Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Multiple spaces in recordings
One of the wonders of audio is that we're able to accept lots of radically different spaces in recordings - even acoustic recordings, as opposed to pop production.
This comes up all the time when people ask whether xxx sample library's orchestral woodwinds would blend with yyy library's brass and zzz library's percussion and strings. The answer is always yes - just choose the library with the woodwind sound you like. It doesn't matter that the instruments are recorded from totally different mic positions in different spaces (leaving aside that you do still have to position the sections appropriately for a realistic sound). Similarly, I'm working on a short piece with a bunch of synths and sampled instruments up close, but adding sampled timps far away at the back of a stage with huge recorded hall reverb is totally believable. And we all know about obvious things like drum room mics and overheads marrying perfectly with gated snare reverbs, etc. I've been trying to come up with a reason why this seemingly total suspension of disbelief works. One avenue of explanation is that everything is coming from speakers in the room, and that integrates it all. But it's also true with headphones. Any ideas? |
#2
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Multiple spaces in recordings
nickbatz wrote:
One of the wonders of audio is that we're able to accept lots of radically = different spaces in recordings - even acoustic recordings, as opposed to po= p production. .... I've been trying to come up with a reason why this seemingly total suspensi= on of disbelief works. One avenue of explanation is that everything is comi= ng from speakers in the room, and that integrates it all. But it's also tru= e with headphones. Works? It drives me up the wall. It drove me up the wall when the Beatles did it and it drives me up the wall today when I hear it. If the voice sounds like it's in a totally different place than the guitar, it is very distracting. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#3
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Multiple spaces in recordings
On Tuesday, March 19, 2019 at 1:55:19 PM UTC-7, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Works? It drives me up the wall. It drove me up the wall when the Beatles did it and it drives me up the wall today when I hear it. If the voice sounds like it's in a totally different place than the guitar, it is very distracting. Well, it's not difficult to use reverb badly whether it's a single one for everything or individual ones. But in general, yes, I say it does work - and it's done all the time, as you know. |
#4
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Multiple spaces in recordings
If it sounds OK to you, it might not sound OK to others.
I do find that double checking with headphones is a very good way to get things evened out when using reverbs. |
#5
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Multiple spaces in recordings
On Wednesday, March 20, 2019 at 8:54:21 AM UTC-7, Ty Ford wrote:
If it sounds OK to you, it might not sound OK to others. I do find that double checking with headphones is a very good way to get things evened out when using reverbs. I think you guys are missing what I'm asking. Using multiple reverbs or spaces is standard practice on every pop recording since the stone ages, and on many acoustic recordings too. How often is the lead vocal run through the same reverb as the drum overheads, for example? For that matter, how often is the lead vocal in the same room as the drums? Sometimes, but iso booths are normal. This isn't a trivial question, it's one that I've been contemplating for a long time! Okay, you can argue that I'm a simp, but there's some psychoacoustic stuff going on in our brains that I don't understand. |
#6
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Multiple spaces in recordings
nickbatz wrote:
On Wednesday, March 20, 2019 at 8:54:21 AM UTC-7, Ty Ford wrote: If it sounds OK to you, it might not sound OK to others. I do find that double checking with headphones is a very good way to get things evened out when using reverbs. I think you guys are missing what I'm asking. Using multiple reverbs or spaces is standard practice on every pop recording since the stone ages, and on many acoustic recordings too. How often is the lead vocal run through the same reverb as the drum overheads, for example? For that matter, how often is the lead vocal in the same room as the drums? Sometimes, but iso booths are normal. This isn't a trivial question, it's one that I've been contemplating for a long time! Okay, you can argue that I'm a simp, but there's some psychoacoustic stuff going on in our brains that I don't understand. I think your question is if there's a different optimal-amount of reverb for the pure sonority of each instrument while in the mix, which is good for the overall sonority of the recording, and if there is, then if there's an acceptable range of give and take between this pure sonority and sense-of-space. -- Matt |
#7
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Multiple spaces in recordings
Matt Faunce wrote:
nickbatz wrote: On Wednesday, March 20, 2019 at 8:54:21 AM UTC-7, Ty Ford wrote: If it sounds OK to you, it might not sound OK to others. I do find that double checking with headphones is a very good way to get things evened out when using reverbs. I think you guys are missing what I'm asking. Using multiple reverbs or spaces is standard practice on every pop recording since the stone ages, and on many acoustic recordings too. How often is the lead vocal run through the same reverb as the drum overheads, for example? For that matter, how often is the lead vocal in the same room as the drums? Sometimes, but iso booths are normal. This isn't a trivial question, it's one that I've been contemplating for a long time! Okay, you can argue that I'm a simp, but there's some psychoacoustic stuff going on in our brains that I don't understand. I think your question is if there's a different optimal-amount of reverb for the pure sonority of each instrument while in the mix, which is good for the overall sonority of the recording, and if there is, then if there's an acceptable range of give and take between this pure sonority and sense-of-space. Let me rephrase that. I think the assumption of engineers who use different reverb levels is that there's a different optimal-amount of reverb for the pure sonority of each instrument while in the mix, which is good for the overall sonority of the recording. My question is, if that's true, is there's an acceptable range of give and take between this pure sonority and sense-of-space, and if so, is there a rule that regulates it? -- Matt |
#8
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Multiple spaces in recordings
It's not a matter of reverb levels - although that's also an important parameter, of course! - it's that the ear tolerates *totally discrete spaces* on recordings.
