[hank alrich]

Mike Rivers wrote:

On 9/27/2014 10:26 AM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
After a wholesome, manly breakfast of six-years-outdated Hillshire
Turkey Kielbasa, Albertson's Potato Rounds, and a can of V8, I listened
to "Carry Me Home" again, on both the Apogees and the STAX. This was at
6:45 AM, when my ears are rested, and there's little disturbance from
cars, people, etc.

I still don't hear much, if any, sense of Raumklang.

After that breakfast, I'd probably barf. Have some Raisin Bran, take a
three mile walk, and then listen again.

joke

It's hard to take seriously a man who calls that breakfast!

First he wanted ambience. Now he wants Carribean banjo. My lord, what's
next? There's just no place for rumclang in our music!

/joke

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[hank alrich]

Scott Dorsey wrote:

Mike Rivers wrote:
I suppose that the notion (and product) of recording a symphony
orchestra with 20 or 30 spot mics in addition to room mics drives you
nuts. There's a lot of that been going around for the last 10-15 years.

Well, I tell a story. Last month, I worked a pops event where the orchestra
was supposed to sound like a film soundtrack. It was aggressively spotmiked
and the sound in the hall with the PA up was totally, totally different than
the live sound of the orchestra. It was so exaggerated, so larger than life,
and so close, it was almost a cartoon of the real orchestral sound.

At the interval, people came by and asked me if the PA was on. People told
me how natural it sounded when I told them the PA was in use. One reviewer
afterward said that it wasn't loud enough and he wished we had used sound
reinforcement.

I'm watching this sort of befuddled since my job is to make the orchestra
sound as unrealistic as possible and people don't get what is going on.

But, that's how it is. People lose sense of how things really sound unless
they are constantly listening to them day in and day out.
--scott

Dude, you had it bigger 'n' earbuds. It hadda been real!

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[Scott Dorsey]

hank alrich wrote:
William Sommerwerck wrote:

* Am I the only one who's noticed that Shaidri's level varies from track to
track, as well as her positioning? In some cases she appears to be more or
less centered, while her guitar remains to the left!

On purpose where she is carrying a lead vocal that needs to come out of
both sides of a car system with equal intensity.

And I will point out that if you are sitting right in front of a guitar
player, that's sometimes how it really sounds. And solo guitar is the sort
of thing that is commonly listened to right up in front of the performer.
--scott


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

[William Sommerwerck]

"hank alrich" wrote in message ...

Airplay in ten countries and twenty+ states/provinces, with nobody
working radio, no PR campaign, a simple poorly planned swiftly executed
mailing of a couple hundred copies, around the world. This record plays
well against far more costly competition. This approach works and if I
live long enough I'll get to refine it next time.

I will agree that from an absolutely ideal standpoint it would be great
if such success could be had that one could do whatever the hell one
wished, this issue for the DJ's, that one for the vinyl freaks, a few
cassettes for the insane, and a whole seperate recording for the
audiophiles, on top of what we already do. In reality I am faced with a
budget, time constraints, a product in a single physical form, and the
need to have it communicate the songs, not the sound, across as many
different systems and settings as possible.

I have no argument with anything you say here. Sound recording (unlike
photography) has always required compromises. I don't like it, but that's the
way it is.

In this particular case, you said this recording was natural-sounding, and not
gimmicky. To me, a recording without coherent imaging (it's obvious
multi-miking was used, particularly when listening over headphones) and
without a sense of unifying space, isn't natural-sounding.

Given the apparent distance and "size" of the vocals, you and your daughter
seem to be standing 3' to 4' apart. She must have awfully long arms to reach
her guitar when standing at the center! Even allowing for the fact that what
we see and hear don't always align, * I don't buy this.

I feel I have a right to disagree with your claims (which is what this is
about). I'm not an ignorant listener, and I do have some experience in live
recording.

I'll let this drop. I ask only that you carefully consider my criticisms.

* Perhaps the classic example is hearing an actor's voice come from the side
of the screen image, even when the dialog is centered. This illusion is so
strong that you rarely see films with panned dialog.

[Neil Gould]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Neil Gould" wrote in message ...
It is my opinion that Ambisonic recording and playback through any
of the myriad system structures used under that moniker is nothing
more than a special effect. Other recording techniques are used for
the creation and/or presentation of music as an expressive artform
rather than merely a sound source for playback systems.

