Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#41
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. |
#42
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Modern Reviewing Practices In Audio Rags Have Become Useless
On Sunday, August 4, 2013 10:20:56 AM UTC-7, MINe109 wrote:
In article , Audio_Empire wrote: On Saturday, August 3, 2013 6:52:42 AM UTC-7, Robert Peirce wrote: In article , Audio_Empire wrote: For instance, you can't use pop/rock to test for image specificity, because being multitrack and multi-miked with all instruments I'm told you can hear that on a good system. I don't listen critically enough to know for sure. I'd say that you CAN'T hear that because it doesn't exist with pan-potted positioning of instruments. Of course, if the rock producer specifies an don't know of any rock recordings that were recorded that way. Does anyone else know? I would love to find out. Cowboy Junkies' The Trinity Session was recorded on a single Calrec Ambisonic Microphone. Interesting. Although, strictly speaking, Ambisonics is not really Stereo, it will give a fair stereophonic image when played back two-channel. I have some LPs from Unicorn Records that were recorded Ambisonically. The only real criticism that I can level at them is that they are somewhat distantly miked. Do you find that true with the Cowboy Junkies stuff? You might also google "The Glyn Johns Drum Recording Method". Will do. Thanks. |
#43
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Modern Reviewing Practices In Audio Rags Have Become Useless
On Saturday, August 3, 2013 8:14:36 PM UTC-7, Arny Krueger wrote:
"Audio_Empire" wrote in message ... "Audio_Empire" wrote in message ... You guys are really touchy about your rock-and-roll aren't you? In a way that one sentence says way to much about your prejudices and width of view. It's not a prejudice, Arny. If anything, it is a "postjudice", if, indeed, there were such a word. I've heard this stuff all my life, and I've always loathed it. Even as a teen, I eschewed it. You call it a prejudice and a narrow width of view, I call it "good taste." 8^) It shows that you perceive rock-and-roll as not being part of your life even though its actually so pervasive that it is such a big part of your life that you apparently can't restrain yourself from knocking it and trying to separate yourself from it seemingly every change you get. You certainly can't avoid it. It IS, as you say, very pervasive. I hear it in the supermarket, coming from other peoples' apartments, their cars on the street etc. It's even used as theme songs for popular TV shows. I feel that your right to contribute to the downfall of Western Civilization by listening to this crap, ends where my ears begin. You seem to see my attack on the use of rock music as an evaluation tool as an attack on the music itself in spite of the fact that I've said over and over that my personal disdain for the genre has nothing to do with my assessment of it as a tool for reviewers. Denial ain't just a river in Egypt and absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence. I think I've explained myself sufficiently for most people to realize that my criteria for evaluation is not based on genre, but rather in recording practices associated with some genres. Apparently, you haven't been following this thread too closely, or you too would have gathered that. And remember, I also include "pop" in that criticism which includes country-and-western, as well as most jazz. More evidence of an incredibly narrow and short-sighted viewpoint. What can I tell you? Studio-produced music is studio produced music. The above statement by me is merely more evidence that my criticism is with the production processes, not the music itself. I like jazz and I listen to it, but I wouldn't use it solely as a review tool. Since so many people listen to rock, jazz, country western, and pop its hard to explain how one can review audio gear without sampling them. It's easy. I use acoustical instruments playing in real space where the space the instruments occupy is captured stereophonically, not just the instrument itself captured monophonically and pan-potted into a "sound stage". One could argue that these genres are actually so similar in terms of technical requirements for good reproduction that using any of them is analogous with using all of them, but that doesn't seem to be the thrust of the comments I'm responding to. That's true. It why I lump them together as "pop". |
#44
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Modern Reviewing Practices In Audio Rags Have Become Useless
On Sunday, August 4, 2013 10:42:28 AM UTC-7, Scott wrote:
On Sunday, August 4, 2013 6:17:32 AM UTC-7, Audio_Empire wrote: On Saturday, August 3, 2013 6:51:10 AM UTC-7, Robert Peirce wrote: In article , Scott wrote: This is such a surprisingly weird assertion. Had you not told us numerous times that you record live classical music I would suspect that you have never been to any sort of live classical performances at all. what exactly does "live music" sound like? Because in my experience it sounds like a lot of different things depending on the instruments, the musicians, the venue and the seat I am sitting in. You seem to be treating the sound of "live music" as this monolithic unwavering point of reference. It aint that. No way. I shudder to think someone with a subscription to the overpriced balcony seats at Davies Hall or Copley Hall would suffer the dire audio consequences of thinking that their listening experience to live music in such halls from those seats sets a standard by which playback should be measured and even worse sets a standard by which they should actually adjust their aesthetic values. The horror, the horror You are both right and wrong. I stopped going to one concert series because the house decided the music needed to be electronically amplified and the instruments sounded wrong. They sounded wrong no matter where I was sitting. Ain't that the truth! I have actually walked out on concerts because they felt the need for sound reinforcement. Usually in such cases I demand a refund on my tickets. I get it too. My ploy is tell the manager that I go to live concert performances to listen to LIVE unamplified music playing in a real space, not to listen to some P.A. system. I tell them that if I wanted to listen to amplifiers and speakers, I would have stayed home where I had MUCH better speakers and amps than the P.A. junk in that theater! It always works. Bottom line is I won't put up with indoor sound reinforcement of classical or jazz performances played on acoustic instruments. What concerts have you attended where you were unexpectedly faced with this issue? All the classical concerts I go to are unamplified with the exception of the Hollywood Bowl. And the Hollywood Bowl makes it really clear that they use sound reinforcement. One would have no