I just talked to my friend Dave Moulton about this, and he too has long been baffled by the same thing. He said it's probably just a willing suspension of disbelief, some screwiness in our brains! |
#9
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Multiple spaces in recordings
My question is, if that's true, is there's an acceptable range of give and
take between this pure sonority and sense-of-space, and if so, is there a rule that regulates it? On that subject, I've always differentiated between reverb on an individual instrument and overall space reverb. And by "always," I mean it's not something I've ever questioned - it just seems evident that some reverb processors and programs stick to certain instruments, and some don't. For example, trying to find a good reverb for a solo flute or sine wave-ish synth sound isn't always easy. |
#10
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Multiple spaces in recordings
On 3/20/2019 2:40 PM, nickbatz wrote:
Using multiple reverbs or spaces is standard practice on every pop recording since the stone ages, and on many acoustic recordings too. How often is the lead vocal run through the same reverb as the drum overheads, for example? For that matter, how often is the lead vocal in the same room as the drums? In my recordings, all the time. I want to make things sound like they're all in the same room. But then, I record real musicians playing real instruments, mostly together. No sound design needed. Reverb is indeed a powerful tool for creating sounds, but you're creating a sound, not an environment with it. Think about it that way and there's your answer. -- For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com |
#11
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Multiple spaces in recordings
To me it's sometimes a sound and always an environment.
And my answer is still not there. As I said, *why* it works - and it 100% does - is not a trivial question. |
#12
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Multiple spaces in recordings
On 3/20/2019 6:58 PM, nickbatz wrote:
To me it's sometimes a sound and always an environment. And my answer is still not there. As I said, *why* it works - and it 100% does - is not a trivial question. Maybe a bit of a stretch but I'm thinking it's a bit like "bokeh" in photography: the aesthetic quality of the blur produced in the out-of-focus parts of an image. Some times it works .. some times it's distracting. Thing is, it's something in the background .. and if it doesn't distract from the main image then all is well .. it works. ~~ OK, that's just one of many spins I can think of. Other spins relate to some seemingly crazy painter's palettes that "work" .. along with all sorts of other abstractions. After all, art is fraught with novelty. -- == Later.... Ron Capik -- |
#13
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Multiple spaces in recordings
I think that's a good analogy, Ron. It is pretty much an abstraction.
