the same size room, with the same wall &
: ceiling materials to exactly duplicate the sound of the original
: performance. =A0Kinda tough for a symphony.- Hide quoted text -
:
: That wouldn't work either. you would have to match the acoustic output
: of each instrument along with the same radiation patterns.

You'd also need to have the same sized and shaped ears, same brain
lateralization, and the same width head, as the artist of final
decision (and I'm not kidding here,
especially about the ear shape, size, and orientation).

Me, I just like it when the music sounds great. Whether it sounded better
or worse or just different in the studio? Don't care so much.

-- Andy Barss

[Steven Sullivan]

Andrew Barss wrote:
Scott wrote:
: That wouldn't work either. you would have to match the acoustic output
: of each instrument along with the same radiation patterns.

You'd also need to have the same sized and shaped ears, same brain
lateralization, and the same width head, as the artist of final
decision (and I'm not kidding here,
especially about the ear shape, size, and orientation).

Me, I just like it when the music sounds great. Whether it sounded better
or worse or just different in the studio? Don't care so much.

Me, I find it sad that some people seem to think the application of
standards to the chaotic standard practices of music recording would somehow
impede the creation of *consistently better sounding* recordings.



--
-S
We have it in our power to begin the world over again - Thomas Paine

[Scott[_6_]]

On Nov 17, 3:37=A0am, Steven Sullivan wrote:
Andrew Barss wrote:
Scott wrote:
: That wouldn't work either. you would have to match the acoustic outpu=
t
: of each instrument along with the same radiation patterns.
You'd also need to have the same sized and shaped ears, same brain
lateralization, and =A0the same width head, as the artist of final
decision (and I'm not kidding here,
especially about the ear shape, size, and orientation).
Me, I just like it when the music sounds great. =A0Whether it sounded b=
etter
or worse or just different in the studio? =A0Don't care so much.

Me, I find it sad that some people seem to think the application of
standards to the chaotic standard practices of music recording would some=
how
impede the creation of *consistently better sounding* recordings.


I find it sad that some people with very little understanding of the
creative process think that freedom of choice for artists is
frightening, chaotic and is something to be limited to some form of
"standardization." I think we have been blessed by the wide variety of
recordings throughout the years. Now some people see that as a "circle
of confusion," and with that deem it as a bad thing that needs to be
reduced as much as possible.

[Andrew Haley]

Steven Sullivan writes:
Andrew Barss wrote:
Scott wrote:
: That wouldn't work either. you would have to match the acoustic output
: of each instrument along with the same radiation patterns.

You'd also need to have the same sized and shaped ears, same
brain lateralization, and the same width head, as the artist of
final decision (and I'm not kidding here, especially about the
ear shape, size, and orientation).

Me, I just like it when the music sounds great. Whether it
sounded better or worse or just different in the studio? Don't
care so much.

Me, I find it sad that some people seem to think the application of
standards to the chaotic standard practices of music recording
would somehow impede the creation of *consistently better sounding*
recordings.

Me too, but I have seen something very similar before. ICC colour
management has brought accuracy and repeatability to the printing and
graphic arts industries, but there were similar objections, and indeed
there still some experienced professionals who are not convinced. Of
course, people who were highly skilled at doing things one way weren't
happy about having to change the way they worked, especially since
there were things that they no longer could control. And also,
territory has been ceded by the arty types to the propellerheads, and
the arty types really hate that.

In the long term, victory for the "calibrationists" is certain, but in
many cases it'll have to wait for the old guard to retire.

Andrew.

[Sonnova]

On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 03:37:50 -0800, Steven Sullivan wrote
(in article ):

Andrew Barss wrote:
Scott wrote:
That wouldn't work either. you would have to match the acoustic output
of each instrument along with the same radiation patterns.

You'd also need to have the same sized and shaped ears, same brain
lateralization, and the same width head, as the artist of final
decision (and I'm not kidding here,
especially about the ear shape, size, and orientation).

Me, I just like it when the music sounds great. Whether it sounded better
or worse or just different in the studio? Don't care so much.

Me, I find it sad that some people seem to think the application of
standards to the chaotic standard practices of music recording would somehow
impede the creation of *consistently better sounding* recordings.

Having made thousands of pro-quality recordings over the years, I think the
idea of applying standards to a creative process such as recording is as
ludicrous as the idea of telling a Van Gough or a Picasso how and what to
paint by setting standards for both content and style.

[Sonnova]

On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 10:17:41 -0800, Scott wrote
(in article ):

On Nov 17, 3:37=A0am, Steven Sullivan wrote:
Andrew Barss wrote:
Scott wrote:
That wouldn't work either. you would have to match the acoustic outpu=
t
of each instrument along with the same radiation patterns.
You'd also need to have the same sized and shaped ears, same brain
lateralization, and =A0the same width head, as the artist of final
decision (and I'm not kidding here,
especially about the ear shape, size, and orientation).
Me, I just like it when the music sounds great. =A0Whether it sounded b=
etter
or worse or just different in the studio? =A0Don't care so much.

Me, I find it sad that some people seem to think the application of
standards to the chaotic standard practices of music recording would some=
how
impede the creation of *consistently better sounding* recordings.