excuse for being surprised by that fact. There are other venues all over the world that also rely on sound reinforcement too but none that I know of that are covert about it. So what venues have surprised you with the use of sound reinforcement? Quite a few, actually. In fact I tried to attend a local big-band jazz concert just last weekend where sound reinforcement was evident. I left. Same with a symphonic band concert held in a large church several months ago. Now, I'll say this. I haven't yet attended an indoor symphony concert where sound reinforcement was used, but I understand that it is done. I've stopped attending outdoor concerts of any kind for that reason. I just don't want to listen to a P.A. system. It seems elementary purpose defeating to me. I realize that sound reinforcement might be required at large outdoor venues, and I'll gladly forego the "pleasure" of attending those. I was listening to the BSO at Tanglewood on Internet radio last night and the thought came to me that I was probably hearing a much better presentation than were the attendees, grouped around the Koussevitzky "shed" listening to the excellent performance by Charles Dutoit of Ravel's complete "Daphnis et Chloe" through a P.A. System. It is quite possible that some instruments in some halls will sound dreadful, but you will still be able to recognize them. Some recordings are so manipulated that you can't recognize the instruments. True enough. I don't consider the ability to merely recognize an instrument as any kind of standard of excellence. And who does? Surely, even you must realize that it's much more complicated that just that. I can recognize the sound of most instruments on cheap AM car radio. The fact is you can get dreadful sound in almost any concert hall if your seats are lousy. So bad live sound is very common. And again, who said it wasn't? things you can do in post-production that are impossible in real life. If that helps, it helps, but you shouldn't think that is the sound of a real instrument in a real space as some reviewers seem to think. Also agreed. But experienced listeners SHOULD know the difference. And, I might add that I don't think that I want to hear those things "...done in post production that are impossible in real life.." Others might and they're welcome to it, but.... |
#45
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Modern Reviewing Practices In Audio Rags Have Become Useless
In article ,
Audio_Empire wrote: On Sunday, August 4, 2013 10:20:56 AM UTC-7, MINe109 wrote: In article , Cowboy Junkies' The Trinity Session was recorded on a single Calrec Ambisonic Microphone. Interesting. Although, strictly speaking, Ambisonics is not really Stereo, it will give a fair stereophonic image when played back two-channel. I have some LPs from Unicorn Records that were recorded Ambisonically. The only real criticism that I can level at them is that they are somewhat distantly miked. Do you find that true with the Cowboy Junkies stuff? No, but according to wiki the vocals had an assist from a PA. Stephen |
#46
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Modern Reviewing Practices In Audio Rags Have Become Useless
On 8/1/2013 7:32 PM, Audio_Empire wrote:
On Wednesday, July 31, 2013 7:46:42 PM UTC-7, KH wrote: On 7/31/2013 10:29 AM, Audio_Empire wrote: In article , KH wrote: On 7/30/2013 3:52 PM, Audio_Empire wrote: snip This would appear to say volumes about your knowledge of pop music. I know enough * more than I want to. And if you are saying that I am wrong here, then I believe it says more about your knowledge of music and reproduction than it does about mine. I'm saying you clearly don't know the range of "pop" music, quite a lot of which is acoustic, because you don't care, and *you* don't listen to any, by your own admission, so you don't seem to be in a strong position to opine on it's suitability for auditioning. You continue to miss the point. If a piece of pop music is acoustic, then there I have absolutely no problem with some reviewer evaluating equipment using it. Just because I dislike pop/rock and it is no part of my musical life doesn't mean that reject it as an evaluation tool based on that dislike. My objections are based solely upon the suitability (or lack thereof) of the results of the production process for the task. Then you should be more clear in your denunciations of "pop" being universally unsuitable for auditioning. The fact is that there is a great deal of "pop" that is acoustic, or has an acoustic component (e.g. an orchestral backing). Yet you name a few artists - from long ago no less (albeit ones I listen to) - as though they represent the range of "pop" music. That is *my* point - you don't *know* the range of "pop" music, thus your wholesale exclusion of it is ridiculous. There is a great deal of "pop" that meets "your" criteria, as well as a great deal that doesn't, but meets the needs and desires of *other* audiophiles. Keith |
#47
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Modern Reviewing Practices In Audio Rags Have Become Useless
In article ,
Audio_Empire wrote: I think that it makes more sense to buy the most neutral and realistic sounding loudspeakers that you can find (and afford). Ostensibly, such speaker will sound good with any kind of music - quite an advantage if you have an eclectic taste in music or, if you find that your tastes have changed. That is my approach, but I listen to pretty much everything. My point was that if there is one type of music you like and that is all you like (and I guess will ever like) it makes sense to go with speakers that sound best playing that music even if they aren't going to be that great for other types of music. If your tastes change you are out of luck. |
#48
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Modern Reviewing Practices In Audio Rags Have Become Useless
On Sunday, August 4, 2013 12:48:51 PM UTC-7, Scott wrote:
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. Where did I say or even intimate that I knew much about rock/pop? I know about studio recording, but I never claimed to know much about rock except that I find the sound of it - anything with solid-body electric guitars, really - offensive snip How many professional rock recordings have you made (or even had a hand in) again? I'd love to know. |
#49
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Modern Reviewing Practices In Audio Rags Have Become Useless
Audio_Empire wrote:
Quite a few, actually. In fact I tried to attend a local big-band jazz concert just last weekend where sound reinforcement was evident. I left. Same with a symphonic band concert held in a large church several months ago. Now, I'll say this. I haven't yet attended an indoor symphony concert where sound reinforcement was used, but I understand that it is done. I've stopped attending outdoor concerts of any kind for that reason. I just don't want to listen to a P.A. system. It seems elementary purpose defeating to me. Why? Aren't you there for the music? Why does it matter if the music is amplified? If the interpretation and the playing is good, won't you enjoy it anyway? Andrew. |