I don't see how the accurate rendition of acoustic space (which
binaural recording also supplies) could be considered a "special
effect".

I have yet to hear an "accurate rendition of acoustic space", but perhaps
I'm more picky about the details than some others. OTOH, spacial effects,
including such things as off-axis reflections often enhance the
presentation.

--
best regards,

Neil

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 9/28/2014 9:06 AM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
I'll let this drop. I ask only that you carefully consider my criticisms.

Sounds like you don't disagree with principles behind making a recording
that the target audience will appreciate.

Sometimes it's hard to determine what someone's real problem is when
they aren't clear as to what they're saying. Your real problem with this
recording seems to be simply with two words that Hank used to describe
it: "Natural sounding." You're been carrying on for days due to your
literal interpretation of the phrase while Hank was using it in the
aesthetic sense.

Pedantry can go too far, and I think it has here.



--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[hank alrich]

William Sommerwerck wrote:

"hank alrich" wrote in message ...

Airplay in ten countries and twenty+ states/provinces, with nobody
working radio, no PR campaign, a simple poorly planned swiftly executed
mailing of a couple hundred copies, around the world. This record plays
well against far more costly competition. This approach works and if I
live long enough I'll get to refine it next time.

I will agree that from an absolutely ideal standpoint it would be great
if such success could be had that one could do whatever the hell one
wished, this issue for the DJ's, that one for the vinyl freaks, a few
cassettes for the insane, and a whole seperate recording for the
audiophiles, on top of what we already do. In reality I am faced with a
budget, time constraints, a product in a single physical form, and the
need to have it communicate the songs, not the sound, across as many
different systems and settings as possible.

I have no argument with anything you say here. Sound recording (unlike
photography) has always required compromises. I don't like it, but that's the
way it is.

In this particular case, you said this recording was natural-sounding, and not
gimmicky. To me, a recording without coherent imaging (it's obvious
multi-miking was used, particularly when listening over headphones) and
without a sense of unifying space, isn't natural-sounding.

Given the apparent distance and "size" of the vocals, you and your daughter
seem to be standing 3' to 4' apart. She must have awfully long arms to reach
her guitar when standing at the center! Even allowing for the fact that what
we see and hear don't always align, * I don't buy this.

I feel I have a right to disagree with your claims (which is what this is
about). I'm not an ignorant listener, and I do have some experience in live
recording.

I'll let this drop. I ask only that you carefully consider my criticisms.

I have, and I hve no problem with them. I can't make reords that fit
your ideal and sell them to anyone, because most folks environments
offer a compromise far greater than my manipulations of the audio
underlying the songs.

Here is the most important point I will offer you: I am not here to
serve the sound. I am here to have the sound serve the music, and to
have that succeed across the widest possible playback scenarios, without
resorting to seperate mixes and issues.

You are the very first person I know to hear the sound before hearing
the music. This is a common "feature" of audiophiles. They listen to
equipment, and they listen to sound, and sometimes they even listen to
music.

I have worked with lots of kinds of music since 1968. This album has
less manipulation of audio than all but true stereo captures of stage
bands and small classical ensembles, recordings that would travel no
further than music departments, players, and directors, and a few
bluegrass and old-time string bands, all cases where the ensembles were
well balanced on stage. As well, I have done stereo recordings where one
hell of a lot of manipulation was required, and when I put this up
against any other multitrack production I have managed, there is no
comparison by several orders of magnitude. And that is why I suggest
that in the contemporary world of audio recording, this one is
comparatively clean and clear, with a real sense of dynamics.

I will repeat another key point in my vision: I am not wanting to take
you to the concert hall. I am wanting to put a small ensemble in your
living room. The most common laylistener's remark is that the person
felt we were right there.

Such experiences of a type of immersion much different from that which
you see fortify my resolve to continue to refine this approach. There
are at least ten thousand potential listeners who may feel we're right
there as compared to the audiophiles who will focus on the sound.

In the end, to the average fan of this type of music, we are not selling
anything but emotion. That they comment on the sound _at all_ is unusual
and reinforces my sense that people love better audio, even when they
have no idea what it is. If they are offered such they will respond,
deeply.

* Perhaps the classic example is hearing an actor's voice come from the side
of the screen image, even when the dialog is centered. This illusion is so
strong that you rarely see films with panned dialog.