I find it sad that some people with very little understanding of the
creative process think that freedom of choice for artists is
frightening, chaotic and is something to be limited to some form of
"standardization." I think we have been blessed by the wide variety of
recordings throughout the years. Now some people see that as a "circle
of confusion," and with that deem it as a bad thing that needs to be
reduced as much as possible.


Well said. I agree 100%. If you don't like a recording, don't buy another
from that producer/recording engineer/label. Recording is as much art as
science. Talk to 5 different recording engineers about the way to mike a
certain event, and you'll get 5 different opinions. Same with photographers,
painters, conductors, etc. These arts are interpretive arts and the beauty is
in the eye (and/or ear) of the beholder.

[Ed Seedhouse[_2_]]

On Nov 17, 7:22=A0pm, Sonnova wrote:

Recording is as much art as science.

I think that's simply nonsense, and typical of your exaggerations in
threads like this one. The Science bit is far more important and
without it there are no recordings. You can of course prove me wrong
simply by providing a high end recording made without any microphones
and played back without loudspeakers.

Without art you have a bad recording, no doubt. Without science you
have no recording whatsoever.

Talk to 5 different recording engineers about the way to mike a
certain event, and you'll get 5 different opinions.

But, while some of them may prefer one microphone over another, or one
set of monitor speakers over another, you will find that each and
every one of them uses a microphone of some kind to record with, and a
set of monitor speakers of some kind to master with.

There is art in recording, yes. But there is a lot more science and
engineering. Indeed the art is only possible because of the science
and engineering. To claim otherwise is to put the cart before the
horse.

[[email protected][_2_]]

On Nov 18, 8:01=A0am, Ed Seedhouse wrote:
On Nov 17, 7:22=A0pm, Sonnova wrote:

Recording is as much art as science.

I think that's simply nonsense, and typical of your exaggerations in
threads like this one. =A0The Science bit is far more important and
without it there are no recordings. =A0You can of course prove me wrong
simply by providing a high end recording made without any microphones
and played back without loudspeakers.

Without art you have a bad recording, no doubt. =A0Without science you
have no recording whatsoever.

Talk to 5 different recording engineers about the way to mike a
certain event, and you'll get 5 different opinions.

But, while some of them may prefer one microphone over another, or one
set of monitor speakers over another, you will find that each and
every one of them uses a microphone of some kind to record with, and a
set of monitor speakers of some kind to master with.

There is art in recording, yes. =A0But there is a lot more science and
engineering. =A0Indeed the art is only possible because of the science
and engineering. =A0To claim otherwise is to put the cart before the
horse.

However much like driving a car it's possible to master that art
without knowing anything whatsoever about "the science and
engineering" involved.

[jwvm]

On Nov 18, 11:57=A0am, " wrote:
snip
However much like driving a car it's possible to master that art
without knowing anything whatsoever about "the science and
engineering" involved.


That is highly questionable. Understanding the theory behind signal
processing is of great benefit for producing well-mastered recordings.
While a deep understanding of the theoretical basis may not be a big
advantage, some knowledge is essential for proper use of the available
tools. Sound engineering a good bit more complicated than simply
driving a car.

[Ed Seedhouse[_2_]]

On Nov 18, 8:57=A0am, " wrote:

There is art in recording, yes. =3DA0But there is a lot more science an=
d
engineering. =3DA0Indeed the art is only possible because of the scienc=
e
and engineering. =3DA0To claim otherwise is to put the cart before the
horse.

However much like driving a car it's possible to master that art
without knowing anything whatsoever about "the science and
engineering" involved.

This is true of many technologies, especially those with good
designs. Computers being perhaps the most obvious day to day
examples, but power to the home being perhaps more pertinent. It's
pretty easy to master the art of turning on the lights, but that
doesn't make the technological and scientific aspects any less
important. No one would claim, I imagine, that there is as much art
as science in turning on the lights. But the two cases, light
switching and sound recording, are about equally dependent on science
and technology as each other.

[Andrew Barss]

Steven Sullivan wrote:
: Andrew Barss wrote:
: Scott wrote:
: : That wouldn't work either. you would have to match the acoustic output
: : of each instrument along with the same radiation patterns.

: You'd also need to have the same sized and shaped ears, same brain
: lateralization, and the same width head, as the artist of final
: decision (and I'm not kidding here,
: especially about the ear shape, size, and orientation).

: Me, I just like it when the music sounds great. Whether it sounded better
: or worse or just different in the studio? Don't care so much.

: Me, I find it sad that some people seem to think the application of
: standards to the chaotic standard practices of music recording would somehow
: impede the creation of *consistently better sounding* recordings.

I can't figure out whether you agree or disagree with me. Can you
clarify?

Are you saying

a) pursuit of true/accurate/optimal fidelity to the original signal is the
standard that one should hold recordings to (which is subject to the
issues I and others have raised), or

b) you think the quality and aesthetics of the final recording is what
matters, since that fnal recordng is what we music listeners listen to?
(my position).

-- Andy Barss

[Scott[_6_]]

On 18 Nov, 05:01, Ed Seedhouse wrote:
On Nov 17, 7:22=A0pm, Sonnova wrote:

Recording is as much art as science.