#50
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Modern Reviewing Practices In Audio Rags Have Become Useless
In article ,
Audio_Empire wrote: For instance, you can't use pop/rock to test for image specificity, because being multitrack and multi-miked with all instruments I'm told you can hear that on a good system. I don't listen critically enough to know for sure. I'd say that you CAN'T hear that because it doesn't exist with pan-potted positioning of instruments. That's what I was trying to say. You can hear that it doesn't exist. Again, I don't know that from first hand experience. |
#51
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Modern Reviewing Practices In Audio Rags Have Become Useless
On Sunday, August 4, 2013 12:40:30 PM UTC-7, Scott wrote:
On Sunday, August 4, 2013 6:16:57 AM UTC-7, Audio_Empire wrote: On Saturday, August 3, 2013 6:52:42 AM UTC-7, Robert Peirce wrote: In article , Audio_Empire wrote: For instance, you can't use pop/rock to test for image specificity, because being multitrack and multi-miked with all instruments I'm told you can hear that on a good system. I don't listen critically enough to know for sure. I'd say that you CAN'T hear that because it doesn't exist with pan-potted positioning of instruments. Of course, if the rock producer specifies an overall stereo pair of mikes in addition to the multi-mike, multi-channel-mono practices that are the norm, then you might hear it. But I don't know of any rock recordings that were recorded that way. Does anyone else know? I would love to find out. You can say it but it isn't true. I have many pop/rock albums that offer stunningly vivid imaging with sound stages that extend well past the speakers and offer loads of depth as well as width and give the instruments a tremendous sense of size and palpability. So you CAN hear that with the right pop/rock recordings. So you are saying that these recordings were recorded stereophonically? Permit me to doubt. Why would anyone do that? There is no commercial reason to do that. The larger audience for this material doesn't care about things like that, and all producers care about is air play and sales. When you say you don't know of any rock recordings that use stereo pairs of microphones I just have to ask, what pop/rock recordings are you so familiar with that you can tell us just how they were recorded? Because I take Pro Audio Magazine and read articles about how various recordings are made perhaps? Possibly because I was involved in a number of these recordings when I worked for Coast Recorders or Wally Heider back in the 70's and 80's as a recording engineer? |
#52
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Modern Reviewing Practices In Audio Rags Have Become Useless
On Sunday, August 4, 2013 6:34:54 PM UTC-7, Audio_Empire wrote:
On Sunday, August 4, 2013 12:48:51 PM UTC-7, Scott wrote: =20 On Sunday, August 4, 2013 6:27:55 AM UTC-7, Audio_Empire wrote: =20 =20 =20 On Saturday, August 3, 2013 6:50:38 AM UTC-7, Scott wrote: =20 =20 =20 On Friday, August 2, 2013 3:55:15 PM UTC-7, Audio_Empire wrote: =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 In article , =20 =20 =20 Scott wrote: =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 snip =20 =20 =20 Again, it does not matter how the imaging got onto the recording. =20 =20 =20 What matters is how it images during playback. This phenomenon we =20 =20 =20 call imaging is not limited to music played on acoustic instruments= .. =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 This shows absolutely how out of touch with the reality of recording =20 =20 =20 and playback of music that this poster is. =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 So says the guy who flaunts his disdain for the music he claims to =20 know so much about. =20 =20 =20 Where did I say or even intimate that I knew much about rock/pop? Post #3 KH "This would appear to say volumes about your knowledge of pop mu= sic." You: "I know enough =AD more than I want to. And if you are saying that I a= m wrong here, then I believe it says more about your knowledge of music and reproduction than it does about mine." =20 I know about studio recording, but I never claimed to know much about rock excep= t =20 that I find the sound of it - anything with solid-body electric guitars, = really - offensive You basically said you knew enough about it to support your many assertions= about it and how it has been recorded over the years.Nothing ambiguous whe= n your knowledge was challenged and your response was "I know enough, more = than I want to." =20 =20 =20 snip =20 =20 =20 How many professional rock recordings have you made (or even had a hand i= n)=20 =20 again? I'd love to know. How many have you? But more significantly how many have you actually looked= into? I may not have made any rock recordings but I certainly have done my= homework on how a good many of them actually were made. It doesn't jive wi= th your assertions that is for sure. Did you even bother to look up Bill Po= rter? I bet not.... |
#53
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Modern Reviewing Practices In Audio Rags Have Become Useless
On Sunday, August 4, 2013 7:32:42 PM UTC-7, Andrew Haley wrote:
Audio_Empire wrote: =20 =20 =20 Quite a few, actually. In fact I tried to attend a local big-band =20 jazz concert just last weekend where sound reinforcement was =20 evident. I left. Same with a symphonic band concert held in a large =20 church several months ago. Now, I'll say this. I haven't yet =20 attended an indoor symphony concert where sound reinforcement was =20 used, but I understand that it is done. I've stopped attending =20 outdoor concerts of any kind for that reason. I just don't want to =20 listen to a P.A. system. It seems elementary purpose defeating to =20 me. =20 =20 =20 Why? Aren't you there for the music? Why does it matter if the music =20 is amplified? If the interpretation and the playing is good, won't =20 you enjoy it anyway? =20 =20 =20 Andrew. i gotta say, with classical music if there is sound reinforcement and I am = there it is for one of two reasons. Either someone I absolutely have to see= is playing or I got free tickets. Otherwise it is a deal breaker for me. W= hat blows my mind is that someone would show up and be surprised by the pre= sence of sound reinforcement. It's a big world and I guess all kinds of thi= ngs happen but I have never been to a classical concert that used sound rei= nforcement that I didn't know about ahead of time. |
#54
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Modern Reviewing Practices In Audio Rags Have Become Useless