You watch a lot of movies in the car? g

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[William Sommerwerck]

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message ...
On 9/28/2014 9:06 AM, William Sommerwerck wrote:

I'll let this drop. I ask only that you carefully consider my criticisms.

Sounds like you don't disagree with principles behind making a recording
that the target audience will appreciate.

Of course.


Your real problem with this recording seems to be simply with two
words that Hank used to describe it: "Natural sounding." You're been
carrying on for days due to your literal interpretation of the phrase
while Hank was using it in the aesthetic sense.

Pedantry can go too far, and I think it has here.

I'm not being the least bit pedantic. Is it wrong to ask that words keep their
common meaning?

I've seen photos of Mr Alrich, and he doesn't look the least bit like Humpty
Dumpty.

[Scott Dorsey]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ...
Neil Gould wrote:
William Sommerwerck wrote:

Not if the listener has Ambisonic playback. Which is the Impossible
Dream.

I'd call it the latest delusion that really is no more than just another
special effect. Since it does NOTHING at all to address the many issues
involved in the recording process there are very few opportunities to
validate the results during playback. In other words, if one isn't
intimately familiar with the acoustics of the recording space, the only
thing that they can determine is whether the "product" is pleasing to them.

Ambisonics gives you a step toward being able to have real validation,
but it doesn't get you all the way there.
On the other hand, binaural recording _does_ give you real validation and
a simultaneous binaural recording can be used to validate stereo, Ambisonic.

If, by validation, you mean a reference that closely approximates the original
acoustics, I don't see where binaural has the advantage.

Well, there's your problem.
--scott

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

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 9/28/2014 1:50 PM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
I'm not being the least bit pedantic. Is it wrong to ask that words keep
their common meaning?

Apparently "natural sounding" isn't a common enough term, applied to
recorded music, to have the same meaning for all. I understood perfectly
what Hank meant. I finally caught on to your interpretation after a few
rants about multiple microphones and lack of sense of space in a room.



--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Luxey]

четвртак, 25. �ептембар 2014. 16.58.32 UTC+2, Neil Gould је напи�ао/ла:
On 9/25/2014 8:04 AM, William Sommerwerck wrote:

[...]
... Who is going to buy a

repulsively accurate depiction of a musical event, other than the

occasional oddball (such as myself) who would rather listen to a bad

recording of good music than a perfectly accurate reproduction of

mediocrity?

And then, there are us, who prefer bad recordings, of ...
.... bad music for bad people

[Scott Dorsey]

In article ,
Jeff Henig wrote:
Luxey wrote:

And then, there are us, who prefer bad recordings, of ...
... bad music for bad people

Hear, here!

raises beer to toast

I never understood the popularity of that Michael Jackson album anyway.
--scott

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

[Luxey]

Actually,when I wrote that, I had The Cramps' album on mind.

Bad Music for Bad People
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_Music_for_Bad_People

[William Sommerwerck]

"Neil Gould" wrote in message ...
William Sommerwerck wrote:

I have no argument with anything you say here. Sound recording (unlike
photography) has always required compromises. I don't like it, but
that's the way it is.

Wow. If photography did not require compromises, the Zone system would
not have existed. Today's digital cameras often "hide" the many compromises
in the photographic process, but they don't eliminate them. If printing the
image didn't require compromises, there would be one kind of paper, one
kind of printer, etc., and it should be obvious to anyone familiar with
photography that no two printers (much less chemical processors) will give
identical results, ergo, there are compromises.

Photography -- unlike sound recording (especially dimensional sound recording)
has always been pretty much a "what you see is what you get" process.

Are you aware that, despite using the Zone System, Ansel Adams rarely printed
a negative "straight"?

[Scott Dorsey]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Neil Gould" wrote in message ...
William Sommerwerck wrote:

I have no argument with anything you say here. Sound recording (unlike
photography) has always required compromises. I don't like it, but
that's the way it is.

Wow. If photography did not require compromises, the Zone system would
not have existed. Today's digital cameras often "hide" the many compromises
in the photographic process, but they don't eliminate them. If printing the
image didn't require compromises, there would be one kind of paper, one
kind of printer, etc., and it should be obvious to anyone familiar with
photography that no two printers (much less chemical processors) will give
identical results, ergo, there are compromises.

Photography -- unlike sound recording (especially dimensional sound recording)
has always been pretty much a "what you see is what you get" process.

Are you aware that, despite using the Zone System, Ansel Adams rarely printed
a negative "straight"?

I think that's the point he was making.

