"Carry Me Back" sound evaluation

[William Sommerwerck]

I bought a copy of Hank Alrich's "Carry Me Home" and gave it a listen on
Apogee speakers and STAX headphones.

What I heard was a studio recording. A very good studio recording, but a
studio recording, nonetheless.

My problem is that there is no sense of space. The mics aren't shoved down the
performers' throats (or instruments), but there is no sense of acoustics. The
sound is almost completely dead.

If this is what was wanted, fine. But it isn't the way I would like to record
a performance.

[Luxey]

Guess I'd have to buy it toreally know, but judged from samples, YT clips and and this header:

"A daughter-father duo joined by a cellist performing songs of folk and family, pristinely recorded live in the studio at high resolution."

That was exactly what they were after. Studio sound, all at once, without overdubs.

[Ron C[_2_]]

On 9/20/2014 2:41 PM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
> I bought a copy of Hank Alrich's "Carry Me Home" and gave it a listen on
> Apogee speakers and STAX headphones.
>
> What I heard was a studio recording. A very good studio recording, but a
> studio recording, nonetheless.
>
> My problem is that there is no sense of space. The mics aren't shoved
> down the performers' throats (or instruments), but there is no sense of
> acoustics. The sound is almost completely dead.
>
> If this is what was wanted, fine. But it isn't the way I would like to
> record a performance.

Um, so you're saying the music was so uninteresting that
your mind wandered to the sound stage and such?

[Sorry, but I've been recently spending some time on a
news-group that tends to be anal-retentively pedantic.]

==
Later....
Ron Capik
--

[[email protected]]

Ron Capik wrote: "- show quoted text -
Um, so you're saying the music was so uninteresting that
your mind wandered to the sound stage and such?

[Sorry, but I've been recently spending some time on a
news-group that tends to be anal-retentively pedantic.]

==
Later....
Ron Capik
-- "

The music itself could be awesome, groundbreaking, original, emotionally gripping - until processing is applied.

[PStamler]

I've listened to the album, and played it on the radio, and all I can say is that William must have been listening to something else. I hear natural space in the recording -- not exaggerated, not overly wet or dry, and definitely not over-processed or toothpaste-squashed. It's an unadorned recording, and to my ears the recording process stays out of the way of the music. As it should.

When I listen to it, I don't go, "Wow, listen to that great engineering" or "Wow, what an incredibly deep soundstage". Instead, I find myself saying, "What excellent songs, and what excellent and tasteful performances." That's what I want in a recording.

If I want to go "wow" about the engineering, I'll dig up my copy of "Persuasive Percussion" (thanks, Scott!).

Peace,
Paul

[Ron C[_2_]]

On 9/21/2014 9:31 PM, wrote:
> Ron Capik wrote: "- show quoted text -
> Um, so you're saying the music was so uninteresting that
> your mind wandered to the sound stage and such?
>
> [Sorry, but I've been recently spending some time on a
> news-group that tends to be anal-retentively pedantic.]
>
> ==
> Later....
> Ron Capik
> -- "
>
> The music itself could be awesome, groundbreaking, original, emotionally gripping - until processing is applied.
>
So you've heard the tracks and agree with Mr. Sommerwreck ....?

==
Later...
Ron Capik
--

[None]

"Ron C" > wrote in message
...
> On 9/21/2014 9:31 PM, wrote:
>> Ron Capik wrote: "- show quoted text -
>> Um, so you're saying the music was so uninteresting that
>> your mind wandered to the sound stage and such?
>>
>> [Sorry, but I've been recently spending some time on a
>> news-group that tends to be anal-retentively pedantic.]
>>
>> ==
>> Later....
>> Ron Capik
>> -- "
>>
>> The music itself could be awesome, groundbreaking, original,
>> emotionally gripping - until processing is applied.
>>
> So you've heard the tracks and agree with Mr. Sommerwreck ....?

Li'l Krissie just looks at the waveform. He has no idea what anything
sound like.

[PStamler]

On Sunday, September 21, 2014 10:11:53 PM UTC-6, Jeff Henig wrote:
> PStamler wrote:
>
> > I've listened to the album, and played it on the radio, and all I can say
>
> > is that William must have been listening to something else. I hear
>
> > natural space in the recording -- not exaggerated, not overly wet or dry,
>
> > and definitely not over-processed or toothpaste-squashed. It's an
>
> > unadorned recording, and to my ears the recording process stays out of
>
> > the way of the music. As it should.
>
> >
>
> > When I listen to it, I don't go, "Wow, listen to that great engineering"
>
> > or "Wow, what an incredibly deep soundstage". Instead, I find myself
>
> > saying, "What excellent songs, and what excellent and tasteful
>
> > performances." That's what I want in a recording.
>
> >
>
> > If I want to go "wow" about the engineering, I'll dig up my copy of
> > "Persuasive Percussion" (thanks, Scott!).
>
> >
>
> > Peace,
>
> > Paul
>
>
>
> Agreed--except for "Persuasive Percussion", as I've never heard it.

It's a "Stereo Spectacular" album issued in the late 1950s on Command Records. A lot of people bought to show off their new stereo hi-fi systems. The music was a variant on what is now called Lounge.

Peace,
Paul

[Gary Eickmeier]

So how does anyone know which album he is talking about? I went to Amazon
and there are 2 "Carry Me Back" albums in there.

Gary Eickmeier

[Gary Eickmeier]

"Gary Eickmeier" > wrote in message
...
> So how does anyone know which album he is talking about? I went to Amazon
> and there are 2 "Carry Me Back" albums in there.
>
> Gary Eickmeier

....and 7 "Carry Me Home"s.

Gary

[geoff]

On 22/09/2014 4:11 p.m., Jeff Henig wrote:

>
> "Carry Me Home" is a very enjoyable recording, and quite relaxing to listen
> to, as well. It goes well with Merlot. (;^)
>

Sam Merlot ?

geoff

[hank alrich]

William Sommerwerck > wrote:

> I bought a copy of Hank Alrich's "Carry Me Home" and gave it a listen on
> Apogee speakers and STAX headphones.
>
> What I heard was a studio recording. A very good studio recording, but a
> studio recording, nonetheless.
>
> My problem is that there is no sense of space. The mics aren't shoved down the
> performers' throats (or instruments), but there is no sense of acoustics. The
> sound is almost completely dead.
>
> If this is what was wanted, fine. But it isn't the way I would like to record
> a performance.

The space is there. There is a cardioid Schoeps pair above the trio
feeding a Millennia preamp, and it hears us as if Doug is in the middle.
The stereo track from that pair is what the whole mix is built upon.

I think you may want a larger space. To my ear, that's not necessarily
apt for this style of music. In any case, there were many reasons for
choosing the particular studio in which we worked, and only one of them
was that the ceiling height accomodated placing the stereo pair.

Further, you might be surprised by the extent to which the close mics
_were_ very closely placed. That you heard otherwise is testimony to the
sound of the room.

Thanks for your comments, Bill. Yes, it was recorded in a studio. Yes,
it is a live recording, because we played every note together, without
resorting to overdubs, or headphones.

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

[hank alrich]

Gary Eickmeier > wrote:

> "Gary Eickmeier" > wrote in message
> ...
> > So how does anyone know which album he is talking about? I went to Amazon
> > and there are 2 "Carry Me Back" albums in there.
> >
> > Gary Eickmeier
>
> ...and 7 "Carry Me Home"s.
>
> Gary

Think carefully about this deep quandry, Gary. Now, how in the world do
you think you would find a link to this product? See any URL's around
here?

Or, I dunno, maybe grok some name associated with it.

Or, look at my .sig…

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

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 9/21/2014 9:27 PM, Ron C wrote:
> Um, so you're saying the music was so uninteresting that
> your mind wandered to the sound stage and such?

I could understand that, based on some of the music that William has
mentioned in his posts over the years.

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

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 9/22/2014 6:39 AM, Mike Rivers (that's me!) wrote:

> I could understand that, based on some of the music that William has
> mentioned in his posts over the years.

I realized when I read it back that this sounds like an insult. It's not
intended as such, just that how individuals perceive music is influenced
a good bit by their experience and enjoyment of the genre.



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

[Scott Dorsey]

Jeff Henig > wrote:
>PStamler > wrote:
>>
>> If I want to go "wow" about the engineering, I'll dig up my copy of
>> "Persuasive Percussion" (thanks, Scott!).
>
>Agreed--except for "Persuasive Percussion", as I've never heard it.

You should, it's a Bob Fine innovation of sorts. Command Records sort of
took the close-miking technology of pop music and applied it to acoustic
music, to make everything much bigger and closer and to eliminate the sense
of space causing everything to be happening up close all at once. It defined
the notion of "Hi-Fi" back in the sixties.

It is extremely unnatural, but it's technologically and socially important
because it was a big step on how we got to where we are today.

Give me an address and I'll send you some random Command LP; I can't
guarantee it's any particular one but I can guarantee it will be
unnatural.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Paul Babiak]

On 09/22/2014 11:11 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Jeff Henig > wrote:
>> PStamler > wrote:
>>>
>>> If I want to go "wow" about the engineering, I'll dig up my copy of
>>> "Persuasive Percussion" (thanks, Scott!).


Is this the one?

http://tinyurl.com/persuasivepercussion

[hank alrich]

Mike Rivers > wrote:

> On 9/22/2014 6:39 AM, Mike Rivers (that's me!) wrote:
>
> > I could understand that, based on some of the music that William has
> > mentioned in his posts over the years.
>
> I realized when I read it back that this sounds like an insult. It's not
> intended as such, just that how individuals perceive music is influenced
> a good bit by their experience and enjoyment of the genre.

Indeed. Hard to immerse oneself in sound one finds repulsive!

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

[William Sommerwerck]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ...

> You should, it's a Bob Fine innovation of sorts. Command Records
> sort of took the close-miking technology of pop music and applied it
> to acoustic music, to make everything much bigger and closer and
> to eliminate the sense of space causing everything to be happening
> up close all at once. It defined the notion of "Hi-Fi" back in the sixties.

To the best of my knowledge, this is not correct.

To the average listener in 1958, "stereo" meant "separation". Enoch Light
decided to produce recordings with such extreme separation that it would be
plainly audible on fruitwood consoles where the speakers were barely 3' apart.

Having listened to some of these on good playback equipment, it appears that
he did this with a Blumlein pair, the instruments strongly divided between
left and right. He would switch one mic off in order to produce a strong sense
of the other side being the only source. On rare occasions where both mics are
on, there's a plausible sense of depth and space.

[William Sommerwerck]

"Ron C" wrote in message
...

>> The music itself could be awesome, groundbreaking, original,
>> emotionally gripping - until processing is applied.

> So you've heard the tracks and agree with Mr. Sommerwerck ....?

Whoops, whoops, whoops. You're misreading. I was commenting solely on the
sound quality of Mr Alrich's recording, and nothing else.

Mr Alrich's earlier statements had suggested he made recordings with
natural-sounding acoustics. I do not hear these in this recording. I hear
multi-miked sound, with the performers sufficiently distanced that it doesn't
sound is the mics have been shoved down their throats. But there is no real
ambience.

[William Sommerwerck]

"hank alrich" wrote in message ...
Mike Rivers > wrote:

>> I realized when I read it back that this sounds like an insult. It's not
>> intended as such, just that how individuals perceive music is influenced
>> a good bit by their experience and enjoyment of the genre.

> Indeed. Hard to immerse oneself in sound one finds repulsive!

The sound of this recording is not repulsive sounding! It just wasn't what I
expected.

[William Sommerwerck]

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

>> I bought a copy of Hank Alrich's "Carry Me Home" and gave it a listen
>> on Apogee speakers and STAX headphones.

>> What I heard was a studio recording. A very good studio recording,
>> but a studio recording, nonetheless.

>> My problem is that there is no sense of space. The mics aren't shoved
>> down the performers' throats (or instruments), but there is no sense
>> of acoustics. The sound is almost completely dead.

>> If this is what was wanted, fine. But it isn't the way I would like to
>> record a performance.

> The space is there. There is a cardioid Schoeps pair above the trio
> feeding a Millennia preamp, and it hears us as if Doug is in the middle.
> The stereo track from that pair is what the whole mix is built upon.

> I think you may want a larger space. To my ear, that's not necessarily
> apt for this style of music. In any case, there were many reasons for
> choosing the particular studio in which we worked, and only one of them
> was that the ceiling height accomodated placing the stereo pair.

> Further, you might be surprised by the extent to which the close mics
> //were// very closely placed. That you heard otherwise is testimony to
> the sound of the room.

> Thanks for your comments, Bill. Yes, it was recorded in a studio. Yes,
> it is a live recording, because we played every note together, without
> resorting to overdubs, or headphones.

I appreciate your taking the time to respond.

My experiences in live recording have convinced me that getting the ambience
the way you want it is the hardest part of recording. I've had the experience
of placing mics virtually on top of performers, and still having the recording
awash in excessive ambience. I'm not altogether surprised when you say that
the performers //were// closely miked.

You might understand my feelings better if I told you that I find most
recordings of Baroque and Classical music excessively (ie, inappropriately)
reverberant.

My experiences with multi-ch SACD and BD Audio recordings is that ambience is
in much better balance with the direct sound. I ascribe this to (obviously!)
different miking techniques. I would appreciate comments from anyone knowing
anything about how miking has changed to accommodate surround recording
(assuming it has).

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
> "Ron C" wrote in message
> ...
>
>>> The music itself could be awesome, groundbreaking, original,
>>> emotionally gripping - until processing is applied.
>
>> So you've heard the tracks and agree with Mr. Sommerwerck ....?
>
> Whoops, whoops, whoops. You're misreading. I was commenting solely on
> the sound quality of Mr Alrich's recording, and nothing else.
>
> Mr Alrich's earlier statements had suggested he made recordings with
> natural-sounding acoustics. I do not hear these in this recording. I
> hear multi-miked sound, with the performers sufficiently distanced that
> it doesn't sound is the mics have been shoved down their throats. But
> there is no real ambience.


The recording was not done in an auditorium with a remote pair. I
presume you're using that as the standard for "natural sound"?

It was done in a studio with "medium" mics - not extreme close micing,
but not exactly remote either.

I'd think of it as a classic "radio show" miking regime.

"Natural" is a relative term.

So go listen for some Florida Georgia Line records to see how
"unnatural" things can get.

--
Les Cargill

[hank alrich]

William Sommerwerck > wrote:

> "Ron C" wrote in message
> ...
>
> >> The music itself could be awesome, groundbreaking, original,
> >> emotionally gripping - until processing is applied.
>
> > So you've heard the tracks and agree with Mr. Sommerwerck ....?
>
> Whoops, whoops, whoops. You're misreading. I was commenting solely on the
> sound quality of Mr Alrich's recording, and nothing else.
>
> Mr Alrich's earlier statements had suggested he made recordings with
> natural-sounding acoustics. I do not hear these in this recording. I hear
> multi-miked sound, with the performers sufficiently distanced that it doesn't
> sound is the mics have been shoved down their throats. But there is no real
> ambience.

The closely-placed mics _are_ much "shoved down our throats". What leads
you to think you hear otherwise is the _real ambience of *that* room_.

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

[Gary Eickmeier]

"hank alrich" > wrote in message
...
> Gary Eickmeier > wrote:
>
>> "Gary Eickmeier" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > So how does anyone know which album he is talking about? I went to
>> > Amazon
>> > and there are 2 "Carry Me Back" albums in there.
>> >
>> > Gary Eickmeier
>>
>> ...and 7 "Carry Me Home"s.
>>
>> Gary
>
> Think carefully about this deep quandry, Gary. Now, how in the world do
> you think you would find a link to this product? See any URL's around
> here?
>
> Or, I dunno, maybe grok some name associated with it.
>
> Or, look at my .sig.
>
> --
> shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
> HankandShaidriMusic.Com
> YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

How obvious! Silly me.Why should he post any information about the album
when all we have to do is look up one of your posts, see if there is a URL
to your site, and find out there. OK so I did that, got nowhere on your
site, went to CD Baby and they wanted me to sell my music to them (but I get
mailings from them all the time - and buy many of their unique offerings),
so I went to Amazon and found out why I couldn't find it there before - it's
an MP3 album! I was looking for CD & Vinyl and typed in as much info as Bill
gave us, and your album didn't show up.

I would get it if it were offered in CD. Maybe I will download a few of the
cuts and put them on CD so I can play them out front in the music room.

Thanks for the clue, and it's been fun! Kind of like a road rally or
scavenger hunt.

Gary

[Scott Dorsey]

William Sommerwerck > wrote:
>"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ...
>
>> You should, it's a Bob Fine innovation of sorts. Command Records
>> sort of took the close-miking technology of pop music and applied it
>> to acoustic music, to make everything much bigger and closer and
>> to eliminate the sense of space causing everything to be happening
>> up close all at once. It defined the notion of "Hi-Fi" back in the sixties.
>
>To the best of my knowledge, this is not correct.

What is not correct?

>To the average listener in 1958, "stereo" meant "separation". Enoch Light
>decided to produce recordings with such extreme separation that it would be
>plainly audible on fruitwood consoles where the speakers were barely 3' apart.

This is absolutely true!

>Having listened to some of these on good playback equipment, it appears that
>he did this with a Blumlein pair, the instruments strongly divided between
>left and right. He would switch one mic off in order to produce a strong sense
>of the other side being the only source. On rare occasions where both mics are
>on, there's a plausible sense of depth and space.

This was done sometimes, and there was an overall room pair.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[PStamler]

It is on CD. Look harder.

Peace,
Paul

[Luxey]

понедељак, 22. �ептембар 2014. 18.27.12 UTC+2, William Sommerwerck је напи�ао/ла:
> "hank alrich" wrote in message ...
>
> William Sommerwerck > wrote:
>
>
>
> >> I bought a copy of Hank Alrich's "Carry Me Home" and gave it a listen
>
> >> on Apogee speakers and STAX headphones.
>
>
>
> >> What I heard was a studio recording. A very good studio recording,
>
> >> but a studio recording, nonetheless.
>
>
>
> >> My problem is that there is no sense of space. The mics aren't shoved
>
> >> down the performers' throats (or instruments), but there is no sense
>
> >> of acoustics. The sound is almost completely dead.
>
>
>
> >> If this is what was wanted, fine. But it isn't the way I would like to
>
> >> record a performance.
>
>
>
> > The space is there. There is a cardioid Schoeps pair above the trio
>
> > feeding a Millennia preamp, and it hears us as if Doug is in the middle..
>
> > The stereo track from that pair is what the whole mix is built upon.
>
>
>
> > I think you may want a larger space. To my ear, that's not necessarily
>
> > apt for this style of music. In any case, there were many reasons for
>
> > choosing the particular studio in which we worked, and only one of them
>
> > was that the ceiling height accomodated placing the stereo pair.
>
>
>
> > Further, you might be surprised by the extent to which the close mics
>
> > //were// very closely placed. That you heard otherwise is testimony to
>
> > the sound of the room.
>
>
>
> > Thanks for your comments, Bill. Yes, it was recorded in a studio. Yes,
>
> > it is a live recording, because we played every note together, without
>
> > resorting to overdubs, or headphones.
>
>
>
> I appreciate your taking the time to respond.
>
>
>
> My experiences in live recording have convinced me that getting the ambience
>
> the way you want it is the hardest part of recording. I've had the experience
>
> of placing mics virtually on top of performers, and still having the recording
>
> awash in excessive ambience. I'm not altogether surprised when you say that
>
> the performers //were// closely miked.
>
>
>
> You might understand my feelings better if I told you that I find most
>
> recordings of Baroque and Classical music excessively (ie, inappropriately)
>
> reverberant.
>
>
>
> My experiences with multi-ch SACD and BD Audio recordings is that ambience is
>
> in much better balance with the direct sound. I ascribe this to (obviously!)
>
> different miking techniques. I would appreciate comments from anyone knowing
>
> anything about how miking has changed to accommodate surround recording
>
> (assuming it has).

Ever been to average studio where bands record their stuff? Do you have any idea how large/ small they usually are? If you think radio house recording places for classic/ symphonic recordings, be sure it's nothing like that, in the real world.

[Sean Conolly]

"hank alrich" > wrote in message
...
> Mike Rivers > wrote:
>
>> On 9/22/2014 6:39 AM, Mike Rivers (that's me!) wrote:
>>
>> > I could understand that, based on some of the music that William has
>> > mentioned in his posts over the years.
>>
>> I realized when I read it back that this sounds like an insult. It's not
>> intended as such, just that how individuals perceive music is influenced
>> a good bit by their experience and enjoyment of the genre.
>
> Indeed. Hard to immerse oneself in sound one finds repulsive!

I do it at every gig! (pa-dap boom!)

