Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#41
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Multiple spaces in recordings
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. |
#42
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Multiple spaces in recordings
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 |
#43
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Multiple spaces in recordings
On 26/03/2019 10:20 PM, Adrian Tuddenham wrote:
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: 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. And why should it matter if they sound realistic or not ? We would likely, all but the most esoteric snobs of us, be bored out of our trees if we were constricted to listening to just one style of music. That is may be artificially enhanced or recorded need not be a negative thing. geoff |
#44
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Multiple spaces in recordings
~~~ "... 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 why should it not, there can be "multiple spaces in real life. Again sources close to you lack reverberation. source far from you are reverberate. a real life example of "multiple spaces" m |
#45
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Multiple spaces in recordings
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." |
#47
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Multiple spaces in recordings
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. |
#48
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Multiple spaces in recordings
Those two statements appear to contradict each other. Were there any
tests and, if so, what exactly did they prove? There were no actual tests, no men in white coats. Not worth dwelling on; I have a silly sense of semi-demi-quasi-humor that amuses me and triggers a mild gag response in others. 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. That's certainly part of it - what people are used to. 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. Exactly! |
#49
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Multiple spaces in recordings
And why should it matter if they sound realistic or not ? We would
likely, all but the most esoteric snobs of us, be bored out of our trees if we were constricted to listening to just one style of music. That is may be artificially enhanced or recorded need not be a negative thing. geoff Hear, hear. It is an artform, after all! |
#50
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Multiple spaces in recordings
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. |
#51
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Multiple spaces in recordings
Mike Rivers wrote:
On 3/26/2019 9:33 AM, wrote: there can be "multiple spaces in real life. Again sources close to you lack reverberation. source far from you are reverberate. If you're making an orchestral recording from the conductor's position, differences in reverberation applied to spot mics over different sections can be different, but not very different, because most of the natural reverberation comes from the hall. And if you're making your recording from the audience position, you'll want everything to have pretty much the same reverb to avoid a confusing sound stage - the sort of thing that Adrian hates. This was recorded at a rehearsal* and the overall sound picture is the one you would ideally get from a short distance above and behind the conductor's head. As a mic could not be placed at that position because it was obscured by a heavy overhanging balcony, some trickery was involved, but I hope it is not too obvious. There was no artificial reverb, no multi-tracking (other than the two stereo tracks) and no post-production other than editing out a few starts and stops. http://www.poppyrecords.co.uk/BSBf/P...Dances0286.mp3 *There are a few extraneous noises and bum notes - and I was fiddling with the levels because this was the first time they had rehearsed this piece with percussion -- ~ Adrian Tuddenham ~ (Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply) www.poppyrecords.co.uk |
#52
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Multiple spaces in recordings
there can be "multiple spaces in real life. Again sources close to you lack reverberation. source far from you are reverberate. interestingly Aretha Franklin's RESPECT came up on my ipod this morning. She has a good amount or reverb, but the "backup singers" are dry. It works for me. mark |
#53
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Multiple spaces in recordings
wrote:
there can be "multiple spaces in real life. Again sources close to you lack reverberation. source far from you are reverberate. This was recorded at a rehearsal* and the overall sound picture is the one you would ideally get from a short distance above and behind the conductor's head. As a mic could not be placed at that position because it was obscured by a heavy overhanging balcony, some trickery was involved, but I hope it is not too obvious. There was no artificial reverb, no multi-tracking (other than the two stereo tracks) and no post-production other than editing out a few starts and stops. http://www.poppyrecords.co.uk/BSBf/P...Dances0286.mp3 interestingly Aretha Franklin's RESPECT came up on my ipod this morning. She has a good amount or reverb, but the "backup singers" are dry. It works for me. Yes, as long as you don't try to create