|
#14
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Multiple spaces in recordings
On 20/03/2019 22:13, Matt Faunce wrote:
Matt Faunce wrote: I think your question is if there's a different optimal-amount of reverb for the pure sonority of each instrument while in the mix, which is good for the overall sonority of the recording, and if there is, then if there's an acceptable range of give and take between this pure sonority and sense-of-space. Let me rephrase that. I think the assumption of engineers who use different reverb levels is that there's a different optimal-amount of reverb for the pure sonority of each instrument while in the mix, which is good for the overall sonority of the recording. This doesn't just apply to recording. Many instrument players have their own reverb built into the amp or their instrument, which they apply to their playing as they see fit, so the rhythm and lead guitars may have different settings, as will the bass and keyboard players. The vocalists will also often ask the mixing engineer to add echo, chorus and other effects to their feed. Often, the only player without any added reverb at a live gig is the drummer. From the audience's point of view, all these individual effects add to the room sound, to give the sound of the live performance, which is where the live sound engineer's skill comes in, as the empty venue sounds totally different to the same room when it's full of people. My question is, if that's true, is there's an acceptable range of give and take between this pure sonority and sense-of-space, and if so, is there a rule that regulates it? It has to sound good is the rule. Do whatever it takes to get a sound that the producer, the engineer and the band are all happy with. The recording engineer's job is to make the band sound as good on the record as they think they do when they play live. -- Tciao for Now! John. |
#15
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Multiple spaces in recordings
Matt Faunce wrote:
I think your question is if there's a different optimal-amount of reverb for the pure sonority of each instrument while in the mix, which is good for the overall sonority of the recording, and if there is, then if there's an acceptable range of give and take between this pure sonority and sense-of-space. If that's what he is asking, that is totally a matter for the listener. I am firmly in the "sense of space at all costs" camp, but not everyone feels the way I do. --scott And those Joan Baez records with the plate on the vocal and the dry guitar drive me up the wall... -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#16
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Multiple spaces in recordings
Matt Faunce wrote:
I think the assumption of engineers who use different reverb levels is that there's a different optimal-amount of reverb for the pure sonority of each instrument while in the mix, which is good for the overall sonority of the recording. I think this assumption is not valid at all. My question is, if that's true, is there's an acceptable range of give and take between this pure sonority and sense-of-space, and if so, is there a rule that regulates it? "If you notice the reverb, it's way too much." -- Mr. Fordham, 1980 or so -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#17
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Multiple spaces in recordings
On 3/21/2019 5:45 AM, John Williamson wrote:
Many instrument players have their own reverb built into the amp or their instrument, which they apply to their playing as they see fit, so the rhythm and lead guitars may have different settings, as will the bass and keyboard players. This is getting around to my point. In this context, how is this application of reverb different than applying a chorus effect, or distortion, or a filter sweep? They all modify the sound for the instrument. If the purpose of reverb - IN THIS CONTEXT - is to make the guitar player sound like he's in a huge stone building, a sewer pipe, or a bathroom, then we need to think about whether that makes sense musically, regardless of reality. It's like playing a different guitar, or replacing the guitar with a saxophone. The vocalists will also often ask the mixing engineer to add echo, chorus and other effects to their feed. That's not usually a musical or music production thing, it's to make the singer feel more inspired and sing better. The producer or mix engineer may add effects to the vocal when mixing, but that's also to change the sound of the vocal because it focuses the listener's attention. This doesn't just apply to recording. From the audience's point of view, all these individual effects add to the room sound, to give the sound of the live performance No! No! No! No! The room gives the sound of the live performance, because it IS a live performance. When watching a live show, we don't want to think that the guitar player is in a cavern or the singer is in the shower. We want them to choose the sounds that they want for their instruments and not fool us into thinking that the bar they're playing in is Carnegie Hall. It has to sound good is the rule. Do whatever it takes to get a sound that the producer, the engineer and the band are all happy with. Yes! Yes! Yes! It's not about sounding like they're in a particular space, its that it works musically. Using different amounts and different characteristics of the generic reverberation effect on different elements of the mix is just one technique to add some sauce to the mix so the listener thinks it's something special. For some forms of music, that's that the players sound like they're all in the same room. For other forms of music, it's like each instrument has a unique characteristic sound and bouncing around copies of the sound coming from random or specific directions is a production decision. Nick's projects mostly involve creating every instrument from component parts. He can make whatever he wants. For my projects, the instruments sound like they sound and there isn't much I can, or should do to change them. And because all the musicians are playing in the same room, obvious changes to that presentation would be distracting. -- For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com |
#18
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Multiple spaces in recordings