On Sunday, August 4, 2013 7:33:12 PM UTC-7, Robert Peirce wrote:
In article , Audio_Empire wrote: For instance, you can't use pop/rock to test for image specificity, because being multitrack and multi-miked with all instruments I'm told you can hear that on a good system. I don't listen critically enough to know for sure. I'd say that you CAN'T hear that because it doesn't exist with pan-potted positioning of instruments. That's what I was trying to say. You can hear that it doesn't exist. Again, I don't know that from first hand experience. Sorry I misunderstood you. You are right though. And logic would certainly tell anyone who knows the nature of studio recording that this would have to be true and is... |
#55
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Modern Reviewing Practices In Audio Rags Have Become Useless
On Sunday, August 4, 2013 7:32:42 PM UTC-7, Andrew Haley wrote:
Audio_Empire wrote: Quite a few, actually. In fact I tried to attend a local big-band jazz concert just last weekend where sound reinforcement was evident. I left. Same with a symphonic band concert held in a large church several months ago. Now, I'll say this. I haven't yet attended an indoor symphony concert where sound reinforcement was used, but I understand that it is done. I've stopped attending outdoor concerts of any kind for that reason. I just don't want to listen to a P.A. system. It seems elementary purpose defeating to me. Why? Aren't you there for the music? Well, sure. I'm there to have a live musical experience listening to real instruments playing in real space. But I'm also there to "re-calibrate" my ears with live music. I feel cheated spending money to listen to some lousy Public Address system, and some unknown "sound-guy's" idea of how an ensemble should sound. Like I said, I have better equipment at home. If I want to listen to amplifiers and speakers, I can just stay home. Saves money too... Why does it matter if the music is amplified? If the interpretation and the playing is good, won't you enjoy it anyway? Not like I want to enjoy it, no. I'll only be enjoying a portion of the experience, and having to pay for the "privilege" as well. Andrew. |
#56
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Modern Reviewing Practices In Audio Rags Have Become Useless
Audio_Empire wrote:
On Sunday, August 4, 2013 7:32:42 PM UTC-7, Andrew Haley wrote: Audio_Empire wrote: Quite a few, actually. In fact I tried to attend a local big-band jazz concert just last weekend where sound reinforcement was evident. I left. Same with a symphonic band concert held in a large church several months ago. Now, I'll say this. I haven't yet attended an indoor symphony concert where sound reinforcement was used, but I understand that it is done. I've stopped attending outdoor concerts of any kind for that reason. I just don't want to listen to a P.A. system. It seems elementary purpose defeating to me. Why? Aren't you there for the music? Well, sure. I'm there to have a live musical experience listening to real instruments playing in real space. But I'm also there to "re-calibrate" my ears with live music. It seems to me that this is the crux of our whole argument. I'm not there to listen to "real instruments playing in space", real or otherwise. I'm there to listen to the musicians, who hopefully have something to say. Whatever that is, they'll use the tools they want to use, and if some of them are electronic, fair enough. The whole idea that you might leave a concert for such a reason seems to me to be totally insane, especially if you have great performers. I feel cheated spending money to listen to some lousy Public Address system, and some unknown "sound-guy's" idea of how an ensemble should sound. Or some genius sound guy with a really good PA: that argument cuts both ways. It seems to me that you're prioritizing your notion of the "ideal sound" above the whole point of musical performance, which is communication between musicians and an audience. The quality of the sound surely comes a very distant second to the emotional and intellectual communication between the audience and the performers, something that is very much a two-way street. I'm appalled that you'd walk out of what might be an electrifying performance by on-form and talented musicians for such a trivial reason. Andrew. |
#57
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Modern Reviewing Practices In Audio Rags Have Become Useless
On Monday, August 5, 2013 9:20:56 AM UTC-7, Andrew Haley wrote:
Audio_Empire wrote: On Sunday, August 4, 2013 7:32:42 PM UTC-7, Andrew Haley wrote: Audio_Empire wrote: Quite a few, actually. In fact I tried to attend a local big-band jazz concert just last weekend where sound reinforcement was evident. I left. Same with a symphonic band concert held in a large church several months ago. Now, I'll say this. I haven't yet attended an indoor symphony concert where sound reinforcement was used, but I understand that it is done. I've stopped attending outdoor concerts of any kind for that reason. I just don't want to listen to a P.A. system. It seems elementary purpose defeating to me. Why? Aren't you there for the music? Well, sure. I'm there to have a live musical experience listening to real instruments playing in real space. But I'm also there to "re-calibrate" my ears with live music. It seems to me that this is the crux of our whole argument. I'm not there to listen to "real instruments playing in space", real or otherwise. I'm there to listen to the musicians, who hopefully have something to say. Whatever that is, they'll use the tools they want to use, and if some of them are electronic, fair enough. The whole idea that you might leave a concert for such a reason seems to me to be totally insane, especially if you have great performers. I feel cheated spending money to listen to some lousy Public Address system, and some unknown "sound-guy's" idea of how an ensemble should sound. Or some genius sound guy with a really good PA: that argument cuts both ways. It seems to me that you're prioritizing your notion of the "ideal sound" above the whole point of musical performance, which is communication between musicians and an audience. The quality of the sound surely comes a very distant second to the emotional and intellectual communication between the audience and the performers, something that is very much a two-way street. I'm appalled that you'd walk out of what might be an electrifying performance by on-form and talented musicians for such a trivial reason. Andrew. I would not walk out just because there is sound reinforcement but I don't agree with you about this separation between sound (I would add view to that as well) and the communication between the audience and the performers. What we as audience members actually hear and see is a pretty important part of that communication. The same exact performance as seen and heard up close at Disney Hall is a totally different experience as seen and heard from the back row at the Hollywood Bowl. So there is a whole lot more to it than just the performance. I don't care how good the performance is, you would never know it from the back of the bowl. OTOH the visceral experience of an orchestra from row EE dead center at Disney Hall is one that will follow you for the rest of your life. It does matter. A lot. |