The zone system is a quick and easy method of mapping the tonal scale of the
real world, which is very wide, to that of a print, which is much narrower,
in a predictable way so you can have a good idea of what it's going to look
like before you press the button. Think of it as a method for simulating
test pressings.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Neil Gould]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
"hank alrich" wrote in message
...

Airplay in ten countries and twenty+ states/provinces, with nobody
working radio, no PR campaign, a simple poorly planned swiftly
executed mailing of a couple hundred copies, around the world. This
record plays well against far more costly competition. This approach
works and if I live long enough I'll get to refine it next time.

I will agree that from an absolutely ideal standpoint it would be
great if such success could be had that one could do whatever the
hell one wished, this issue for the DJ's, that one for the vinyl
freaks, a few cassettes for the insane, and a whole seperate
recording for the audiophiles, on top of what we already do. In
reality I am faced with a budget, time constraints, a product in a
single physical form, and the need to have it communicate the songs,
not the sound, across as many different systems and settings as
possible.

I have no argument with anything you say here. Sound recording (unlike
photography) has always required compromises. I don't like it, but
that's the way it is.

Wow. If photography did not require compromises, the Zone system would not
have existed. Today's digital cameras often "hide" the many compromises in
the photographic process, but they don't eliminate them. If printing the
image didn't require compromises, there would be one kind of paper, one kind
of printer, etc., and it should be obvious to anyone familiar with
photography that no two printers (much less chemical processors) will give
identical results, ergo, there are compromises.

The same is true of film, video, audio, and every other media: compromise is
an unavoidable and integral part of production. Professionalism is a matter
of understanding and managing those compromises.

--
best regards,

Neil

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Neil Gould" wrote in message ...
William Sommerwerck wrote:

I have no argument with anything you say here. Sound recording (unlike
photography) has always required compromises. I don't like it, but
that's the way it is.

Wow. If photography did not require compromises, the Zone system would
not have existed. Today's digital cameras often "hide" the many
compromises
in the photographic process, but they don't eliminate them. If
printing the
image didn't require compromises, there would be one kind of paper, one
kind of printer, etc., and it should be obvious to anyone familiar with
photography that no two printers (much less chemical processors) will
give
identical results, ergo, there are compromises.

Photography -- unlike sound recording (especially dimensional sound
recording) has always been pretty much a "what you see is what you get"
process.


Only very, very specific types of photography are even remotely
"what you see is what you get."

Human visual processing is *much more subject* to artistic trickery
than human audio processing.

Are you aware that, despite using the Zone System, Ansel Adams rarely
printed a negative "straight"?

Indeed. Fudged it in post....

--
Les Cargill

[Neil Gould]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Neil Gould" wrote in message ...
William Sommerwerck wrote:

I have no argument with anything you say here. Sound recording
(unlike photography) has always required compromises. I don't like
it, but that's the way it is.

Wow. If photography did not require compromises, the Zone system
would
not have existed. Today's digital cameras often "hide" the many
compromises in the photographic process, but they don't eliminate
them. If printing the image didn't require compromises, there would
be one kind of paper, one kind of printer, etc., and it should be
obvious to anyone familiar with photography that no two printers
(much less chemical processors) will give identical results, ergo,
there are compromises.

Photography -- unlike sound recording (especially dimensional sound
recording) has always been pretty much a "what you see is what you
get" process.

Are you aware that, despite using the Zone System, Ansel Adams rarely
printed a negative "straight"?

In other words, he (like all photographers) *compromised* using the process
variables to deliver the image he wanted on paper. There is no other choice,
really.

--
best regards,

Neil

[William Sommerwerck]

"Neil Gould" wrote in message ...
William Sommerwerck wrote:

I have no argument with anything you say here. Sound recording
(unlike photography) has always required compromises. I don't
like it, but that's the way it is.

Wow. If photography did not require compromises, the Zone system
would not have existed.

An early daguerreotype much-more closely resembles the object in front of the
camera, than an acoustic recording (or for that matter, an electrical one)
resembles the sound of the instrument at the horn or mic.

What would consider the photographic equivalent of the Stroh violin?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stroh_violin

[Ron C[_2_]]

On 9/29/2014 11:18 AM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Neil Gould" wrote in message ...
William Sommerwerck wrote:

I have no argument with anything you say here. Sound recording (unlike
photography) has always required compromises. I don't like it, but
that's the way it is.