Sean

[Luxey]

понедељак, 22. �ептембар 2014. 21.07.52 UTC+2, Gary Eickmeier је напи�ао/ла:
> "hank alrich" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > Gary Eickmeier > wrote:
>
> >
>
> >> "Gary Eickmeier" > wrote in message
>
> >> ...
>
> >> > So how does anyone know which album he is talking about? I went to
>
> >> > Amazon
>
> >> > and there are 2 "Carry Me Back" albums in there.
>
> >> >
>
> >> > Gary Eickmeier
>
> >>
>
> >> ...and 7 "Carry Me Home"s.
>
> >>
>
> >> Gary
>
> >
>
> > Think carefully about this deep quandry, Gary. Now, how in the world do
>
> > you think you would find a link to this product? See any URL's around
>
> > here?
>
> >
>
> > Or, I dunno, maybe grok some name associated with it.
>
> >
>
> > Or, look at my .sig.
>
> >
>
> > --
>
> > shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
>
> > HankandShaidriMusic.Com
>
> > YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic
>
>
>
> How obvious! Silly me.Why should he post any information about the album
>
> when all we have to do is look up one of your posts, see if there is a URL
>
> to your site, and find out there. OK so I did that, got nowhere on your
>
> site, went to CD Baby and they wanted me to sell my music to them (but I get
>
> mailings from them all the time - and buy many of their unique offerings),
>
> so I went to Amazon and found out why I couldn't find it there before - it's
>
> an MP3 album! I was looking for CD & Vinyl and typed in as much info as Bill
>
> gave us, and your album didn't show up.
>
>
>
> I would get it if it were offered in CD. Maybe I will download a few of the
>
> cuts and put them on CD so I can play them out front in the music room.
>
>
>
> Thanks for the clue, and it's been fun! Kind of like a road rally or
>
> scavenger hunt.
>
>
>
> Gary

So Gary, apart from being an inovator and builder of the bestests speakers in the world, your music is soo good CD Baby won't give you any rest before you decide to sell through them? Whish I was that genious. You're almost as smart as that thekma moronic creature.

[Luxey]

понедељак, 22. �ептембар 2014. 03.31.38 UTC+2, је напи�ао/ла:

> The music itself could be awesome, groundbreaking, original, emotionally gripping - until processing is applied.

What a ****in? moron you must be to write something like that?

[Sean Conolly]

"Gary Eickmeier" > wrote in message
...
>
> "hank alrich" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Gary Eickmeier > wrote:
>>
>>> "Gary Eickmeier" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>> > So how does anyone know which album he is talking about? I went to
>>> > Amazon
>>> > and there are 2 "Carry Me Back" albums in there.
>>> >
>>> > Gary Eickmeier
>>>
>>> ...and 7 "Carry Me Home"s.
>>>
>>> Gary
>>
>> Think carefully about this deep quandry, Gary. Now, how in the world do
>> you think you would find a link to this product? See any URL's around
>> here?
>>
>> Or, I dunno, maybe grok some name associated with it.
>>
>> Or, look at my .sig.
>>
>> --
>> shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
>> HankandShaidriMusic.Com
>> YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic
>
> How obvious! Silly me.Why should he post any information about the album
> when all we have to do is look up one of your posts, see if there is a URL
> to your site, and find out there. OK so I did that, got nowhere on your
> site, went to CD Baby and they wanted me to sell my music to them (but I
> get mailings from them all the time - and buy many of their unique
> offerings), so I went to Amazon and found out why I couldn't find it there
> before - it's an MP3 album! I was looking for CD & Vinyl and typed in as
> much info as Bill gave us, and your album didn't show up.
>
> I would get it if it were offered in CD. Maybe I will download a few of
> the cuts and put them on CD so I can play them out front in the music
> room.


OK, you have to click through a couple of links from Hank's site, but here
it is:
http://antonesrecordshop.com/content/search.php?name=alrich

Sean

[[email protected]]

Luxey-Putin's bootlicker wrote: "понедељак, 22. �ептембар 2014. 03.31.38 UTC+2, је напи�ао/ла:

> The music itself could be awesome, groundbreaking, original, emotionally gripping - until processing is applied.

What a ****in? moron you must be to write something like that?"

Hey Lux, ever hear of brickwall limiting, combined with compression & make-up gain? I know most clients demand LOUD AS POSSIBLE, but I'd love to see a few engineers spine up and stand up for what sounds good for once instead of just counting the $ signs.

I've already contacted a few managers to hear pre-masters of their artists' works, might be am eye-opener to hear unsquashed versions.

Tell your boy to keep out of Ukraine and Eastern Europe, Komrade.

[hank alrich]

Gary Eickmeier > wrote:

> "hank alrich" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Gary Eickmeier > wrote:
> >
> >> "Gary Eickmeier" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > So how does anyone know which album he is talking about? I went to
> >> > Amazon
> >> > and there are 2 "Carry Me Back" albums in there.
> >> >
> >> > Gary Eickmeier
> >>
> >> ...and 7 "Carry Me Home"s.
> >>
> >> Gary
> >
> > Think carefully about this deep quandry, Gary. Now, how in the world do
> > you think you would find a link to this product? See any URL's around
> > here?
> >
> > Or, I dunno, maybe grok some name associated with it.
> >
> > Or, look at my .sig.
> >
> > --
> > shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
> > HankandShaidriMusic.Com
> > YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic
>
> How obvious! Silly me.

Made for an easy tease! <g>

> Why should he post any information about the album
> when all we have to do is look up one of your posts, see if there is a URL
> to your site, and find out there. OK so I did that, got nowhere on your
> site, went to CD Baby and they wanted me to sell my music to them (but I get
> mailings from them all the time - and buy many of their unique offerings),
> so I went to Amazon and found out why I couldn't find it there before - it's
> an MP3 album! I was looking for CD & Vinyl and typed in as much info as Bill
> gave us, and your album didn't show up.
>
> I would get it if it were offered in CD.

See below…

> Maybe I will download a few of the
> cuts and put them on CD so I can play them out front in the music room.

See below…

> Thanks for the clue, and it's been fun! Kind of like a road rally or
> scavenger hunt.
>
> Gary

On my hankalrich.com homepage there is a notice below the album cover
image, that says (we use english!) "Buy Hank & Shaidri's Carry Me Home!"

Look in the upper left quadrant.

http://antonesrecordshop.com/content/search.php?name=alrich

If you darest click that link you will be taken to a vendor of the
physical product. While you may buy it from CDBaby in physical form, or
digital download(s), we like to steer folks to what we consider a local
business, in this case Antone's Record Shop in Austin TX, for the CD's.

Note also that on the page at my site for the product there are links to
downloadable files in various MP3 bitrates, 16/44.1, and 24/96 for one
of the songs that happens to be in the public domain. Hence, no
licensing necessary. So we offer a free round where we can afford it, in
formats you can compare. All formats were prepared at Jerry Tubb's Terra
Nova Digital during mastering. Each was treated invidually according to
what we heard in playback.

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

[hank alrich]

Luxey > wrote:

> ?????????, 22. ????????? 2014. 18.27.12 UTC+2, William Sommerwerck :
> > "hank alrich" wrote...
> >
> > William Sommerwerck > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > >> I bought a copy of Hank Alrich's "Carry Me Home" and gave it a listen
> >
> > >> on Apogee speakers and STAX headphones.
> >
> >
> >
> > >> What I heard was a studio recording. A very good studio recording,
> >
> > >> but a studio recording, nonetheless.
> >
> >
> >
> > >> My problem is that there is no sense of space. The mics aren't shoved
> >
> > >> down the performers' throats (or instruments), but there is no sense
> >
> > >> of acoustics. The sound is almost completely dead.
> >
> >
> >
> > >> If this is what was wanted, fine. But it isn't the way I would like to
> >
> > >> record a performance.
> >
> >
> >
> > > The space is there. There is a cardioid Schoeps pair above the trio
> >
> > > feeding a Millennia preamp, and it hears us as if Doug is in the middle.
> >
> > > The stereo track from that pair is what the whole mix is built upon.
> >
> >
> >
> > > I think you may want a larger space. To my ear, that's not necessarily
> >
> > > apt for this style of music. In any case, there were many reasons for
> >
> > > choosing the particular studio in which we worked, and only one of them
> >
> > > was that the ceiling height accomodated placing the stereo pair.
> >
> >
> >
> > > Further, you might be surprised by the extent to which the close mics
> >
> > > //were// very closely placed. That you heard otherwise is testimony to
> >
> > > the sound of the room.
> >
> >
> >
> > > Thanks for your comments, Bill. Yes, it was recorded in a studio. Yes,
> >
> > > it is a live recording, because we played every note together, without
> >
> > > resorting to overdubs, or headphones.
> >
> >
> >
> > I appreciate your taking the time to respond.
> >
> >
> >
> > My experiences in live recording have convinced me that getting the
> > ambience
> >
> > the way you want it is the hardest part of recording. I've had the
> > experience
> >
> > of placing mics virtually on top of performers, and still having the
> > recording
> >
> > awash in excessive ambience. I'm not altogether surprised when you say
> > that
> >
> > the performers //were// closely miked.
> >
> >
> >
> > You might understand my feelings better if I told you that I find most
> >
> > recordings of Baroque and Classical music excessively (ie,
> > inappropriately)
> >
> > reverberant.
> >
> >
> >
> > My experiences with multi-ch SACD and BD Audio recordings is that
> > ambience is
> >
> > in much better balance with the direct sound. I ascribe this to
> > (obviously!)
> >
> > different miking techniques. I would appreciate comments from anyone
> > knowing
> >
> > anything about how miking has changed to accommodate surround recording
> >
> > (assuming it has).
>
> Ever been to average studio where bands record their stuff? Do you have
>any idea how large/ small they usually are? If you think radio house
>recording places for classic/ symphonic recordings, be sure it's
>nothing like that, in the real world.
>

Indeed. In this case the room was medium-sized, with sufficient ceiling
height for my plan, and a very even acoustical response. Lots of wood in
the room. A nice space in which to play live acoustic music.

http://www.cedarcreekrecording.com/photos/files/page5-1039-full.html

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

[hank alrich]

PStamler > wrote:

> It is on CD. Look harder.
>
> Peace,
> Paul

Perhaps the persistent practice of perspicacity can be perplexing.

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

[Luxey]

уторак, 23. �ептембар 2014. 01.03.52 UTC+2, је напи�ао/ла:
> Luxey-Putin's bootlicker wrote: "понедељак, 22. �ептембар 2014. 03.31.38 UTC+2, је напи�ао/ла:
>
>
>
> > The music itself could be awesome, groundbreaking, original, emotionally gripping - until processing is applied.
>
>
>
> What a ****in? moron you must be to write something like that?"
>
>
>
> Hey Lux, ever hear of brickwall limiting, combined with compression & make-up gain? I know most clients demand LOUD AS POSSIBLE, but I'd love to see a few engineers spine up and stand up for what sounds good for once instead of just counting the $ signs.
>
>
>
> I've already contacted a few managers to hear pre-masters of their artists' works, might be am eye-opener to hear unsquashed versions.
>
>
>
> Tell your boy to keep out of Ukraine and Eastern Europe, Komrade.

Ok, I see, you're not a moron, you're just an uneducated fool.

[Ron C[_2_]]

On 9/22/2014 11:33 AM, hank alrich wrote:
> Mike Rivers > wrote:
>
>> On 9/22/2014 6:39 AM, Mike Rivers (that's me!) wrote:
>>
>>> I could understand that, based on some of the music that William has
>>> mentioned in his posts over the years.
>>
>> I realized when I read it back that this sounds like an insult. It's not
>> intended as such, just that how individuals perceive music is influenced
>> a good bit by their experience and enjoyment of the genre.
>
> Indeed. Hard to immerse oneself in sound one finds repulsive!
>
Probably why I'd never become a real sound pro.
[Um, actually (at my age) my ears are too far gone
to even think of going there.]

==
Later...
Ron Capik
--

[hank alrich]

Sean Conolly > wrote:

> "Gary Eickmeier" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "hank alrich" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> Gary Eickmeier > wrote:
> >>
> >>> "Gary Eickmeier" > wrote in message
> >>> ...
> >>> > So how does anyone know which album he is talking about? I went to
> >>> > Amazon
> >>> > and there are 2 "Carry Me Back" albums in there.
> >>> >
> >>> > Gary Eickmeier
> >>>
> >>> ...and 7 "Carry Me Home"s.
> >>>
> >>> Gary
> >>
> >> Think carefully about this deep quandry, Gary. Now, how in the world do
> >> you think you would find a link to this product? See any URL's around
> >> here?
> >>
> >> Or, I dunno, maybe grok some name associated with it.
> >>
> >> Or, look at my .sig.
> >>
> >> --
> >> shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
> >> HankandShaidriMusic.Com
> >> YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic
> >
> > How obvious! Silly me.Why should he post any information about the album
> > when all we have to do is look up one of your posts, see if there is a URL
> > to your site, and find out there. OK so I did that, got nowhere on your
> > site, went to CD Baby and they wanted me to sell my music to them (but I
> > get mailings from them all the time - and buy many of their unique
> > offerings), so I went to Amazon and found out why I couldn't find it there
> > before - it's an MP3 album! I was looking for CD & Vinyl and typed in as
> > much info as Bill gave us, and your album didn't show up.
> >
> > I would get it if it were offered in CD. Maybe I will download a few of
> > the cuts and put them on CD so I can play them out front in the music
> > room.
>
>
> OK, you have to click through a couple of links from Hank's site, but here
> it is:
> http://antonesrecordshop.com/content/search.php?name=alrich
>
> Sean

It's also right on the homepage, below the image of the CD cover, with
the prompt to buy the product.

Then, over at another of my sites, on the music page, are links to
sources for both digital downloads and hard product. [We try to make
things difficult. ;-) ]

http://hankandshaidrimusic.com/music-more/

"Purchase Hank & Shaidri's CD Carry Me Home from Antone's Record Shop."
"Preview tracks and purchase downloads or CD's from CD Baby."
"Preview tracks and purchase downloads from iTunes."

Each line in that quote is hyperlinked to the product.

http://antonesrecordshop.com/content/search.php?name=alrich

http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/hsadharman

https://itunes.apple.com/us/album/carry-me-home-feat.-doug-harman/id3580
14532

AKA: http://tinyurl.com/pwus3oc

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

[[email protected]]

Tom McCreadie wrote: "
Sure hope you don't use mics that are poor with p-blasting, Hank :-)

--
Tom McCreadie "


But P-P-p-blasting is all part of the charm of that '21st century sound'! ;)

Just like mic-swallowing.

[Ron C[_2_]]

On 9/22/2014 8:08 PM, hank alrich wrote:
> Sean Conolly > wrote:
>
>> "Gary Eickmeier" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> "hank alrich" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> Gary Eickmeier > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Gary Eickmeier" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> So how does anyone know which album he is talking about? I went to
>>>>>> Amazon
>>>>>> and there are 2 "Carry Me Back" albums in there.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Gary Eickmeier
>>>>>
>>>>> ...and 7 "Carry Me Home"s.
>>>>>
>>>>> Gary
>>>>
>>>> Think carefully about this deep quandry, Gary. Now, how in the world do
>>>> you think you would find a link to this product? See any URL's around
>>>> here?
>>>>
>>>> Or, I dunno, maybe grok some name associated with it.
>>>>
>>>> Or, look at my .sig.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
>>>> HankandShaidriMusic.Com
>>>> YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic
>>>
>>> How obvious! Silly me.Why should he post any information about the album
>>> when all we have to do is look up one of your posts, see if there is a URL
>>> to your site, and find out there. OK so I did that, got nowhere on your
>>> site, went to CD Baby and they wanted me to sell my music to them (but I
>>> get mailings from them all the time - and buy many of their unique
>>> offerings), so I went to Amazon and found out why I couldn't find it there
>>> before - it's an MP3 album! I was looking for CD & Vinyl and typed in as
>>> much info as Bill gave us, and your album didn't show up.
>>>
>>> I would get it if it were offered in CD. Maybe I will download a few of
>>> the cuts and put them on CD so I can play them out front in the music
>>> room.
>>
>>
>> OK, you have to click through a couple of links from Hank's site, but here
>> it is:
>> http://antonesrecordshop.com/content/search.php?name=alrich
>>
>> Sean
>
> It's also right on the homepage, below the image of the CD cover, with
> the prompt to buy the product.
>
> Then, over at another of my sites, on the music page, are links to
> sources for both digital downloads and hard product. [We try to make
> things difficult. ;-) ]
>
> http://hankandshaidrimusic.com/music-more/
>
> "Purchase Hank & Shaidri's CD Carry Me Home from Antone's Record Shop."
> "Preview tracks and purchase downloads or CD's from CD Baby."
> "Preview tracks and purchase downloads from iTunes."
>
> Each line in that quote is hyperlinked to the product.
>
> http://antonesrecordshop.com/content/search.php?name=alrich
>
> http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/hsadharman
>
> https://itunes.apple.com/us/album/carry-me-home-feat.-doug-harman/id3580
> 14532
>
> AKA: http://tinyurl.com/pwus3oc
>

Yo Hank,
For what it's worth, I totally love and greatly respect
your support of local business.

[Hey, and your music ain't half bad too. ;-) ]

==
Later...
Ron Capik
--

[None]

< li'l krissie krybaby @gmail.com> wrote in message
...
> Hey Lux, ever hear of brickwall limiting, combined with compression
> & make-up <FLUSH>

That rotting corpse of a hobby horse you're riding gets stinkier and
stinkier the longer you ride it, and harder you flog it. How can you
stand the stench?

[None]

"Luxey" > wrote in message
...
> уторак, 23. �ептембар 2014. 01.03.52 UTC+2, је
> напи�ао/ла:
>> Luxey wrote: "понедељак, 22. �ептембар 2014. 03.31.38 UTC+2, the
>> hobby је напи�ао/ла:
>> What a ****in? moron you must be to write something like that?"
> Ok, I see, you're not a moron, you're just an uneducated fool.

An uneducated fool, yes but you were also right the first time, he's a
****ing moron.

[PStamler]

Hey, Thek, have you actually heard Hank & Shaidri's recording? Because it isn't squashed, at all. I know this is a bugaboo with you (hey, it is for most of us, though you don't seem to realize that), but attacking a record you haven't heard which isn't squashed for being squashed is sort of like heaing about how dry the Atlantic is, from somebody who lives in Nebraska.

Peace,
Paul

[Gary Eickmeier]

Luxey wrote:

> So Gary, apart from being an inovator and builder of the bestests
> speakers in the world, your music is soo good CD Baby won't give you
> any rest before you decide to sell through them? Whish I was that
> genious. You're almost as smart as that thekma moronic creature.

Huh? I don't make music. What you talkin about?

Wait - we may need None to chime in here - always amusing.

Gary

[Luxey]

> уторак, 23. �ептембар 2014. 07.47.51 UTC+2, Gary Eickmeier је напи�ао/ла:

> Huh? I don't make music. What you talkin about?
>
>
>
> Wait - we may need None to chime in here - always amusing.
>
>
>
> Gary

So Gary, either you did not write the following,
or they did not want you to sell your music?

> понедељак, 22. �ептембар 2014. 21.07.52 UTC+2, Gary Eickmeier је напи�ао/ла:
>... went to CD Baby and they wanted me to sell my music to them (but I get
>
> mailings from them all the time - and buy many of their unique offerings),
>...
> Gary

[hank alrich]

Gary Eickmeier > wrote:

> When I pressed the Antoine's button on your link in your sig, I kept getting
> This Web Site not Available.
>
> Call me silly call me crazy, but I just cannot get your disc as of this
> writing.

I wouldn't know what to call you seeing as how I've hit the Antone's
site threee times today and every time, it came up.

People buy the product regularly via those very links. We know this
because we get checks.

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

[John Williamson]

On 23/09/2014 00:08, Luxey wrote:
> уторак, 23. �ептембар 2014. 01.03.52 UTC+2, је напи�ао/ла:
>> Luxey-Putin's bootlicker wrote: "понедељак, 22. �ептембар 2014. 03.31.38 UTC+2, је напи�ао/ла:
>>
>>
>>
>>> The music itself could be awesome, groundbreaking, original, emotionally gripping - until processing is applied.
>>
>>
>>
>> What a ****in? moron you must be to write something like that?"
>>
>>
>>
>> Hey Lux, ever hear of brickwall limiting, combined with compression & make-up gain? I know most clients demand LOUD AS POSSIBLE, but I'd love to see a few engineers spine up and stand up for what sounds good for once instead of just counting the $ signs.
>>
>>
>>
>> I've already contacted a few managers to hear pre-masters of their artists' works, might be am eye-opener to hear unsquashed versions.
>>
>>
>>
>> Tell your boy to keep out of Ukraine and Eastern Europe, Komrade.
>
> Ok, I see, you're not a moron, you're just an uneducated fool.
>
The two are not mutually exclusive.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Jonathan[_5_]]

On Monday, September 22, 2014 1:33:05 PM UTC-4, hank alrich wrote:
> William Sommerwerck > wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Ron C" wrote in message
>
> > ...
>
> >
>
> > >> The music itself could be awesome, groundbreaking, original,
>
> > >> emotionally gripping - until processing is applied.
>
> >
>
> > > So you've heard the tracks and agree with Mr. Sommerwerck ....?
>
> >
>
> > Whoops, whoops, whoops. You're misreading. I was commenting solely on the
>
> > sound quality of Mr Alrich's recording, and nothing else.
>
> >
>
> > Mr Alrich's earlier statements had suggested he made recordings with
>
> > natural-sounding acoustics. I do not hear these in this recording. I hear
>
> > multi-miked sound, with the performers sufficiently distanced that it doesn't
>
> > sound is the mics have been shoved down their throats. But there is no real
>
> > ambience.
>
>
>
> The closely-placed mics _are_ much "shoved down our throats". What leads
>
> you to think you hear otherwise is the _real ambience of *that* room_.
>
>
>
> --
>
> shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
>
> HankandShaidriMusic.Com
>
> YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

I don't care how it was recorded, but musically that album is first rate.
the guitar playing, vocals and arrangements are really impressive. Hope you sell a lot of copies!

