Without ever having seen color, the color blind man does not know how red is supposed to look like. That is a fact.
But most of us have seen color. Most of us do know how red is supposed to look like. With our audio systems and our speakers, we can get a great illusion of the sounds we know. Enough so to fool us, sometimes.
Still, most people don't want the real thing, they want an enhanced version of it.
I could name a couple of dozen, but you will just turn your head to avoid the truth, and the answer to your question. The budgets for recordings today don't allow for any post time in the studio to fix it in the mix.
Since pop and rock is created in the studio, fixing it in the studio is pretty logical.
Absolutely, and thank you for making my point.
How do you know the red you are seeing is a true representation of red? There are 256 shades of red that folks think is "true" red.
I don't think this happens as frequently as one would think.
Still, most people don't want the real thing, they want an enhanced version of it.[/QUOTE]
Measurement for this system would ideally have to be done on a quiet day after a thorough ear cleaning by the Dr. But how would this system cope if your ears were in any different condition from the day you measured them?
If your hearing acuity changes with volume and day to day life presents very loud and very quiet environments sometimes in random order, do you measure when you get home and then play music? Again how will it cope as your hearing normalises? How will the system know what frequency extremes you have been subject too and how fast/what order your brain normalises each one of them?
Couldn't this system also potentially ruin actual live performances for the listener? Say it decided a tweak was needed in the freq. range of a violin and a notch was added to the response, then you go to listen to your favourite string piece at a recital. You have effectively trained your brain violins sound one way only to screw up REALITY. Now I know that my brain would figure out it was a violin being played (eventually), but wouldn't that then put you in the position of wanting to correct your home system to sound like reality, thus negating the whole proposition anyway?
I may have confused myself again
Well, first we have to accept that sound re-production is an illusion. I think most everyone agrees with this. Perhaps comparing precise and accurate sound re-production with a "live performance" is not a fair analogy. The recording and the live performance serve different purposes and also trigger different sensory responses. I can't speak for others but the last live performance I attended is a Lang Lang concert (About a week ago). To be honest, I did not have very good tickets ($200 range) and when he spoke, I can barely hear him. Certain passages in the piano are also muffled due to the acoustics of the hall (Kimmel Center in Philadelphia). If I were blind folded and asked if that is a recording or live, I honestly can't tell you.
When I went home and listened to my Lang Lang record, the sound is much more detailed and soothing. From a musical perspective, I enjoyed the recording more. However, the live performance engaged me in other senses as well as the environment and the amazing 4 encores he played certainly didn't detract. Honestly speaking though, the live performance did not move me emotionally.
A good analogy is perhaps our voice. If you recall the first time hearing your distorted voice in a poor recording/playback. It sounds nothing like you! Perhaps if you hear a better recording, then it sounds "more" like you but not really. One of the reason is because when we hear our own voice, the body also resonates the sound and is quite different then the sound others hear. So which one is more "accurate"? I believe from a re-production point of view, the recording is because it is a sound that is heard from the location it is recorded. Take that analogy into audio/music and yes although the sound you hear from an accurate sound re-production is not like the "live" or "real", it is in fact more accurate.
Why is this even significant? Well I for one am a believer is created to express a feeling and it is the correlation and interplay between the frequencies that trigger these emotional response. When I want to appreciate the music for the music, I want to feel the emotional triggers the musician intends and puts his efforts towards. Is this to say that other forms of musical appreciation is wrong? No.
Last edited:
Well I think from the ARTIST/ART side, accuracy is not the goal to begin with!!! I will not say the same for "recordings of LIVE events meant for accurate portray of said LIVE event." The thing is: the artist created an art piece. The engineers help the artists create that art (preferably without adding your own input
) and we at home attempt to re-produce it without adding our own input. This is the goal of accurate reproduction. Now for precise reproduction, that means producing the same sound (accurate or not) over and over again in different systems.Thanks for the reply! And: yes! However, intra-day hearing is not in the same scope as long-term hearing loss. One small step at a time.
Thanks for sharing and your honesty. Sorry to read about the bad acoustics of the Lang Lang concert.
It seems from your comments your original target may have shifted a bit; a move I think will increase your chances for success in the end.
Binaural is the most "real" I've heard as well! If only it weren't for lack of recording. The cross talk cancellation and head transfer for the reproduction aspect is also extremely tricky. Mr. Linkwitz presents some of the challenges in this video towards the middle: SIEGFRIED LINKWITZ at BURNING AMP FESTIVAL 2010 - YouTube
If you re-read all MY posts, and phase out the other people's replies, you will see it has not shifted at all. If you add in the other people's replies, then you will see that this post SHIFTED from your belief of what MY posts state. This is a perfect example of the issue I address in this thread. Accuracy vs perceived accuracy/precision.
Here's another analogy on accuracy to ponder on:
A blind person experiences an acrylic painting. He touches it and feels the bumps and remembers the painting.
He then experiences a reproduction of the painting. He touches it and feels the bums and it resembles closely to the original painting. He states confidently: this is accurate! To him this is accurate.
A spectator looks at this scene. The first painting has vivid colors and the reproduction is done in black paint only.