I think that's simply nonsense, and typical of your exaggerations in
threads like this one. =A0The Science bit is far more important and
without it there are no recordings. =A0You can of course prove me wrong
simply by providing a high end recording made without any microphones
and played back without loudspeakers.

Oh c'mon, that's like saying auto racing is more of a science than a
sport "lets see them do it without the cars." Sonova isn't talking
about the invention of microphones and speakers. he is talking about
the aesthetic judgement made by recording engineers.


Without art you have a bad recording, no doubt. =A0Without science you
have no recording whatsoever.

That is the point though is it not? We are talking about quality of
recordings not the 'existance" of them.


Talk to 5 different recording engineers about the way to mike a
certain event, and you'll get 5 different opinions.

But, while some of them may prefer one microphone over another, or one
set of monitor speakers over another, you will find that each and
every one of them uses a microphone of some kind to record with, and a
set of monitor speakers of some kind to master with.

Really? Thanks for clearing that up.


There is art in recording, yes. =A0But there is a lot more science and
engineering. =A0Indeed the art is only possible because of the science
and engineering. =A0To claim otherwise is to put the cart before the
horse.

Quite to the contrary. That is like saying "yeah Shakespeare was a
great writer but where would he be without the quill and paper. So
lets give the inventors of paper and ink most of the credit.

[Ed Seedhouse[_2_]]

On Nov 18, 10:16=A0am, jwvm wrote:

However much like driving a car it's possible to master that art
without knowing anything whatsoever about "the science and
engineering" involved.

That is highly questionable. Understanding the theory behind signal
processing is of great benefit for producing well-mastered recordings.
While a deep understanding of the theoretical basis may not be a big
advantage, some knowledge is essential for proper use of the available
tools. Sound engineering a good bit more complicated than simply
driving a car.

It might very well help if more drivers had at least some
understanding of the physics of inertia and friction, of which most
seem to be entirely ignorant, at least in my part of the world.

[Scott[_6_]]

On 18 Nov, 16:26, Ed Seedhouse wrote:
On Nov 18, 10:16=A0am, jwvm wrote:

However much like driving a car it's possible to master that art
without knowing anything whatsoever about "the science and
engineering" involved.
That is highly questionable. Understanding the theory behind signal
processing is of great benefit for producing well-mastered recordings.
While a deep understanding of the theoretical basis may not be a big
advantage, some knowledge is essential for proper use of the available
tools. Sound engineering a good bit more complicated than simply
driving a car.

It might very well help if more drivers had at least some
understanding of the physics of inertia and friction, of which most
seem to be entirely ignorant, at least in my part of the world.

No. It wouldn't help. They "know" the practical applications through
experience. By the time any athlete is doing their thing it is second
nature. If they are thinking about the physics of it while in action
they are in trouble.

Now if we get back on subject instead of over analysing our analogies
we can ask the question what knowledge will help the recording
engineer make better recordings. Tough question to answer. "Better" is
not universally agreed upon. This strikes at the heart of the issue of
standardization. Whose standards will be applied? HK's ::snicker:: I'm
sure they would love that. "We need standards in recording and
playback, oh and we have that right here in our latest products."

I think knowledge is a good thing for recording engineers. I'd rather
they have that and use to to figure out what to do than have standard
rules to tell them what to do.

[[email protected][_2_]]

On Nov 18, 7:26=A0pm, Ed Seedhouse wrote:
On Nov 18, 10:16=A0am, jwvm wrote:

However much like driving a car it's possible to master that art
without knowing anything whatsoever about "the science and
engineering" involved.
That is highly questionable. Understanding the theory behind signal
processing is of great benefit for producing well-mastered recordings.
While a deep understanding of the theoretical basis may not be a big
advantage, some knowledge is essential for proper use of the available
tools. Sound engineering a good bit more complicated than simply
driving a car.

It might very well help if more drivers had at least some
understanding of the physics of inertia and friction, of which most
seem to be entirely ignorant, at least in my part of the world.

That would be of no more of a help in getting out of my pajamas from
bed in the AM than it is in driving my car. :-(

[Ed Seedhouse[_2_]]

On Nov 19, 9:27=A0am, Scott wrote:

[ Please provide cites for each level of quotation. -- dsr ]

It might very well help if more drivers had at least some
understanding of the physics of inertia and friction, of which most
seem to be entirely ignorant, at least in my part of the world.

No. It wouldn't help. They "know" the practical applications through
experience.

The plainly observable evidence in my city is that the do not know
that at all.

They tend, rather, to believe in entirely imagined "laws of physics"
that do not correspond to the actual ones except peripherally. For
instance they believe, generally it would appear, that they can bring
their vehicles to a halt in about half the distance that is actually
physically possible. The experiment is often tried around here, and
uniformly fails with distressing results.

But I suppose in your part of the world rear end collisions never
occur...

By the time any athlete is doing their thing it is second
nature. If they are thinking about the physics of it while in action
they are in trouble.

And yet whole departments of universities these days are occupied in
analyzing many sports scientifically and then passing the results on
to athletes, who then use this knowledge to improve their
performances. According to your theory this would be a futile
enterprise.