[Gary Eickmeier]

Luxey wrote:
>> ??????, 23. ????????? 2014. 07.47.51 UTC+2, Gary Eickmeier ??
>> ???????/??:
>
>> Huh? I don't make music. What you talkin about?
>>
>>
>>
>> Wait - we may need None to chime in here - always amusing.
>>
>>
>>
>> Gary
>
> So Gary, either you did not write the following,
> or they did not want you to sell your music?
>
>> ?????????, 22. ????????? 2014. 21.07.52 UTC+2, Gary Eickmeier ??
>> ???????/??: ... went to CD Baby and they wanted me to sell my music
>> to them (but I get
>>
>> mailings from them all the time - and buy many of their unique
>> offerings), ...
>> Gary

Apparently CD Baby is a site that can publish or sell your music as well as
sell you their inventory of CDs. I stumbled upon the buy part by accident.
Never knew about that. Maybe Hank can fill us in.

Gary

[hank alrich]

Gary Eickmeier > wrote:

> Luxey wrote:
> >> ??????, 23. ????????? 2014. 07.47.51 UTC+2, Gary Eickmeier ??
> >> ???????/??:
> >
> >> Huh? I don't make music. What you talkin about?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Wait - we may need None to chime in here - always amusing.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Gary
> >
> > So Gary, either you did not write the following,
> > or they did not want you to sell your music?
> >
> >> ?????????, 22. ????????? 2014. 21.07.52 UTC+2, Gary Eickmeier ??
> >> ???????/??: ... went to CD Baby and they wanted me to sell my music
> >> to them (but I get
> >>
> >> mailings from them all the time - and buy many of their unique
> >> offerings), ...
> >> Gary
>
> Apparently CD Baby is a site that can publish or sell your music as well as
> sell you their inventory of CDs. I stumbled upon the buy part by accident.
> Never knew about that. Maybe Hank can fill us in.
>
> Gary

They make their money several ways. One of them is to sell you the music
of others. And since everybody and their neighbor's pet gerbil can now
make a recording in their kitchen, they will suggest to everyone that
shows up that CDBaby is the avenue to your music sales success.

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

[Luxey]

уторак, 23. �ептембар 2014. 15.46.26 UTC+2, Gary Eickmeier је напи�ао/ла:
> Luxey wrote:
>
> >> ??????, 23. ????????? 2014. 07.47.51 UTC+2, Gary Eickmeier ??
>
> >> ???????/??:
>
> >
>
> >> Huh? I don't make music. What you talkin about?
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Wait - we may need None to chime in here - always amusing.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Gary
>
> >
>
> > So Gary, either you did not write the following,
>
> > or they did not want you to sell your music?
>
> >
>
> >> ?????????, 22. ????????? 2014. 21.07.52 UTC+2, Gary Eickmeier ??
>
> >> ???????/??: ... went to CD Baby and they wanted me to sell my music
>
> >> to them (but I get
>
> >>
>
> >> mailings from them all the time - and buy many of their unique
>
> >> offerings), ...
>
> >> Gary
>
>
>
> Apparently CD Baby is a site that can publish or sell your music as well as
>
> sell you their inventory of CDs. I stumbled upon the buy part by accident..
>
> Never knew about that. Maybe Hank can fill us in.
>
>
>
> Gary

Thank you Gary, I'd never guess what CD baby was about without your guidance.
So, it was not that they "wanted you to sell your music to them", but
hypothetically offered distribution services, should you had some music
"for sale". Big difference.

[William Sommerwerck]

This thread was in response to what I perceived as Hank Alrich's claim that
his recordings were made with minimal processing, and represented "natural"
acoustics. The following will be my final thoughts on the subject.

Mr Alrich and I do not see eye-to-eye on what "natural acoustics" are. My own
recording experiences convinced me that it is essentially impossible to
accurately capture and reproduce the acoustics of a performance space with
only two channels and two speakers. A conventional stereo recording does not
"hear" space the way the ears and brain do, obliging recording engineers to
compromise.

Over the history of sound recording, this compromise has become not only
standard practice (which is understandable), but the //desirable// way to make
a recording. The idea that recorded sound should resemble live sound has been
all-but discarded. Rather, the original should be dissected, then reassembled
into whatever the engineer/producer/performers find pleasing.

This is not necessarily "wrong". My objection is that it has become the raison
d’être of recording -- that a "good" recording engineer is someone whose
"product" (and I mean the word in a derogatory way) can, should, and must
deviate as much as possible from anything that resembles what one might hear
"live".

(Yes, I'm a crank.)

If I understand Mr Alrich, "Carry Me Home" was made using separate mics on
himself and his daughter, and a stereo pair above them with Mr Harman
centered. I don't understand how this is supposed to (more or less) accurately
capture the room acoustics * -- of which I hear little in the recording. **

I'm reminded of the use a hall synthesizer when playing mono recordings.
Through separate side speakers, the synthesizer provides lateral sound in the
listening room, giving the illusion of stereo spread to the mono sound coming
from the front. However, in "Carry Me Home", the sounds which should be coming
from the sides are instead coming from the front, reducing their effectiveness
in creating a sense of space.

"Carry Me Home" sounds like a tasteful multi-mike recording with an occasional
faint sense of ambience struggling to be heard.

I don't object to Mr Alrich feeling this is the best way to present his
performance. I do object to his claiming that it sounds "natural". For this
listener, it does not sound as if I'm seated in front of three musicians and
hearing them live. HOW ELSE would you define "natural"?

* Mr Alrich's statement that the mics //were// virtually jammed down the
performers' throats -- to get the effect they were at a reasonable distance
from the mics -- exactly confirms my own experiences.

** I listened with Apogee Divas and STAX Lambda Signatures.

[Scott Dorsey]

William Sommerwerck > wrote:
>Mr Alrich and I do not see eye-to-eye on what "natural acoustics" are. My own
>recording experiences convinced me that it is essentially impossible to
>accurately capture and reproduce the acoustics of a performance space with
>only two channels and two speakers. A conventional stereo recording does not
>"hear" space the way the ears and brain do, obliging recording engineers to
>compromise.

There's another big issue here: there are a thousand different kinds of
natural acoustic. The room you'd want to have a bluegrass band in is very
different than the room you'd want to have a chamber orchestra in, which
is still different than the room you'd want to have a concert orchestra in.
And a solo guitar would want to be in a still different kind of room.

There are a lot of albums out there that have a sense of space, but it might
not be the kind of space you might prefer while still being realistic. It
might also be appropriate, and it might not, but that's what makes production
an art and not a science.
--scott

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

[Neil[_9_]]

On 9/25/2014 8:04 AM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
[...]
> My own recording experiences convinced me that it is essentially
> impossible to accurately capture and reproduce the acoustics of a
> performance space with only two channels and two speakers. A
> conventional stereo recording does not "hear" space the way the ears and
> brain do, obliging recording engineers to compromise.
>
I agree that it is essentially impossible to accurately and reproduce
performance space, but I don't care how many channels or speakers one
uses; compromises are unavoidable.

> Over the history of sound recording, this compromise has become not only
> standard practice (which is understandable), but the //desirable// way
> to make a recording. The idea that recorded sound should resemble live
> sound has been all-but discarded. Rather, the original should be
> dissected, then reassembled into whatever the
> engineer/producer/performers find pleasing.
>
> This is not necessarily "wrong". My objection is that it has become the
> raison d’être of recording -- that a "good" recording engineer is
> someone whose "product" (and I mean the word in a derogatory way) can,
> should, and must deviate as much as possible from anything that
> resembles what one might hear "live".
>
Certainly, one must attempt to make their "product" (and I mean it in a
complimentary way) pleasing, or they will likely suffer insufficient
sales to justify any effort to present the music. Who is going to buy a
repulsively accurate depiction of a musical event, other than the
occasional oddball (such as myself) who would rather listen to a bad
recording of good music than a perfectly accurate reproduction of
mediocrity? Unfortunately, we are few.

There are also forms of recorded music that have nothing to do with what
one might hear "live"; music is considered to be an art. Musicians have
always tried to create sounds that do not naturally occur because *music
is an artistic expression* (a fun read that covers some of these
attempts can be found in "Treatise on Instrumentation" by Hector Berlioz
and Richard Strauss). Most recorded material regards the recording
process as an extension of musical instrumentation. It may be delusional
to consider the process to be otherwise, as one would have to ignore the
limitations of every tool that is used.

--
best regards,

Neil

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 9/25/2014 8:04 AM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
> This thread was in response to what I perceived as Hank Alrich's claim
> that his recordings were made with minimal processing, and represented
> "natural" acoustics.

> Mr Alrich and I do not see eye-to-eye on what "natural acoustics" are.

That may or may not be true. I think that what you disagree about is
Hank's use of "natural acoustics" to describe what else is present in
the recording in addition to the sound of closely miked instruments. As
so often when people get cranky here, the discussion is more about
semantics than about engineering or physics.

In this context, "natural acoustics" means that the ambient sound is
captured by additional microphones in the room that are far enough from
the instruments and voices so that they're in the reverberant field.

"Un-natural acoustics" would be processing the close mics through
reverbs and delays in an attempt to emulate the sound of a room - which
may not be the room in which the recording is made. This is typical of
studio recordings from the mid 1970s onward until recent years where
studio designs have incorporated architectural properties that the
designer thinks sound good and are worth using in lieu, or in addition
to any artificial processing that the recordist chooses to use - because
he thinks it makes the music sound good as opposed to sounding natural.

> My own recording experiences convinced me that it is essentially
> impossible to accurately capture and reproduce the acoustics of a
> performance space with only two channels and two speakers. A
> conventional stereo recording does not "hear" space the way the ears and
> brain do, obliging recording engineers to compromise.

Many well respected acousticians agree about the inability of a single
pair of speakers to accurately reproduce reflections coming from all
directions. Sure, you'll hear reflections from the sides and back of a
listening room that isn't completely dead, but those are reflections
from the speakers, not from the instruments, and not from the surfaces
of the room in which they were recorded. With multiple channels and
multiple speakers, you still won't get completely accurate reproduction
unless your listening room is dead. This really limits your ability to
listen to widely available material with "natural acoustics."

> Over the history of sound recording, this compromise has become not only
> standard practice (which is understandable), but the //desirable// way
> to make a recording. The idea that recorded sound should resemble live
> sound has been all-but discarded. Rather, the original should be
> dissected, then reassembled into whatever the
> engineer/producer/performers find pleasing.

There two things that influence the use of this process, though they're
tied together by one strong force: Economics. One is simply that a lot
of music that's recorded for public consumption isn't all played at once
because all the players aren't together at the same time. Another is
that one size doesn't fit all. If you only record one orchestra in one
venue, that's one thing, but if you're a working studio that takes on a
lot of different projects, you can only afford to build so many rooms
with acoustical characteristics that are realistic for the type of music
being played. You might record a bluegrass band singing a four part hymn
in a church, but the band playing a fast banjo tune just wouldn't sound
right in there - neither for performance or recording.

> My objection is that it has become the
> raison d’être of recording -- that a "good" recording engineer is
> someone whose "product" (and I mean the word in a derogatory way) can,
> should, and must deviate as much as possible from anything that
> resembles what one might hear "live".

I don't think that this is the intent at all. It just works out that way
economically. If your arrangement calls for eight background vocals or a
string quartet, you can bring in those musicians for a recording
session, but you can't always afford to take them on tour. So, yes, at
least in the pop music world, live music and recordings are different,
because they're performed differently. Concert orchestras are a
different world. String quartets are somewhere in between. Contemporary
classical music is full of non-classical instruments and processing
techniques, Those folks do try to take the tricks with them when they
perform live, in the same way as an electrical guitarist would plug in a
pedal or three. It's not natural either.

> If I understand Mr Alrich, "Carry Me Home" was made using separate mics
> on himself and his daughter, and a stereo pair above them with Mr Harman
> centered. I don't understand how this is supposed to (more or less)
> accurately capture the room acoustics * -- of which I hear little in the
> recording. **

And, for this kind of music, that's the way it's supposed to be. It's
intimate, you want to feel as if you're sitting close to the musicians,
not half way back in an in a large, empty room. There's a little bit of
room sound, and that, in Hank's judgment, is enough.

If you don't like it, send it back. I'm sure he'll cheerfully refund
your money.

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

[hank alrich]

William Sommerwerck > wrote:

> Mr Alrich and I do not see eye-to-eye on what "natural acoustics" are.

Mr. Alrich has the supreme advantage in that he was in the room in
question. This is a simple thing: you want a bigger room. No big deal,
but that's the essence of your complaint, whether or not you realize
that. I have no problem with your preference.

I note, again, that for all your alleged ability to perecive what is
what, I have fooled you outrightly into thinking the close mics were not
right up against the sources, and I did so without recourse to artifical
reverberation. You have stated this more than once, appartently without
realizing the obvious implications of what you are admitting you have
not heard.

I would suggest as a matter of pedagogy that you seriously return to
listening until you can hear what is what in the recording. You have
been fooled, Perfectly, apparently, and when I get fooled, I start
studying.

You ought to hear what Bob Smith can hear over all of his playback
systems. He's in your area, is an AES member of stature, and a former
poster to RAP. I now engage him on Facebook. He is doing very
interesting work in the field of audio communications for medical
facilities, approaching retirement, and looking forward to that.

I have enjoyed, and am enjoying this conversation immensely. If I get
time I may do a brief rundown of what we did, and why I chose to do it
that way, and what I aim to do next time, which is to build on this
process. I have reasons for recording us this way, and in the end, an
enginerr of considerable repute found the process fascinating and fun. I
hope to work with Fred Remmert again.

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

[hank alrich]

Scott Dorsey > wrote:

> William Sommerwerck > wrote:
> >Mr Alrich and I do not see eye-to-eye on what "natural acoustics" are. My own
> >recording experiences convinced me that it is essentially impossible to
> >accurately capture and reproduce the acoustics of a performance space with
> >only two channels and two speakers. A conventional stereo recording does not
> >"hear" space the way the ears and brain do, obliging recording engineers to
> >compromise.
>
> There's another big issue here: there are a thousand different kinds of
> natural acoustic. The room you'd want to have a bluegrass band in is very
> different than the room you'd want to have a chamber orchestra in, which
> is still different than the room you'd want to have a concert orchestra in.
> And a solo guitar would want to be in a still different kind of room.
>
> There are a lot of albums out there that have a sense of space, but it might
> not be the kind of space you might prefer while still being realistic. It
> might also be appropriate, and it might not, but that's what makes production
> an art and not a science.
> --scott

The actual acoustics of the room, in this case, are all over the sound,
whether or not Bill can hear that over his system. I have communciations
from skilled listeners detailing their experiences listening to the
album, and every single one of then remarks on the the natural
reverberation.

I hope to work in a bigger room next time. But we are neither a symphony
nor a rock band, and large revererant venues are not to our liking, so I
fully expect the next issue to fall short of Bill's desires, too.

What I did resulted in something that plays well everywhere and
broadcasts well, a very important aspect. Several times in cars I have
followed strings of other albums from artists well known in the
"Americana" field with ours to see how we hold up, particularly relative
to apparent loudness. Every one of the preceding albums auditiioned is
pretty mashed. Our album jumps out of the car radio bigtime, and sounds
louder than the squished stuff.

There is no point in making an album if you can't get it exposed, can't
sell enough to recoup. (We're not here yet, but we are nicely into our
second pressing of a thousand, and many in our genre who do not play
every night never get the closet cleared of the first pressing.) With
nobody working radio we succeeded in attracting spins all over the
world.

So many factors to consider, so little money to put it all in play.

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

[hank alrich]

William Sommerwerck > wrote:

> My objection is that it has become the raison
> d'être of recording -- that a "good" recording engineer is someone whose
> "product" (and I mean the word in a derogatory way) can, should, and must
> deviate as much as possible from anything that resembles what one might hear
> "live".

The most common comment from casual, non-audio-pro listeners is that
they feel like we are playing in their livingroom. You haven't heard us
live. Many of those people have heard us live, often many times.

I think you project a lot of stuff that has little to do with music in
the real world. Of course a recording is and must be a product, unless
you are in for vanity issues and you have the means to support that.
This is a business.

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

[William Sommerwerck]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ...
William Sommerwerck > wrote:

>> Mr Alrich and I do not see eye-to-eye on what "natural acoustics" are. My
>> own
>> recording experiences convinced me that it is essentially impossible to
>> accurately capture and reproduce the acoustics of a performance space with
>> only two channels and two speakers. A conventional stereo recording does
>> not
>> "hear" space the way the ears and brain do, obliging recording engineers to
>> compromise.

> There's another big issue here: there are a thousand different kinds of
> natural acoustic. The room you'd want to have a bluegrass band in is very
> different than the room you'd want to have a chamber orchestra in, which
> is still different than the room you'd want to have a concert orchestra in.
> And a solo guitar would want to be in a still different kind of room.

> There are a lot of albums out there that have a sense of space, but it might
> not be the kind of space you might prefer while still being realistic. It
> might also be appropriate, and it might not, but that's what makes
> production
> an art and not a science.

Absolutely. As you and I discussed several weeks ago, what sounds "natural" is
at least partly subjective. What sounds "right" to one person may not to
another.

[William Sommerwerck]

"hank alrich" wrote in message
...

> The actual acoustics of the room, in this case, are all over the sound,
> whether or not Bill can hear that over his system. I have communciations
> from skilled listeners detailing their experiences listening to the
> album, and every single one of then remarks on the the natural
> reverberation.

After listening on the Apogees, I listened through the STAX headphones.
Headphone listening exaggerates ambience, but I did not hear a recording with
"the actual acoustics of the room ... are all over the sound." It still seemed
lacking in what I consider "plausible space".

I hate when people aren't able sit down together and listen on the same
equipment.


> I hope to work in a bigger room next time. But we are neither a
> symphony nor a rock band, and large revererant venues are not
> to our liking, so I fully expect the next issue to fall short of Bill's
> desires, too.

Why would I want to hear three musicians in an inappropriately large room?

There's a particular type of close-up recording in which the performers appear
to be in a large reverberant space, without the reverberation messing with the
direct sound. (That is, the ambience appears to be a distant "cloud".) You
sometimes hear this in string-quartet recordings. I heard one recently, but
don't remember which recording it was.

I would very much like to hear an Ambisonic recording of you, your daughter,
and Mr Harman. I'm sure it would be "educational" for all of us.


> What I did resulted in something that plays well everywhere and
> broadcasts well, a very important aspect. Several times in cars I have
> followed strings of other albums from artists well known in the
> "Americana" field with ours to see how we hold up, particularly relative
> to apparent loudness. Every one of the preceding albums auditiioned is
> pretty mashed. Our album jumps out of the car radio bigtime, and sounds
> louder than the squished stuff.

> There is no point in making an album if you can't get it exposed, can't
> sell enough to recoup. (We're not here yet, but we are nicely into our
> second pressing of a thousand, and many in our genre who do not play
> every night never get the closet cleared of the first pressing.) With
> nobody working radio we succeeded in attracting spins all over the
> world.

No argument with any of this.


> So many factors to consider, so little money to put it all in play.

What else is new? <grin>

[William Sommerwerck]

"Neil" wrote in message ...
On 9/25/2014 8:04 AM, William Sommerwerck wrote:

>> My own recording experiences convinced me that it is essentially
>> impossible to accurately capture and reproduce the acoustics of a
>> performance space with only two channels and two speakers. A
>> conventional stereo recording does not "hear" space the way the ears and
>> brain do, obliging recording engineers to compromise.

> I agree that it is essentially impossible to accurately and reproduce
> performance space, but I don't care how many channels or speakers one uses;
> compromises are unavoidable.

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


> Certainly, one must attempt to make their "product" (and I mean it in a
> complimentary way) pleasing, or they will likely suffer insufficient sales
> to justify any effort to present the music. Who is going to buy a
> repulsively accurate depiction of a musical event, other than the occasional
> oddball (such as myself) who would rather listen to a bad recording of good
> music than a perfectly accurate reproduction of mediocrity? Unfortunately,
> we are few.

You are restating Holt's Law: Great performances are rarely recorded well, and
vice-versa.


> There are also forms of recorded music that have nothing to do with what one
> might hear "live"; music is considered to be an art. Musicians have always
> tried to create sounds that do not naturally occur because *music is an
> artistic expression* (a fun read that covers some of these attempts can be
> found in "Treatise on Instrumentation" by Hector Berlioz and Richard
> Strauss). Most recorded material regards the recording process as an
> extension of musical instrumentation. It may be delusional to consider the
> process to be otherwise, as one would have to ignore the limitations of
> every tool that is used.

The latter is what bothers me, when it's done "arbitrarily", rather than as a
conscious attempt to produce a musically meaningful effect.