Wow. If photography did not require compromises, the Zone system would
not have existed. Today's digital cameras often "hide" the many
compromises
in the photographic process, but they don't eliminate them. If
printing the
image didn't require compromises, there would be one kind of paper, one
kind of printer, etc., and it should be obvious to anyone familiar with
photography that no two printers (much less chemical processors) will
give
identical results, ergo, there are compromises.

Photography -- unlike sound recording (especially dimensional sound
recording) has always been pretty much a "what you see is what you get"
process.

Are you aware that, despite using the Zone System, Ansel Adams rarely
printed a negative "straight"?

"what you see is what you get"
Do you actually see things in black and white? Are there no colors
in your world?

Yes, I have noticed the thread has moved from natural to artistic
choices.

I might also note that photography is but a segment of the visual
arts, with black and white being an even smaller segment.
OK, now defend black and white photography (along with
all the dodging, burning, and gamma manipulations) as being
absolutely natural. Moving back to the original topic I might draw
an analogy of natural light and natural sound, fill light to spot
mic' and such.

Ah, but spatially, you seem to care that poppa (the singer) has moved
from behind momma (the guitar) to along side of momma, and that
they are too well lit or the room too dim ...or some such.

Else ...maybe I'm misinterpreting your various points.
==
Later...
Ron Capik
--

[Scott Dorsey]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Neil Gould" wrote in message ...
William Sommerwerck wrote:

I have no argument with anything you say here. Sound recording
(unlike photography) has always required compromises. I don't
like it, but that's the way it is.

Wow. If photography did not require compromises, the Zone system
would not have existed.

An early daguerreotype much-more closely resembles the object in front of the
camera, than an acoustic recording (or for that matter, an electrical one)
resembles the sound of the instrument at the horn or mic.

What would consider the photographic equivalent of the Stroh violin?

The Panchromatic Makeup Kit which came in shades of green.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[William Sommerwerck]

"Ron C" wrote in message
...

Else... maybe I'm misinterpreting your various points.

I made an overly simple point, but one that has merit. A daguerreotype doesn't
mangle the subject's image, the way most recordings fail to capture the sound
of musical instruments or voices.

This is true even of modern recordings. The "texture" of many instruments
isn't caught. Gordon Holt used to complain that brass instruments weren't
blatty-enough sounding.

[John Williamson]

On 29/09/2014 16:18, William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Neil Gould" wrote in message ...
William Sommerwerck wrote:

I have no argument with anything you say here. Sound recording (unlike
photography) has always required compromises. I don't like it, but
that's the way it is.

Wow. If photography did not require compromises, the Zone system would
not have existed. Today's digital cameras often "hide" the many
compromises
in the photographic process, but they don't eliminate them. If
printing the
image didn't require compromises, there would be one kind of paper, one
kind of printer, etc., and it should be obvious to anyone familiar with
photography that no two printers (much less chemical processors) will
give
identical results, ergo, there are compromises.

Photography -- unlike sound recording (especially dimensional sound
recording) has always been pretty much a "what you see is what you get"
process.

Oh, no it hasn't. Going back to the early days of black and white,
severe compromises had to be made to get the grey scale on the final
print to even remotely resemble what what the unaided human eye saw at
the time the picture was taken. Filters over the lens when taking the
picture to overcome the bad colour response of early films, for instance.

Coming forward to modern digital sensors, the compromises have got less,
and are often hidden by the camera from the end user, (Kind of like
using AGC on audio) but the amplitude response curve of film and digital
sensors and output devices is nowhere near as great as the human eye can
cope with and, especially for film, is nowhere near linear. For this
reason, high dynamic range techniques such as one picture with
under-exposure followed by one with over-exposure and finally using
gamma correction are now used to cover the full amplitude range.

As a result of all this, compromises are made when producing *every*
decent picture, and ones where those compromises haven't been made are
snapshots at best. Take one example. On a Sunny day, you see a landscape
with a blue sky, clouds optional. If you take and print a straight
picture of that, using either film or a digital sensor, you see either
an underexposed foreground, which needs to be lifted out of the noise,
or a burnt out white sky, which has to have it's colours altered, or in
severe cases added from another picture.

Are you aware that, despite using the Zone System, Ansel Adams rarely
printed a negative "straight"?

I'd have guessed at never, except to make a point.


