Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
One of the wonders of audio is that we're able to accept lots of radically different spaces in recordings - even acoustic recordings, as opposed to pop production.
This comes up all the time when people ask whether xxx sample library's orchestral woodwinds would blend with yyy library's brass and zzz library's percussion and strings. The answer is always yes - just choose the library with the woodwind sound you like. It doesn't matter that the instruments are recorded from totally different mic positions in different spaces (leaving aside that you do still have to position the sections appropriately for a realistic sound). Similarly, I'm working on a short piece with a bunch of synths and sampled instruments up close, but adding sampled timps far away at the back of a stage with huge recorded hall reverb is totally believable. And we all know about obvious things like drum room mics and overheads marrying perfectly with gated snare reverbs, etc. I've been trying to come up with a reason why this seemingly total suspension of disbelief works. One avenue of explanation is that everything is coming from speakers in the room, and that integrates it all. But it's also true with headphones. Any ideas? |
#2
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
nickbatz wrote:
One of the wonders of audio is that we're able to accept lots of radically = different spaces in recordings - even acoustic recordings, as opposed to po= p production. .... I've been trying to come up with a reason why this seemingly total suspensi= on of disbelief works. One avenue of explanation is that everything is comi= ng from speakers in the room, and that integrates it all. But it's also tru= e with headphones. Works? It drives me up the wall. It drove me up the wall when the Beatles did it and it drives me up the wall today when I hear it. If the voice sounds like it's in a totally different place than the guitar, it is very distracting. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#3
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Tuesday, March 19, 2019 at 1:55:19 PM UTC-7, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Works? It drives me up the wall. It drove me up the wall when the Beatles did it and it drives me up the wall today when I hear it. If the voice sounds like it's in a totally different place than the guitar, it is very distracting. Well, it's not difficult to use reverb badly whether it's a single one for everything or individual ones. But in general, yes, I say it does work - and it's done all the time, as you know. |
#4
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
If it sounds OK to you, it might not sound OK to others.
I do find that double checking with headphones is a very good way to get things evened out when using reverbs. |
#5
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Wednesday, March 20, 2019 at 8:54:21 AM UTC-7, Ty Ford wrote:
If it sounds OK to you, it might not sound OK to others. I do find that double checking with headphones is a very good way to get things evened out when using reverbs. I think you guys are missing what I'm asking. Using multiple reverbs or spaces is standard practice on every pop recording since the stone ages, and on many acoustic recordings too. How often is the lead vocal run through the same reverb as the drum overheads, for example? For that matter, how often is the lead vocal in the same room as the drums? Sometimes, but iso booths are normal. This isn't a trivial question, it's one that I've been contemplating for a long time! Okay, you can argue that I'm a simp, but there's some psychoacoustic stuff going on in our brains that I don't understand. |
#6
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
nickbatz wrote:
On Wednesday, March 20, 2019 at 8:54:21 AM UTC-7, Ty Ford wrote: If it sounds OK to you, it might not sound OK to others. I do find that double checking with headphones is a very good way to get things evened out when using reverbs. I think you guys are missing what I'm asking. Using multiple reverbs or spaces is standard practice on every pop recording since the stone ages, and on many acoustic recordings too. How often is the lead vocal run through the same reverb as the drum overheads, for example? For that matter, how often is the lead vocal in the same room as the drums? Sometimes, but iso booths are normal. This isn't a trivial question, it's one that I've been contemplating for a long time! Okay, you can argue that I'm a simp, but there's some psychoacoustic stuff going on in our brains that I don't understand. I think your question is if there's a different optimal-amount of reverb for the pure sonority of each instrument while in the mix, which is good for the overall sonority of the recording, and if there is, then if there's an acceptable range of give and take between this pure sonority and sense-of-space. -- Matt |
#7
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Matt Faunce wrote:
nickbatz wrote: On Wednesday, March 20, 2019 at 8:54:21 AM UTC-7, Ty Ford wrote: If it sounds OK to you, it might not sound OK to others. I do find that double checking with headphones is a very good way to get things evened out when using reverbs. I think you guys are missing what I'm asking. Using multiple reverbs or spaces is standard practice on every pop recording since the stone ages, and on many acoustic recordings too. How often is the lead vocal run through the same reverb as the drum overheads, for example? For that matter, how often is the lead vocal in the same room as the drums? Sometimes, but iso booths are normal. This isn't a trivial question, it's one that I've been contemplating for a long time! Okay, you can argue that I'm a simp, but there's some psychoacoustic stuff going on in our brains that I don't understand. I think your question is if there's a different optimal-amount of reverb for the pure sonority of each instrument while in the mix, which is good for the overall sonority of the recording, and if there is, then if there's an acceptable range of give and take between this pure sonority and sense-of-space. Let me rephrase that. I think the assumption of engineers who use different reverb levels is that there's a different optimal-amount of reverb for the pure sonority of each instrument while in the mix, which is good for the overall sonority of the recording. My question is, if that's true, is there's an acceptable range of give and take between this pure sonority and sense-of-space, and if so, is there a rule that regulates it? -- Matt |
#8
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
It's not a matter of reverb levels - although that's also an important parameter, of course! - it's that the ear tolerates *totally discrete spaces* on recordings.
I just talked to my friend Dave Moulton about this, and he too has long been baffled by the same thing. He said it's probably just a willing suspension of disbelief, some screwiness in our brains! |
#9
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
My question is, if that's true, is there's an acceptable range of give and
take between this pure sonority and sense-of-space, and if so, is there a rule that regulates it? On that subject, I've always differentiated between reverb on an individual instrument and overall space reverb. And by "always," I mean it's not something I've ever questioned - it just seems evident that some reverb processors and programs stick to certain instruments, and some don't. For example, trying to find a good reverb for a solo flute or sine wave-ish synth sound isn't always easy. |
#10
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#11
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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." |
#12
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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." |
#13
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#14
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#15
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#16
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 -- |
#17
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"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. |
#18
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
One of my earliest mentors warned me that musicians can often confuse notes with sound.
|
#19
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#20
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#21
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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." |
#22
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 ![]() 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. |
#23
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#24
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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! |
#25
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#26
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
![]() 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 |
#27
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#28
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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." |
#29
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 ![]() 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 |
#30
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#31
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#32
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#33
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#34
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#35
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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." |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
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 |