[William Sommerwerck]

"hank alrich" wrote in message
...

William Sommerwerck > wrote:

>> Mr Alrich and I do not see eye-to-eye on what "natural acoustics" are.

> Mr. Alrich has the supreme advantage in that he was in the room in
> question. This is a simple thing: you want a bigger room. No big deal,
> but that's the essence of your complaint, whether or not you realize
> that. I have no problem with your preference.

I don't want a bigger room. I want the illusion OF a room, which I don't seem
to be hearing.

<interesting stuff snipped>

> I have enjoyed, and am enjoying this conversation immensely. If I get
> time I may do a brief rundown of what we did, and why I chose to do
> it that way, and what I aim to do next time, which is to build on this
> process. I have reasons for recording us this way, and in the end, an
> engineer of considerable repute found the process fascinating and fun.
> I hope to work with Fred Remmert again.

I would very much like to hear the details, if you have time.

Additionally... Are you free over the weekend? Would you be willing to spend a
half hour on the phone?

[Neil Gould]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
> "Neil" wrote in message ...
> On 9/25/2014 8:04 AM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
>
>>> My own recording experiences convinced me that it is essentially
>>> impossible to accurately capture and reproduce the acoustics of a
>>> performance space with only two channels and two speakers. A
>>> conventional stereo recording does not "hear" space the way the
>>> ears and brain do, obliging recording engineers to compromise.
>
>> I agree that it is essentially impossible to accurately and reproduce
>> performance space, but I don't care how many channels or speakers
>> one uses; compromises are unavoidable.
>
> Not if the listener has Ambisonic playback. Which is the Impossible
> Dream.
>
I'd call it the latest delusion that really is no more than just another
special effect. Since it does NOTHING at all to address the many issues
involved in the recording process there are very few opportunities to
validate the results during playback. In other words, if one isn't
intimately familiar with the acoustics of the recording space, the only
thing that they can determine is whether the "product" is pleasing to them.
OTOH, if one *is* intimately familiar with the recording environment, they
won't have any problem determining whether it's live or Memorex. ;-)

>> There are also forms of recorded music that have nothing to do with
>> what one might hear "live"; music is considered to be an art.
>> Musicians have always tried to create sounds that do not naturally
>> occur because *music is an artistic expression* (a fun read that
>> covers some of these attempts can be found in "Treatise on
>> Instrumentation" by Hector Berlioz and Richard Strauss). Most
>> recorded material regards the recording process as an extension of
>> musical instrumentation. It may be delusional to consider the
>> process to be otherwise, as one would have to ignore the limitations
>> of every tool that is used.
>
> The latter is what bothers me, when it's done "arbitrarily", rather
> than as a conscious attempt to produce a musically meaningful effect.
>
I'm not sure what you mean by that, but I could agree if the term
"arbitrarily" was changed to "incompetently", because after all only the
producer would know if their decisions were arbitrary. That doesn't change
the fact that someone had a concept that they're trying to present, and some
listeners will "get it", others not, and even some of those who "get it" may
not care for it. Personal taste is a valid assessment tool, but is far from
objective.

--
best regards,

Neil

[Scott Dorsey]

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

Ambisonics gives you a step toward being able to have real validation,
but it doesn't get you all the way there.

On the other hand, binaural recording _does_ give you real validation and
a simultaneous binaural recording can be used to validate stereo, ambisonic,
--scott

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

[William Sommerwerck]

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

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

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

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

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

[Neil Gould]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Neil Gould > wrote:
>> William Sommerwerck wrote:
>>>
>>> Not if the listener has Ambisonic playback. Which is the Impossible
>>> Dream.
>>>
>> I'd call it the latest delusion that really is no more than just
>> another special effect. Since it does NOTHING at all to address the
>> many issues involved in the recording process there are very few
>> opportunities to validate the results during playback. In other
>> words, if one isn't intimately familiar with the acoustics of the
>> recording space, the only thing that they can determine is whether
>> the "product" is pleasing to them.
>
> Ambisonics gives you a step toward being able to have real validation,
> but it doesn't get you all the way there.
>
> On the other hand, binaural recording _does_ give you real validation
> and a simultaneous binaural recording can be used to validate stereo,
> ambisonic, --scott
>
Of course, the point of my comment is lost by lopping off the last sentence
of the paragraph:

"OTOH, if one is intimately familiar with the recording environment, they
won't have any problem determining whether it's live or Memorex. "

In other words, "validation" is acheived by perfect replication of the live
acoustic experience, which isn't likely for many reasons that the
experienced recording engineer understands. The context was in addressing
the necessity to compromise in order to create a "product" that the listener
will appreciate. My opinion is that many recording techniques from mono to
ambisonics can achieve this objective, but none will be mistaken for the
actual live experience by the critical listener.

--
best regards,

Neil

[William Sommerwerck]

"Neil Gould" wrote in message ...

> In other words, "validation" is acheived by perfect replication of the live
> acoustic experience, which isn't likely for many reasons that the
> experienced recording engineer understands. The context was in addressing
> the necessity to compromise in order to create a "product" that the listener
> will appreciate. My opinion is that many recording techniques from mono to
> Ambisonics can achieve this objective, but none will be mistaken for the
> actual live experience by the critical listener.

That wasn't what I was talking about. It was whether "Carry Me Home" had any
sense of acoustic space at all, accurate or not.

It is my /opinion/ that an Ambisonic recording, played through plasma
speakers, could come pretty close to sounding like "the real thing". Of
course, the sheer impracticality of this is used as an excuse for making
recordings that are merely "pleasing".

I find it easy to "suspend disbelief" with the better multi-ch recordings.
Whether what I hear is truly an accurate rendition of the original is another
matter. But such recordings give an illusion of reality.

[Scott Dorsey]

Neil Gould > wrote:
>Scott Dorsey wrote:
>> Neil Gould > wrote:
>>> William Sommerwerck wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Not if the listener has Ambisonic playback. Which is the Impossible
>>>> Dream.
>>>>
>>> I'd call it the latest delusion that really is no more than just
>>> another special effect. Since it does NOTHING at all to address the
>>> many issues involved in the recording process there are very few
>>> opportunities to validate the results during playback. In other
>>> words, if one isn't intimately familiar with the acoustics of the
>>> recording space, the only thing that they can determine is whether
>>> the "product" is pleasing to them.
>>
>> Ambisonics gives you a step toward being able to have real validation,
>> but it doesn't get you all the way there.
>>
>> On the other hand, binaural recording _does_ give you real validation
>> and a simultaneous binaural recording can be used to validate stereo,
>> ambisonic, --scott
>>
>Of course, the point of my comment is lost by lopping off the last sentence
>of the paragraph:
>
>"OTOH, if one is intimately familiar with the recording environment, they
>won't have any problem determining whether it's live or Memorex. "
>
>In other words, "validation" is acheived by perfect replication of the live
>acoustic experience, which isn't likely for many reasons that the
>experienced recording engineer understands.

No, no, no. Validation is the process by which we evaluate whether the
replication of the acoustic experience is perfect or not, and to what
degree it is perfect.

>The context was in addressing
>the necessity to compromise in order to create a "product" that the listener
>will appreciate. My opinion is that many recording techniques from mono to
>ambisonics can achieve this objective, but none will be mistaken for the
>actual live experience by the critical listener.

Some of them might be under some circumstances, though. The problem is that
with all the sights, smells, proprioceptive cues, and so forth gone, it's
very hard to tell just how close to the original experience you are. That
is where the notion of validation comes in.
--scott

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

[Gary Eickmeier]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I will know soon when I get my copy.

Gary Eickmeier

[hank alrich]

Neil Gould > wrote:

> In other words, "validation" is acheived by perfect replication of the live
> acoustic experience, which isn't likely for many reasons that the
> experienced recording engineer understands. The context was in addressing
> the necessity to compromise in order to create a "product" that the listener
> will appreciate. My opinion is that many recording techniques from mono to
> ambisonics can achieve this objective, but none will be mistaken for the
> actual live experience by the critical listener.

Agreed.

But that's why there is LSD.

<g>

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

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 9/27/2014 10:26 AM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
> After a wholesome, manly breakfast of six-years-outdated Hillshire
> Turkey Kielbasa, Albertson's Potato Rounds, and a can of V8, I listened
> to "Carry Me Home" again, on both the Apogees and the STAX. This was at
> 6:45 AM, when my ears are rested, and there's little disturbance from
> cars, people, etc.
>
> I still don't hear much, if any, sense of Raumklang.

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

Seriously, I'm getting tired of reading this blather, but it's like
passing a nasty car wreck - I just have to look. I'm really sorry that
you obsess so about realism when you listen to music. I appreciate that
you're able to dissect what you're hearing, but geez, can't you just sit
back and enjoy the music?

I swear, this is getting to sound like Flanders & Swann's "A Song of
Reproduction."
www.youtube.com/watch?v=7fJmmDkvQyc



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

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

"Mike Rivers" > skrev i en meddelelse
...

> On 9/27/2014 10:26 AM, William Sommerwerck wrote:

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

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

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

> Seriously, I'm getting tired of reading this blather, but it's like
> passing a nasty car wreck - I just have to look. I'm really sorry that you
> obsess so about realism when you listen to music. I appreciate that you're
> able to dissect what you're hearing, but geez, can't you just sit back and
> enjoy the music?

I haven't heard the recording this is about, but the talk sounds to me like
this: William gets a recording without fake verb and misses it. Small rooms
do not have concert hall sound.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

> I swear, this is getting to sound like Flanders & Swann's "A Song of
> Reproduction."
> www.youtube.com/watch?v=7fJmmDkvQyc
>
>
>
> --
> For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[William Sommerwerck]

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message ...
On 9/27/2014 10:26 AM, William Sommerwerck wrote:

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

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

> Seriously, I'm getting tired of reading this blather, but it's like passing
> a nasty car wreck - I just have to look. I'm really sorry that you obsess so
> about realism when you listen to music. I appreciate that you're able to
> dissect what you're hearing, but geez, can't you just sit back and enjoy the
> music?

I've been known to break into tears listening to music on the car radio -- and
that's hardly realistic reproduction,

The "problem" is that I'm an audiophile, and I find that the better the
reproduction, the greater the emotional involvement. I wish recording
engineers what take what they do a little more seriously. The principal reason
sound recording & playback have gotten so good, is because there are
music-loving engineers who wanted to make it better and better.


> I swear, this is getting to sound like Flanders & Swann's "A Song of
> Reproduction."
> www.youtube.com/watch?v=7fJmmDkvQyc

"With a tone control, at a single touch,
Bel canto sounds like Double Dutch.
Still, I never did care for music, much --
It's the high fidelity!"

[William Sommerwerck]

"Peter Larsen" wrote in message
web.com...

> I haven't heard the recording this is about, but the talk
> sounds to me like this: William gets a recording without
> fake verb and misses it. Small rooms do not have concert
> hall sound.

That's backwards, Peter.

"William gets a recording without a recognizable sense of room sound, and
objects because the musicians creating it consider that "natural" sound."

As I said in another post, the real problem is that this recording doesn't
appear to be real stereo.

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 9/27/2014 2:13 PM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
> "William gets a recording without a recognizable sense of room sound,
> and objects because the musicians creating it consider that "natural"
> sound."
>
> As I said in another post, the real problem is that this recording
> doesn't appear to be real stereo.

It's not possible to record "real stereo" if you use multiple close
mics. If you want more detail or clarity, or control over balance among
the sources than a single ambient mic setup can provide, they you need
to bring in spot mics, and that's the end of the game.

Many producers feel that there are more important things to present to
the listener than the sound of the performance in a room, and they do
what's necessary to do what they think will appeal to the typical
listener. It's not that they're doing it because they can, or because
they're lazy, they're doing it because that's how they want it to sound.
Your model of the ideal recording doesn't fit all genres.

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



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

[Scott Dorsey]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

"William Sommerwerck" > skrev i en meddelelse
...

> "Peter Larsen" wrote in message
> web.com...

>> I haven't heard the recording this is about, but the talk
>> sounds to me like this: William gets a recording without
>> fake verb and misses it. Small rooms do not have concert
>> hall sound.

> That's backwards, Peter.

> "William gets a recording without a recognizable sense of room sound, and
> objects because the musicians creating it consider that "natural" sound."

> As I said in another post, the real problem is that this recording doesn't
> appear to be real stereo.

Tell you what, I will record Hank and whatever ensemble available if
possible and if allowed.

Currently I don't see how it would be, but having contingency plans for the
unexpected is wise ... there is a songwriter festival in Copenhagen in late
august btw ... see:

https://www.facebook.com/groups/CopenhagenSongwritersFestival/?fref=ts

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Sean Conolly]

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Mike Rivers >
> wrote:
>>I suppose that the notion (and product) of recording a symphony
>>orchestra with 20 or 30 spot mics in addition to room mics drives you
>>nuts. There's a lot of that been going around for the last 10-15 years.
>
> Well, I tell a story. Last month, I worked a pops event where the
> orchestra
> was supposed to sound like a film soundtrack. It was aggressively
> spotmiked
> and the sound in the hall with the PA up was totally, totally different
> than
> the live sound of the orchestra. It was so exaggerated, so larger than
> life,
> and so close, it was almost a cartoon of the real orchestral sound.
>
> At the interval, people came by and asked me if the PA was on. People
> told
> me how natural it sounded when I told them the PA was in use. One
> reviewer
> afterward said that it wasn't loud enough and he wished we had used sound
> reinforcement.
>
> I'm watching this sort of befuddled since my job is to make the orchestra
> sound as unrealistic as possible and people don't get what is going on.
>
> But, that's how it is. People lose sense of how things really sound
> unless
> they are constantly listening to them day in and day out.
> --scott

I still say that good SR isn't noticable until it's turned off.

I also think that the best place to hear the orchestra is from the stage,
since I've played a lot more concerts than I've listened to.

Sean

[hank alrich]

William Sommerwerck > wrote:

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

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

This work is not only about your living room. We needed her voice in the
middle for effective delivery _of the song_, whereas we did not want her
guitar centered, we wished to keep the two guitars _about where the
stereo pair heard them_.

> ** In a true stereo recording, both Hank and Shaidri's voices would occupy an
> identifiable acoustic space, because they would be recorded by at least two
> mics. I suppose this is my ultimate criticism of "Carry Me Home" -- it isn't
> /really/ stereo (to the extent I can judge).

Each of our voices was captured by three microphones, close vocal mic,
plus left and right of the Schoeps stereo pair. For most of the singing
the panned positions align well with those of the stereo pair. Where
that varies it is by decision, a necessary compromise in my mind to get
the playback I needed across the widest range of rigs.

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

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

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

[hank alrich]

Mike Rivers > wrote:

> On 9/27/2014 10:26 AM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
> > After a wholesome, manly breakfast of six-years-outdated Hillshire
> > Turkey Kielbasa, Albertson's Potato Rounds, and a can of V8, I listened
> > to "Carry Me Home" again, on both the Apogees and the STAX. This was at
> > 6:45 AM, when my ears are rested, and there's little disturbance from
> > cars, people, etc.
> >
> > I still don't hear much, if any, sense of Raumklang.
>
> After that breakfast, I'd probably barf. Have some Raisin Bran, take a
> three mile walk, and then listen again.

<joke>

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

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

</joke>

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

[hank alrich]

Scott Dorsey > wrote:

> Mike Rivers > wrote:
> >I suppose that the notion (and product) of recording a symphony
> >orchestra with 20 or 30 spot mics in addition to room mics drives you
> >nuts. There's a lot of that been going around for the last 10-15 years.
>
> Well, I tell a story. Last month, I worked a pops event where the orchestra
> was supposed to sound like a film soundtrack. It was aggressively spotmiked
> and the sound in the hall with the PA up was totally, totally different than
> the live sound of the orchestra. It was so exaggerated, so larger than life,
> and so close, it was almost a cartoon of the real orchestral sound.
>
> At the interval, people came by and asked me if the PA was on. People told
> me how natural it sounded when I told them the PA was in use. One reviewer
> afterward said that it wasn't loud enough and he wished we had used sound
> reinforcement.
>
> I'm watching this sort of befuddled since my job is to make the orchestra
> sound as unrealistic as possible and people don't get what is going on.
>
> But, that's how it is. People lose sense of how things really sound unless
> they are constantly listening to them day in and day out.
> --scott

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

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

[Scott Dorsey]

hank alrich > wrote:
>William Sommerwerck > wrote:
>
>> * Am I the only one who's noticed that Shaidri's level varies from track to
>> track, as well as her positioning? In some cases she appears to be more or
>> less centered, while her guitar remains to the left!
>
>On purpose where she is carrying a lead vocal that needs to come out of
>both sides of a car system with equal intensity.

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


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

[William Sommerwerck]

"hank alrich" wrote in message ...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Neil Gould]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
> "Neil Gould" wrote in message ...
>> It is my opinion that Ambisonic recording and playback through any
>> of the myriad system structures used under that moniker is nothing
>> more than a special effect. Other recording techniques are used for
>> the creation and/or presentation of music as an expressive artform
>> rather than merely a sound source for playback systems.
>
> I don't see how the accurate rendition of acoustic space (which
> binaural recording also supplies) could be considered a "special
> effect".
>
I have yet to hear an "accurate rendition of acoustic space", but perhaps
I'm more picky about the details than some others. OTOH, spacial effects,
including such things as off-axis reflections often enhance the
presentation.

--
best regards,

Neil

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

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

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

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

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



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

[hank alrich]

William Sommerwerck > wrote:

> "hank alrich" wrote in message ...
>
> > Airplay in ten countries and twenty+ states/provinces, with nobody
> > working radio, no PR campaign, a simple poorly planned swiftly executed
> > mailing of a couple hundred copies, around the world. This record plays
> > well against far more costly competition. This approach works and if I
> > live long enough I'll get to refine it next time.
>
> > I will agree that from an absolutely ideal standpoint it would be great
> > if such success could be had that one could do whatever the hell one
> > wished, this issue for the DJ's, that one for the vinyl freaks, a few
> > cassettes for the insane, and a whole seperate recording for the
> > audiophiles, on top of what we already do. In reality I am faced with a
> > budget, time constraints, a product in a single physical form, and the
> > need to have it communicate the songs, not the sound, across as many
> > different systems and settings as possible.
>
> I have no argument with anything you say here. Sound recording (unlike
> photography) has always required compromises. I don't like it, but that's the
> way it is.
>
> In this particular case, you said this recording was natural-sounding, and not
> gimmicky. To me, a recording without coherent imaging (it's obvious
> multi-miking was used, particularly when listening over headphones) and
> without a sense of unifying space, isn't natural-sounding.
>
> Given the apparent distance and "size" of the vocals, you and your daughter
> seem to be standing 3' to 4' apart. She must have awfully long arms to reach
> her guitar when standing at the center! Even allowing for the fact that what
> we see and hear don't always align, * I don't buy this.
>
> I feel I have a right to disagree with your claims (which is what this is
> about). I'm not an ignorant listener, and I do have some experience in live
> recording.
>
> I'll let this drop. I ask only that you carefully consider my criticisms.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You watch a lot of movies in the car? <g>

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

[William Sommerwerck]

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

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

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

Of course.


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

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

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

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

[Scott Dorsey]

William Sommerwerck > wrote:
>"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ...
>Neil Gould > wrote:
>>William Sommerwerck wrote:
>
>>>> Not if the listener has Ambisonic playback. Which is the Impossible
>>>> Dream.
>
>>> I'd call it the latest delusion that really is no more than just another
>>> special effect. Since it does NOTHING at all to address the many issues
>>> involved in the recording process there are very few opportunities to
>>> validate the results during playback. In other words, if one isn't
>>> intimately familiar with the acoustics of the recording space, the only
>>> thing that they can determine is whether the "product" is pleasing to them.
>
>> Ambisonics gives you a step toward being able to have real validation,
>> but it doesn't get you all the way there.
>> On the other hand, binaural recording _does_ give you real validation and
>> a simultaneous binaural recording can be used to validate stereo, Ambisonic.
>
>If, by validation, you mean a reference that closely approximates the original
>acoustics, I don't see where binaural has the advantage.

Well, there's your problem.
--scott

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

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

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

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



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

[Luxey]

четвртак, 25. �ептембар 2014. 16.58.32 UTC+2, Neil Gould је напи�ао/ла:
> On 9/25/2014 8:04 AM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
>
> [...]
>... Who is going to buy a
>
> repulsively accurate depiction of a musical event, other than the
>
> occasional oddball (such as myself) who would rather listen to a bad
>
> recording of good music than a perfectly accurate reproduction of
>
> mediocrity?

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

[Scott Dorsey]

In article >,
Jeff Henig > wrote:
>Luxey > wrote:
>>
>> And then, there are us, who prefer bad recordings, of ...
>> ... bad music for bad people
>
>Hear, here!
>
><raises beer to toast>

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

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

[Luxey]

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

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

[William Sommerwerck]

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

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

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

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

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

[Scott Dorsey]

William Sommerwerck > wrote:
>"Neil Gould" wrote in message ...
>William Sommerwerck wrote:
>
>>> I have no argument with anything you say here. Sound recording (unlike
>>> photography) has always required compromises. I don't like it, but
>>> that's the way it is.
>
>> Wow. If photography did not require compromises, the Zone system would
>> not have existed. Today's digital cameras often "hide" the many compromises
>> in the photographic process, but they don't eliminate them. If printing the
>> image didn't require compromises, there would be one kind of paper, one
>> kind of printer, etc., and it should be obvious to anyone familiar with
>> photography that no two printers (much less chemical processors) will give
>> identical results, ergo, there are compromises.
>
>Photography -- unlike sound recording (especially dimensional sound recording)
>has always been pretty much a "what you see is what you get" process.
>
>Are you aware that, despite using the Zone System, Ansel Adams rarely printed
>a negative "straight"?