[Ed Seedhouse[_2_]]

On Nov 18, 4:25=A0pm, Scott wrote:
On 18 Nov, 05:01, Ed Seedhouse wrote:

On Nov 17, 7:22=A0pm, Sonnova wrote:

Recording is as much art as science.

I think that's simply nonsense, and typical of your exaggerations in
threads like this one. =A0The Science bit is far more important and
without it there are no recordings. =A0You can of course prove me wrong
simply by providing a high end recording made without any microphones
and played back without loudspeakers.

Oh c'mon, that's like saying auto racing is more of a science than a
sport "lets see them do it without the cars."

No, it's nothing like that at all. A sport is a performance, like a
concert is a performance. Both of them involve high degrees of art,
much higher than the scientific aspects.

But recording is not a performance, it is a recording and, ideally,
should involve no art at all. As our science is not perfect it does
involve some art. Now while we would all agree that motor racing is a
sport, I don't imagine that any of us would think that broadcasting
the Indy 500 is a sport. The race is a sport, the broadcast is not.

Similarly, the performance of a musical event is art. Recording the
performance is a technology which uses science to make possible.

To argue that recording is an art is equivalent to arguing that
broadcasting a race over television is itself a sport.

That is the point though is it not? We are talking about quality of
recordings not the 'existance" of them.

That is not my recollection at all. The claim as I remember is was
that recording was an art as much as a science. And, in my opinion,
that's nonsense.

every one of them uses a microphone of some kind to record with, and a
set of monitor speakers of some kind to master with.

Really? Thanks for clearing that up.

Well, it shouldn't have needed clearing up, but you apparently had
forgotten about it or deliberately chose to ignore it.

There is art in recording, yes. =A0But there is a lot more science and
engineering. =A0Indeed the art is only possible because of the science
and engineering. =A0To claim otherwise is to put the cart before the
horse.

Quite to the contrary. That is like saying "yeah Shakespeare was a
great writer but where would he be without the quill and paper. So
lets give the inventors of paper and ink most of the credit.

It is nothing like that at all. You are completely distorting and
misrepresenting what I did say.

By the way, I believe that if you research the matter, you will find
that so far as we know, Shakespeare himself never made any attempt to
record or preserve his own plays.

[Sonnova]

On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 09:27:07 -0800, wrote
(in article ):

On Nov 18, 7:26=A0pm, Ed Seedhouse wrote:
On Nov 18, 10:16=A0am, jwvm wrote:

However much like driving a car it's possible to master that art
without knowing anything whatsoever about "the science and
engineering" involved.
That is highly questionable. Understanding the theory behind signal
processing is of great benefit for producing well-mastered recordings.
While a deep understanding of the theoretical basis may not be a big
advantage, some knowledge is essential for proper use of the available
tools. Sound engineering a good bit more complicated than simply
driving a car.

It might very well help if more drivers had at least some
understanding of the physics of inertia and friction, of which most
seem to be entirely ignorant, at least in my part of the world.

That would be of no more of a help in getting out of my pajamas from
bed in the AM than it is in driving my car. :-(


I disagree. 90+% of Americans have no idea about how to drive a car. We
aren't taught to drive, we are taught to "operate a motor vehicle". A
different thing altogether. That makes us among the worst drivers in the
world. If you go for a driver's license in, say Germany, you are taught to
DRIVE and physics is very much a part of that. One is taught about roll
centers, moments of inertia, oversteer and understeer and how to initiate
either when needed. This is all physics. Here in the US, all people are
taught is that the right pedal makes it go, the left pedal makes it stop,
turn the steering wheel to the right to go right and to the left to go left -
and oh, yes, how to parallel park. No wonder most Americans are scared of
their cars.. .

[Sonnova]

On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 16:49:12 -0800, Ed Seedhouse wrote
(in article ):

On Nov 18, 4:25=A0pm, Scott wrote:
On 18 Nov, 05:01, Ed Seedhouse wrote:

On Nov 17, 7:22=A0pm, Sonnova wrote:

Recording is as much art as science.

I think that's simply nonsense, and typical of your exaggerations in
threads like this one. =A0The Science bit is far more important and
without it there are no recordings. =A0You can of course prove me wrong
simply by providing a high end recording made without any microphones
and played back without loudspeakers.

Oh c'mon, that's like saying auto racing is more of a science than a
sport "lets see them do it without the cars."

No, it's nothing like that at all. A sport is a performance, like a
concert is a performance. Both of them involve high degrees of art,
much higher than the scientific aspects.

But recording is not a performance, it is a recording and, ideally,
should involve no art at all. As our science is not perfect it does
involve some art. Now while we would all agree that motor racing is a
sport, I don't imagine that any of us would think that broadcasting
the Indy 500 is a sport. The race is a sport, the broadcast is not.

Irrelevant. Recording is an art and a science. Doing it right is not in any
manual, and although the basics can be taught, just as the basics of playing
a piano can be taught, knowing either is no guarantee of success. It takes
talent and experience to make a decent recording and nothing about is
cut-and-dry as you seem to think (obviously, you've never done it).

Similarly, the performance of a musical event is art. Recording the
performance is a technology which uses science to make possible.