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[John Williamson]

On 29/09/2014 19:51, William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Neil Gould" wrote in message ...
William Sommerwerck wrote:

I have no argument with anything you say here. Sound recording
(unlike photography) has always required compromises. I don't
like it, but that's the way it is.

Wow. If photography did not require compromises, the Zone system
would not have existed.

An early daguerreotype much-more closely resembles the object in front
of the camera, than an acoustic recording (or for that matter, an
electrical one) resembles the sound of the instrument at the horn or mic.

What would consider the photographic equivalent of the Stroh violin?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stroh_violin

A photographer's model and studio. The Stroh violin has nothing to do
with recording sound, but a lot to do with performance.

A`more accurate comparison would be between the acoustic recorder and a
camera obscura, where the picture is drawn by hand, following a
projected image. This technique was used as far back as the 18th Century
by some of the Dutch masters, even if they didn't admit it officially.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 9/29/2014 3:04 PM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
A daguerreotype doesn't mangle the subject's image, the way most
recordings fail to capture the sound of musical instruments or voices.

Sometimes things just don't come out perfectly, but most engineers
strive to record instruments the way they sound naturally (there's that
word again). But like in modern commercial photography (ever hear of
Photoshop?) we manipulate those natural sounds, sometimes bending them a
little so that one element doesn't clobber another.

You could say "Well, if you can't hear the dulcimer over the bagpipe,
get rid of one or the other so I can record the whole ensemble" but
suppose I WANT a dulcimer and a bagpipe playing together. I need to make
them fit and one or the other may not sound natural - because the
combination doesn't sound natural, but it can make an interesting
musical creation that couldn't exist without some manipulation



--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[William Sommerwerck]

"John Williamson" wrote in message ...
On 29/09/2014 16:18, William Sommerwerck wrote:

Oh, no it hasn't. Going back to the early days of black and white,
severe compromises had to be made to get the grey scale on the final
print to even remotely resemble what what the unaided human eye saw at
the time the picture was taken. Filters over the lens when taking the
picture to overcome the bad colour response of early films, for instance.

Wrong all the way through. Prints were generally made directly from the
negative, without burning or dodging. The earliest photographic materials were
sensitive only to blue light. Filters would have had little effect.

Have you ever done darkroom work? I have.

[William Sommerwerck]

I neglected to lay emphasis on daguerreotypes. These were direct
photographs -- no negative or print was involved. When you see a
daguerreotype, you see the original, without manipulation or processing.

[Ron C[_2_]]

On 9/29/2014 3:04 PM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Ron C" wrote in message
...

Else... maybe I'm misinterpreting your various points.

I made an overly simple point, but one that has merit. A daguerreotype
doesn't mangle the subject's image, the way most recordings fail to
capture the sound of musical instruments or voices.

This is true even of modern recordings. The "texture" of many
instruments isn't caught. Gordon Holt used to complain that brass
instruments weren't blatty-enough sounding.

I'm still at a loss as to my apparent misinterpretations.
[Maybe we've moved on from "natural" reproduction.]

So puzzle this with a topically relevant recording example:

Daguerreotype is to high resolution full color stereograph
as [ your recording example here ]

Else, maybe, suggest a more relevant comparison...

==
Later....
Ron Capik
--

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 9/29/2014 6:10 PM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
I neglected to lay emphasis on daguerreotypes. These were direct
photographs -- no negative or print was involved. When you see a
daguerreotype, you see the original, without manipulation or processing.

So maybe we should be recording straight into the horn and direct to
disk? That's going to be the original without manipulation or processing.

--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[William Sommerwerck]

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message ...
On 9/29/2014 6:10 PM, William Sommerwerck wrote:

I neglected to lay emphasis on daguerreotypes. These were direct
photographs -- no negative or print was involved. When you see a
daguerreotype, you see the original, without manipulation or processing.

So maybe we should be recording straight into the horn and direct to disk?
That's going to be the original without manipulation or processing.

My point was that you get an image of much greater fidelity than the sound of
an acoustic recording -- or electrical recordings, for that matter.

[William Sommerwerck]

"Ron C" wrote in message
news
I'm still at a loss as to my apparent misinterpretations.
[Maybe we've moved on from "natural" reproduction.]
So puzzle this with a topically relevant recording example:
Daguerreotype is to high resolution full color stereograph
as [ your recording example here ]

Let's see...

I would say that a daguerreotype is much closer to a full-color stereograph,
than an acoustic recording is to a good multi-ch SACD. The //basic fidelity//
is there, something you can't say about an acoustic recording.