I think that's the point he was making.

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

[Neil Gould]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
> "hank alrich" wrote in message
> ...
>
>> Airplay in ten countries and twenty+ states/provinces, with nobody
>> working radio, no PR campaign, a simple poorly planned swiftly
>> executed mailing of a couple hundred copies, around the world. This
>> record plays well against far more costly competition. This approach
>> works and if I live long enough I'll get to refine it next time.
>
>> I will agree that from an absolutely ideal standpoint it would be
>> great if such success could be had that one could do whatever the
>> hell one wished, this issue for the DJ's, that one for the vinyl
>> freaks, a few cassettes for the insane, and a whole seperate
>> recording for the audiophiles, on top of what we already do. In
>> reality I am faced with a budget, time constraints, a product in a
>> single physical form, and the need to have it communicate the songs,
>> not the sound, across as many different systems and settings as
>> possible.
>
> I have no argument with anything you say here. Sound recording (unlike
> photography) has always required compromises. I don't like it, but
> that's the way it is.
>
Wow. If photography did not require compromises, the Zone system would not
have existed. Today's digital cameras often "hide" the many compromises in
the photographic process, but they don't eliminate them. If printing the
image didn't require compromises, there would be one kind of paper, one kind
of printer, etc., and it should be obvious to anyone familiar with
photography that no two printers (much less chemical processors) will give
identical results, ergo, there are compromises.

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

--
best regards,

Neil

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
> "Neil Gould" wrote in message ...
> William Sommerwerck wrote:
>
>>> I have no argument with anything you say here. Sound recording (unlike
>>> photography) has always required compromises. I don't like it, but
>>> that's the way it is.
>
>> Wow. If photography did not require compromises, the Zone system would
>> not have existed. Today's digital cameras often "hide" the many
>> compromises
>> in the photographic process, but they don't eliminate them. If
>> printing the
>> image didn't require compromises, there would be one kind of paper, one
>> kind of printer, etc., and it should be obvious to anyone familiar with
>> photography that no two printers (much less chemical processors) will
>> give
>> identical results, ergo, there are compromises.
>
> Photography -- unlike sound recording (especially dimensional sound
> recording) has always been pretty much a "what you see is what you get"
> process.
>

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

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

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

Indeed. Fudged it in post....

--
Les Cargill

[Neil Gould]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
> "Neil Gould" wrote in message ...
> William Sommerwerck wrote:
>
>>> I have no argument with anything you say here. Sound recording
>>> (unlike photography) has always required compromises. I don't like
>>> it, but that's the way it is.
>
>> Wow. If photography did not require compromises, the Zone system
>> would
>> not have existed. Today's digital cameras often "hide" the many
>> compromises in the photographic process, but they don't eliminate
>> them. If printing the image didn't require compromises, there would
>> be one kind of paper, one kind of printer, etc., and it should be
>> obvious to anyone familiar with photography that no two printers
>> (much less chemical processors) will give identical results, ergo,
>> there are compromises.
>
> Photography -- unlike sound recording (especially dimensional sound
> recording) has always been pretty much a "what you see is what you
> get" process.
>
> Are you aware that, despite using the Zone System, Ansel Adams rarely
> printed a negative "straight"?
>
In other words, he (like all photographers) *compromised* using the process
variables to deliver the image he wanted on paper. There is no other choice,
really.

--
best regards,

Neil

[William Sommerwerck]

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

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

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

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

What would consider the photographic equivalent of the Stroh violin?

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

[Ron C[_2_]]

On 9/29/2014 11:18 AM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
> "Neil Gould" wrote in message ...
> William Sommerwerck wrote:
>
>>> I have no argument with anything you say here. Sound recording (unlike
>>> photography) has always required compromises. I don't like it, but
>>> that's the way it is.
>
>> Wow. If photography did not require compromises, the Zone system would
>> not have existed. Today's digital cameras often "hide" the many
>> compromises
>> in the photographic process, but they don't eliminate them. If
>> printing the
>> image didn't require compromises, there would be one kind of paper, one
>> kind of printer, etc., and it should be obvious to anyone familiar with
>> photography that no two printers (much less chemical processors) will
>> give
>> identical results, ergo, there are compromises.
>
> Photography -- unlike sound recording (especially dimensional sound
> recording) has always been pretty much a "what you see is what you get"
> process.
>
> Are you aware that, despite using the Zone System, Ansel Adams rarely
> printed a negative "straight"?

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

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

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

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

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

[Scott Dorsey]

William Sommerwerck > wrote:
>"Neil Gould" wrote in message ...
>William Sommerwerck wrote:
>
>>> I have no argument with anything you say here. Sound recording
>>> (unlike photography) has always required compromises. I don't
>>> like it, but that's the way it is.
>
>> Wow. If photography did not require compromises, the Zone system
>> would not have existed.
>
>An early daguerreotype much-more closely resembles the object in front of the
>camera, than an acoustic recording (or for that matter, an electrical one)
>resembles the sound of the instrument at the horn or mic.
>
>What would consider the photographic equivalent of the Stroh violin?

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

[William Sommerwerck]

"Ron C" wrote in message
...

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

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

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

[John Williamson]

On 29/09/2014 16:18, William Sommerwerck wrote:
> "Neil Gould" wrote in message ...
> William Sommerwerck wrote:
>
>>> I have no argument with anything you say here. Sound recording (unlike
>>> photography) has always required compromises. I don't like it, but
>>> that's the way it is.
>
>> Wow. If photography did not require compromises, the Zone system would
>> not have existed. Today's digital cameras often "hide" the many
>> compromises
>> in the photographic process, but they don't eliminate them. If
>> printing the
>> image didn't require compromises, there would be one kind of paper, one
>> kind of printer, etc., and it should be obvious to anyone familiar with
>> photography that no two printers (much less chemical processors) will
>> give
>> identical results, ergo, there are compromises.
>
> Photography -- unlike sound recording (especially dimensional sound
> recording) has always been pretty much a "what you see is what you get"
> process.
>
Oh, no it hasn't. Going back to the early days of black and white,
severe compromises had to be made to get the grey scale on the final
print to even remotely resemble what what the unaided human eye saw at
the time the picture was taken. Filters over the lens when taking the
picture to overcome the bad colour response of early films, for instance.

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

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

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

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


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[John Williamson]

On 29/09/2014 19:51, William Sommerwerck wrote:
> "Neil Gould" wrote in message ...
> William Sommerwerck wrote:
>
>>> I have no argument with anything you say here. Sound recording
>>> (unlike photography) has always required compromises. I don't
>>> like it, but that's the way it is.
>
>> Wow. If photography did not require compromises, the Zone system
>> would not have existed.
>
> An early daguerreotype much-more closely resembles the object in front
> of the camera, than an acoustic recording (or for that matter, an
> electrical one) resembles the sound of the instrument at the horn or mic.
>
> What would consider the photographic equivalent of the Stroh violin?
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stroh_violin

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

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

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

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

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

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



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

[William Sommerwerck]

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

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

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

Have you ever done darkroom work? I have.

[William Sommerwerck]

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

[Ron C[_2_]]

On 9/29/2014 3:04 PM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
> "Ron C" wrote in message
> ...
>
>> Else... maybe I'm misinterpreting your various points.
>
> I made an overly simple point, but one that has merit. A daguerreotype
> doesn't mangle the subject's image, the way most recordings fail to
> capture the sound of musical instruments or voices.
>
> This is true even of modern recordings. The "texture" of many
> instruments isn't caught. Gordon Holt used to complain that brass
> instruments weren't blatty-enough sounding.

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

So puzzle this with a topically relevant recording example:

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

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

==
Later....
Ron Capik
--

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

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

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

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

[William Sommerwerck]

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

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

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

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

[William Sommerwerck]

"Ron C" wrote in message
...

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

Let's see...

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

[hank alrich]

Ron C > wrote:

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

Even "natural" attempts require "artistic choices".

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

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

[hank alrich]

Mike Rivers > wrote:

> On 9/29/2014 6:10 PM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
> > I neglected to lay emphasis on daguerreotypes. These were direct
> > photographs -- no negative or print was involved. When you see a
> > daguerreotype, you see the original, without manipulation or processing.
>
> So maybe we should be recording straight into the horn and direct to
> disk? That's going to be the original without manipulation or processing.

<j>

Now you're just being cranky.

</j>

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

[Neil[_9_]]

On 9/29/2014 2:51 PM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
> "Neil Gould" wrote in message ...
> William Sommerwerck wrote:
>
>>> I have no argument with anything you say here. Sound recording
>>> (unlike photography) has always required compromises. I don't
>>> like it, but that's the way it is.
>
>> Wow. If photography did not require compromises, the Zone system
>> would not have existed.
>
> An early daguerreotype much-more closely resembles the object in front
> of the camera, than an acoustic recording (or for that matter, an
> electrical one) resembles the sound of the instrument at the horn or mic.
>
I've seen many Daguerrotypes, but not a single one that had color.

> What would consider the photographic equivalent of the Stroh violin?
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stroh_violin
>
I don't know, but most likely a failure of some kind or other. ;-D

--
best regards,

Neil

[Ron C[_2_]]

On 9/29/2014 8:46 PM, hank alrich wrote:
> Ron C > wrote:
>
>> Yes, I have noticed the thread has moved from natural to artistic
>> choices.
>
> Even "natural" attempts require "artistic choices".
>
> Perhaps I set out to make a recording that suits WS's prefs as best I
> can. I must decide where to position the mics. No rule will tell me
> where to place them. I'll have to make this up. The sound captured may
> vary drastically across mic positions not so far apart placement. Etc.
>
Hank,
I totally respect the artistic choice problem. Recordings are effectively
set in stone, whereas live sound (most of my experience {1}) is quite
ephemeral, mix for the moment and all that. Recorded stuff never
captures the live context (um, whatever that may mean.)

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

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

==
Later...
Ron Capik
--

[Gary Eickmeier]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Trevor]

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

> Photography -- unlike sound recording (especially dimensional sound
> recording) has always been pretty much a "what you see is what you get"
> process.
>
> Are you aware that, despite using the Zone System, Ansel Adams rarely
> printed a negative "straight"?

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

Trevor.

[John Williamson]

On 29/09/2014 23:08, William Sommerwerck wrote:
> "John Williamson" wrote in message
> ...
> On 29/09/2014 16:18, William Sommerwerck wrote:
>
>> Oh, no it hasn't. Going back to the early days of black and white,
>> severe compromises had to be made to get the grey scale on the final
>> print to even remotely resemble what what the unaided human eye saw at
>> the time the picture was taken. Filters over the lens when taking the
>> picture to overcome the bad colour response of early films, for instance.
>
> Wrong all the way through. Prints were generally made directly from the
> negative, without burning or dodging. The earliest photographic
> materials were sensitive only to blue light. Filters would have had
> little effect.
>
I remember using red filters on the camera lens to improve the rendition
of cloudy skies, as well as other filters to help with other aspects of
landscape work. These help with all types of monochrome film. I have
used orthochromatic and panchromatic film. I still use a polarising
filter to enhance blue skies....

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

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

> Have you ever done darkroom work? I have.

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

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[John Williamson]

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

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

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

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

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Neil[_9_]]

On 9/30/2014 12:21 AM, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
> W respect to comparing recording and photography, I have already said in a
> post on the 27th:
>
[...]
> 1. You can't get there from here. The recording and reproduction process has
> the unfortunate result of changing the spatial nature of the original to
> that of a combination of the original and your playback system, including
> the room.
>
I agree, but go further by saying that the notion of recording the
original acoustic environment is doomed from the beginning due to the
limitations of every tool used in the process.

> 2. The process might be considered a point along a continuum between total
> "you are there" and "they are here."
>
I see it as a "this is that" process; the live experience ("this") is
used to create a product ("that") acceptable to the consumer.

> 4. The result of all this is that "It isn't a recording until it gets played
> back." In other words, you cannot say what your recording effort sounds like
> in order for William to tell Hank or vice versa. Each of us hears a
> different result of that same recording because it happens anew in each of
> our systems.
>
Playback is another can of worms, where it is quite unlikely that any
two playback environments will present the listener with the same
auditory experience, and none will be acoustically identical to the
recording environment.

--
best regards,

Neil

[William Sommerwerck]

"Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message ...

> A statement such as William's that there is no "ambience" or such
> in the recording is a red flag that something is missing at one end
> or the other.

I said very little. I also listened with STAX Lambda headphones.


> Not critiquing William's system, because I have never heard it.

You'd better not. It's Apogee speakers with Curl electronics.


> But if he is playing back on his Ambisonics system a recording that has
> no such sound then he may be criticizing the wrong end of the process.

I can play back in almost any surround format, or just plain stereo. I would
never critique a stereo recording by running it through UHJ enhancement.
Though maybe I should...

[William Sommerwerck]

"hank alrich" wrote in message ...
Ron C > wrote:

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

> Even "natural" attempts require "artistic choices".

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

Mic placement will drive you crazy. It's no wonder so many recordings are
multi-miked.

Only binaural and Ambisonic recording offer a rational approach.
Unfortunately, both are commercial non-viable.

[MiNe109]

On 9/29/14, 8:06 PM, Neil wrote:
> On 9/29/2014 2:51 PM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
>> "Neil Gould" wrote in message ...
>> William Sommerwerck wrote:

>> What would consider the photographic equivalent of the Stroh violin?
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stroh_violin
> >
> I don't know, but most likely a failure of some kind or other. ;-D

Of course, the Stroh was for recording, not a recorder. A local
violinist has one and enjoys it for hot club jazz.

The University of Texas has a candidate for "world's first photograph":

http://www.hrc.utexas.edu/exhibitions/permanent/firstphotograph/

Stephen

[William Sommerwerck]

"John Williamson" wrote in message ...
On 29/09/2014 23:10, William Sommerwerck wrote:

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

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

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

Nothing like? The principal differences are that daguerreotypes were made with
poorer lenses than we have today, and they were sensitive only to blue light.
Other than that, a daguerreotype image should be close to one taken with
modern B&W materials.


> If you want a direct observation of the compromises that have to be made by
> photographers, go to Lacock Abbey in England, where you can reproduce the
> world's first photograph, as taken by Fox-Talbot.

The first photograph was taken by Niépce, using bitumen of Judea as the
sensitive material. Fox-Talbot developed the first negative-positive process.

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

Because a daguerreotype image could not be manipulated (other than by changing
the initial exposure), the process would not have been commercially successful
unless the image was a "reasonable" representation of the subject.

[William Sommerwerck]

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

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

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

That doesn't change the fact that a daguerreotype is far more accurate at
doing what it does than an acoustic recording.

Daguerreotypes sometimes showed a color image, before they were fixed. This
was later explained as the result of interference patterns in the extremely
thin silver-halide layer.

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

[Scott Dorsey]

William Sommerwerck > wrote:
>"John Williamson" wrote in message ...
>On 29/09/2014 23:10, William Sommerwerck wrote:
>
>>> I neglected to lay emphasis on daguerreotypes. These were direct
>>> photographs -- no negative or print was involved. When you see a
>>> daguerreotype, you see the original, without manipulation or processing.
>
>> So, in your mind, they are the equivalent of modern slide film? I use
>> filters on that as well.
>
>> I've also seen daguerreotypes, and they're nothing like the original scene
>> as seen or captured by modern equipment.
>
>Nothing like? The principal differences are that daguerreotypes were made with
>poorer lenses than we have today, and they were sensitive only to blue light.
>Other than that, a daguerreotype image should be close to one taken with
>modern B&W materials.

What's weird about the daguerreotype is that it's a metallic reflected image,
which makes it almost pellucid. The grey scale changes as you change angle.

If you have ever viewed a modern gelatin negative by reflected light against
a black cloth in order to see a positive image, the process is much like that.

It's a very strange look. Is it realistic? Is it art? To answer those you
have to define realism and art and that's not my MOS. I just fix radios.
--scott

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

[William Sommerwerck]

"Trevor" wrote in message ...
On 30/09/2014 1:18 AM, William Sommerwerck wrote:

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

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

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

And an acoustic recording delivers significantly higher fidelity?

Which is the point I've been making, but one seems to grasp.

Photography has always had a higher degree of fidelity than sound recording.

[William Sommerwerck]

"MiNe109" wrote in message ...

> The University of Texas has a candidate for "world's first photograph":
> http://www.hrc.utexas.edu/exhibitions/permanent/firstphotograph

This is generally considered the first true photograph. No other candidate has
ever shown up.

[Luxey]

On Monday, 29 September 2014 21:04:15 UTC+2, John Williamson wrote:
> On 29/09/2014 16:18, William Sommerwerck wrote:
>
> > "Neil Gould" wrote in message ...
>
> > William Sommerwerck wrote:
>
> >
>
> >>> I have no argument with anything you say here. Sound recording (unlike
>
> >>> photography) has always required compromises. I don't like it, but
>
> >>> that's the way it is.
>
> >
>
> >> Wow. If photography did not require compromises, the Zone system would
>
> >> not have existed. Today's digital cameras often "hide" the many
>
> >> compromises
>
> >> in the photographic process, but they don't eliminate them. If
>
> >> printing the
>
> >> image didn't require compromises, there would be one kind of paper, one
>
> >> kind of printer, etc., and it should be obvious to anyone familiar with
>
> >> photography that no two printers (much less chemical processors) will
>
> >> give
>
> >> identical results, ergo, there are compromises.
>
> >
>
> > Photography -- unlike sound recording (especially dimensional sound
>
> > recording) has always been pretty much a "what you see is what you get"
>
> > process.
>
> >
>
> Oh, no it hasn't. Going back to the early days of black and white,
>
> severe compromises had to be made to get the grey scale on the final
>
> print to even remotely resemble what what the unaided human eye saw at
>
> the time the picture was taken. Filters over the lens when taking the
>
> picture to overcome the bad colour response of early films, for instance.
>
>
>
> Coming forward to modern digital sensors, the compromises have got less,
>
> and are often hidden by the camera from the end user, (Kind of like
>
> using AGC on audio) but the amplitude response curve of film and digital
>
> sensors and output devices is nowhere near as great as the human eye can
>
> cope with and, especially for film, is nowhere near linear. For this
>
> reason, high dynamic range techniques such as one picture with
>
> under-exposure followed by one with over-exposure and finally using
>
> gamma correction are now used to cover the full amplitude range.
>
>
>
> As a result of all this, compromises are made when producing *every*
>
> decent picture, and ones where those compromises haven't been made are
>
> snapshots at best. Take one example. On a Sunny day, you see a landscape
>
> with a blue sky, clouds optional. If you take and print a straight
>
> picture of that, using either film or a digital sensor, you see either
>
> an underexposed foreground, which needs to be lifted out of the noise,
>
> or a burnt out white sky, which has to have it's colours altered, or in
>
> severe cases added from another picture.
>
>
>
> > Are you aware that, despite using the Zone System, Ansel Adams rarely
>
> > printed a negative "straight"?
>
>
>
> I'd have guessed at never, except to make a point.
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Tciao for Now!
>
>
>
> John.

Can't stand HDR photography. Let that gimmick soon be forgotten.

[William Sommerwerck]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ...

> What's weird about the daguerreotype is that it's a metallic reflected
> image,
> which makes it almost pellucid. The grey scale changes as you change angle.

> If you have ever viewed a modern gelatin negative by reflected light against
> a black cloth in order to see a positive image, the process is much like
> that.

This works with any type of negative, including a glass plate.

If the image is held at an angle -- especially with a black cloth behind it --
light is reflected by the silver areas (the dark areas of the scene) and pass
through the clear areas (the light areas of the scene).

This effect was used in the ambrotype, a glass negative mounted on black
velvet. Because no printing was needed, the customer could have the image not
long after the negative was processed.

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


> It's a very strange look. Is it realistic? Is it art? To answer those you
> have to define realism and art and that's not my MOS. I just fix radios.

If it's a good representation of the subject, then it's "realistic".

[John Williamson]

On 30/09/2014 14:50, William Sommerwerck wrote:
> "John Williamson" wrote in message
> ...
> On 29/09/2014 23:10, William Sommerwerck wrote:
>
>>> I neglected to lay emphasis on daguerreotypes. These were direct
>>> photographs -- no negative or print was involved. When you see a
>>> daguerreotype, you see the original, without manipulation or processing.
>
>> So, in your mind, they are the equivalent of modern slide film? I use
>> filters on that as well.
>
>> I've also seen daguerreotypes, and they're nothing like the original
>> scene as seen or captured by modern equipment.
>
> Nothing like? The principal differences are that daguerreotypes were
> made with poorer lenses than we have today, and they were sensitive only
> to blue light. Other than that, a daguerreotype image should be close to
> one taken with modern B&W materials.
>
Which, to use an audio analogy, is like saying that making recordings
using a carbon microphone, and a low pass filter is close to what we can
do now.
>
>> If you want a direct observation of the compromises that have to be
>> made by photographers, go to Lacock Abbey in England, where you can
>> reproduce the world's first photograph, as taken by Fox-Talbot.
>
> The first photograph was taken by Niépce, using bitumen of Judea as the
> sensitive material. Fox-Talbot developed the first negative-positive
> process.
>
Which is what most of us call a photograph, but I'll give you that point.