Yes, it may sound like live to you. Doesn't mean it is accurate.
A blind person experiences an acrylic painting. He touches it and feels the bumps and remembers the painting.
He then experiences a reproduction of the painting. He touches it and feels the bums and it resembles closely to the original painting. He states confidently: this is accurate! To him this is accurate.
A spectator looks at this scene. The first painting has vivid colors and the reproduction is done in black paint only.
Yes, it may sound like live to you. Doesn't mean it is accurate.
Really?
Not my misfortune at all, you miss the point you made earlier. This isn't a longest shotgun contest.
Anechoic chambers then? In the real world classical music was written with specific venues in mind. They form an organic whole. If the venue sucks, to be obvious, the recording must be a compromise. An accurate recording couldn't be monetized in that case. This is marketing and has nothing to do with ability to achieve convincing accuracy in principle.
Wrong again. Many specialty labels do, those that cater to audiences valuing accuracy in representation. One example at random: MA Recordings Of course, the early RCA and Mercury releases were minimally mic'd.
That doesn't make any sense. It's marketing speak which has nothing to do with accuracy in principle. The implication is correct thought that multi mic techniques are used as crutches for upstream flaws. Classic recordings a niche products under a lot of pressure from the cost of adequate recording spaces, union pay scales and work rules, and a host of entirely non-technical industry limitations, none of which have anything to do with the possibility of achieving an accurate representation of performers in a real space. There's an argument to be made that experimentation with mic techniques took a distant back seat when multiple mics become the norm.
It's a mystery how for hundreds of years audiences tolerated the reality of 'diminished definition' in person. You keep making the irrelevant argument that today's standard industry recording practices sets an authoritative limit on the possible instead of expressing preference, convenience and economic realities.
Within the limits of the subject's sensory abilities, it is accurate. It's the only accuracy that counts from reproductions. Picking a subject with abnormally limited senses doesn't change that, everyone has limits.
Hi Art, Markus
Actually Don’s ITE (in the ear) recordings were much more “organic” than a dummy head haha.
They used small condenser microphones and tiny little tubes that were inserted down into the volunteer’s ear canals and literally sampled / captured the sound in front of the eardrum.
Your ears shape (the alterations it causes) are what we have learned tells us height, position etc with more of an explanation here;
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/mult...ns-beaten-behringer-what-157.html#post3403094
One recordings he played for me was at Indy time trials and the sensation was so strong at times it was uncomfortable (when he was walking around while you were sitting still, the acoustic environment was moving impossibly).
For playback, you sat in a chair, there was a right and left speaker on the floor aimed up from either side (minimizing crosstalk, close reflections AND the more familiar pinna Q’s and also a contrabass behind for lf).
When this was right, it was very convincing even hair rising but you could not move, you were in a “bite bar” so far as position as Doug used to say.
I always wondered how it held up with headphones with their perpendicular presentation.
Back then my friend Doug (now part of the company) sort of condensed ‘what the ear does” into some averaged generalized things (we are individuals after all). When these effects are applied and delivered to the listener faithfully, they remind us or even sound like the sound is moving around in the way intended.
These are the recordings he demonstrating the effects made way back then.
Online LEDR Sound Test | Listening Environment Diagnostic Recording Test
I wish I could upload some recordings like with our old web site, it was partly Don's recordings / that experience which set the hook in my mouth.
Art, contact me by email about your “thing” from the locked thread, it sounds interesting. Fwiw, Kurt is the only person i ever met that fired up a working jet engine in his garage, pretty funny and pretty loud.
Best,
Tom Danley
Actually Don’s ITE (in the ear) recordings were much more “organic” than a dummy head haha.
They used small condenser microphones and tiny little tubes that were inserted down into the volunteer’s ear canals and literally sampled / captured the sound in front of the eardrum.
Your ears shape (the alterations it causes) are what we have learned tells us height, position etc with more of an explanation here;
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/mult...ns-beaten-behringer-what-157.html#post3403094
One recordings he played for me was at Indy time trials and the sensation was so strong at times it was uncomfortable (when he was walking around while you were sitting still, the acoustic environment was moving impossibly).
For playback, you sat in a chair, there was a right and left speaker on the floor aimed up from either side (minimizing crosstalk, close reflections AND the more familiar pinna Q’s and also a contrabass behind for lf).
When this was right, it was very convincing even hair rising but you could not move, you were in a “bite bar” so far as position as Doug used to say.
I always wondered how it held up with headphones with their perpendicular presentation.
Back then my friend Doug (now part of the company) sort of condensed ‘what the ear does” into some averaged generalized things (we are individuals after all). When these effects are applied and delivered to the listener faithfully, they remind us or even sound like the sound is moving around in the way intended.
These are the recordings he demonstrating the effects made way back then.
Online LEDR Sound Test | Listening Environment Diagnostic Recording Test
I wish I could upload some recordings like with our old web site, it was partly Don's recordings / that experience which set the hook in my mouth.
Art, contact me by email about your “thing” from the locked thread, it sounds interesting. Fwiw, Kurt is the only person i ever met that fired up a working jet engine in his garage, pretty funny and pretty loud.