a mental image of the singers in a room. I try to form a mental picture of the layout of the recording room and the placement of the performers in it, so it wouldn't work for me. Listening on an iPod is hardly a fair way of comparing the accuracy of stereo recordings - that's why professional recording engineers don't do it that way. If you listen on a professional stereo system with suitably-positioned loudspeakers matched for amplitude and phase, your ears should be able to place the layout of the instruments in the brass band recording and give you some idea of the room they were recorded in. You will find that 'imaging' impossible to do in the recording you have described, where the performers have been given different acoustic treatment from each other. Whether you are irritated by this will depend on what you have become used to. There is also the question of performers 'performing to the acoustics'; professional performers will vary the performance to suit the room they are performing in. It can sometimes be very obvious when a good singer, who is used to giving live performances, has made a studio recording where the reverb was added later. -- ~ Adrian Tuddenham ~ (Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply) www.poppyrecords.co.uk |
#54
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Multiple spaces in recordings
Listening on an iPod is hardly a fair way of comparing the accuracy of stereo recordings - I should have clarified, I was not using ear buds... iPOD was feeding the car audio system. m |
#56
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Multiple spaces in recordings
geoff wrote:
On 10/04/2019 4:15 AM, wrote: Listening on an iPod is hardly a fair way of comparing the accuracy of stereo recordings - I should have clarified, I was not using ear buds... iPOD was feeding the car audio system. m As long as your tracks are in ALAC (=lossless) it could be worse. The encoding is only one link in the chain, how many car radios give an accurate stereo image? -- ~ Adrian Tuddenham ~ (Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply) www.poppyrecords.co.uk |
#57
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Multiple spaces in recordings
On 4/10/2019 4:05 AM, Adrian Tuddenham wrote:
The encoding is only one link in the chain, how many car radios give an accurate stereo image? The ones with a steering wheel in the middle. -- For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com |
#58
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Multiple spaces in recordings
Adrian Tuddenham wrote:
The encoding is only one link in the chain, how many car radios give an accurate stereo image? That's the real problem. You're sitting way off-axis, the tweeters are not pointed directly at you, you're either too far forward or too far back, and you're in a glassy shell full of standing waves. And the sad part is this is how most people listen to music. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#59
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Multiple spaces in recordings
Scott Dorsey wrote:
Adrian Tuddenham wrote: The encoding is only one link in the chain, how many car radios give an accurate stereo image? That's the real problem. You're sitting way off-axis, the tweeters are not pointed directly at you, you're either too far forward or too far back, and you're in a glassy shell full of standing waves. And the sad part is this is how most people listen to music. Even sadder is that the beliefs expressed in this thread are now so common amongst people who are well educated (by modern standards) in music and sound production, that they don't realise they have lost touch with the basics. Throughout the whole of their education and learning processes, they have never been exposed to a good objective recording. -- ~ Adrian Tuddenham ~ (Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply) www.poppyrecords.co.uk |
#60
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Multiple spaces in recordings
"Mike Rivers" wrote in message ... On 4/10/2019 4:05 AM, Adrian Tuddenham wrote: The encoding is only one link in the chain, how many car radios give an accurate stereo image? The ones with a steering wheel in the middle. ROTFLMAO! Poly --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus |
#61
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Multiple spaces in recordings
On Tuesday, April 9, 2019 at 8:00:43 AM UTC-5, wrote:
there can be "multiple spaces in real life. Again sources close to you lack reverberation. source far from you are reverberate. interestingly Aretha Franklin's RESPECT came up on my ipod this morning. She has a good amount or reverb, but the "backup singers" are dry. It works for me. mark interestingly, she was recorded live while just the BG singers were an overdub. From a performance standpoint, recording everybody at once always works better musically in my experience. |
#62
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Multiple spaces in recordings
On 4/10/2019 12:02 PM, polymod wrote:
"Mike Rivers"Â* wrote in message ... The ones with a steering wheel in the middle. ROTFLMAO! http://www.earlyamericanautomobiles..../autos1213.jpg and no glass to cause those messy reflections, either. -- For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com |
#63
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Multiple spaces in recordings
On Wednesday, April 10, 2019 at 9:33:58 AM UTC-7, Bob Olhsson wrote:
interestingly, she was recorded live while just the BG singers were an overdub. From a performance standpoint, recording everybody at once always works better musically in my experience. I agree with the point you're making 100%, Bob. Great musicians interact with one another, while recordings don't during overdubs. And I'm guessing that Aretha didn't rely on comping a whole lot. But for example every Steely Dan record was overdubbed to the nines. Maybe that's a bad example, because they always have a high gloss. So let's say Sgt. Pepper's. Moreover, most people's ears have changed since sequencers came along, or even before that with click tracks. Nobody ever noticed that "Gone" (Miles/Gil Evans Porgy and Bess) has a couple of clams and speeds up. Or "Chameleon" (Herbie Hancock of course) speeding up like crazy. No question those are both still records for the ages, but I for one hear them very differently today from how I did 40+ years ago. |
#64
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Multiple spaces in recordings
Scott wrote:
And the sad part is this is how most people listen to music. On one hand yes, and it's even sadder that people don't just sit and listen to music - everything is louder, faster, brighter, and there's more of it at once. On the other hand, aren't you able to tune out the shortcomings of a playback system and just enjoy music while you're driving? Adrian: Even sadder is that the beliefs expressed in this thread are now so common amongst people who are well educated (by modern standards) in music and sound production, that they don't realise they have lost touch with the basics. Throughout the whole of their education and learning processes, they have never been exposed to a good objective recording. These kids today... |
#65
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Multiple spaces in recordings
On 11/04/2019 1:07 AM, Adrian Tuddenham wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote: Adrian Tuddenham wrote: The encoding is only one link in the chain, how many car radios give an accurate stereo image? That's the real problem. You're sitting way off-axis, the tweeters are not pointed directly at you, you're either too far forward or too far back, and you're in a glassy shell full of standing waves. And the sad part is this is how most people listen to music. Even sadder is that the beliefs expressed in this thread are now so common amongst people who are well educated (by modern standards) in music and sound production, that they don't realise they have lost touch with the basics. Throughout the whole of their education and learning processes, they have never been exposed to a good objective recording. Yes sad indeed. And also that many have never heard a purely acoustic performance - without microphones and PA speakers. And many don't even realise that such musical expression exists ! But equally sad are those who suggest that anything other than that form is valid musical expression, and that whatever tricks being used to produce 'other' styles of recording are innately inferior. Though much really i disposable flawed or whatever, all that is not 'natural' should not be tarred with the same brush. geoff |
#66
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Multiple spaces in recordings
On 10/04/2019 10:18 pm, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Adrian Tuddenham wrote: The encoding is only one link in the chain, how many car radios give an accurate stereo image? That's the real problem. You're sitting way off-axis, the tweeters are not pointed directly at you, you're either too far forward or too far back, and you're in a glassy shell full of standing waves. And the sad part is this is how most people listen to music. Sure most people listen to music in the car, BUT it's not the only way most people listen to music. Of course their iPods/iPhones are not much better. Or arena concerts, or even at a quality concert hall if you are sitting in the back corner. :-( |
#67
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Multiple spaces in recordings
On 10/04/2019 8:35 pm, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 4/10/2019 4:05 AM, Adrian Tuddenham wrote: The encoding is only one link in the chain, how many car radios give an accurate stereo image? The ones with a steering wheel in the middle. Actually there have been a few, but the acoustics are still terrible. |
#68
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Multiple spaces in recordings
On 11/04/2019 8:34 am, geoff wrote:
Yes sad indeed. And also that many have never heard a purely acoustic performance - without microphones and PA speakers. And many don't even realise that such musical expression exists ! Even sadder when people claim listening to an acoustic performance in a good concert hall is nirvana, without ever acknowledging how different it sounds in the front row Vs the back row, somewhere in the middle, or the conductors position! And that's without comparing the same orchestra playing the same piece in a completely different hall. I always laugh when people think there is some TRUE sound that must be obtained, rather than simply enjoy the music. Sometimes it's hard to enjoy if the sound is absolutely terrible, but much of the time it's just different. |
#69
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Multiple spaces in recordings
a lot depends on how good the dope is...