On 21/03/2019 11:35, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 3/21/2019 5:45 AM, John Williamson wrote: Many instrument players have their own reverb built into the amp or their instrument, which they apply to their playing as they see fit, so the rhythm and lead guitars may have different settings, as will the bass and keyboard players. This is getting around to my point. In this context, how is this application of reverb different than applying a chorus effect, or distortion, or a filter sweep? They all modify the sound for the instrument. If the purpose of reverb - IN THIS CONTEXT - is to make the guitar player sound like he's in a huge stone building, a sewer pipe, or a bathroom, then we need to think about whether that makes sense musically, regardless of reality. It's like playing a different guitar, or replacing the guitar with a saxophone. The vocalists will also often ask the mixing engineer to add echo, chorus and other effects to their feed. That's not usually a musical or music production thing, it's to make the singer feel more inspired and sing better. The producer or mix engineer may add effects to the vocal when mixing, but that's also to change the sound of the vocal because it focuses the listener's attention. This doesn't just apply to recording. Â*From the audience's point of view, all these individual effects add to the room sound, to give the sound of the live performance No! No! No! No!Â* The room gives the sound of the live performance, because it IS a live performance. When watching a live show, we don't want to think that the guitar player is in a cavern or the singer is in the shower. We want them to choose the sounds that they want for their instruments and not fool us into thinking that the bar they're playing in is Carnegie Hall. I count any effects the player adds as part of their performance, be they good or bad in the context of the performance. For instance, I treat a guitar cabinet as the instrument when recording a live show. The combination of what the performers and the sound guy do in the room *is* the live performance. For some music, I'll just stick a surround sound microphone set a little above the conductor's head, for the next gig, it may need a microphone each and mix it down. For another gig, I'll set up a Decca Tree, maybe with a spot mic or two, and deal with the speed of sound delays in post. I may, if asked to for a live "pop" show, take a clean DI feed as well as or instead of the microphone(s) near the speaker. Maybe the guitarist or the vocalist *wants* to sound as though they are in a bathroom down the hall. That's their choice, but if I'm recording in a studio, I prefer a clean feed, so I can deal with what's there in context. If the musician prefers a lot of echo, that's their choice, and I'll deal with it. It has to sound good is the rule. Do whatever it takes to get a sound that the producer, the engineer and the band are all happy with. Yes! Yes! Yes! It's not about sounding like they're in a particular space, its that it works musically. Using different amounts and different characteristics of the generic reverberation effect on different elements of the mix is just one technique to add some sauce to the mix so the listener thinks it's something special. For some forms of music, that's that the players sound like they're all in the same room. For other forms of music, it's like each instrument has a unique characteristic sound and bouncing around copies of the sound coming from random or specific directions is a production decision. Absolutely. Nick's projects mostly involve creating every instrument from component parts. He can make whatever he wants. For my projects, the instruments sound like they sound and there isn't much I can, or should do to change them. And because all the musicians are playing in the same room, obvious changes to that presentation would be distracting. Yes, this. The way you record has to suit the performance and the instruments used. For what Nick is doing, the trick would be choosing sample sets to go together and massaging the sound as needed. They may not sound fantastic on their own, but they do need to work together, and the art is to find sets that do so, irrespective of source and recording location. I'm minded in a way of the Jeff Wayne War Of The Worlds concept album. The original version was recorded in one hit, with the musicians all in one room, and working together. The recent re-release was recorded one instrument at a time, and it shows. I prefer the original, but others prefer the re-issue. -- Tciao for Now! John. |
#19
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Multiple spaces in recordings
"how often is the lead vocal in the same room as the drums?"
I'm going to guess that it's not so much about the room as it is the plugins. How much is right? Take The Church and Under the Milky Way - LOTS of reverb. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWxJEIz7sSA Other songs not so much. Some songs just enough to "blow a little air" into the mix. Unless there's a moment of semi quiet, you don't even hear the reverb unless you muted it. |
#20
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Multiple spaces in recordings
On 21/03/2019 11:03 AM, Matt Faunce wrote:
nickbatz wrote: On Wednesday, March 20, 2019 at 8:54:21 AM UTC-7, Ty Ford wrote: If it sounds OK to you, it might not sound OK to others. I do find that double checking with headphones is a very good way to get things evened out when using reverbs. I think you guys are missing what I'm asking. Using multiple reverbs or spaces is standard practice on every pop recording since the stone ages, and on many acoustic recordings too. How often is the lead vocal run through the same reverb as the drum overheads, for example? For that matter, how often is the lead vocal in the same room as the drums? Sometimes, but iso booths are normal. This isn't a trivial question, it's one that I've been contemplating for a long time! Okay, you can argue that I'm a simp, but there's some psychoacoustic stuff going on in our brains that I don't understand. I think your question is if there's a different optimal-amount of reverb for the pure sonority of each instrument while in the mix, which is good for the overall sonority of the recording, and if there is, then if there's an acceptable range of give and take between this pure sonority and sense-of-space. If the production value of a non-live recording is to emulate the sound-stage of a live audience experience, then a totally unique reverb on a (say) guitar amp within an overall different reverberant environment may approach the experience of the actual listener. But in a recording, and in a live amplified/mixed/effected performance, disparate reverb FX on different instruments or vocals may, or more likely or may not, work together. geoff |
#21
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Multiple spaces in recordings
On 21/03/2019 11:13 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
"If you notice the reverb, it's way too much." -- Mr. Fordham, 1980 or so Sadly many performers, usually amateur, like and demand to be drowned in reverb. I guess that they feel, maybe subconciously, that this may mask defects in their performance. geoff |
#22
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Multiple spaces in recordings
"If you notice the reverb, it's way too much."