Wrong. Recording the performance USES the technology and science to make it
possible, but recording in and of it self is the applications of skills and
experience which uses the technological skills provided by modern scinece and
engineering.

To argue that recording is an art is equivalent to arguing that
broadcasting a race over television is itself a sport.

Ridiculous. Broadcasting a race over television is just as much of an art as
is recording. I'll guarantee you that I could give you the latest and
greatest high-definition television tools, and you couldn't do it (and
neither could I). I don't have the skills, you likely don't either. And even
if you did have the skills, without the artistic judgement that has to
accompany those skills, what you end up with would be boring amateurish.

That is the point though is it not? We are talking about quality of
recordings not the 'existance" of them.

That is not my recollection at all. The claim as I remember is was
that recording was an art as much as a science. And, in my opinion,
that's nonsense.

Obviously, what you call nonsense is based upon a total lack of comprehension
about what is involved in making a recording. Next you're going to tell us
that there is no art in cinematography or still photography because both
require science. If so, I'm sure James Wong Howe and Ansel Adams are spinning
in their graves!

every one of them uses a microphone of some kind to record with, and a
set of monitor speakers of some kind to master with.

Really? Thanks for clearing that up.

Well, it shouldn't have needed clearing up, but you apparently had
forgotten about it or deliberately chose to ignore it.

I believe that he was being sarcastic...

There is art in recording, yes. =A0But there is a lot more science and
engineering. =A0Indeed the art is only possible because of the science
and engineering. =A0To claim otherwise is to put the cart before the
horse.

Quite to the contrary. That is like saying "yeah Shakespeare was a
great writer but where would he be without the quill and paper. So
lets give the inventors of paper and ink most of the credit.

It is nothing like that at all. You are completely distorting and
misrepresenting what I did say.

No, he isn't. It's an extreme analogy, to be sure, but an apt one for
illustrative purposes. Actually comparing the art of recording to photography
is a much better analogy in my opinion.

By the way, I believe that if you research the matter, you will find
that so far as we know, Shakespeare himself never made any attempt to
record or preserve his own plays.

That's debatable and surely beside the point.

[Ed Seedhouse[_2_]]

On Nov 20, 5:23=A0am, Sonnova wrote:

[ Please attribute your quotes properly. -- dsr ]

That is the point though is it not? We are talking about quality of
recordings not the 'existance" of them.

That is not my recollection at all. =A0The claim as I remember is was
that recording was =A0an art as much as a science. =A0And, in my opinio=
n,
that's nonsense.

Obviously, what you call nonsense is based upon a total lack of comprehen=
sion
about what is involved in making a recording. Next you're going to tell u=
s
that there is no art in cinematography or still photography because both
require science. If so, I'm sure James Wong Howe and Ansel Adams are spin=
ning
in their graves!

Please stop twisting my words. I neither said nor implied that there
is no art in the process of recording. In fact I said there was. I
just said that to say there is "as much" art as sciences is obviously
nonsense. It remains nonsense for the reasons I gave, and the fact
that you are now putting words in my mouth that I never said does not
make it any less nonsense. Furthermore accusing me of things like
"total lack of comprehension" is merely name calling and based on no
evidence whatsoever.

This kind of thing, is alas, replete in your last message and I don't
think I'll continue what seems to have become a take no prisoners war
on your part rather than a conversation.


[ This section of the thread is now over. I suggest that
everyone step back and calm down for a while. -- dsr ]

[Ed Seedhouse[_2_]]

On Nov 20, 5:23=A0am, Sonnova wrote:
That is the point though is it not? We are talking about quality of
recordings not the 'existance" of them.

That is not my recollection at all. =A0The claim as I remember is was
that recording was =A0an art as much as a science. =A0And, in my opinio=
n,
that's nonsense.

Obviously, what you call nonsense is based upon a total lack of comprehen=
sion
about what is involved in making a recording. Next you're going to tell u=
s
that there is no art in cinematography or still photography because both
require science. If so, I'm sure James Wong Howe and Ansel Adams are spin=
ning
in their graves!

Please stop twisting my words. I neither said nor implied that there
is no art in the process of recording. In fact I said there was. I
just said that to say there is "as much" art as sciences is obviously
nonsense. It remains nonsense for the reasons I gave, and the fact
that you are now putting words in my mouth that I never said does not
make it any less nonsense. Furthermore accusing me of things like
"total lack of comprehension" is merely name calling and based on no
evidence whatsoever.

This kind of thing, is alas, replete in your last message and I don't
think I'll continue what seems to have become a take no prisoners war
on your part rather than a conversation.

[Peter Wieck]

Mpffff.... this is straying far from the subject.

Please indulge me and allow me to express a couple of opinions as my
position is likely already clear.

No artist will object to his paints, tools, materials or equipment
being manufactured to rigid, repeatable and predictable standards.
That will allow him to do his job not worrying about those aspects. Of
course he is also entitled to mix his own pigments, make his own tools
and so forth. Neither choice detracts from his art or the expression
thereof.