|
#70
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Multiple spaces in recordings
nickbatz wrote:
On Wednesday, April 10, 2019 at 9:33:58 AM UTC-7, Bob Olhsson wrote: interestingly, she was recorded live while just the BG singers were an ov= erdub. =20 From a performance standpoint, recording everybody at once always works b= etter musically in my experience. I agree with the point you're making 100%, Bob. Great musicians interact wi= th one another, while recordings don't during overdubs. And I'm guessing th= at Aretha didn't rely on comping a whole lot. Sometimes you might not want interactions between performers, and backup vocals are a good example. You might want the backup vocals to be an overdub just so they don't affect the way the lead vocal performs. But.... you can still make them sound like they are in the same room.... Moreover, most people's ears have changed since sequencers came along, or e= ven before that with click tracks. Nobody ever noticed that "Gone" (Miles/G= il Evans Porgy and Bess) has a couple of clams and speeds up. Or "Chameleon= " (Herbie Hancock of course) speeding up like crazy. Speeding up and slowing down is part of what can make music interesting, just like dynamics in amplitude. Not that it's always a good thing, but when it's good it's good. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#71
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Multiple spaces in recordings
nickbatz wrote:
Scott wrote: And the sad part is this is how most people listen to music. On one hand yes, and it's even sadder that people don't just sit and listen to music - everything is louder, faster, brighter, and there's more of it at once. I agree thoroughly. I remember record listening parties, where when a new record came out everybody would gather at someone's house and we'd play the whole new album through all the way and listen to it. This is something that people don't do anymore. On the other hand, aren't you able to tune out the shortcomings of a playback system and just enjoy music while you're driving? No, it distracts me severely from the road. I will listen to news in the car sometimes but mostly have the radio turned off. I want to see who is going to hit me. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#72
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Multiple spaces in recordings
In article , Trevor wrote:
On 11/04/2019 8:34 am, geoff wrote: Yes sad indeed. And also that many have never heard a purely acoustic performance - without microphones and PA speakers. And many don't even realise that such musical expression exists ! Even sadder when people claim listening to an acoustic performance in a good concert hall is nirvana, without ever acknowledging how different it sounds in the front row Vs the back row, somewhere in the middle, or the conductors position! And that's without comparing the same orchestra playing the same piece in a completely different hall. But this is part of what is so great about acoustic performances! You can sit where you want. I always laugh when people think there is some TRUE sound that must be obtained, rather than simply enjoy the music. Sometimes it's hard to enjoy if the sound is absolutely terrible, but much of the time it's just different. Well, it's my job to worry about that sound. I get paid for it, so I tend to take it seriously. I tend to like to sit in the balcony and like recordings that sound that way, but a lot of producers want it to sound much more forward. That's okay, I can accomodate them. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#73
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Multiple spaces in recordings
On Friday, April 12, 2019 at 8:27:27 AM UTC-7, Ty Ford wrote:
a lot depends on how good the dope is... Just don't smoke and vote. |
#74
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Multiple spaces in recordings
On Friday, April 12, 2019 at 8:48:19 AM UTC-7, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Moreover, most people's ears have changed since sequencers came along, or e= ven before that with click tracks. Nobody ever noticed that "Gone" (Miles/G= il Evans Porgy and Bess) has a couple of clams and speeds up. Or "Chameleon= " (Herbie Hancock of course) speeding up like crazy. Speeding up and slowing down is part of what can make music interesting, just like dynamics in amplitude. Not that it's always a good thing, but when it's good it's good. --scott Absolutely. I'm just saying that almost four decades of sequencers have changed how we hear music. "Perfect" performances were never possible before - no clams, perfect timing, intonation, dynamics... |
#75
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Multiple spaces in recordings
Trevor wrote:
On 11/04/2019 8:34 am, geoff wrote: Yes sad indeed. And also that many have never heard a purely acoustic performance - without microphones and PA speakers. And many don't even realise that such musical expression exists ! Even sadder when people claim listening to an acoustic performance in a good concert hall is nirvana, without ever acknowledging how different it sounds in the front row Vs the back row, somewhere in the middle, or the conductors position! And that's without comparing the same orchestra playing the same piece in a completely different hall. I always laugh when people think there is some TRUE sound that must be obtained, rather than simply enjoy the music. Sometimes it's hard to enjoy if the sound is absolutely terrible, but much of the time it's just different. I am currently rescuing some unique mono recordings of operatic and orchestral broadcasts of the 1950s from nitrate discs, it is usually possible to identify the location of the performance from the acoustics. -- ~ Adrian Tuddenham ~ (Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply) www.poppyrecords.co.uk |
#76
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Multiple spaces in recordings
On 13/04/2019 7:17 AM, nickbatz wrote:
On Friday, April 12, 2019 at 8:48:19 AM UTC-7, Scott Dorsey wrote: Moreover, most people's ears have changed since sequencers came along, or e= ven before that with click tracks. Nobody ever noticed that "Gone" (Miles/G= il Evans Porgy and Bess) has a couple of clams and speeds up. Or "Chameleon= " (Herbie Hancock of course) speeding up like crazy. Speeding up and slowing down is part of what can make music interesting, just like dynamics in amplitude. Not that it's always a good thing, but when it's good it's good. --scott Absolutely. I'm just saying that almost four decades of sequencers have changed how we hear music. "Perfect" performances were never possible before - no clams, perfect timing, intonation, dynamics... And click-tracks. I loath rigid time, unless extreme and unintentional. geoff |
#77
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Multiple spaces in recordings
On 13/04/2019 1:52 am, Scott Dorsey wrote:
In article , Trevor wrote: Even sadder when people claim listening to an acoustic performance in a good concert hall is nirvana, without ever acknowledging how different it sounds in the front row Vs the back row, somewhere in the middle, or the conductors position! And that's without comparing the same orchestra playing the same piece in a completely different hall. But this is part of what is so great about acoustic performances! You can sit where you want. Well wherever you ticket (or job) allows you to sit. Often not in the optimum position, especially if you think the conductors spot is the best! (assuming you are not the conductor :-) Then there is still the issue of which hall. I always laugh when people think there is some TRUE sound that must be obtained, rather than simply enjoy the music. Sometimes it's hard to enjoy if the sound is absolutely terrible, but much of the time it's just different. Well, it's my job to worry about that sound. I get paid for it, so I tend to take it seriously. I tend to like to sit in the balcony and like recordings that sound that way, but a lot of producers want it to sound much more forward. That's okay, I can accomodate them. My job too, and I'm paid to accommodate them. For my personal listening I prefer more forward than the balcony, so that's my point exactly. Everyone has a different concept of what is optimum. Even musicians and music professionals. |
#78
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Multiple spaces in recordings
geoff wrote:
And click-tracks. I loath rigid time, unless extreme and unintentional. Well, on the other hand, you need rigid time for dance music, and some dancers might argue that rigid time was the whole point of music. And if you think about it, a lot of baroque music really wants to be dance music inside. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#79
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Multiple spaces in recordings
geoff wrote:
On 13/04/2019 7:17 AM, nickbatz wrote: On Friday, April 12, 2019 at 8:48:19 AM UTC-7, Scott Dorsey wrote: Moreover, most people's ears have changed since sequencers came along, or e= ven before that with click tracks. Nobody ever noticed that "Gone" (Miles/G= il Evans Porgy and Bess) has a couple of clams and speeds up. Or "Chameleon= " (Herbie Hancock of course) speeding up like crazy. Speeding up and slowing down is part of what can make music interesting, just like dynamics in amplitude.Â* Not that it's always a good thing, but when it's good it's good. --scott Absolutely. I'm just saying that almost four decades of sequencers have changed how we hear music. "Perfect" performances were never possible before - no clams, perfect timing, intonation, dynamics... And click-tracks. I loath rigid time, unless extreme and unintentional. geoff I like to intermingle rigid and not-rigid on my own stuff. It does trainwreck at times. I have parts in mixes where if you heard them soloed, you'd think I can't play at all but mixed in, they just work. Music is so strange. -- Les Cargill |
#80
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Multiple spaces in recordings
On 27/04/2019 12:49 pm, Les Cargill wrote:
I like to intermingle rigid and not-rigid on my own stuff. It does trainwreck at times. I have parts in mixes where if you heard them soloed, you'd think I can't play at all but mixed in, they just work. Music is so strange. Music is just like any other art form, very subjective. |
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 |