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Daguerre
>
> Because a daguerreotype image could not be manipulated (other than by
> changing the initial exposure), the process would not have been
> commercially successful unless the image was a "reasonable"
> representation of the subject.
>
Or, it was as close as a sketch (The alternative at the time) but more
fashionable and didn't involve finding an artist.


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[John Williamson]

On 30/09/2014 15:06, Luxey wrote:
> Can't stand HDR photography. Let that gimmick soon be forgotten.
>
I use it the same way as I use any other effect/ compromise in
photography. Like some audio effects, it can either be "In your face" or
subtle.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Neil Gould]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
> "Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ...
>
>> What's weird about the daguerreotype is that it's a metallic
>> reflected image,
>> which makes it almost pellucid. The grey scale changes as you change
>> angle.
>
>> If you have ever viewed a modern gelatin negative by reflected light
>> against a black cloth in order to see a positive image, the process
>> is much like that.
>
> This works with any type of negative, including a glass plate.
>
> If the image is held at an angle -- especially with a black cloth
> behind it -- light is reflected by the silver areas (the dark areas
> of the scene) and pass through the clear areas (the light areas of
> the scene).
>
> This effect was used in the ambrotype, a glass negative mounted on
> black velvet. Because no printing was needed, the customer could have
> the image not long after the negative was processed.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambrotype
>
>
>> It's a very strange look. Is it realistic? Is it art? To answer
>> those you have to define realism and art and that's not my MOS. I
>> just fix radios.
>
> If it's a good representation of the subject, then it's "realistic".
>
However, a daguerreotype is NOT any more "a good representation of the
subject" than a sculptured bronze statue or a monochromatic painting. They
can all be good art and communicate well, but if you're willing to allow
that much leeway in the definition of "a good representation of the
subject", then the worst audio recordings should tickle your fancy just
fine, even with regard to spacial representation.
--
best regards,

Neil

[Neil Gould]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
> "Neil" wrote in message ...
> On 9/29/2014 2:51 PM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
>
>>> An early daguerreotype much-more closely resembles the object
>>> in front of the camera, than an acoustic recording (or for that
>>> matter, an electrical one) resembles the sound of the instrument at
>>> the horn or mic.
>
>> I've seen many Daguerrotypes, but not a single one that had color.
>
> That doesn't change the fact that a daguerreotype is far more
> accurate at doing what it does than an acoustic recording.
>
Well, that's a matter of opinion, and is dependent on which qualities one
considers important.

To draw that analogy back to the discussion, there are compromises in the
production of Daguearrotypes, such as lens selection, which will impact the
representation of the scene in a similar way that mic selection impacts the
representation of the acoustic environment.
--
best regards,

Neil

[Neil Gould]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
> "Trevor" wrote in message ...
> On 30/09/2014 1:18 AM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
>
>>> Photography -- unlike sound recording (especially dimensional sound
>>> recording) has always been pretty much a "what you see is what you
>>> get" process.
>
>>> Are you aware that, despite using the Zone System, Ansel Adams
>>> rarely printed a negative "straight"?
>
>> Exactly, which was because he did his best to overcome the
>> compromises
>> of film and paper in the darkroom. These days we use all the tricks
>> of Photoshop for exactly the same reasons, compromises still have to
>> be
>> made, "what you see" in real life is certainly NOT "what you get" in
>> print.
>
> And an acoustic recording delivers significantly higher fidelity?
>
> Which is the point I've been making, but one seems to grasp.
>
We grasp it, we just disagree with you about it. IMO, they're all flawed for
similar reasons, and whether or not those flaws matter depends on the
consumer.

> Photography has always had a higher degree of fidelity than sound
> recording.
>
I *really* disagree with this opinion. Perhaps you only own one lens? ;-)
--
best regards,

Neil

[MiNe109]

On 9/30/14, 9:00 AM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
> "MiNe109" wrote in message ...
>
>> The University of Texas has a candidate for "world's first photograph":
>> http://www.hrc.utexas.edu/exhibitions/permanent/firstphotograph
>
> This is generally considered the first true photograph. No other
> candidate has ever shown up.

Shroud of Turin?

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/videos/category/smithsonian-channel/is-this-the-worlds-first-photograph/?no-ist

No, I'm not serious. Lengthy ad.

Stephen

[Tom McCreadie]

William Sommerwerck" wrote:

>Photography has always had a higher degree of fidelity than sound recording.

These kinds of patently absurd, sweeping claims give trolls a bad name. :-)

For instance, look out at the fall colors in your garden. With a B/W photo, all
that wide gamut of colors would be mapped over to a smaller subset of gray scale
tones. How, by any stretch of the imagination, or semantic wriggling, can you
then say that the B/W photo (powerful and compelling as it may well be) has a
high degree of 'fidelity' to what you see. (maybe to what your dog sees :-))
--
Tom McCreadie

[[email protected]]

How, by any stretch of the imagination, or semantic wriggling, can you
>
> then say that the B/W photo (powerful and compelling as it may well be) has a
>
> high degree of 'fidelity' to what you see. (maybe to what your dog sees :-))
>
> --
>
> Tom McCreadie

not to mention that reality is 3D while photographs are 2D.
this thread has reached absurdity.

Mark

[William Sommerwerck]

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

>> That doesn't change the fact that a daguerreotype is far more
>> accurate at doing what it does than an acoustic recording.

> Well, that's a matter of opinion, and is dependent on which
> qualities one considers important.

Let's see... If you had to choose as to whether photography remained at its
daguerreotype stage and never advanced, or sound recording remained
permanently stuck at acoustic recording -- which would you choose?

QED.

[William Sommerwerck]

"Neil Gould" wrote in message ...

>> If it's a good representation of the subject, then it's "realistic".

> However, a daguerreotype is NOT any more "a good representation
> of the subject" than a sculptured bronze statue or a monochromatic
> painting.

The hell it isn't. Do you just argue for the sake of arguing?

I'm not talking about "communication". I'm talking about representation.

[William Sommerwerck]

"John Williamson" wrote in message ...
On 30/09/2014 14:50, William Sommerwerck wrote:

>> The first photograph was taken by Niépce, using bitumen of Judea
>> as the sensitive material. Fox-Talbot developed the first negative-
>> positive process.

> Which is what most of us call a photograph, but I'll give you that point.

Oh, thank you. I suppose, then, a Kodachrome is not a photograph.


>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Daguerre

>> Because a daguerreotype image could not be manipulated (other than by
>> changing the initial exposure), the process would not have been
>> commercially successful unless the image was a "reasonable"
>> representation of the subject.

> Or, it was as close as a sketch (The alternative at the time) but more
> fashionable and didn't involve finding an artist.

Which proves what? A daguerreotype is a far more "accurate" rendition than a
sketch.

[William Sommerwerck]

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

>> Photography has always had a higher degree of fidelity than sound
>> recording.

> I *really* disagree with this opinion.

It's not an opinion. It's fact. I gave an example in a recent post that
demonstrated this.

I proved with mathematical certainty that someone had an extra key to the ward
room.


> Perhaps you only own one lens? ;-)

There have always been lenses of different focal lengths (though not as a wide
a range as we've had since the middle of the 20th century). In what sense does
the presumed "compromise" of not having lenses that go from 13mm to 2000mm
have a parallel in sound recording?

[William Sommerwerck]

"Tom McCreadie" wrote in message
...
William Sommerwerck" wrote:

>> Photography has always had a higher degree of fidelity than sound
>> recording.

> These kinds of patently absurd, sweeping claims give trolls a bad name. :-)

> For instance, look out at the fall colors in your garden. With a B/W photo,
> all
> that wide gamut of colors would be mapped over to a smaller subset of gray
> scale
> tones. How, by any stretch of the imagination, or semantic wriggling, can
> you
> then say that the B/W photo (powerful and compelling as it may well be) has
> a
> high degree of 'fidelity' to what you see. (maybe to what your dog sees :-))

Do you understand English? Do you understand what words mean? Apparently not.
I said...

"Photography has always had a higher degree of fidelity than sound recording."

Do you know what that means? It //does not// mean that "the B/W photo
(powerful and compelling as it may well be) has a high degree of 'fidelity' to
what you see".

If you don't understand what words mean, what is the point of discussing
anything? But then, of course, anyone who presents an idea that forces you to
//think// is someone who engages in semantic wriggling -- or a troll.

Human beings "know what they know", and it is virtually impossible to get them
to consider any point of view that does not match their mental knee-jerk
reactions.

[Scott Dorsey]

I would just like to say that in the past four decades I have heard a lot of
people make analogies between photography and audio recording and in every
single instance that I can think of the discussion broke down into a senseless
argument. So I am inclined to avoid this particular analogy at all costs.
--scott

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

[Tom McCreadie]

On Tue, 30 Sep 2014 13:59:58 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
> wrote:

>"Tom McCreadie" wrote in message
...
>William Sommerwerck" wrote:
>
>>> Photography has always had a higher degree of fidelity than sound
>>> recording.
>
>> These kinds of patently absurd, sweeping claims give trolls a bad name. :-)
>
>> For instance, look out at the fall colors in your garden. With a B/W photo,
>> all
>> that wide gamut of colors would be mapped over to a smaller subset of gray
>> scale
>> tones. How, by any stretch of the imagination, or semantic wriggling, can
>> you
>> then say that the B/W photo (powerful and compelling as it may well be) has
>> a
>> high degree of 'fidelity' to what you see. (maybe to what your dog sees :-))
>
>Do you understand English? Do you understand what words mean? Apparently not.
>I said...
>
>"Photography has always had a higher degree of fidelity than sound recording."
>
>Do you know what that means? It //does not// mean that "the B/W photo
>(powerful and compelling as it may well be) has a high degree of 'fidelity' to
>what you see".
>
>If you don't understand what words mean, what is the point of discussing
>anything? But then, of course, anyone who presents an idea that forces you to
>//think// is someone who engages in semantic wriggling -- or a troll.
>
>Human beings "know what they know", and it is virtually impossible to get them
>to consider any point of view that does not match their mental knee-jerk
>reactions.
So please then enlighten us - for once, in concrete terms; no more resorting to
higher level, superficial generalities - exactly what you mean.

Most of the thread respondents are perceiving you to claim that photographs
_always_ have had a greater fidelity to what people saw when they looked at the
scene, compared to the fidelity of a sound recording to what people heard when
they listened to the music.

As Scott mentioned, it's unconstructive to push these flawed picture / sound
analogies, to try to make a point. Sight and sound inhabit different conceptual
spaces and don't lend themselves to a straight qualitative comparison, let alone
a quantitative one, in quest of some sort of insight.

The claim "Photography has always had a higher degree of fidelity than sound
recording", besides having several convenient semantic/definitions escape
routes, is about as helpful as saying "a hedgehog in its nest is closer to true
safety than a baby in a warm bath is close to true happiness".
--
Tom McCreadie

Live at The London Palindrome - ABBA

[hank alrich]

William Sommerwerck > wrote:

> "Neil Gould" wrote in message ...
>
> >> If it's a good representation of the subject, then it's "realistic".
>
> > However, a daguerreotype is NOT any more "a good representation
> > of the subject" than a sculptured bronze statue or a monochromatic
> > painting.
>
> The hell it isn't. Do you just argue for the sake of arguing?
>
> I'm not talking about "communication". I'm talking about representation.

And so is he…

Consider that "representation" may be in the eye of the beholder…

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

[hank alrich]

Scott Dorsey > wrote:

> I would just like to say that in the past four decades I have heard a lot of
> people make analogies between photography and audio recording and in every
> single instance that I can think of the discussion broke down into a senseless
> argument. So I am inclined to avoid this particular analogy at all costs.
> --scott

"Ear, ear, and Eye, eye!"

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

[hank alrich]

Tom McCreadie > wrote:

> The claim "Photography has always had a higher degree of fidelity than
> sound recording", besides having several convenient semantic/definitions
> escape routes, is about as helpful as saying "a hedgehog in its nest is
> closer to true safety than a baby in a warm bath is close to true
> happiness".

Damn, Tom, that's GOOD!

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

[hank alrich]

William Sommerwerck > wrote:

> "Neil Gould" wrote in message ...
> William Sommerwerck wrote:
>
> >> That doesn't change the fact that a daguerreotype is far more
> >> accurate at doing what it does than an acoustic recording.
>
> > Well, that's a matter of opinion, and is dependent on which
> > qualities one considers important.
>
> Let's see... If you had to choose as to whether photography remained at its
> daguerreotype stage and never advanced, or sound recording remained
> permanently stuck at acoustic recording -- which would you choose?
>
> QED.

If elephants had wings, how many pies would it take a pig to make an
apple?

QWTF.

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

[Luxey]

уторак, 30. �ептембар 2014. 19.10.27 UTC+2, John Williamson је напи�ао/ла:
> On 30/09/2014 15:06, Luxey wrote:
>
> > Can't stand HDR photography. Let that gimmick soon be forgotten.
>
> >
>
> I use it the same way as I use any other effect/ compromise in
>
> photography. Like some audio effects, it can either be "In your face" or
>
> subtle.
>
>
>
> --
>
> Tciao for Now!
>
>
>
> John.

Point taken, but obviously you understood my sentiment.

[Neil[_9_]]

On 9/30/2014 4:52 PM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
> "Neil Gould" wrote in message ...
> William Sommerwerck wrote:
>
>>> Photography has always had a higher degree of fidelity than sound
>>> recording.
>
>> I *really* disagree with this opinion.
>> Perhaps you only own one lens? ;-)
>
> There have always been lenses of different focal lengths (though not as
> a wide a range as we've had since the middle of the 20th century). In
> what sense does the presumed "compromise" of not having lenses that go
> from 13mm to 2000mm have a parallel in sound recording?
>
The point is that *every* lens has compromises by design, whether in
DOF, color rendition, perspective distortion, resolution, etc., it's an
unavoidable aspect of lens design. Two lenses of different design will
not render a scene in the same manner, just as two microphones of
different design will not respond to an acoustic environment in the same
manner. Furthermore, every step in either process after those components
also impacts the "fidelity" of the final product, therefore, "fidelity"
becomes largely a matter of what is important to the producer, since
that is all the consumer has direct access to.
--
best regards,

Neil

[Neil[_9_]]

On 9/30/2014 6:49 PM, Tom McCreadie wrote:

> The claim "Photography has always had a higher degree of fidelity than sound
> recording", besides having several convenient semantic/definitions escape
> routes, is about as helpful as saying "a hedgehog in its nest is closer to true
> safety than a baby in a warm bath is close to true happiness".
>
Excellent response, Tom!
--
best regards,

Neil

[geoff]

On 1/10/2014 1:26 p.m., Neil wrote:
> On 9/30/2014 4:52 PM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
>> "Neil Gould" wrote in message ...
>> William Sommerwerck wrote:
>>
>>>> Photography has always had a higher degree of fidelity than sound
>>>> recording.
>>
>>> I *really* disagree with this opinion.
>>> Perhaps you only own one lens? ;-)
>>
>> There have always been lenses of different focal lengths (though not as
>> a wide a range as we've had since the middle of the 20th century). In
>> what sense does the presumed "compromise" of not having lenses that go
>> from 13mm to 2000mm have a parallel in sound recording?
> >
> The point is that *every* lens has compromises by design, whether in
> DOF, color rendition, perspective distortion, resolution, etc., it's an
> unavoidable aspect of lens design. Two lenses of different design will
> not render a scene in the same manner, just as two microphones of
> different design will not respond to an acoustic environment in the same
> manner. Furthermore, every step in either process after those components
> also impacts the "fidelity" of the final product, therefore, "fidelity"
> becomes largely a matter of what is important to the producer, since
> that is all the consumer has direct access to.


I've never heard a lens being described as having a particular
'character' in the way almost all mics do ! (focal-length and gross
technical flaws excepted).

geoff

[Luxey]

On Wednesday, 1 October 2014 06:50:50 UTC+2, geoff wrote:
> On 1/10/2014 1:26 p.m., Neil wrote:
>
> > On 9/30/2014 4:52 PM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
>
> >> "Neil Gould" wrote in message ...
>
> >> William Sommerwerck wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>>> Photography has always had a higher degree of fidelity than sound
>
> >>>> recording.
>
> >>
>
> >>> I *really* disagree with this opinion.
>
> >>> Perhaps you only own one lens? ;-)
>
> >>
>
> >> There have always been lenses of different focal lengths (though not as
>
> >> a wide a range as we've had since the middle of the 20th century). In
>
> >> what sense does the presumed "compromise" of not having lenses that go
>
> >> from 13mm to 2000mm have a parallel in sound recording?
>
> > >
>
> > The point is that *every* lens has compromises by design, whether in
>
> > DOF, color rendition, perspective distortion, resolution, etc., it's an
>
> > unavoidable aspect of lens design. Two lenses of different design will
>
> > not render a scene in the same manner, just as two microphones of
>
> > different design will not respond to an acoustic environment in the same
>
> > manner. Furthermore, every step in either process after those components
>
> > also impacts the "fidelity" of the final product, therefore, "fidelity"
>
> > becomes largely a matter of what is important to the producer, since
>
> > that is all the consumer has direct access to.
>
>
>
>
>
> I've never heard a lens being described as having a particular
>
> 'character' in the way almost all mics do ! (focal-length and gross
>
> technical flaws excepted).
>
>
>
> geoff

You missed "soft" and "fast"? Character in mics is just that, technical flaw
we learned to live with and gave it a pet name.

[John Williamson]

On 30/09/2014 21:46, William Sommerwerck wrote:
> "John Williamson" wrote in message
> ...
> On 30/09/2014 14:50, William Sommerwerck wrote:
>
>>> The first photograph was taken by Niépce, using bitumen of Judea
>>> as the sensitive material. Fox-Talbot developed the first negative-
>>> positive process.
>
>> Which is what most of us call a photograph, but I'll give you that point.
>
> Oh, thank you. I suppose, then, a Kodachrome is not a photograph.
>
Not in common parlance round here, no. It's a slide. Even when it's not
mounted as one. Then again, people still talk about watching a film,
even when it's been digitally produced and projected.
>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Daguerre
>
>>> Because a daguerreotype image could not be manipulated (other than by
>>> changing the initial exposure), the process would not have been
>>> commercially successful unless the image was a "reasonable"
>>> representation of the subject.
>
>> Or, it was as close as a sketch (The alternative at the time) but more
>> fashionable and didn't involve finding an artist.
>
> Which proves what? A daguerreotype is a far more "accurate" rendition
> than a sketch.

In some ways, yes, but you've already noted that it only uses part of
the available light spectrum and the grey scale is off. However, you
seem to have already convinced yourself that your theory that
photographs are always accurate and faithful renditions of reality, so
there's nothing more I can say on the subject.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[None]

"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
...
> "Photography has always had a higher degree of fidelity than sound
> recording."
>
> Do you know what that means? It //does not// mean that "the B/W
> photo (powerful and compelling as it may well be) has a high degree
> of 'fidelity' to what you see".
>
> If you don't understand what words mean, what is the point of
> discussing anything?

Yet you keep on, pretending that you're always right. That's a really
stupid pretense, especially when you're wrong. Stupid, but predictably
entertaining.

[Neil Gould]

geoff wrote:
> On 1/10/2014 1:26 p.m., Neil wrote:
>> On 9/30/2014 4:52 PM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
>>> "Neil Gould" wrote in message ...
>>> William Sommerwerck wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Photography has always had a higher degree of fidelity than sound
>>>>> recording.
>>>
>>>> I *really* disagree with this opinion.
>>>> Perhaps you only own one lens? ;-)
>>>
>>> There have always been lenses of different focal lengths (though
>>> not as a wide a range as we've had since the middle of the 20th
>>> century). In what sense does the presumed "compromise" of not
>>> having lenses that go from 13mm to 2000mm have a parallel in sound
>>> recording?
>> >
>> The point is that *every* lens has compromises by design, whether in
>> DOF, color rendition, perspective distortion, resolution, etc., it's
>> an unavoidable aspect of lens design. Two lenses of different design
>> will not render a scene in the same manner, just as two microphones
>> of different design will not respond to an acoustic environment in
>> the same manner. Furthermore, every step in either process after
>> those components also impacts the "fidelity" of the final product,
>> therefore, "fidelity" becomes largely a matter of what is important
>> to the producer, since that is all the consumer has direct access to.
>
>
> I've never heard a lens being described as having a particular
> 'character' in the way almost all mics do ! (focal-length and gross
> technical flaws excepted).
>
Well, they are described that way. Different lenses of the same focal length
from the same manufacturer vary w/r/t such things as sharpness, contrast,
etc., and these variations are pretty wide when compared between
manufacturers. It won't take you long to find such descriptions by reading
some lens reviews.