#58
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Modern Reviewing Practices In Audio Rags Have Become Useless
Scott wrote:
I would not walk out just because there is sound reinforcement but I don't agree with you about this separation between sound (I would add view to that as well) and the communication between the audience and the performers. What we as audience members actually hear and see is a pretty important part of that communication. The same exact performance as seen and heard up close at Disney Hall is a totally different experience as seen and heard from the back row at the Hollywood Bowl. Sure, I agree with that. There is something very alienating about arena concerts. I went to one or two and swore that I never would again. So there is a whole lot more to it than just the performance. I don't care how good the performance is, you would never know it from the back of the bowl. OTOH the visceral experience of an orchestra from row EE dead center at Disney Hall is one that will follow you for the rest of your life. It does matter. A lot. Absolutely so, but that's really not what I'm talking about here. Of course sound quality and proximity helps, but that's not what the experience is about. We're listening to people, not fiddles, and emotional communication is the point. Andrew. |
#59
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Modern Reviewing Practices In Audio Rags Have Become Useless
On Monday, August 5, 2013 9:47:27 AM UTC-7, Scott wrote:
On Monday, August 5, 2013 9:20:56 AM UTC-7, Andrew Haley wrote: =20 Audio_Empire wrote: On Sunday, August 4, 2013 7:32:42 PM UTC-7, Andrew Haley wrote: Audio_Empire wrote: I would not walk out just because there is sound reinforcement but I don'= t agree with you about this separation between sound (I would add view to t= hat as well) and the communication between the audience and the performers.= What we as audience members actually hear and see is a pretty important pa= rt of that communication. The same exact performance as seen and heard up c= lose at Disney Hall is a totally different experience as seen and heard fro= m the back row at the Hollywood Bowl. So there is a whole lot more to it th= an just the performance. I don't care how good the performance is, you woul= d never know it from the back of the bowl. OTOH the visceral experience of = an orchestra from row EE dead center at Disney Hall is one that will follow= you for the rest of your life.=20 =20 =20 =20 It does matter. A lot. There, at least, we agree. It matters to me, at least.=20 |
#60
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Modern Reviewing Practices In Audio Rags Have Become Useless
On Monday, August 5, 2013 11:47:17 AM UTC-7, Andrew Haley wrote:
Scott wrote: I would not walk out just because there is sound reinforcement but I don't agree with you about this separation between sound (I would add view to that as well) and the communication between the audience and the performers. What we as audience members actually hear and see is a pretty important part of that communication. The same exact performance as seen and heard up close at Disney Hall is a totally different experience as seen and heard from the back row at the Hollywood Bowl. Sure, I agree with that. There is something very alienating about arena concerts. I went to one or two and swore that I never would again. So there is a whole lot more to it than just the performance. I don't care how good the performance is, you would never know it from the back of the bowl. OTOH the visceral experience of an orchestra from row EE dead center at Disney Hall is one that will follow you for the rest of your life. It does matter. A lot. Absolutely so, but that's really not what I'm talking about here. Of course sound quality and proximity helps, but that's not what the experience is about. Well it is what the experience is about to the extent that it affects the experience. And to it affects the experience profoundly. We're listening to people, not fiddles, and emotional communication is the point. And emotional communication suffers serious loss through bad sound or with a bad view. Our emotional connection comes via what we hear and what we see. Isn't that why we are all audiophiles? To better connect with the recordings of the music we love through better sound. That certainly is why I'm in it. Music is an aesthetic experience so better aesthetics makes for a better experience. |
#61
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Modern Reviewing Practices In Audio Rags Have Become Useless
Scott wrote:
On Monday, August 5, 2013 11:47:17 AM UTC-7, Andrew Haley wrote: We're listening to people, not fiddles, and emotional communication is the point. And emotional communication suffers serious loss through bad sound or with a bad view. Our emotional connection comes via what we hear and what we see. Isn't that why we are all audiophiles? To obsess about the sound quality at the expense of everything else. To miss out on great performances because we don't like the PA System / hall / whatever. To value recalibrating our hearing of "real music" over communicating with musicians. Hell, no! To better connect with the recordings of the music we love through better sound. That certainly is why I'm in it. Music is an aesthetic experience so better aesthetics makes for a better experience. And who'd deny that? It's a question of which is to be the master, that's all. And I'm still appalled that Mr. Empire would miss out on a great musical experience because he doesn't like PA systems. Andrew. |
#62
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Modern Reviewing Practices In Audio Rags Have Become Useless
On Monday, August 5, 2013 1:32:20 PM UTC-7, Andrew Haley wrote:
Scott wrote: =20 On Monday, August 5, 2013 11:47:17 AM UTC-7, Andrew Haley wrote: =20 =20 =20 We're listening to people, not fiddles, and emotional communication =20 is the point. =20 =20 =20 And emotional communication suffers serious loss through bad sound =20 or with a bad view. Our emotional connection comes via what we hear =20 and what we see. =20 =20 =20 Isn't that why we are all audiophiles? =20 =20 =20 To obsess about the sound quality at the expense of everything else. That is a false premise. Improving sound quality at the expense of what? Ot= her than money. Same music collection right? No one has to give up anything= to get better sound. =20 To miss out on great performances because we don't like the PA System Wasn't it you who said this just a couple posts ago?=20 "Sure, I agree with that. There is something very alienating about arena concerts. I went to one or two and swore that I never would again." is that not missing out on great performances because you don't like the PA= system? But, ironically yes, because if the PA system is bad enough and th= e view is bad enough the great performance is missed, whether you go to the= convert or not. =20 =20 / hall / whatever. To value recalibrating our hearing of "real music" =20 over communicating with musicians. Hell, no! =20 =20 =20 To better connect with the recordings of the music we love through =20 better sound. That certainly is why I'm in it. Music is an aesthetic =20 experience so better aesthetics makes for a better experience. =20 =20 =20 And who'd deny that? It's a question of which is to be the master, =20 that's all. How does one become the master? I would love to pick the artists, the progr= ams, the venues and my seats for all concerts. Reality gets in the way. The= most we can do to be the master is pick the concerts we want to go to and = get the best seats we can get. That is what I do. It works really well. But= it does preclude paying 150 bucks for seats that are still over 100 feet f= rom the stage at the Hollywood Bowl. Saying no to that is as much me being = the master as is anything anyone can do. And I'm still appalled that Mr. Empire would miss out on =20 a great musical experience because he doesn't like PA systems. =20 =20 Clearly he didn't think the experience was all that great.=20 |
#63
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Modern Reviewing Practices In Audio Rags Have Become Useless
"Audio_Empire" wrote in message
... On Sunday, August 4, 2013 12:40:30 PM UTC-7, Scott wrote: You can say it but it isn't true. I have many pop/rock albums that offer stunningly vivid imaging with sound stages that extend well past the speakers and offer loads of depth as well as width and give the instruments a tremendous sense of size and palpability. So you CAN hear that with the right pop/rock recordings. So you are saying that these recordings were recorded stereophonically? No, It is possible to position instruments well past the speakers from multitrack recordings. Add some of the track to the opposite channel with the phase inverted, and voila, you've got a track that sounds like it is coming from the outside of the space between the speakers. |
#64
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Modern Reviewing Practices In Audio Rags Have Become Useless
In article ,
Andrew Haley wrote: Why? Aren't you there for the music? Why does it matter if the music is amplified? If the interpretation and the playing is good, won't you enjoy it anyway? In my case, my sound system at home was significantly better than the system in the hall. I used to listen to music on an AM radio, and I enjoyed it at the time. However, when better sound became available I enjoyed AM less. |
#65
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Modern Reviewing Practices In Audio Rags Have Become Useless
In article ,
Scott wrote: i gotta say, with classical music if there is sound reinforcement and I am there it is for one of two reasons. Either someone I absolutely have to see is playing or I got free tickets. Otherwise it is a deal breaker for me. What blows my mind is that someone would show up and be surprised by the presence of sound reinforcement. It's a big world and I guess all kinds of things happen but I have never been to a classical concert that used sound reinforcement that I didn't know about ahead of time. Another thing that irritates me is theatre. More and more that is being amplified as well. I have shown up for amplified shows without knowing it. With small group music you can usually figure out what instrument is coming through the PA system. In theatre it is often difficult to pick out the actor who is speaking or singing. |
#66
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Modern Reviewing Practices In Audio Rags Have Become Useless
In article ,
Andrew Haley wrote: if some of them are electronic, fair enough. That's different. Electronic music has to be amplified. However, would you mic a guitar amp and pipe it through a PA? |
#67
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Modern Reviewing Practices In Audio Rags Have Become Useless
Pardon a couple of comments from my personal experience and viewpoint.
Concerning the statement that "Modern Reviewing Practices In Audio Rags Have Become Useless," I've been reading reviews for 60 years, and my question is, "When were they not generally useless?" I don't want to exaggerate, and I have treasured a small number of useful reviewers during that period; but gee, they've been rare. // As for imaging, it is a much misunderstood subject. We can't judge the imaging of a playback system or a piece of gear unless the source HAS an image; and this is very rare. Unfortunately, imaging IS important; for its evolutionary role (enabling us to locate predators or prey) precedes music's esthetic function; and we have difficulty paying attention to sound we cannot locate. (I say "we" because while this is true of me, I also observe it in others.) // On an altogether separate separate subject, I've started a blog for pianists and musicians generally, at www.JamesBoyk.com . |
#68
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Modern Reviewing Practices In Audio Rags Have Become Useless
On Monday, August 5, 2013 4:36:31 PM UTC-7, Robert Peirce wrote:
In article , Scott wrote: i gotta say, with classical music if there is sound reinforcement and I am there it is for one of two reasons. Either someone I absolutely have to see is playing or I got free tickets. Otherwise it is a deal breaker for me. What blows my mind is that someone would show up and be surprised by the presence of sound reinforcement. It's a big world and I guess all kinds of things happen but I have never been to a classical concert that used sound reinforcement that I didn't know about ahead of time. Another thing that irritates me is theatre. More and more that is being amplified as well. I have shown up for amplified shows without knowing it. With small group music you can usually figure out what instrument is coming through the PA system. In theatre it is often difficult to pick out the actor who is speaking or singing. Most of this is a case of "doing it because they CAN rather than because they SHOULD" Theater existed for centuries without SR. One exception of course, is outdoor theater where wireless mikes on the actors is a boon. I don't mind amplified voices where it helps one hear the dialog but not for music. |
#69
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Modern Reviewing Practices In Audio Rags Have Become Useless
On Monday, August 5, 2013 4:36:17 PM UTC-7, Robert Peirce wrote:
In article , Andrew Haley wrote: Why? Aren't you there for the music? Why does it matter if the music is amplified? If the interpretation and the playing is good, won't you enjoy it anyway? In my case, my sound system at home was significantly better than the system in the hall. I used to listen to music on an AM radio, and I enjoyed it at the time. However, when better sound became available I enjoyed AM less. That's more or less what I've been saying. If I want to listen to speakers Mine are better than any PA speakers. Come to that, and I'd rather listen to the streaming Boston Symphony on Internet radio from WCRB in Boston than attend a SR'd concert. |
#70
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Modern Reviewing Practices In Audio Rags Have Become Useless
On Monday, August 5, 2013 4:34:24 PM UTC-7, Arny Krueger wrote:
"Audio_Empire" wrote in message ... On Sunday, August 4, 2013 12:40:30 PM UTC-7, Scott wrote: You can say it but it isn't true. I have many pop/rock albums that offer stunningly vivid imaging with sound stages that extend well past the speakers and offer loads of depth as well as width and give the instruments a tremendous sense of size and palpability. So you CAN hear that with the right pop/rock recordings. So you are saying that these recordings were recorded stereophonically? No, It is possible to position instruments well past the speakers from multitrack recordings. Add some of the track to the opposite channel with the phase inverted, and voila, you've got a track that sounds like it is coming from the outside of the space between the speakers. I wasn't questioning the width, I know that can be artificially introduced one of several ways. It was the depth from multitrack that I was questioning. |
#71
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Modern Reviewing Practices In Audio Rags Have Become Useless
On Monday, August 5, 2013 7:03:57 PM UTC-7, Robert Peirce wrote:
In article , Andrew Haley wrote: if some of them are electronic, fair enough. That's different. Electronic music has to be amplified. However, would you mic a guitar amp and pipe it through a PA? Most recordings are made by plugging the guitar directly into the mixing console. However I'm quite sure that there are exceptions whereby the guitar amp itself (necessary for the musicians to HEAR themselves) is miked acoustically, but that doesn't seem to be the norm. |
#72
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Modern Reviewing Practices In Audio Rags Have Become Useless
"Audio_Empire" wrote in message
... On Monday, August 5, 2013 4:36:17 PM UTC-7, Robert Peirce wrote: In my case, my sound system at home was significantly better than the system in the hall. I used to listen to music on an AM radio, and I enjoyed it at the time. However, when better sound became available I enjoyed AM less. That's more or less what I've been saying. If I want to listen to speakers Mine are better than any PA speakers. Come to that, and I'd rather listen to the streaming Boston Symphony on Internet radio from WCRB in Boston than attend a SR'd concert. When they start amplifying orchestras and bands, balances get all screwed up. First, the musicians never learn how to balance themselves for the audience. The piano, for example, should have the lid open and the sound coming toward the audience, not shut and stuffed with microphones. The dynamics should be determined by th musicians, not the sound reinforcement engineer. As soon as the microphones are introduced, the musicians will start playing to them instead of to us. I have seen the horn section playing with the bell of the horn facing the floor, either through lack of showmanship or because of the damn microphones. Not all musicians even know how to play to a mike in the first place. They will wander away or get too close, destroying balances once again, unpredictably. But of course the main point is we come to hear the sound of the instruments, not the speakers. Most of the time you will not even hear the concert in stereo if it is amplified. I once attended a Tony Bennett concert. In the middle of his performance he would insist on doing one number sans microphone, and belt one out to the audience so they could hear what he really sounded like. THAT is musicianship! Gary Eickmeier |
#73
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Modern Reviewing Practices In Audio Rags Have Become Useless
On Monday, August 5, 2013 1:32:20 PM UTC-7, Andrew Haley wrote:
Scott wrote: On Monday, August 5, 2013 11:47:17 AM UTC-7, Andrew Haley wrote: We're listening to people, not fiddles, and emotional communication is the point. You might be listening to people, I'm listening to '"fiddles". That's what I go to concerts to hear. If I want to listen to people, I can stay home and listen to a recording of Jascha Heifetz playing the Sibelius violin concerto on SACD. 8^) And emotional communication suffers serious loss through bad sound or with a bad view. Our emotional connection comes via what we hear and what we see. Isn't that why we are all audiophiles? To obsess about the sound quality at the expense of everything else. To miss out on great performances because we don't like the PA System / hall / whatever. To value recalibrating our hearing of "real music" over communicating with musicians. Hell, no! I don't "communicate with musicians" at a concert, I listen to them. And no, I won't lower my standards just because the rest of the world lowers theirs. To better connect with the recordings of the music we love through better sound. That certainly is why I'm in it. Music is an aesthetic experience so better aesthetics makes for a better experience. And who'd deny that? It's a question of which is to be the master, that's all. And I'm still appalled that Mr. Empire would miss out on a great musical experience because he doesn't like PA systems. You are just going to have to remain appalled, I'm afraid. I consider listening to a PA system to be slightly lower on the scale of event speciality than listening to a live concert via radio at home (I have better amps and speakers than PA systems have) and far below listening to a performance unamplified. Yes, I love music, but I love the SOUND of music equally. One is as important as the other to me. |
#74
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Modern Reviewing Practices In Audio Rags Have Become Useless
Scott wrote:
On Monday, August 5, 2013 1:32:20 PM UTC-7, Andrew Haley wrote: To miss out on great performances because we don't like the PA System Wasn't it you who said this just a couple posts ago? "Sure, I agree with that. There is something very alienating about arena concerts. I went to one or two and swore that I never would again." is that not missing out on great performances because you don't like the PA system? Not really. I think it's because the whole thing turns into an event that seems more like a Nuremberg rally than a concert. And who'd deny that? It's a question of which is to be the master, that's all. And I'm still appalled that Mr. Empire would miss out on a great musical experience because he doesn't like PA systems. Clearly he didn't think the experience was all that great. How would he know? He left. Andrew. |