No engineer will object to his equipment, tools, materials and systems
being made to rigid, repeatable and predictable standards. And he is
certainly expected to hew to the laws of physics. Verily, it must be
so for him to do his engineering. But he is still allowed to extract
the most possible function out of the equipment in a way that best
meets the intent and/or requirement. And he is also free to engineer
those things he needs to his own standards and requirements if the
available choices are inadequate. Neither choice interferes with or
detracts from his work.

Point being that standards as they do not interfere with creativity
make that creativity easier to express. And when the standards are
inadequate, creativity must-needs be allowed to supercede them. The
Recording Industry is no different.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

[Scott[_6_]]

On 19 Nov, 16:49, Ed Seedhouse wrote:

But recording is not a performance, it is a recording and, ideally,
should involve no art at all.

I was going to leave your post alone as I felt it pretty much
defeated itself but i thought this comment and the ones that follow
simply need to be addressed. How do you figure "ideally a recording
should involve no art at all?" I honestly don't want to offend but
this one leaves me scratching my head. How would one have recorded
Pink Floyd Dark Side of the Moon with no art at all? You can even
imagine perfect technology, how does one record that album without
making artistic choices as a recording engineer? Lets take a less
obvious example. How would Rudy Van Gelder have done his recordings,
and lets give him "perfect technology for laughs" without making
artistic choices? Lets take the ultimate least obvious example. How
does one record something as clearly finished and pollished in it's
natural form as a classical concert without making artistic choices?
What would constitute a recording sans any artitic choices in the
recording itself? maybe you can describe a scenerio in which a
recording engineer, even with perfect technology, would make a
recording sans any artistic choices. I can't see how it is possible.
It's like painting a room without choosing a color.

As our science is not perfect it does
involve some art.

Science is not perfect? I'm guessing you mean the technology. I don't
think this is the reason there is artistry in recording. Imagine what
it would mean to have perfect technology and then try to describe a
recording that due to perfect technology is now free of artistic
choices, conscious or not.

Now while we would all agree that motor racing is a
sport, I don't imagine that any of us would think that broadcasting
the Indy 500 is a sport. The race is a sport, the broadcast is not.

Of course it is not a sport. but it does involve choices that are
quite artistic, Camera placement, Camera movement, lens choices,
editing, Not to mention writing and a whole skill set that comes with
being an anouncer. There is a great deal of technology involved but
the excellence in broadcasting such an event is highly dependent on
the artistic choices of the director and his crew. You did know that
didn't you? I understand that such things as sports broadcasting can
become so common place that viewers become quite oblivious to these
things.

[Scott[_6_]]

On 20 Nov, 16:19, Peter Wieck wrote:
Mpffff.... this is straying far from the subject.

Please indulge me and allow me to express a couple of opinions as my
position is likely already clear.

No artist will object to his paints, tools, materials or equipment
being manufactured to rigid, repeatable and predictable standards.
That will allow him to do his job not worrying about those aspects.


As an artist I beg to differ. I thrive on the vast variety of options
I have due to the very distinct differences in philosophies and
beliefs held by the various manufacturers of my tools and materials.
If they were all held to some set of universal standards along the
lines that Sean Olive is proposing be done in audio my choices would
be severely constricted.

Of
course he is also entitled to mix his own pigments, make his own tools
and so forth. Neither choice detracts from his art or the expression
thereof.

Well that just wouldn't be true if there were some inforced set of
standards in play. I'm pretty sure that Olive is not thinking of
institutionalizing a set of standards in recording just so the
recording engineer can go in there and rework and customize the
equipment. I'm pretty sure he is trying to do the opposite.



No engineer will object to his equipment, tools, materials and systems
being made to rigid, repeatable and predictable standards.


That isn't at issue here. This sin't about makers of audio equipment
being consistant to their own designs but complying to a standard that
is imposed upon them so they can be in the loop.


And he is
certainly expected to hew to the laws of physics. Verily, it must be
so for him to do his engineering. But he is still allowed to extract
the most possible function out of the equipment in a way that best
meets the intent and/or requirement. And he is also free to engineer
those things he needs to his own standards and requirements if the
available choices are inadequate. Neither choice interferes with or
detracts from his work.

Point being that standards as they do not interfere with creativity
make that creativity easier to express. And when the standards are
inadequate, creativity must-needs be allowed to supercede them. The
Recording Industry is no different.



I don't think this is where Olive is going with standardization.

[Ed Seedhouse[_2_]]

On Nov 20, 8:30=A0pm, Scott wrote:
On 19 Nov, 16:49, Ed Seedhouse wrote:

But recording is not a performance, it is a recording and, ideally,
should involve no art at all.

=A0I was going to leave your post alone as I felt it pretty much
defeated itself but i thought this comment and the ones that follow
simply need to be addressed. How do you figure "ideally a recording
should involve no art at all?"

I can only suggest you refer yourself to a dictionary and find the
definition of the word "ideal". I will not deal with your specific
points as they all seem to me to come from either a complete
misunderstanding of common word usage, or, well let's be charitable
and leave it at that.

[Sonnova]

On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 16:19:05 -0800, Peter Wieck wrote
(in article ):

Mpffff.... this is straying far from the subject.

Please indulge me and allow me to express a couple of opinions as my
position is likely already clear.