[hank alrich]

Ron C wrote:

Yes, I have noticed the thread has moved from natural to artistic
choices.

Even "natural" attempts require "artistic choices".

Perhaps I set out to make a recording that suits WS's prefs as best I
can. I must decide where to position the mics. No rule will tell me
where to place them. I'll have to make this up. The sound captured may
vary drastically across mic positions not so far apart placement. Etc.

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[hank alrich]

Mike Rivers wrote:

On 9/29/2014 6:10 PM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
I neglected to lay emphasis on daguerreotypes. These were direct
photographs -- no negative or print was involved. When you see a
daguerreotype, you see the original, without manipulation or processing.

So maybe we should be recording straight into the horn and direct to
disk? That's going to be the original without manipulation or processing.

j

Now you're just being cranky.

/j

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[Neil[_9_]]

On 9/29/2014 2:51 PM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Neil Gould" wrote in message ...
William Sommerwerck wrote:

I have no argument with anything you say here. Sound recording
(unlike photography) has always required compromises. I don't
like it, but that's the way it is.

Wow. If photography did not require compromises, the Zone system
would not have existed.

An early daguerreotype much-more closely resembles the object in front
of the camera, than an acoustic recording (or for that matter, an
electrical one) resembles the sound of the instrument at the horn or mic.

I've seen many Daguerrotypes, but not a single one that had color.

What would consider the photographic equivalent of the Stroh violin?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stroh_violin

I don't know, but most likely a failure of some kind or other. ;-D

--
best regards,

Neil

[Ron C[_2_]]

On 9/29/2014 8:46 PM, hank alrich wrote:
Ron C wrote:

Yes, I have noticed the thread has moved from natural to artistic
choices.

Even "natural" attempts require "artistic choices".

Perhaps I set out to make a recording that suits WS's prefs as best I
can. I must decide where to position the mics. No rule will tell me
where to place them. I'll have to make this up. The sound captured may
vary drastically across mic positions not so far apart placement. Etc.

Hank,
I totally respect the artistic choice problem. Recordings are effectively
set in stone, whereas live sound (most of my experience {1}) is quite
ephemeral, mix for the moment and all that. Recorded stuff never
captures the live context (um, whatever that may mean.)

Anyway [IMHO] you're tasked with recording to an unknown,
non-reactive mass audience. Good luck guessing how they
may react. [Actually, I strongly suspect you have a good feel
for your typical audience.]

{1} Mostly I've done live sound for acoustic bands, though only
as an avocation. On the plus side, there were always a bunch
of pickers out back for a reality check. Side note: pickers
aren't always in a room. :-)

==
Later...
Ron Capik
--

[Gary Eickmeier]

W respect to comparing recording and photography, I have already said in a
post on the 27th:

The naiive audiophile thinks that all recordings are "sonic pictures" of a
real performance that the mikes captured somewhere, and the object is to
accurately relay that original sound to you so that it sounds like you are
there. Most of us realize that it ain't so simple. Several complications to
this rosy scenario overlap to complicate things enough to falsify that
impression.

1. You can't get there from here. The recording and reproduction process has
the unfortunate result of changing the spatial nature of the original to
that of a combination of the original and your playback system, including
the room.

2. The process might be considered a point along a continuum between total
"you are there" and "they are here." Some techniques are dedicated to miking
naturally all of the sounds arriving, including the room effects if it is in
a great hall. Some are done by multi-tracking with closer miking techniques,
then placing all sounds as desired, with or without a touch of ambience
mixed in. Closer miking of small groups such as Hank's or a piano trio or
string quartet is fine, and in fact the closer you get the better for
realism, because it sounds more like they are playing right there in your
room in front of you.

3. There wasn't necessarily a "there" there. The recording can be considered
a work in and of itself, with no need for a reference to a live event that
actually happened anywhere..

4. The result of all this is that "It isn't a recording until it gets played
back." In other words, you cannot say what your recording effort sounds like
in order for William to tell Hank or vice versa. Each of us hears a
different result of that same recording because it happens anew in each of
our systems.