#75
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Modern Reviewing Practices In Audio Rags Have Become Useless
Robert Peirce wrote:
In article , Andrew Haley wrote: if some of them are electronic, fair enough. That's different. Electronic music has to be amplified. However, would you mic a guitar amp and pipe it through a PA? Sure, that's normal. What else would you do? Andrew. |
#76
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Modern Reviewing Practices In Audio Rags Have Become Useless
Robert Peirce wrote:
In article , Andrew Haley wrote: Why? Aren't you there for the music? Why does it matter if the music is amplified? If the interpretation and the playing is good, won't you enjoy it anyway? In my case, my sound system at home was significantly better than the system in the hall. Me too. Sound at home is almost always better than the system in a hall. Most of the time that's probably true of everyone in this group. But the musicians are playing in the hall, not in my home. They're real flesh and blood, not a recording. Andrew. |
#77
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Modern Reviewing Practices In Audio Rags Have Become Useless
On Tuesday, August 6, 2013 4:59:12 AM UTC-7, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
"Audio_Empire" wrote in message ... On Monday, August 5, 2013 4:36:17 PM UTC-7, Robert Peirce wrote: In my case, my sound system at home was significantly better than the system in the hall. I used to listen to music on an AM radio, and I enjoyed it at the time. However, when better sound became available I enjoyed AM less. That's more or less what I've been saying. If I want to listen to speakers Mine are better than any PA speakers. Come to that, and I'd rather listen to the streaming Boston Symphony on Internet radio from WCRB in Boston than attend a SR'd concert. When they start amplifying orchestras and bands, balances get all screwed up. First, the musicians never learn how to balance themselves for the audience. They are not supposed to. They are supposed to play as normal and let the sound guys figure out the rest. The piano, for example, should have the lid open and the sound coming toward the audience, not shut and stuffed with microphones. Actually pianos are designed to be played either way. Can't say that I have ever been to a concert where the mic was shoved under a closed lid though. The dynamics should be determined by th musicians, not the sound reinforcement engineer. As soon as the microphones are introduced, the musicians will start playing to them instead of to us. Are you talking about orchestras? I have never seen that. And orchestras are routinely miked at concerts for archival purposes. I have never seen an orchestra change their positioning to play to microphones. Their posture is a pretty important part of how they play their instruments. I have seen the horn section playing with the bell of the horn facing the floor, either through lack of showmanship or because of the damn microphones. That is how the French horn is supposed to be played. https://www.google.com/search?q=fren...w=1600&bih=741 When have you ever seen one played with the bell facing out? |
#78
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Modern Reviewing Practices In Audio Rags Have Become Useless
"Audio_Empire" wrote in message
... On Monday, August 5, 2013 4:36:31 PM UTC-7, Robert Peirce wrote: In article , Scott wrote: i gotta say, with classical music if there is sound reinforcement and I am there it is for one of two reasons. Either someone I absolutely have to see is playing or I got free tickets. Otherwise it is a deal breaker for me. What blows my mind is that someone would show up and be surprised by the presence of sound reinforcement. It's a big world and I guess all kinds of things happen but I have never been to a classical concert that used sound reinforcement that I didn't know about ahead of time. Another thing that irritates me is theatre. More and more that is being amplified as well. I have shown up for amplified shows without knowing it. With small group music you can usually figure out what instrument is coming through the PA system. In theatre it is often difficult to pick out the actor who is speaking or singing. Most of this is a case of "doing it because they CAN rather than because they SHOULD" Theater existed for centuries without SR. One exception of course, is outdoor theater where wireless mikes on the actors is a boon. I don't mind amplified voices where it helps one hear the dialog but not for music. The usual reason for using amplification is that the room is too large for good coverage by the natural voice, whether vocal or instrumental. Some of this is driven by economics. Larger audiences are required to pay rental, wages, and overhead. In the past actors and singers developed their voices with a premium being placed on loudness. Electronics makes it possible to develop voices with loudness traded off for tone and control. In the case of music, there is an economic stimulus to reduce the cost of delivering instrumental and vocal voices which provides an additional stimulus for the use of electronics. Particularly theatrical productions use technology to create the enjoyable sound of a larger and more complex musical accompaniment with fewer live musicians. |
#79
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Modern Reviewing Practices In Audio Rags Have Become Useless
"Robert Peirce" wrote in message
... In article , Andrew Haley wrote: if some of them are electronic, fair enough. That's different. Electronic music has to be amplified. However, would you mic a guitar amp and pipe it through a PA That is a generally accepted practice. |
#80
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Modern Reviewing Practices In Audio Rags Have Become Useless
"Audio_Empire" wrote in message
... On Monday, August 5, 2013 7:03:57 PM UTC-7, Robert Peirce wrote: In article , Andrew Haley wrote: if some of them are electronic, fair enough. That's different. Electronic music has to be amplified. However, would you mic a guitar amp and pipe it through a PA? Most recordings are made by plugging the guitar directly into the mixing console. Probably not so much. Guitar players seem to be chauvenistic about their choices of guitar amps, and want them to be part of the signal path. However I'm quite sure that there are exceptions whereby the guitar amp itself (necessary for the musicians to HEAR themselves) is miked acoustically, but that doesn't seem to be the norm. It goes either way. |
Reply |
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 |