No artist will object to his paints, tools, materials or equipment
being manufactured to rigid, repeatable and predictable standards.
That will allow him to do his job not worrying about those aspects. Of
course he is also entitled to mix his own pigments, make his own tools
and so forth. Neither choice detracts from his art or the expression
thereof.

No engineer will object to his equipment, tools, materials and systems
being made to rigid, repeatable and predictable standards. And he is
certainly expected to hew to the laws of physics. Verily, it must be
so for him to do his engineering. But he is still allowed to extract
the most possible function out of the equipment in a way that best
meets the intent and/or requirement. And he is also free to engineer
those things he needs to his own standards and requirements if the
available choices are inadequate. Neither choice interferes with or
detracts from his work.

Point being that standards as they do not interfere with creativity
make that creativity easier to express. And when the standards are
inadequate, creativity must-needs be allowed to supercede them. The
Recording Industry is no different.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

Absolutely agreed.

[Sonnova]

On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 16:20:47 -0800, Dick Pierce wrote
(in article ):

Sonnova wrote:
Next you're going to tell us that there is no art in cinematography
or still photography because both require science. If so, I'm sure
James Wong Howe and Ansel Adams are spinning in their graves!

Certainly I didn't read such out of his statement.

And, while you're digging up Adams, I might suggest
you actually read what Adams wrote: he is quite explicit
that his invention of the Zone system is based on a very
complete SCIENTIFIC analysis and understanding of the
sensitometric properies of every partion of the media,
INCLUDING the human perceptive system. His process
of being able to "see through: the camera all the way to
the finished print is vitally dependent upon the training
of the photographer to recognize and understand the specific
properties of the film, the development processes and then
the printing paper, it's development process, even to the
effect of drying, mounting, hanging and illuminating the
final print.



Yes, I not only know what he wrote, I took a class from him in Yosemite one
summer and got to know the man very well. His art USED the sciences of
photometery and chemistry to achieve and wouldn't have been possible without
them. Yet, using those same tools, a lesser artist (such as myself) is
clearly not able to elicit the same results. Yes, just as in recording, the
medium enters into the equation as a condition of the art, but does not
define that art. The artist does that by manipulating his or her unique and
personal vision of reality. That's why the tools (and the methodology of
using them), without the artist, are just useless hardware.

[Steven Sullivan]

Andrew Barss wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote:
: Andrew Barss wrote:
: Scott wrote:
: : That wouldn't work either. you would have to match the acoustic output
: : of each instrument along with the same radiation patterns.

: You'd also need to have the same sized and shaped ears, same brain
: lateralization, and the same width head, as the artist of final
: decision (and I'm not kidding here,
: especially about the ear shape, size, and orientation).

: Me, I just like it when the music sounds great. Whether it sounded better
: or worse or just different in the studio? Don't care so much.

: Me, I find it sad that some people seem to think the application of
: standards to the chaotic standard practices of music recording would somehow
: impede the creation of *consistently better sounding* recordings.

I can't figure out whether you agree or disagree with me. Can you
clarify?

Are you saying

a) pursuit of true/accurate/optimal fidelity to the original signal is the
standard that one should hold recordings to (which is subject to the
issues I and others have raised), or

b) you think the quality and aesthetics of the final recording is what
matters, since that fnal recordng is what we music listeners listen to?
(my position).

What recorded music listeners listen to -- whether it's the consumer
at home or the producers in the control room -- is the recording +
the coloration of the loudspeakers + the coloration of the room.
Don't you think that is going to impact judgement of 'quality and
esthetics' of the recording?

The circle of confusion encompasses both the recording/production end
and the playback end.

--
-S
We have it in our power to begin the world over again - Thomas Paine

[Peter Wieck]

I will try once more to see if I 'get' this - and why I think the
entire issue is so much blather if I do.

On Nov 18, 7:25=A0pm, Andrew Barss wrote:

I can't figure out whether you agree or disagree with me. Can you
clarify?

Are you saying

a) pursuit of true/accurate/optimal fidelity to the original signal is th=
e
standard that one should hold recordings to (which is subject to the
issues I and others have raised), or

b) you think the quality and aesthetics of the final recording is what
matters, since that fnal recordng is what we music listeners listen to?
(my position).

Actually, neither. It is not necessary to take an either/or position -
take your example from William of Occam and just use Is/Is Not.
Example for clarification: Color - Either something Is black or Is Not
black. Black is _only_ black. Not Black is anything at all _except_
black but NOT NECESSARILY WHITE. Get it?

The original *signal* implies the electrical pulses laid down at the
first recording by the microphones. My preference would be to extend
that to what is heard by the typical listener at any given random spot
in the audience - and this is important.

The final recording is *necessarily* not equivalent to what every
listener hears. At best and using heroic measures it closely
approximates what one specific listener might hear - and then only if
reproduced with headphones. Those measures would have to include two
closely spaced microphones approximately a head apart and with the
proper material between them, placed at an appropriate height in an
appropriate location in the actual audience. Not typically how it is
done - although this process is being used in some cases.

a) Ain't nohow no speakers on earth other than *perhaps* those inside
headphones that will reproduce this experience.

b) So, the moment standard recording techniques are used the product
of those techniques is radically different and separate from what one
might hear.

c) The moment there is a change in the recording venue (Avery Fisher
Hall vs. The Academy of Music, for instance) an additional layer of
separation is added.

d) The moment the product is reproduced via speakers an additional
layer of separation is added.

e) The moment those _very-same_ speakers are moved even a few inches
much less to a different location, an additional layer of separation
is added.

f) Much less with different speakers *and* a different location.