The recording problem is one of creating a "product" that will convey the
producer's intent to the intended audience on the most probable systems that
it will get played back on. The playback problem is constructing a system
that can play the most recordings with the greatest sense of realism and
feeling. There should be enough overlap between the two to get pretty close
every time. A statement such as William's that there is no "ambience" or
such in the recording is a red flag that something is missing at one end or
the other. I suspect it is at the playback end, because in a good system ANY
recording you play back will have SOME ambience, even if it is just that of
your playback room. It should sound very real and very satisfying, giving
the impression that they are right there playing and singing for you at
home. If this fails to happen, then you are doing something to make it sound
"speakery" instead of making a natural acoustic sound in the room.

Not critiquing William's system, because I have never heard it. But if he is
playing back on his Ambisonics system a recording that has no such sound
then he may be criticizing the wrong end of the process.

I just got my copy of the album and it does, indeed, sound like they are
playing right in my room, but not close up, in your face kind of sound but
with a touch of perspective.

[Trevor]

On 30/09/2014 1:18 AM, William Sommerwerck wrote:

Photography -- unlike sound recording (especially dimensional sound
recording) has always been pretty much a "what you see is what you get"
process.

Are you aware that, despite using the Zone System, Ansel Adams rarely
printed a negative "straight"?

Exactly, which was because he did his best to overcome the compromises
of film and paper in the darkroom. These days we use all the tricks of
Photoshop for exactly the same reasons, compromises still have to be
made, "what you see" in real life is certainly NOT "what you get" in print.

Trevor.

[John Williamson]

On 29/09/2014 23:08, William Sommerwerck wrote:
"John Williamson" wrote in message
...
On 29/09/2014 16:18, William Sommerwerck wrote:

Oh, no it hasn't. Going back to the early days of black and white,
severe compromises had to be made to get the grey scale on the final
print to even remotely resemble what what the unaided human eye saw at
the time the picture was taken. Filters over the lens when taking the
picture to overcome the bad colour response of early films, for instance.

Wrong all the way through. Prints were generally made directly from the
negative, without burning or dodging. The earliest photographic
materials were sensitive only to blue light. Filters would have had
little effect.

I remember using red filters on the camera lens to improve the rendition
of cloudy skies, as well as other filters to help with other aspects of
landscape work. These help with all types of monochrome film. I have
used orthochromatic and panchromatic film. I still use a polarising
filter to enhance blue skies....

Contact prints have always been made as a cheap way of judging what was
on the negative, and still are.

Then, ever since the invention of the enlarger, darkroom technicians
have been using dodging and burning to modify the dynamic range of
prints, and later on filter packs to alter the colour balance of
photographs either for artistic or technical reasons.

Have you ever done darkroom work? I have.

I've been taking photographs and doing darkroom work for rather more
than half a Century.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[John Williamson]

On 29/09/2014 23:10, William Sommerwerck wrote:
I neglected to lay emphasis on daguerreotypes. These were direct
photographs -- no negative or print was involved. When you see a
daguerreotype, you see the original, without manipulation or processing.

So, in your mind, they are the equivalent of modern slide film? I use
filters on that as well.

I've also seen daguerreotypes, and they're nothing like the original
scene as seen or captured by modern equipment.

If you want a direct observation of the compromises that have to be made
by photographers, go to Lacock Abbey in England, where you can reproduce
the worlds first photograph, as taken by Fox Talbot. It's a view through
a window of the gardens, and in the original, which is a contact print,
the perfectly exposed view of the garden is surrounded by a black
silhouette of the window frame. With modern equipment, the dynamic range
can show detail in both parts of the picture.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Neil[_9_]]

On 9/30/2014 12:21 AM, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
W respect to comparing recording and photography, I have already said in a
post on the 27th:

[...]
1. You can't get there from here. The recording and reproduction process has
the unfortunate result of changing the spatial nature of the original to
that of a combination of the original and your playback system, including
the room.

I agree, but go further by saying that the notion of recording the
original acoustic environment is doomed from the beginning due to the
limitations of every tool used in the process.

2. The process might be considered a point along a continuum between total
"you are there" and "they are here."

I see it as a "this is that" process; the live experience ("this") is
used to create a product ("that") acceptable to the consumer.

4. The result of all this is that "It isn't a recording until it gets played
back." In other words, you cannot say what your recording effort sounds like
in order for William to tell Hank or vice versa. Each of us hears a
different result of that same recording because it happens anew in each of
our systems.

Playback is another can of worms, where it is quite unlikely that any
two playback environments will present the listener with the same
auditory experience, and none will be acoustically identical to the
recording environment.

--
best regards,

Neil