-- Mr. Fordham, 1980 or so That was before the '80s happened. |
#23
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Multiple spaces in recordings
Good Time Mike wrote:
Nick's projects mostly involve creating every instrument from component parts. He can make whatever he wants. Right, and part of that is because nobody wants to come up with the money for a live ensemble anymore. I do miss that - even when I had to stay up the night before the session to copy parts because the project didn't support copyists! But modern pop production is also fun. For my projects, the instruments sound like they sound and there isn't much I can, or should do to change them. And because all the musicians are playing in the same room, obvious changes to that presentation would be distracting. John: Yes, this. The way you record has to suit the performance and the instruments used. For what Nick is doing, the trick would be choosing sample sets to go together and massaging the sound as needed. They may not sound fantastic on their own, but they do need to work together, and the art is to find sets that do so, irrespective of source and recording location. What's interesting, and what prompted my post, is that different sample libraries can work together no problem regardless of how and where they were recorded. My big orchestral template includes different libraries within each section (e.g. flute from one, clarinet from another, etc.), as well as two different string libraries... I'm actually using timps from two different libraries on part of a cue right now: a big blooming, softer-mallet big-hall one for downbeats, and a sharper one for other notes. They blend no problem. Another factor: just a single live part, even a shaker, can add a whole lot of life. And recording synths through a miked amp can take away some of the sterility that can creep in if you aren't careful. By the way, most sample libraries are recorded really well and have been for a long time - and you can still make them sound like total ass with very little work. MIDI "programming" really is a different musical medium. It's not as hard as many other things, but it is a skill. Ty Ford: how often is the lead vocal in the same room as the drums?" "I'm going to guess that it's not so much about the room as it is the plugins." It's for separation. Obviously vocal and drum booths predate plug-ins. And reverb plug-ins that sucked predated the modern era of computers that have enough power to run really good ones. That first changed with convolution processors (Audio Ease Altiverb mainly), but for example the Lexicon ones sound all but indistinguishable from the hardware running the same algorithms. |
#24
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Multiple spaces in recordings
nickbatz wrote:
"If you notice the reverb, it's way too much." -- Mr. Fordham, 1980 or so That was before the '80s happened. When did Pilot of the Airwaves by Charlie Dore come out? The Eventide chorus on that seemed at the time to be the most annoying of all time-domain vocal effects. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#25
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Multiple spaces in recordings
On Thursday, March 21, 2019 at 5:25:39 PM UTC-4, geoff wrote:
On 21/03/2019 11:13 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote: "If you notice the reverb, it's way too much." -- Mr. Fordham, 1980 or so Sadly many performers, usually amateur, like and demand to be drowned in reverb. I guess that they feel, maybe subconciously, that this may mask defects in their performance. geoff not so subconsciously. |
#27
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Multiple spaces in recordings
One of my earliest mentors warned me that musicians can often confuse notes with sound.
|
#28
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Multiple spaces in recordings
nickbatz wrote:
One of the wonders of audio is that we're able to accept lots of radically different spaces in recordings - even acoustic recordings, as opposed to pop production. This comes up all the time when people ask whether xxx sample library's orchestral woodwinds would blend with yyy library's brass and zzz library's percussion and strings. The answer is always yes - just choose the library with the woodwind sound you like. It doesn't matter that the instruments are recorded from totally different mic positions in different spaces (leaving aside that you do still have to position the sections appropriately for a realistic sound). Similarly, I'm working on a short piece with a bunch of synths and sampled instruments up close, but adding sampled timps far away at the back of a stage with huge recorded hall reverb is totally believable. And we all know about obvious things like drum room mics and overheads marrying perfectly with gated snare reverbs, etc. I've been trying to come up with a reason why this seemingly total suspension of disbelief works. One avenue of explanation is that everything is coming from speakers in the room, and that integrates it all. But it's also true with headphones. Any ideas? Most listeners hear but don't really listen; they don't try to form a 'sound picture' in their heads, if they did it would be obvious that the unnatural reverb is fake. Even if all the performers were 'live' and in the same room (with good acoustics) but multiple mics made them appear at unrealistic distances, the effect would be noticeable if anyone took the trouble to listen properly. I have seen paintings where the shadows in one part were in a different direction from another part, it gave the picture a very disconcerting effect, but the reason wasn't all that obvious to the casual observer. Modern recording techniques with multiple mics and multiple 'plug-in' reverbs have the same effect; the listeners have become used to accepting it because they have no idea what a live performance sounds like. You are producing a synthetic sound to be listened-to by people (including yourself) who have rarely heard anything but synthetic sounds on recordings. If your listener had, for instance, frequently attended live, unamplified, orchestral concerts and knew the sound of each orchestra and conductor, or listened to old recordings where one main mic and perhaps a single spot solo mic were used, they would never be fooled for a moment. -- ~ Adrian Tuddenham ~ (Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply) www.poppyrecords.co.uk |