--
best regards,

Neil

[Neil Gould]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
> "Neil Gould" wrote in message ...
>
>>> If it's a good representation of the subject, then it's "realistic".
>
>> However, a daguerreotype is NOT any more "a good representation
>> of the subject" than a sculptured bronze statue or a monochromatic
>> painting.
>
> The hell it isn't. Do you just argue for the sake of arguing?
>
> I'm not talking about "communication". I'm talking about
> representation.
>
So was I, but that you see such a clear differentiation between the two may
be at the root of our disagreement. In the examples I gave, "a good
representation of the subject" is a matter of which characteristics one
chooses to compare and which to ignore. I really shouldn't have to go into
detail to get that point across.

--
best regards,

Neil

[John Williamson]

On 01/10/2014 14:41, Jeff Henig wrote:
> John Williamson > wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Oh, thank you. I suppose, then, a Kodachrome is not a photograph.
>>>
>> Not in common parlance round here, no. It's a slide. Even when it's not
>> mounted as one. Then again, people still talk about watching a film, even
>> when it's been digitally produced and projected.
>
>
> Yea verily; we still talk about what's on tape, even when recording to hard
> drive.
>
>
Or, in my case, flash memory, which doesn't even use magnetism.


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[William Sommerwerck]

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

> "Neil Gould" wrote in message ...

>>> If it's a good representation of the subject, then it's "realistic".

>> However, a daguerreotype is NOT any more "a good representation
>> of the subject" than a sculptured bronze statue or a monochromatic
>> painting.

> The hell it isn't. Do you just argue for the sake of arguing?
> I'm not talking about "communication". I'm talking about
> representation.

So was I, but that you see such a clear differentiation between the two may
be at the root of our disagreement. In the examples I gave, "a good
representation of the subject" is a matter of which characteristics one
chooses to compare and which to ignore. I really shouldn't have to go into
detail to get that point across.

I get your point exactly. But for the last century, photographs have been
more-accurate representations of their subjects than sound recordings. This
began to change only in the '50s.

[William Sommerwerck]

"John Williamson" wrote in message ...

>>> Or, it was as close as a sketch (The alternative at the time) but more
>>> fashionable and didn't involve finding an artist.

>> Which proves what? A daguerreotype is a far more "accurate"
>> rendition than a sketch.

> In some ways, yes, but you've already noted that it only uses part of
> the available light spectrum and the grey scale is off. However, you
> seem to have already convinced yourself that your theory that
> photographs are always accurate and faithful renditions of reality, so
> there's nothing more I can say on the subject.

I feel like Rumpelstiltskin jumping up and down.

> "you seem to have already convinced yourself that your theory that
> photographs are always accurate and faithful renditions of reality."

Where did I ever say anything like that? Please post it.

[William Sommerwerck]

"Jeff Henig" wrote in message
...

John Williamson > wrote:

>>> Oh, thank you. I suppose, then, a Kodachrome is not a photograph.

>> Not in common parlance round here, no. It's a slide. Even when it's not
>> mounted as one. Then again, people still talk about watching a film, even
>> when it's been digitally produced and projected.

> Yea verily; we still talk about what's on tape, even when recording to hard
> drive.

You left out the second yea: "Yea, verily, yea!"

This proves my point -- most people see things in isolation. In other words,
people care only about isolated facts, rather than principles.

[William Sommerwerck]

"John Williamson" wrote in message ...

> Or, in my case, flash memory, which doesn't even use magnetism.

Why is memory necessarily magnetic? Core memory disappeared decades ago, and
prior to that there was electrostatic memory and acoustic memory.

[William Sommerwerck]

"geoff" wrote in message
...
On 1/10/2014 1:26 p.m., Neil wrote:
> On 9/30/2014 4:52 PM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
>> "Neil Gould" wrote in message ...
>> William Sommerwerck wrote:

>>>>> Photography has always had a higher degree of fidelity than
>>>>> sound recording.

>>>> I *really* disagree with this opinion.
>>>> Perhaps you only own one lens? ;-)

>>> There have always been lenses of different focal lengths (though not as
>>> a wide a range as we've had since the middle of the 20th century). In
>>> what sense does the presumed "compromise" of not having lenses that go
>>> from 13mm to 2000mm have a parallel in sound recording?

>> The point is that *every* lens has compromises by design, whether in
>> DOF, color rendition, perspective distortion, resolution, etc., it's an
>> unavoidable aspect of lens design. Two lenses of different design will
>> not render a scene in the same manner, just as two microphones of
>> different design will not respond to an acoustic environment in the same
>> manner. Furthermore, every step in either process after those components
>> also impacts the "fidelity" of the final product, therefore, "fidelity"
>> becomes largely a matter of what is important to the producer, since
>> that is all the consumer has direct access to.

> I've never heard a lens being described as having a particular 'character'
> in the way almost all mics do ! (focal-length and gross technical flaws
> excepted).

Though I do not at all agree with Neil on the broader issue of overall
fidelity, his point about lens "character" is largely correct. Complex lenses
vary in color rendition; a given manufacturer will try to get all its lenses
to have a similar balance. Digital image processing can remove this variation,
as it can image distortion. (Perspective distortion isn't distortion at all.
It varies with the distance from the object, and the "pitch" of the lens. It
is a normal part of projecting a three-dimensional object on a two-dimensional
surface, while retaining straight lines as straight, and right angles as right
angles.)

However, "Two lenses of different design will not render a scene in the same
manner..." is such a vague statement as to be meaningless. I doubt there would
be much, if any, visible difference between a shot made with an f2.8 Tessar,
and a seven-element f1.4 lens of the same focal length.

As for fidelity, I have a pretty good idea of what live sound "sounds like",
and this unavoidably informs my listening. The //apparent// fidelity of
recordings has noticeably improved since the introduction of SACD, but the
exact reasons for this improvement aren't clear.

About 20 years ago, J Gordon Holt made a recording of one of his articles (I
think it was "Why Experts Differ") using at least a dozen different mics. The
variation in sound was startling. I suspect that had the mics been limited to
the best professional condenser mics, the differences would have been
narrowed, but still plainly audible.

[Neil Gould]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
> "Neil Gould" wrote in message ...
> William Sommerwerck wrote:
>
>> "Neil Gould" wrote in message ...
>
>>>> If it's a good representation of the subject, then it's
>>>> "realistic".
>
>>> However, a daguerreotype is NOT any more "a good representation
>>> of the subject" than a sculptured bronze statue or a monochromatic
>>> painting.
>
>>> The hell it isn't. Do you just argue for the sake of arguing?
>>> I'm not talking about "communication". I'm talking about
>>> representation.
> >
>> So was I, but that you see such a clear differentiation between the
>> two may be at the root of our disagreement. In the examples I gave,
>> "a good representation of the subject" is a matter of which
>> characteristics one chooses to compare and which to ignore. I really
>> shouldn't have to go into detail to get that point across.
>
> I get your point exactly. But for the last century, photographs have
> been more-accurate representations of their subjects than sound
> recordings. This began to change only in the '50s.
>
Although you say you get my point, you persist in the notion that a 2D
representation of 3D space can somehow be accurate, which is not possible
unless one disregards the 3rd dimension, and that is a biggie. With audio,
both capture and playback is working in 3D space. I agree with Scott that
trying to compare photography and audio in this way is not very useful, so
I'll stop here.
--
best regards,

Neil

[John Williamson]

On 01/10/2014 15:18, William Sommerwerck wrote:
> "John Williamson" wrote in message
> ...
>
>> Or, in my case, flash memory, which doesn't even use magnetism.
>
> Why is memory necessarily magnetic? Core memory disappeared decades ago,
> and prior to that there was electrostatic memory and acoustic memory.

Read the post I was replying to. Hard drives use magnetism in a similar
way to tape.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[hank alrich]

John Williamson > wrote:

> On 01/10/2014 14:41, Jeff Henig wrote:
> > John Williamson > wrote:
> >
> >>>
> >>> Oh, thank you. I suppose, then, a Kodachrome is not a photograph.
> >>>
> >> Not in common parlance round here, no. It's a slide. Even when it's not
> >> mounted as one. Then again, people still talk about watching a film, even
> >> when it's been digitally produced and projected.
> >
> >
> > Yea verily; we still talk about what's on tape, even when recording to hard
> > drive.
> >
> >
> Or, in my case, flash memory, which doesn't even use magnetism.


See?? Right there is the whole problem with today's music! No
magentism!! <g>

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

[Gary Eickmeier]

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
>I would just like to say that in the past four decades I have heard a lot
>of
> people make analogies between photography and audio recording and in every
> single instance that I can think of the discussion broke down into a
> senseless
> argument. So I am inclined to avoid this particular analogy at all costs.
> --scott

You folks will not agree with, or maybe even understand this, but I will put
it out there anyway.

The comparison between photography and audio doesn't work because it is the
wrong comparison. Stereo audio recording is not like 2D photography because
the photo has no perspective, or should I say 3 dimensionality to it. Stereo
is not like taking a "picture" of a soundscape as if through a large portal.
It is certainly not recorded that way, nor does it sound like we are
standing on the outside looking in. It is not always recorded naturally, nor
does it need to be.

Nor is it like a 3D photograph. I might be willing to allow a comparison
between a 3D photograph and binaural recording, but only if you view the
picture through a head mounted dual lens system, rather than from a distance
with some 3D glasses. Note the similarity between recording techniques with
binaural and 3D photography - they are both "taken" from a single viewpoint,
with a binaural head or a 3D camera from one point in space. When you look
or listen you get only that one perspective.

No, I am saying that a more valid comparison to stereo would be sculpture,
not photography.

If you could come around to my statement that stereo reproduction should be
seen as a model of the real thing, rather than a huge portal to another
acoustic, you might begin to see my point.

Specific example, Hank's recording. It was made with some close miking on
the singers and the instruments, plus a stereo pair above and fairly
nearby - not back in some audience position, but closer to the performers,
as most audio recordings are. To play it back, we place two or more speakers
in the room in positions that are geometrically similar to those of the
performers, out from the walls and in a left to right perspective. If the
summing localization process works as advertised, we can then hear all
singers and instruments in their proper positions all across, and there will
be depth of imaging because there is physical depth between the speakers and
the walls.

The overall situation on playback is more like sculptures of all performers
within your space than a huge enlargement of the scene of their production
as if from a camera further back in the performance room. You can walk
around in the playback space, and go nearer or farther from them, just like
in real life. Play them in a larger room, it will sound like they are in a
larger room.. Put some speakers on a stage in a real recital hall, it will
sound like they are performing right there in that hall. What's more, there
is nothing wrong with that, and that is not some inaccuracy, it is a natural
byproduct of the process.

So in my view we have

Binaural = 3D photography thru a viewer, head related systems of auditory or
visual perspective from a single point in space, ears or eyes isolated from
their actual physical environment with direct sensory input

Stereo = modeling or reconstructing the original sound fields within your
listening room - a field-related system whose perspective and size are real
and physically exist in the room right there in front of you. The audio
repro is not quite as robust as the sculpture, but to a certain extent you
can walk around and get different perspectives on the work just as with a
model or sculpture.

I could come up with a lot more analogies to illustrate this, but I suppose
your patience is wearing thin about now.

Talk amongst yourselves.

Gary Eickmeier

[Trevor]

On 30/09/2014 10:25 AM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
> "Mike Rivers" wrote in message ...
> On 9/29/2014 6:10 PM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
>
>>> I neglected to lay emphasis on daguerreotypes. These were direct
>>> photographs -- no negative or print was involved. When you see a
>>> daguerreotype, you see the original, without manipulation or processing.
>
>> So maybe we should be recording straight into the horn and direct to
>> disk? That's going to be the original without manipulation or processing.
>
> My point was that you get an image of much greater fidelity than the
> sound of an acoustic recording -- or electrical recordings, for that
> matter.

And how do you measure that claim? Obviously it is nothing more than
your unsubstantiated opinion, one which you get to have of course, but
totally pointless and irrelevant IMO.

In fact the only actual data comparison would be that the current state
of the art for digital photography is ~14-15 true bits of data, whilst
for audio it is ~20bits. Personally I would dearly love photography to
reach 16+ real bits and pretty much do away with the need for
multi-image HDR. But unfortunately the best prints still lag FAR behind
real life, and are a far inferior reproduction of the original than what
you can obtain in audio with even a cheap HiFi system these days AFAIC :-(

Trevor.

[Trevor]

On 1/10/2014 7:09 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> I would just like to say that in the past four decades I have heard a lot of
> people make analogies between photography and audio recording and in every
> single instance that I can think of the discussion broke down into a senseless
> argument.

Well the whole argument is senseless to begin with, and goes downhill
from there!
Has anyone ever made a valid comparison between apples and oranges that
didn't simply rely on personal opinion?

Trevor.

[William Sommerwerck]

"Trevor" wrote in message ...
On 30/09/2014 10:25 AM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
> "Mike Rivers" wrote in message ...
> On 9/29/2014 6:10 PM, William Sommerwerck wrote:

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

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

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

> And how do you measure that claim? Obviously it is nothing more than your
> unsubstantiated opinion, one which you get to have of course, but totally
> pointless and irrelevant IMO.

If you think that what comes out of an acoustic horn is remotely faithful to
what went in -- what can I say?

[Luxey]

четвртак, 02. октобар 2014. 05.33.13 UTC+2, Gary Eickmeier је напи�ао/ла:

> No, I am saying that a more valid comparison to stereo would be sculpture,
>
> not photography.
>
> Gary Eickmeier

Should have you thought some more, you'd come to relief.
Also, you may feel one, should you think less.

[Trevor]

On 2/10/2014 11:06 PM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
> "Trevor" wrote in message ...
> On 30/09/2014 10:25 AM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
>> "Mike Rivers" wrote in message ...
>> On 9/29/2014 6:10 PM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
>
>>>>> I neglected to lay emphasis on daguerreotypes. These were direct
>>>>> photographs -- no negative or print was involved. When you see a
>>>>> daguerreotype, you see the original, without manipulation or
>>>>> processing.
>
>>>> So maybe we should be recording straight into the horn and direct to
>>>> disk? That's going to be the original without manipulation or
>>>> processing.
>
>>> My point was that you get an image of much greater fidelity than the
>>> sound of an acoustic recording -- or electrical recordings, for that
>>> matter.
>
>> And how do you measure that claim? Obviously it is nothing more than
>> your unsubstantiated opinion, one which you get to have of course, but
>> totally pointless and irrelevant IMO.
>
> If you think that what comes out of an acoustic horn is remotely
> faithful to what went in -- what can I say?

If you think I said that, there is nothing at all to say! It's a wonder
you are still breathing when you can't even read what *you* wrote
"or electrical recordings, for that matter."
And you had to snip my bit comparison because that would be too obvious
I wasn't referring to acoustical digital recording right :-)
And of course your original (stupid) comparison made no mention of
acoustical or electrical recording anyway!

Trevor.

[None]

"Trevor" > wrote in message
...
> On 2/10/2014 11:06 PM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
>> If you think that what comes out of an acoustic horn is remotely
>> faithful to what went in -- what can I say?
>
> If you think I said that, there is nothing at all to say! It's a
> wonder you are still breathing when you can't even read what *you*
> wrote

Li'l Willy can't read what he wrote. Hehe.

[William Sommerwerck]

"Trevor" wrote in message ...

> And of course your original (stupid) comparison made no mention
> of acoustical or electrical recording anyway!

Both sound recording and photography are forms of recording. It's not "stupid"
to consider which (if either) is more accurate.

I'm not surprised you simply rejected the entire comparison without a moment's
consideration. Typical human response. Thank you, God, for making me inhuman.

[John Williamson]

On 03/10/2014 14:35, William Sommerwerck wrote:
> "Trevor" wrote in message ...
>
>> And of course your original (stupid) comparison made no mention
>> of acoustical or electrical recording anyway!
>
> Both sound recording and photography are forms of recording. It's not
> "stupid" to consider which (if either) is more accurate.
>
> I'm not surprised you simply rejected the entire comparison without a
> moment's consideration. Typical human response. Thank you, God, for
> making me inhuman.

From one of your early posts in this thread :-

"Sound recording (unlike photography) has always required compromises."

What has been pointed out in this thread is that sound recording and
photography *both* require compromises by both the artist and the
technicians involved, always have, and probably always will. There is
also no meaningful way of comparing the quality of a sound recording and
a photograph.

All that can be said of either item is that the recording of a musical
or vocal performance is that to whatever degree it is true, a satisfying
sound to the originator and the listener, and a photograph (Whether it
be on paper, projected from a slide or viewed on a computer screen) is a
pleasant rendition of the scene which satisfies the photographer and the
viewer. The absolute accuracy of each rendition isn't comparable.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Gary Eickmeier]

William Sommerwerck wrote:

> Photography has always had a higher degree of fidelity than sound
> recording.

So how do you gauge that William?

We could break down photography and audio into the perceivable aspects and
compare each aspect to the original. In the visual we have

1. Physical size
2. Brightness range
3. Color
4. Sharpness
5. Distortion
6. Perspective
7. Three dimensionality

In photography the comparison is:

1. Photo not as big as the original
2. Not as bright by a long shot
3. Color fidelity can be very good, but the gamut is not as large
4. Sharpness is fine, but not all over - depth of focus issues
5. Distortion not a problem. Today's lenses are very good.
6. Even with a normal lens, perspective usually off due to:
7. Photo is not 3D and has some boundary limits, usually rectangular.

In the audio realm, in real life we have:

1. Physical size
2. Power
3. Distortion - none in real life
4. Auditory perspective, spatial realism

How audio recording and reproduction compare:

1. Usually not as big as real life but can be
2. Not quite as powerful but can be
3. Distortions such as frequency response and noise and others - largely
solved now
4. Imaging and spatial realism not perfect in two channel but can be with
more channels and good rooms.

The score? Looks like audio repro can be more successful, easier to achieve
than photographic reproduction. I scored 3 out of 7 for photography and 2
1/2 out of 4 for audio.

Gary Eickmeier

[Ralph Barone[_2_]]

John Williamson > wrote:
> On 03/10/2014 14:35, William Sommerwerck wrote:
>> "Trevor" wrote in message ...
>>
>>> And of course your original (stupid) comparison made no mention
>>> of acoustical or electrical recording anyway!
>>
>> Both sound recording and photography are forms of recording. It's not
>> "stupid" to consider which (if either) is more accurate.
>>
>> I'm not surprised you simply rejected the entire comparison without a
>> moment's consideration. Typical human response. Thank you, God, for
>> making me inhuman.
>
> From one of your early posts in this thread :-
>
> "Sound recording (unlike photography) has always required compromises."
>
> What has been pointed out in this thread is that sound recording and
> photography *both* require compromises by both the artist and the
> technicians involved, always have, and probably always will. There is
> also no meaningful way of comparing the quality of a sound recording and a photograph.
>
> All that can be said of either item is that the recording of a musical or
> vocal performance is that to whatever degree it is true, a satisfying
> sound to the originator and the listener, and a photograph (Whether it be
> on paper, projected from a slide or viewed on a computer screen) is a
> pleasant rendition of the scene which satisfies the photographer and the
> viewer. The absolute accuracy of each rendition isn't comparable.


If I had a dollar for every time I've looked at a scene and thought to
myself "Nope... Can't capture that on film", I would be substantially
richer.

[[email protected]]

This discussion is ridiculous but i can't resist
Compare these two imaginary situations
You are led into a theatre
Case one you are blindfolded and can only hear the music
Can you tell if it is live or memorex
Case two, your eyes are open but your ears are plugged and you can see the stage
Can you tell if it is live or a projection

Silly

Mark

[Gary Eickmeier]

> wrote in message
...
> This discussion is ridiculous but i can't resist
> Compare these two imaginary situations
> You are led into a theatre
> Case one you are blindfolded and can only hear the music
> Can you tell if it is live or memorex
> Case two, your eyes are open but your ears are plugged and you can see the
> stage
> Can you tell if it is live or a projection
>
> Silly

Not silly. I would say that you could easily be fooled sonically, but
visually you could tell immdiately that it was a projection or the real
thing. That kind of supports the idea that sound can be more easily
replicated than photography.

Was that your point? Why did you call the question silly?

Gary Eickmeier

[William Sommerwerck]

wrote in message ...

This discussion is ridiculous but i can't resist
Compare these two imaginary situations
You are led into a theatre
Case one you are blindfolded and can only hear the music
Can you tell if it is live or memorex
Case two, your eyes are open but your ears are plugged and you can see the
stage
Can you tell if it is live or a projection


This isn't a silly situation. But it's invalid.

The live-versus-recorded experiment has been done at least three times. The
first was the Edison Tone Tests, in which people were easily fooled into
confusing acoustic recordings with a live performer. The third was the AR/Dyna
of the late 60s, in which people will similarly fooled. (Both tests should be
repeated, but nobody wants to.)

The explanation, obviously, is that the hall acoustics mask the errors of
recording and playback. If this were not true -- if the reproduction were
"perfect" (or nearly so) -- then we would all be listening with AR-3a
speakers.

[[email protected]]

Yes that was my point exactly, and the answer you gave is correct and so obvious that is why the discussion is silly.