So, what it comes down to is that standardization across the simple
divide of the recording venue and the listening venue is impossible to
any practical or reasonable approximation.

So what it comes down to is that standardization across recording
venues alone is impossible to any practical or reasonable
approximation.

Which leaves us with the Recording Engineer, Mixing Engineer and Re-
Mastering Engineer whether the same or different and how the signal as
received at the microphones is laid down, printed and sent along to
us. And how we then take that signal and play it back through our
particular and peculiar prejudices, preferences and processes further
colored by our actual system and the room it is in and the time of day
and what we had for breakfast and so forth and so on.

I hope what the various or singular engineer laid down is compatible
with my preferences at my destination. And two different engineers
will hear things differently - thank goodness for that!! As if the
standard became the product of the most incompetent and wretched
engineer's preferences (standards become the _lowest_ acceptable
point) then nothing good is possible.

I keep referring to Mark Twain and his story of unionization of the
Mississippi Riverboat Captains. Those of you less literary and more
practical might think about the term "work to rule" when advocating
'standards'.

One last thing: Studio Recordings are 100% artificial constructs
whether classical or rock or folk or spoken word. And as with many
artificial things, anything is possible from sublime to truly
horrible. "Work to Rule" with studio recordings gives me the cold
shivers!

No confusion here at all.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

[Andrew Barss[_2_]]

Peter Wieck wrote:
: I will try once more to see if I 'get' this - and why I think the
: entire issue is so much blather if I do.

: On Nov 18, 7:25=A0pm, Andrew Barss wrote:

: I can't figure out whether you agree or disagree with me. Can you
: clarify?
:
: Are you saying
:
: a) pursuit of true/accurate/optimal fidelity to the original signal is=
the
: standard that one should hold recordings to (which is subject to the
: issues I and others have raised), or
:
: b) you think the quality and aesthetics of the final recording is what
: matters, since that fnal recordng is what we music listeners listen to=
?
: (my position).

: Actually, neither. It is not necessary to take an either/or position -
: take your example from William of Occam and just use Is/Is Not.
: Example for clarification: Color - Either something Is black or Is Not
: black. Black is _only_ black. Not Black is anything at all _except_
: black but NOT NECESSARILY WHITE. Get it?

Yes. I teach logic a the graduate level, FWIW.=20
You don;t need to invoke the law of the excluded middle, nor the=20
difference between not having a property and having a different property.
I just asked a simple question!



: The original *signal* implies the electrical pulses laid down at the
: first recording by the microphones. My preference would be to extend
: that to what is heard by the typical listener at any given random spot
: in the audience - and this is important.

I chose my words badly, and what you say in the quote above is what I=20
meant. I avoided "performance" since a lot of the music I listen to
is not recorded, nor is some of it ever played, live, but created through=
=20
multiple recordings.

: The final recording is *necessarily* not equivalent to what every
: listener hears.

Yes -- see my post earlier about ear shape, cerebral lateralization, and=20
so on. I would strengthen your "every listener" to "any listener (in the=20
studio/performance venue".=20

: b) So, the moment standard recording techniques are used the product
: of those techniques is radically different and separate from what one
: might hear.

Yes, agreed.


: c) The moment there is a change in the recording venue (Avery Fisher
: Hall vs. The Academy of Music, for instance) an additional layer of
: separation is added.

Yes, agreed.

: d) The moment the product is reproduced via speakers an additional
: layer of separation is added.

Indeed so.

: e) The moment those _very-same_ speakers are moved even a few inches
: much less to a different location, an additional layer of separation
: is added.

Yup.

: f) Much less with different speakers *and* a different location.

Certainly.

: So, what it comes down to is that standardization across the simple
: divide of the recording venue and the listening venue is impossible to
: any practical or reasonable approximation.

I agree totally. =20

But what I was asking about was somewhat different, and simply whether=20
you were saying (in your earlier post) that the goal is music sounding=20
terrific, regardless of fidelity to any stage of the chain of producing=20
the music you identify above (including the first one), or not (e.g,=20
"fidelity to the original performance", as many here suggest is the goal)=
..

: So what it comes down to is that standardization across recording
: venues alone is impossible to any practical or reasonable
: approximation.

Again, my question wasn't about standardization, it was about the end=20
product and whether it sounding excellent as music was the goal or not.

: Which leaves us with the Recording Engineer, Mixing Engineer and Re-
: Mastering Engineer whether the same or different and how the signal as
: received at the microphones is laid down, printed and sent along to
: us. And how we then take that signal and play it back through our
: particular and peculiar prejudices, preferences and processes further
: colored by our actual system and the room it is in and the time of day
: and what we had for breakfast and so forth and so on.
snip

Okay, so we are in complete agreement. Thanks.

-- Andy Barss