#29
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Multiple spaces in recordings
On 25/03/2019 9:36 PM, Adrian Tuddenham wrote:
nickbatz wrote: One of the wonders of audio is that we're able to accept lots of radically different spaces in recordings - even acoustic recordings, as opposed to pop production. This comes up all the time when people ask whether xxx sample library's orchestral woodwinds would blend with yyy library's brass and zzz library's percussion and strings. The answer is always yes - just choose the library with the woodwind sound you like. It doesn't matter that the instruments are recorded from totally different mic positions in different spaces (leaving aside that you do still have to position the sections appropriately for a realistic sound). Similarly, I'm working on a short piece with a bunch of synths and sampled instruments up close, but adding sampled timps far away at the back of a stage with huge recorded hall reverb is totally believable. And we all know about obvious things like drum room mics and overheads marrying perfectly with gated snare reverbs, etc. I've been trying to come up with a reason why this seemingly total suspension of disbelief works. One avenue of explanation is that everything is coming from speakers in the room, and that integrates it all. But it's also true with headphones. Any ideas? Most listeners hear but don't really listen; they don't try to form a 'sound picture' in their heads, if they did it would be obvious that the unnatural reverb is fake. Even if all the performers were 'live' and in the same room (with good acoustics) but multiple mics made them appear at unrealistic distances, the effect would be noticeable if anyone took the trouble to listen properly. I have seen paintings where the shadows in one part were in a different direction from another part, it gave the picture a very disconcerting effect, but the reason wasn't all that obvious to the casual observer. Modern recording techniques with multiple mics and multiple 'plug-in' reverbs have the same effect; the listeners have become used to accepting it because they have no idea what a live performance sounds like. You are producing a synthetic sound to be listened-to by people (including yourself) who have rarely heard anything but synthetic sounds on recordings. If your listener had, for instance, frequently attended live, unamplified, orchestral concerts and knew the sound of each orchestra and conductor, or listened to old recordings where one main mic and perhaps a single spot solo mic were used, they would never be fooled for a moment. The purpose of many (most) recordings, other than classical and most live jazz/pop/rock/whatever recordings, is not to even attempt to emulate a real performance space. And need not be. geoff |
#30
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Multiple spaces in recordings
On Monday, March 25, 2019 at 5:57:06 AM UTC-4, geoff wrote:
The purpose of many (most) recordings, other than classical and most live jazz/pop/rock/whatever recordings, is not to even attempt to emulate a real performance space. And need not be. geoff Yes. I think you and Adrian have it. For years, when mixing, I use the old school sends and returns method. I have two stereo sends and two stereo returns. My trademark reverb field uses two different reverb plugins; one tweaked for short and the other tweaked for long. I blend them to get a consistent larger field which, to me, sounds "natural-ish." |
#31
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Multiple spaces in recordings
On Monday, March 25, 2019 at 1:36:46 AM UTC-7, Adrian Tuddenham wrote:
Most listeners hear but don't really listen; they don't try to form a 'sound picture' in their heads, if they did it would be obvious that the unnatural reverb is fake. Well, I'm truly surprised that no one here seems to get what I'm saying. I've talked to a couple of friends (both music/audio pros) about this, and they understood right away - 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! Even if all the performers were 'live' and in the same room (with good acoustics) but multiple mics made them appear at unrealistic distances, the effect would be noticeable if anyone took the trouble to listen properly. The *exact point* is that it *doesn't* sound unrealistic, even to people who do listen properly! It *can* sound like a suspension of disbelief, but I'm telling you people - whether or not you agree that you hear what I'm telling you that you hear - the ear accepts... okay, repeating myself means I have nothing new to say. I have seen paintings where the shadows in one part were in a different direction from another part, it gave the picture a very disconcerting effect, but the reason wasn't all that obvious to the casual observer. Modern recording techniques with multiple mics and multiple 'plug-in' reverbs have the same effect; the listeners have become used to accepting it because they have no idea what a live performance sounds like. It turns out that I actually do have a vague idea what a live performance sounds like. The shadow analogy is good, though. You are producing a synthetic sound to be listened-to by people (including yourself) who have rarely heard anything but synthetic sounds on recordings. "Que¿" - Manuel of Fawlty Towers Geoff wrote: "The purpose of many (most) recordings, other than classical and most live jazz/pop/rock/whatever recordings, is not to even attempt to emulate a real performance space. And need not be." Sure. Now, I also have to double back and say that if you're after a totally realistic orchestral MIDI mock-up, the most accurate *environment* emulation is Vienna Symphonic Library's MIR with their libraries (MIR = Multiple Impulse Response). It's pretty stunning. (I'm not saying their libraries are the most "accurate," because that's highly subjective and dependent on what you're doing; most musicians who do that use a combination of libraries, as I said.) In any case, my world is only MIDI-plus-overdubs by default, since that's *the* world today. My multiple spaces question applies to audio in general. |
