Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#9
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Modern Reviewing Practices In Audio Rags Have Become Useless
On Sunday, August 4, 2013 6:27:55 AM UTC-7, Audio_Empire wrote:
On Saturday, August 3, 2013 6:50:38 AM UTC-7, Scott wrote: On Friday, August 2, 2013 3:55:15 PM UTC-7, Audio_Empire wrote: In article , Scott wrote: snip Again, it does not matter how the imaging got onto the recording. What matters is how it images during playback. This phenomenon we call imaging is not limited to music played on acoustic instruments. This shows absolutely how out of touch with the reality of recording and playback of music that this poster is. So says the guy who flaunts his disdain for the music he claims to know so much about. He tells me that he thinks that my entire assertion is wrong, and then he makes a clearly clueless comment like the one above. Who is clueless about how pop/rock music images? The guy who hates and won't listen to it or the guy who loves it and has over 2,000 records of it? Think about that for a moment. Imaging, specifically image specificity relies on differences in volume between right and left channels as well as timing cues and phase differences to locate instruments in space. Phase yes. Timing no. Talk about clueless. If there are timing differences coming from right and left channels you don't get an image.You get two sounds coming straight off the two speakers that are out of sync. So imaging is a result of volume and phase properties, NOT TIMING and one other thing, spectral balance. When pop/rock recordings are made, especially those relying on electronic instruments, each instrument is miked separately, either using an acoustical microphone such as a condenser mike (for some acoustic instruments such a drum kits) dynamic mikes (usually for rock vocals) and piezoelectric contact mikes - often called "frapping" (for some acoustic instruments) and sometimes direct electronic connection for electronic instruments like solid-body electric guitars, electronic keyboard instruments, etc.). Clearly as someone who hates the genre you have not done your homework on how pop/rock recordings are made. But even when we are talking about the ones that are actually made as you describe..IT DOESN'T MATTER. What matters is what is heard as a result. And as someone who actually listens to pop/rock music I can tell you from actual experience rather than pure prejudice that you can get some pretty fantastic imaging from some of those records. These instruments are usually acoustically isolated from one another in the studio space using moveable sound absorption "partitions" called "gobos" . Each instrument/voice is miked or otherwise captured separately and each instrument/voice is fed to the recording console in the control room separately as well and is assigned it's own input channel on that console. That means that each performer is captured solo and the volume of each instrument or voice in the ensemble can be raised or lowered in relationship to others at the desire of the recording's producer and the engineers. Another parameter that is controlled at this point is the position of each instrument or voice from left to right on the two-channel "Buss" - although this is usually done in the final mix to two channel. by using a control called a "pan-pot" any of these separate instrument's "channels" can be placed laterally across the stage from all the way stage right to all the way stage left or anywhere in between. Given a two channel mix down, only right to left localization is possible. There is no way to place one instrument electronically behind or in front of another instrument or to make one instrument see to be playing, physically "above" another. This three-dimenionality we call "stereophonic sound" is, strictly speaking, not possible using this type of recording capture. Due to phase anomalies which may be accidentally captured along with the wanted sound, some form of accidental "imaging" that sounds like front-to-back imaging may end-up in the finished release. But it cannot be purposely done and is not intentional or planned. Make no mistake. Whether we are talking about a mix of electronic and acoustical instruments capture in the above manner, or a symphony orchestra recorded with a forest of microphones to 48, 64, 0r 96 channels of recording, the final two channel result is in NO WAY stereophonic sound as it has no three-dimensional aspect to it. It can't because none was captured. The only way true stereo, and therefore real imaging info can be captured is by using a stereophonic recording technique. Spaced omnis, A-B, XY, M-S, ORTF, and Blumlein microphone techniques will all yield stereo. Multi-miking to multi-channel monaural sound can yield only two or three channel mono - right, center, left and that isn't stereo and that has no image. This is just fact. There are no ifs, ands or buts about it. That this poster believes that '...it does not matter how the imaging got onto the recording. What matters is how it images during playback.." clearly shows that he has no idea what he talking about. I'm finished here with this argument. A good call. I suggest you do some homework on how actual real world pop/rock recordings have actually been made throughout the decades before arguing any further. And better yet, you might consider actually listening to some before commenting on how they sound. You might want to start here and then give some of Bill Porter's recordings an actual listen. http://www.analogplanet.com/content/...orter-part-i-0 Here is a quote from that article describing the Bill Porter sound. "The "Port+Sound" (if something so utterly neutral could be described as a "sound") issounds like front-to-back imaging may end-up in the finished release. ultra-dynamic and extremely wide-band. Bass is of the intestine-shaking variety. The top end seems to sail on into infinity, without a trace of the pinched, sandy glare found on many of today's productions. The resulting "see-through," natural presentation of vocal and instrumental timbre occurs on a soundstage that is cinemascopic and deep, with individual instruments and Porter recordings on high end stereos quite frequently. You see that is why we are NOT clueless but actually are offering really well informed opinions on the subject. How many Bill Porter recordings do you own and listen to? I am going to go out on a limb and guess the answer is zero. Now this is just one of many rock/pop recording engineers I can point out that clearly show all your assertions about pop/rock music and the recording techniques used for the genre are complete nonsense. But there is not enough time in the day or space in this thread to do so. So I leave you with just one recording engineer you might want to familiarize yourself with before you argue any further on this subject. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Industry rags | Pro Audio | |||
"Are Modern Recording Practices Damaging Music?" | Pro Audio | |||
Do we need science in subjective audio "reviewing"? | High End Audio | |||
Do we need science in subjective audio "reviewing"? | High End Audio | |||
Testing audio latency of modern operating systems | Pro Audio |