Mark

[Trevor]

On 3/10/2014 11:35 PM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
> "Trevor" wrote in message ...
>
>> And of course your original (stupid) comparison made no mention
>> of acoustical or electrical recording anyway!
>
> Both sound recording and photography are forms of recording. It's not
> "stupid" to consider which (if either) is more accurate.

Of course it is, that you can't see it says it all. But as I said, on
the only *objective* measure that I can see, audio reproduction is
actually superior, and I note you have not bothered to dispute that.


> I'm not surprised you simply rejected the entire comparison without a
> moment's consideration. Typical human response. Thank you, God, for
> making me inhuman.


Well I'm glad I'm not as stupidly inhuman as you then.

Trevor.

[Scott Dorsey]

William Sommerwerck > wrote:
>
>The live-versus-recorded experiment has been done at least three times. The
>first was the Edison Tone Tests, in which people were easily fooled into
>confusing acoustic recordings with a live performer. The third was the AR/Dyna
>of the late 60s, in which people will similarly fooled. (Both tests should be
>repeated, but nobody wants to.)

They get repeated all the time.

And yes, having done a more or less replica of the AR/Dyna test, I was
readily able to fool undergraduate students more than 3/4 of time, in spite
of the playback really not sounding very much at all like the live
performance. (We used the AR-4X which is somewhat bass-restricted.)

The absolute worst one I ever heard was from Real Sound Lab which conducted
a demo at the 1997 AES show. The difference between the live sound and
playback was totally different.... there was a dramatic tonal change when
going from live to playback. But people, who presumably were professional
audio people, were leaving the demo talking about how great it was. Go figure.

>The explanation, obviously, is that the hall acoustics mask the errors of
>recording and playback. If this were not true -- if the reproduction were
>"perfect" (or nearly so) -- then we would all be listening with AR-3a
>speakers.

I think the explanation is that listeners don't know what to listen for,
especially in a short demo. It's the same reason the Pepsi Challenge works
consistently every time.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Gary Eickmeier]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
> William Sommerwerck > wrote:
>>
>> The live-versus-recorded experiment has been done at least three
>> times. The first was the Edison Tone Tests, in which people were
>> easily fooled into confusing acoustic recordings with a live
>> performer. The third was the AR/Dyna of the late 60s, in which
>> people will similarly fooled. (Both tests should be repeated, but
>> nobody wants to.)
>
> They get repeated all the time.
>
> And yes, having done a more or less replica of the AR/Dyna test, I was
> readily able to fool undergraduate students more than 3/4 of time, in
> spite
> of the playback really not sounding very much at all like the live
> performance. (We used the AR-4X which is somewhat bass-restricted.)
>
> The absolute worst one I ever heard was from Real Sound Lab which
> conducted
> a demo at the 1997 AES show. The difference between the live sound
> and playback was totally different.... there was a dramatic tonal
> change when going from live to playback. But people, who presumably
> were professional audio people, were leaving the demo talking about
> how great it was. Go figure.
>
>> The explanation, obviously, is that the hall acoustics mask the
>> errors of recording and playback. If this were not true -- if the
>> reproduction were "perfect" (or nearly so) -- then we would all be
>> listening with AR-3a speakers.
>
> I think the explanation is that listeners don't know what to listen
> for, especially in a short demo. It's the same reason the Pepsi
> Challenge works consistently every time.
> --scott

William's suggestion is correct as well, meaning that it is quite easy to
reproduce a "they are here" impression of the performers being within your
acoustic space when that space overwhelms whatever is contained in the
recording. That is why the experiments are usually done with anechoic
recordings.

I think William's opening statement about sound vs photographic reproduction
was in reference more to the "we are there" type of recording, which is more
difficult because you just can't shoehorn the Philidelphia Orchestra into
your listening room.

But neither can you shoehorn a scenic of the Appalachians into an 8x10
print. Very accurate colors, sharpness, etc, but sorry Charlie, no cigar in
fooling anyone into perceiving realism there. It is a new form of art, not
an attempt to make us think we are there.

A recording is also a new form of art, sometimes crafted to take us to the
symphony, sometimes a whole new work made from whole cloth in the studio.
The latter is usually easier to reproduce because you can place the sounds
as desired and make it "say" what you want, including a few museum and art
pieces using sound as a medium. Or a movie.

Conclusion, it is a lot easier to reconstruct a sound scene in three
dimensions within your room by physically placing the sounds and using
radiation pattern and acoustics to make it REAL and not a trick, than to
project even the finest 3D movie and fool anyone into thinking we are there.

Gary Eickmeier

[Gray_Wolf]

On Wed, 1 Oct 2014 10:26:27 -0500, "Neil Gould"
> wrote:

>William Sommerwerck wrote:
>> "Neil Gould" wrote in message ...
>> William Sommerwerck wrote:
>>
>>> "Neil Gould" wrote in message ...
>>
>>>>> If it's a good representation of the subject, then it's
>>>>> "realistic".
>>
>>>> However, a daguerreotype is NOT any more "a good representation
>>>> of the subject" than a sculptured bronze statue or a monochromatic
>>>> painting.
>>
>>>> The hell it isn't. Do you just argue for the sake of arguing?
>>>> I'm not talking about "communication". I'm talking about
>>>> representation.
>> >
>>> So was I, but that you see such a clear differentiation between the
>>> two may be at the root of our disagreement. In the examples I gave,
>>> "a good representation of the subject" is a matter of which
>>> characteristics one chooses to compare and which to ignore. I really
>>> shouldn't have to go into detail to get that point across.
>>
>> I get your point exactly. But for the last century, photographs have
>> been more-accurate representations of their subjects than sound
>> recordings. This began to change only in the '50s.
>>
>Although you say you get my point, you persist in the notion that a 2D
>representation of 3D space can somehow be accurate, which is not possible
>unless one disregards the 3rd dimension, and that is a biggie. With audio,
>both capture and playback is working in 3D space. I agree with Scott that
>trying to compare photography and audio in this way is not very useful, so
>I'll stop here.


Research photogrammetry

[Neil[_9_]]

On 10/6/2014 12:06 PM, Gray_Wolf wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Oct 2014 10:26:27 -0500, "Neil Gould"
> > wrote:
>
>> William Sommerwerck wrote:
>>> "Neil Gould" wrote in message ...
>>> William Sommerwerck wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Neil Gould" wrote in message ...
>>>
>>>>>> If it's a good representation of the subject, then it's
>>>>>> "realistic".
>>>
>>>>> However, a daguerreotype is NOT any more "a good representation
>>>>> of the subject" than a sculptured bronze statue or a monochromatic
>>>>> painting.
>>>
>>>>> The hell it isn't. Do you just argue for the sake of arguing?
>>>>> I'm not talking about "communication". I'm talking about
>>>>> representation.
>>>>
>>>> So was I, but that you see such a clear differentiation between the
>>>> two may be at the root of our disagreement. In the examples I gave,
>>>> "a good representation of the subject" is a matter of which
>>>> characteristics one chooses to compare and which to ignore. I really
>>>> shouldn't have to go into detail to get that point across.
>>>
>>> I get your point exactly. But for the last century, photographs have
>>> been more-accurate representations of their subjects than sound
>>> recordings. This began to change only in the '50s.
>>>
>> Although you say you get my point, you persist in the notion that a 2D
>> representation of 3D space can somehow be accurate, which is not possible
>> unless one disregards the 3rd dimension, and that is a biggie. With audio,
>> both capture and playback is working in 3D space. I agree with Scott that
>> trying to compare photography and audio in this way is not very useful, so
>> I'll stop here.
>
>
> Research photogrammetry
>
Why? That is not the missing link that can solve the fundamental problem
at hand.

--
best regards,

Neil

[William Sommerwerck]

I had intended not to say any more on this, but...

I have a 60" plasma display. Given live (or taped) HD programming, one often
gets the feeling one is looking through a window at the actual objects --
albeit in 2D.

One can approach this with sound recording, but it's not as simple as
positioning the camera in front of the subject and providing "reasonable"
illumination.

QED. Again.

[William Sommerwerck]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ...
William Sommerwerck > wrote:

>> The live-versus-recorded experiment has been done at least three times.
>> The first was the Edison Tone Tests, in which people were easily fooled
>> into confusing acoustic recordings with a live performer. The third was
>> the AR/Dyna of the late 60s, in which people will similarly fooled. (Both
>> tests should be repeated, but nobody wants to.)

> They get repeated all the time.

> And yes, having done a more or less replica of the AR/Dyna test, I was
> readily able to fool undergraduate students more than 3/4 of time, in
> spite of the playback really not sounding very much at all like the live
> performance. (We used the AR-4X which is somewhat bass-restricted.)

> The absolute worst one I ever heard was from Real Sound Lab which conducted
> a demo at the 1997 AES show. The difference between the live sound and
> playback was totally different... there was a dramatic tonal change when
> going from live to playback. But people, who presumably were professional
> audio people, were leaving the demo talking about how great it was. Go
> figure.

I would guess that most of the listeners have no comprehension of the idea
that a recording ought to sound like the original. They probably thought they
were judging the playback on whether they /liked/ it.

There was an article in a 1958 "Tape Recording" in which the writer revealed
that most recording engineers preferred the "sound" of whatever medium they
commonly used (including acetate and wax disks). A significant percentage
could not hear the superiority of tape.


>> The explanation, obviously, is that the hall acoustics mask the errors of
>> recording and playback. If this were not true -- if the reproduction were
>> "perfect" (or nearly so) -- then we would all be listening with AR-3a
>> speakers.

> I think the explanation is that listeners don't know what to listen for,
> especially in a short demo. It's the same reason the Pepsi Challenge
> works consistently every time.

I had never tasted Pepsi until about 1975, when I had it in Ecuador. That was
the end of any "preference" I might have had for Coke. And no, it was not
because Pepsi was sweeter (the traditional "explanation" of why Pepsi often
wins in blind taste tests).

Get bottles of sucrose-sweetened Coke and Pepsi. * Pour them into scrupulously
clean classes. Hold either under the nose of anyone in this group, and have
them sniff, without even tasting. ** EVERYONE will be able to immediately tell
which is Coke, and which is Pepsi, without having to sniff the other glass!
This is because Pepsi has a piney/aromatic aroma that is instantly
recognizable.

* I suspect HFCS changes not only mouthfeel, but the overall "taste" of sodas.
Pepsi occasionally sells sucrose-sweetened products, and the difference is
big.
** Technically, smell is the principal component of "taste".

[Gary Eickmeier]

"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
...
>I had intended not to say any more on this, but...
>
> I have a 60" plasma display. Given live (or taped) HD programming, one
> often gets the feeling one is looking through a window at the actual
> objects -- albeit in 2D.
>
> One can approach this with sound recording, but it's not as simple as
> positioning the camera in front of the subject and providing "reasonable"
> illumination.
>
> QED. Again.

Let's make a 3D, 4K video of an orchestra playing in a great auditorium. How
should we reproduce it?

No preconceived notion, just asking.

Gary Eickmeier

[William Sommerwerck]

"Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message ...
"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
...

>> I have a 60" plasma display. Given live (or taped) HD programming, one
>> often gets the feeling one is looking through a window at the actual
>> objects -- albeit in 2D.

>> One can approach this with sound recording, but it's not as simple as
>> positioning the camera in front of the subject and providing "reasonable"
>> illumination.

>> QED. Again.

> Let's make a 3D, 4K video of an orchestra playing in a great auditorium. How
> should we reproduce it?
> No preconceived notion, just asking.

You mean the image? It should be at a distance from the viewer where the image
size matches that of the orchestra. You also need to match perspective. (I'm
not going to explain the latter in detail. If you understand photographic
principles, you know what I'm talking about.)

This would be an interesting experiment.

[Gary Eickmeier]

"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
...
> "Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message ...

>> Let's make a 3D, 4K video of an orchestra playing in a great auditorium.
>> How should we reproduce it?
>> No preconceived notion, just asking.
>
> You mean the image? It should be at a distance from the viewer where the
> image size matches that of the orchestra. You also need to match
> perspective. (I'm not going to explain the latter in detail. If you
> understand photographic principles, you know what I'm talking about.)
>
> This would be an interesting experiment.
Well no, I mean both the picture and the sound.

I agree so far. If you could find a room with a screen that big, project
life size, the depth requirement wouldn't be all that great. So they would
look real. Now are we in they are here or we are there territory? How about
the audio?

Gary

[John Williamson]

On 07/10/2014 06:20, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
>
> "William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message ...
>
>>> Let's make a 3D, 4K video of an orchestra playing in a great auditorium.
>>> How should we reproduce it?
>>> No preconceived notion, just asking.
>>
>> You mean the image? It should be at a distance from the viewer where the
>> image size matches that of the orchestra. You also need to match
>> perspective. (I'm not going to explain the latter in detail. If you
>> understand photographic principles, you know what I'm talking about.)
>>
>> This would be an interesting experiment.
> Well no, I mean both the picture and the sound.
>
> I agree so far. If you could find a room with a screen that big, project
> life size, the depth requirement wouldn't be all that great. So they would
> look real. Now are we in they are here or we are there territory? How about
> the audio?
>
At the very best, it would look as if the performers were behind a window.

Similar experiments with sound only have given an impression that the
performers are in the room, as long as the listeners eyes are closed.


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Scott Dorsey]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=eZGsEu0VDiE
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[William Sommerwerck]

"Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message ...

> I agree so far. If you could find a room with a screen that big, project
> life size, the depth requirement wouldn't be all that great. So they would
> look real. Now are we in they are here or we are there territory?

We are there. Obviously.

> How about the audio?

The only correct way to do the audio is Ambisonics. However, Ambisonics is a
much-less-compromised recording system than plain stereo, or even multi-ch
recording.

[William Sommerwerck]

"John Williamson" wrote in message ...

> At the very best, it would look as if the performers were behind a window.

Even in 3D?

[William Sommerwerck]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=eZGsEu0VDiE

I have no argument with his perspective -- but that isn't the way these
demonstrations were billed.

It is true that AR, KLH, and other New England companies emphasized the fact
that sound reproduction should be accurate, not "pleasant", and this
undoubtedly had an effect on the development of American audio equipment.

[Gary Eickmeier]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
> "Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message
> ...
>> I agree so far. If you could find a room with a screen that big,
>> project life size, the depth requirement wouldn't be all that great.
>> So they would look real. Now are we in they are here or we are there
>> territory?
>
> We are there. Obviously.

So then they are here as well.
>
>> How about the audio?
>
> The only correct way to do the audio is Ambisonics. However,
> Ambisonics is a much-less-compromised recording system than plain
> stereo, or even multi-ch recording.

Problem: Ambisonics would be good for one or two people only. Or can it be
done for larger audiences as well? I'm leaning toward just good old surround
sound, to the extent that we would need it. I mean, we would already be
generating live sound fields from the front speakers that would have their
own reverberant field in our room. If "our" room needs some support, then
fine, surround sound would help. Three or five speakers up front.

Gary Eickmeier

[William Sommerwerck]

"Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message ...

> Problem: Ambisonics would be good for one or two people only.
> Or can it be done for larger audiences as well?

It works better than anything else for large audiences.

Of course, I was originally making a point about fidelity -- not how many
people could view a photo or listen to recorded music. You're introducing
issues that have little to do with the point I was making.

[John Williamson]

On 07/10/2014 15:57, William Sommerwerck wrote:
> "John Williamson" wrote in message
> ...
>> At the very best, it would look as if the performers were behind a
>> window.
>
> Even in 3D?

Until they find a way to project a 3D image onto thin air, yes.

The closest I've heard about is a decent headmounted VR set. The new
Rizzo? is reckoned to be close enough for training emergency service
operatives, but that gets its input from a CGI generator, not cameras.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Luxey]

On Tuesday, 7 October 2014 19:34:33 UTC+2, John Williamson wrote:
> On 07/10/2014 15:57, William Sommerwerck wrote:
>
> > "John Williamson" wrote in message
>
> > ...
>
> >> At the very best, it would look as if the performers were behind a
>
> >> window.
>
> >
>
> > Even in 3D?
>
>
>
> Until they find a way to project a 3D image onto thin air, yes.
>
>
>
> The closest I've heard about is a decent headmounted VR set. The new
>
> Rizzo? is reckoned to be close enough for training emergency service
>
> operatives, but that gets its input from a CGI generator, not cameras.
>
>
>
> --
>
> Tciao for Now!
>
>
>
> John.

I think it was 1990, at the 1st, or 2nd floor of Eifel Tower, I saw a 3D
holograph projection in the air.
It was all "green and air transparent", though.

[Gary Eickmeier]

"John Williamson" > wrote in message
...
> On 07/10/2014 15:57, William Sommerwerck wrote:
>> "John Williamson" wrote in message
>> ...
>>> At the very best, it would look as if the performers were behind a
>>> window.
>>
>> Even in 3D?
>
> Until they find a way to project a 3D image onto thin air, yes.
>
> The closest I've heard about is a decent headmounted VR set. The new
> Rizzo? is reckoned to be close enough for training emergency service
> operatives, but that gets its input from a CGI generator, not cameras.

No, definitely not head mounted. Can you see how UNreal a head mounted set
would be, as compared to a 3D life-sized image in front of you that stays in
one place?

Gary

[John Williamson]

On 08/10/2014 13:25, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
>
> "John Williamson" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 07/10/2014 15:57, William Sommerwerck wrote:
>>> "John Williamson" wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> At the very best, it would look as if the performers were behind a
>>>> window.
>>>
>>> Even in 3D?
>>
>> Until they find a way to project a 3D image onto thin air, yes.
>>
>> The closest I've heard about is a decent headmounted VR set. The new
>> Rizzo? is reckoned to be close enough for training emergency service
>> operatives, but that gets its input from a CGI generator, not cameras.
>
> No, definitely not head mounted. Can you see how UNreal a head mounted set
> would be, as compared to a 3D life-sized image in front of you that stays in
> one place?
>
The trick with the Rizzo is that it compensates for your head movements,
so you can look round the room as if you were there.

Sorry, it's actually called the Oculus Rift.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/virtual-reality-headset-is-reinventing-exposure-therapy/


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Scott Dorsey]

William Sommerwerck > wrote:
>"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ...
>
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=eZGsEu0VDiE
>
>I have no argument with his perspective -- but that isn't the way these
>demonstrations were billed.

Well, of course not. That's how engineering and marketing differ.

>It is true that AR, KLH, and other New England companies emphasized the fact
>that sound reproduction should be accurate, not "pleasant", and this
>undoubtedly had an effect on the development of American audio equipment.

Although in the end, American speakers have a reputation around the world
for having bloated and exaggerated bass....
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[William Sommerwerck]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ...
William Sommerwerck > wrote:
>"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ...
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=eZGsEu0VDiE

>> It is true that AR, KLH, and other New England companies emphasized the
>> fact that sound reproduction should be accurate, not "pleasant", and this
>> undoubtedly had an effect on the development of American audio equipment.

> Although in the end, American speakers have a reputation around the world
> for having bloated and exaggerated bass...

And German speakers have (or used to have) a bright top end.

The designer at KLH Audio (sadly, out of business) told me that, although his
designs were intentionally flat (they were), the woofer had a higher Q than it
"should", to please rock listeners.

[hank alrich]

This is a "no points" post to attach the correct title of the recording
to the thread, in case a searcher could be curious.

I am trusting that William hears better than he reads. ;-)

William Sommerwerck > wrote:

> "hank alrich" wrote in message
> ...
>
> William Sommerwerck > wrote:
>
> >> Mr Alrich and I do not see eye-to-eye on what "natural acoustics" are.
>
> > Mr. Alrich has the supreme advantage in that he was in the room in
> > question. This is a simple thing: you want a bigger room. No big deal,
> > but that's the essence of your complaint, whether or not you realize
> > that. I have no problem with your preference.

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

[JackA]

On Monday, September 22, 2014 at 11:31:59 AM UTC-4, Paul Babiak wrote:
> On 09/22/2014 11:11 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> > Jeff Henig > wrote:
> >> PStamler > wrote:
> >>>
> >>> If I want to go "wow" about the engineering, I'll dig up my copy of
> >>> "Persuasive Percussion" (thanks, Scott!).
>
>
> Is this the one?
>
> http://tinyurl.com/persuasivepercussion

I think I'm getting that one on CD, 3&4. Very impressive for its time. Maybe some was recorded via 35mm film tape audio. Enoch Light.

Jack

[Scott Dorsey]

In article >,
JackA > wrote:
>On Monday, September 22, 2014 at 11:31:59 AM UTC-4, Paul Babiak wrote:
>> On 09/22/2014 11:11 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>> > Jeff Henig > wrote:
>> >> PStamler > wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> If I want to go "wow" about the engineering, I'll dig up my copy of
>> >>> "Persuasive Percussion" (thanks, Scott!).
>>
>>
>> Is this the one?
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/persuasivepercussion
>
>I think I'm getting that one on CD, 3&4. Very impressive for its time. Maybe some was recorded via 35mm film tape audio. Enoch Light.

Persuasive Percussion was done back in 1959 before Light got into the 35mm
magfilm thing, but it still has plenty of dynamics. I believe but am not sure
that their first 35mm album was in fact the "Stereo 35/MM" disc of 1962.

It was impressive indeed, but it paved the way for great pseudostereo evils...
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."