#32
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Multiple spaces in recordings
On 3/25/2019 1:40 PM, nickbatz wrote:
Well, I'm truly surprised that no one here seems to get what I'm saying. I've talked to a couple of friends (both music/audio pros) about this, and they understood right away - 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! It depends on what "accepts" means. Does that mean that they like it, they find that it enhances whatever feeling the music provokes in them, or they don't care or don't notice anything odd? I think the answer to why the human brain accepts multiple spaces for discrete sounds in a recording is that we're very adaptive and hear pretty much what we expect to hear. It's why MP3s are as popular as they are - tests prove that there's something missing, but our brain just accepts that, unless we're being tasked with zeroing in on a particular effect. Our vision works sort of the same way. For the first week or two after I had cataract surgery on both of my eyes, I was amazed at how much greener the grass and how much bluer the sky appeared. Three years later, grass looks like grass, sky looks like sky, even with the filtering effect of the clouded lens removed. -- For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com |
#33
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Multiple spaces in recordings
Well, I'm truly surprised that no one here seems to get what I'm saying. I've talked to a couple of friends (both music/audio pros) about this, and they understood right away - 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. I'm not sure what is surprising about this. When you are in a given space, things that are close to you sound .....close and things that are far, sound ....far. At the same time. What is the issue? m |
#34
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Multiple spaces in recordings
I'm not sure what is surprising about this.
Right, no one here seems to be! When you are in a given space, things that are close to you sound .....close and things that are far, sound ....far. At the same time. What is the issue? The issue is that nobody gets the point of my question. We routinely accept, say, a singer in a vocal booth, a snare in a huge stairwell (if you're Paul Simon), a mic up the bass drum's butt, strings in a hall, horns in a medium-sized studio, power chords panned hard left and right, background singers in the background, and a partridge in a pear tree. So I call Mike for a good time this is what I get: "It depends on what "accepts" means. Does that mean that they like it, they find that it enhances whatever feeling the music provokes in them, or they don't care or don't notice anything odd?" It means that we don't think twice about it - as long as it's done well, of course. Well, and hopefully that it does enhance the music. I'll find some examples and post links. |
#35
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Multiple spaces in recordings
On Monday, March 25, 2019 at 2:04:32 PM UTC-7, Mike Rivers wrote:
I think the answer to why the human brain accepts multiple spaces for discrete sounds in a recording is that we're very adaptive and hear pretty much what we expect to hear. It may well be that simple. Not so sure about your other analogies, but yeah, we do hear what we expect to hear. *** A family member recently had both cataracts done (successively), and this person - who's considerably older than you - got used to the progressive lenses in a matter of days. It's amazing how flexible our brains are! |
#36
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Multiple spaces in recordings
nickbatz wrote:
On Monday, March 25, 2019 at 1:36:46 AM UTC-7, Adrian Tuddenham wrote: Most listeners hear but don't really listen; they don't try to form a 'sound picture' in their heads, if they did it would be obvious that the unnatural reverb is fake. Well, I'm truly surprised that no one here seems to get what I'm saying. I've talked to a couple of friends (both music/audio pros) about this, and they understood right away - 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! [...] The *exact point* is that it *doesn't* sound unrealistic, even to people who do listen properly! It *can* sound like a suspension of disbelief, but I'm telling you people - whether or not you agree that you hear what I'm telling you that you hear - the ear accepts... Just because the average of the population tends towards acceptance, it doesn't mean that there aren't others who find fake reverb very obvious, unrealistic and disconcerting; I am one and I suspect that there will be a higher than average number of people in this group who also don't accept it - mainly those who are classical recording engineers. There will be many who have learned to 'listen properly', but in an environment where they rarely or never hear realistic recordings, so they don't notice certain types of fakery. What they are listening for is something different, we haven't all learned to listen for the same things. The tests you refer to may have been done predominantly on multi-track recording engineers or listeners. There are very few people around now who make commercial recordings with just one or two stereo pairs of microphones in natural acoustics - and far fewer people listen to them than listen to pop music and multi-track recordings, so the tests are highly likely to be skewed. 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. -- ~ Adrian Tuddenham ~ (Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply) www.poppyrecords.co.uk |
