[nickbatz]

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?

[Scott Dorsey]

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."

[nickbatz]

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.

[Ty Ford[_2_]]

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.

[nickbatz]

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.

[Matt Faunce]

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

[Matt Faunce]

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

[nickbatz]

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!

[nickbatz]

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.

[John Williamson]

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.

[Scott Dorsey]

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."

[Scott Dorsey]

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."

[geoff]

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

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

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

[nickbatz]

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.

[Ron C[_2_]]

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
--

[Ty Ford[_2_]]

"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.

[Bob Olhsson]

One of my earliest mentors warned me that musicians can often confuse notes with sound.

[Adrian Tuddenham[_2_]]

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

[geoff]

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

[Ty Ford[_2_]]

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."

[nickbatz]

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.

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

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

[nickbatz]

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!

[Trevor]

On 26/03/2019 8:04 am, Mike Rivers wrote:
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.

**** it doesn't take 3 minutes let alone 3 years for your brain to
adapt. Try putting on some rose colored glasses, everything looks
immediately pinkish. Take them off after a few minutes, everything looks
immediately bluish. The effect goes away *very* quickly.
The brain takes much longer with sound, but it soon gets used to any
coloration after a while. HiFi reviewers fail to acknowledge this of
course and persist with the "burn in" idea rather than admit it is their
auditory/brain response that has changed after a few days. Critical
measurements easily prove it is not the equipment that changes.

[[email protected]]

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

[nickbatz]

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.

[Scott Dorsey]

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."

[Adrian Tuddenham[_2_]]

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

[nickbatz]

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.

[Adrian Tuddenham[_2_]]

nickbatz wrote:

~~~
"... but also didn't have a great answer why (I'm going to say it again)
the human brain accepts multiple spaces on a recording.

And it absolutely does! Tests have proven!"
~~~

On Monday, March 25, 2019 at 2:54:45 PM UTC-7, Adrian Tuddenham wrote:

... the tests are
highly likely to be skewed.

There again I was being rhetorical - as far as I know there haven't been
any actual tests

Those two statements appear to contradict each other. Were there any
tests and, if so, what exactly did they prove?


You wanted an explanation of why those who do accept it find it
acceptable - I suggested habituation was the most likely explanation. I
used to accept artificial reverb myself when I worked in other fields,
but since I became a recording engineer (many years ago now) I have
learned to recognise it and I don't like it when I hear it.

I think we're talking about different contexts, Adrian. One could easily
say what you're saying about compression - that it sticks out as being
particularly nasty for trained people (especially on acoustic recordings),
but more extreme settings have become part and parcel of the sound people
are used to on pop productions.

I think you are answering your own question here, people who listen to
compressed multitrack recordings with artificial reverb don't notice any
of those things because that is what they are used to - it may even be
what they prefer. People adapt to all sorts of changes in the visual
and audible pathways and these distortion have become the norm for
people who listen to most of the recordings of the last 50 years.

Someone who listens to recordings doesn't even have to think about
whether they are realistic or not - but if you intercepted the sounds of
real everyday life entering their ears and imposed those artificialities
on them, the same person would notice immediately.


--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

[Ty Ford[_2_]]

On Monday, March 25, 2019 at 1:40:20 PM UTC-4, nickbatz wrote:
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.)

Yeah, I never went for that MIR stuff. I don't really care what the Vienna Symphony Hall sounds like, or what you think your algorithm thinks it sounds like. I think that whole thing was marketing chatter.

Off the point here, but had to toss that in.

[nickbatz]

On Tuesday, March 26, 2019 at 9:01:29 AM UTC-7, Ty Ford wrote:
On Monday, March 25, 2019 at 1:40:20 PM UTC-4, nickbatz wrote:
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.)

Yeah, I never went for that MIR stuff. I don't really care what the Vienna Symphony Hall sounds like, or what you think your algorithm thinks it sounds like. I think that whole thing was marketing chatter.

Off the point here, but had to toss that in.

The first point is that sampled orchestras are what they are. Nobody thinks they're the same thing as real musicians in a room. But for better and worse samples are here to stay, and if you can't have an orchestra to play with, this is the next best thing (assuming you want an orchestra, of course).

Okay, MIR.

MIR is inseparable from VSL's orchestral sample libraries, because they know what their instruments sound like and use that as part of the process. You can run other sounds through it (including live ones), but it's not the same thing.

MIR comes with a number of sampled spaces, so if you don't like the Vienna Symphony Hall then you just try another. And it has algorithmic reverb you can use - it's a mixing engine rather than a sampled hall, as Dietz (the guy who led the project) always points out.

Now, you may not have liked what you heard - which probably has more to do with those sample libraries (or sample libraries in general) than with MIR - but it's not marketing chatter. The raw concept of positioning instruments with multiple impulse responses is totally sound, and to my ears very successful at what it set out to accomplish.

Another point: VSL now records their libraries in a different place. At the time they developed MIR, they were recording their libraries in the Silent Stage studio they built for the purpose over 15 years ago. The concept was to capture orchestral instruments on a stage - i.e. to get the ERs from the stage - and then you added your own hall tail.

That worked very well for some instruments, for example woodwinds, but their original strings tended to sound a little synthy in the high register. The knock on the original VSL library was that it was all a little too perfect, so they've since added some random parameters in their player. But it still takes work to sound good - by design.

VSL's newer libraries are recorded in https://www.synchronstage.com/en, a new studio, so they probably got tired of the old approach.

I should add that I beta tested MIR, but I don't own it - unfortunately. So I'm not prejudiced.

[Trevor]

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.

[Scott Dorsey]

In article , Trevor wrote:

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.

The question I always ask producers or conductors: "Do you want it to sound
like a real orchestra or like a film soundtrack?" It is amazing the number
of them who never really thought about that.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."