#37
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Multiple spaces in recordings
On Monday, March 25, 2019 at 2:54:45 PM UTC-7, Adrian Tuddenham wrote:
Just because the average of the population tends towards acceptance, it doesn't mean that there aren't others who find fake reverb very obvious, unrealistic and disconcerting; I am one and I suspect that there will be a higher than average number of people in this group who also don't accept it - mainly those who are classical recording engineers. Well, that's a different subject - what you call fake reverb vs. the actual environment. But even there, how many film (and TV back in the day) scores weren't recorded on a big scoring stage and then enhanced with a 480L? (Rhetorical question, of course - I'm not really asking for a number. ) There will be many who have learned to 'listen properly', but in an environment where they rarely or never hear realistic recordings, so they don't notice certain types of fakery. What they are listening for is something different, we haven't all learned to listen for the same things. The tests you refer to may have been done predominantly on multi-track recording engineers or listeners. There are very few people around now who make commercial recordings with just one or two stereo pairs of microphones in natural acoustics - and far fewer people listen to them than listen to pop music and multi-track recordings, so 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 - but of course acoustic recording where you're going for a "pure" sound is a different artform. 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. And yet I find it easier to understand, because you'd think that our spacial cues evolved to warn us when a sabre-toothed tiger entered the cave. |
#38
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Multiple spaces in recordings
nickbatz wrote:
We routinely accept, say, a singer in a vocal booth, a snare in a huge stai= rwell (if you're Paul Simon), a mic up the bass drum's butt, strings in a h= all, horns in a medium-sized studio, power chords panned hard left and righ= t, background singers in the background, and a partridge in a pear tree. Right. But nobody ever says "wow, that sounds natural." It is an entirely artificial made-up sound that does not exist in the real world. We accept all kinds of artificial made-up things, though. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#39
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Multiple spaces in recordings
On 26/03/2019 12:02 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
.. Right. But nobody ever says "wow, that sounds natural." It is an entirely artificial made-up sound that does not exist in the real world. I have said that, though maybe making an assumption. In classical recordings the ambience and reverberation of the venue can be captured to give a good impression of the recording's venue, despite being beamed into one's own listening environment, and even in 'just' stereo. We accept all kinds of artificial made-up things, though. --scott Yes exactly. Maybe we accept that not all things are intended to be emulations of a live event. If they were, then we'd be turning our noses up at most of the recordings made over the last 4 or 5 decades ! It some peoples' listening habits may not include this wide range of music. geoff |
#40
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Multiple spaces in recordings
On 25/03/2019 7:36 pm, Adrian Tuddenham wrote:
Most listeners hear but don't really listen; they don't try to form a 'sound picture' in their heads, if they did it would be obvious that the unnatural reverb is fake. Even if all the performers were 'live' and in the same room (with good acoustics) but multiple mics made them appear at unrealistic distances, the effect would be noticeable if anyone took the trouble to listen properly. I have seen paintings where the shadows in one part were in a different direction from another part, it gave the picture a very disconcerting effect, but the reason wasn't all that obvious to the casual observer. Modern recording techniques with multiple mics and multiple 'plug-in' reverbs have the same effect; the listeners have become used to accepting it because they have no idea what a live performance sounds like. You are producing a synthetic sound to be listened-to by people (including yourself) who have rarely heard anything but synthetic sounds on recordings. If your listener had, for instance, frequently attended live, unamplified, orchestral concerts and knew the sound of each orchestra and conductor, or listened to old recordings where one main mic and perhaps a single spot solo mic were used, they would never be fooled for a moment. And that's the reason, many listeners do not listen to classical orchestral music let alone go to live orchestral concerts. What these should sound like is irrelevant to the majority of listeners. Concert audio for pop/rock/blues/country listeners is similar enough to what they are used to on recordings except for the size of the listening space. |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Acoustic mapping of spaces | Pro Audio | |||
Acoustic mapping of spaces | Tech | |||
Acoustic mapping of spaces | Tech | |||
Tascam US 122 and Adobe Audition - Multiple Sources to Multiple Tracks | Pro Audio | |||
Multiple Input to Multiple Output Video (Muliplextor/Splitter) | Pro Audio |