Best,
Tom Danley
256 = 8 bit resolution
The Florida DMV claims my car is violet, in Indiana my car was red, in reality it's Plum (think burgundy).
Since we have absolutely no control over the final mixed product, the best we can do is make the best of that particular recording. Recordings are vastly dissimilar, mixing styles/eq/compression/mic position etc are all different and then the only people to truely know are those whom mixed it. Egads I just want to listen to a reasonable facsimile of that performance, not ate alive with subjective commentary how we cannot appreciate without knowing how it was intended to sound. Or for that matter how our goals are flawed because of the latter prerequisite.
For example AC/DC Back in Black album. Wonderful music horrifically mixed to sound great on a POS stereo with crap everything. Eq'd to death it sounds palatable, not ideal, not right, heck a long way from it, but it sounds good enough. Seriously not something it'd be using for evaluation (voicing) or for that matter to show to friends. Crap recording = crap reproduction. To myself and many I've known would prefer that favorite piece of music that's garbage be sent back to the studio and rework it. Nothing worse is waiting for that next album to come out only to find one song likeable and all sound like trash. When our $1k/ $5k/ $10k/ >$20k systems reveal the flaws in the recording it tends to upset most.Irks the bageezus out of me.
We DIYers follow a different mantra. To make it sound the best we can, following hard and some not so hard rules of acoustics and to sus out true reproduction without anomalies which skew the end result. If we discover something tangible we share that with the community so those of us that are hearing (reading) may take the lead to discover what that is specifically and in turn share that back. If we get close some happy happy people, if we get closer yet, we sit up and listen to the science. Perhaps there is some oddity discovered that we may integrate into our systems and uncover the magic we all love to hear
Find it!
Not really interested in shotguns, or any guns.
This statement with all due respect does not make much sense, and is not accurate when closely examined.
The New World Symphony was commissioned by the New York Symphony in 1893 when the orchestra's home was Carnegie Hall. Are you saying that when it is not played in Carnegie Hall the music does not have the sonic result that Dvorak intended? No, it is music designed for orchestra's, not venues. Any orchestra that plays the original Dvorak score will reflect his intentions no matter if it is played at the Hollywood Bowl, or Boston Symphony Hall. Can't you play the same music in a church, a performance hall, or even outdoors surrounded by a projection shell? Music is not designed for specific places, or any specific conditions. It is designed to be played by acoustical instruments plain and simple.
Secondly, I have done four recordings in Avery Fisher Hall, a venue that has IMO acoustics that suck for recording. However not one of those recordings turned out poorly. Why? Because I understood enough about the acoustics of the hall to avoid it completely when recording. I placed microphones at positions that capture the orchestra while avoiding the characteristics of the room as a whole. So poor venue acoustics do not necessarily affect the quality of the recording. There is also the example of rock, pop, and soul acts being mixed direct to the board(no microphones involved) thereby avoiding the room altogether. You can use the room if it has great acoustics, or you can avoid it altogether if it does not.
Let's closely examine your generalizations. Speciality labels produce less than 1% of all recordings made today. MA recordings can't even be found on common places such as Amazon, Walmart, or even high definition downloads. So this becomes nothing more than a minor being mentioned as a major which is also like a cart being before the horse.
Since you mentioned early Mercury releases, lets take the words of Wilma Cozart Fine to explain digital versus analog recording of which the early Mercury recordings originate. She did most of the engineering of Mercury's catalog Living presences releases that are so famous.
Cozart Fine;
The digital format of the CD is a linear format where with decreasing recording level the resolution is decreasing as well. Many modern recordings use a more close miking of all the sections of the instruments in an orchestra, a band, or ensemble. If microphones are positioned at the front of the orchestra and 7 feet high, instruments far away in the back of the orchestra get a less precise result when played softly during a digital recording.
In other words, you may be able to get away with minimalist miking in the analog world where the recording characteristics of the format is different, but you cannot get away with it in digital. This comment straight from the horse mouth flies in the face of your comments, and those observations by those who actually record music.
Reality would show the exact opposite of your statement. Back in the analog days, there were only four basic microphone placement techniques for recording orchestra's. XY, Spaced omni's, near coincident, and artificial head. Today, there are dozens of combinations and variations of these basic four techniques used for recording. So the exactly opposite of your statement actually happened when multiple microphones were introduced(by the film industry no less).
Classical RECORDINGS themselves are not under any of the pressures you mention here. Most orchestra recordings are done in the orchestra's own hall, so there is no extra cost, and the hall's availability is determined long before the recording is done. Most recordings are done in front of live audiences who underwrite the recordings with the purchase of tickets, along with fundraising efforts by the orchestra. The union crew who work on the recordings are daily hires(totally separate from the recording team itself), so other than union hourly pay scale, there is no other associated costs to recording a live performance - they would still have to support the event even if it was not recorded. In other words, the cost of supporting a non recorded live event, and the cost of recording it are completely different. One would still take place even if the other didn't happen. My recording team is a separate cost from the union support even though we work together.
If you have any understanding of recording history, you would know that microphone placement techniques changed when the transition from analog to digital happened. Most all of the minimalist recordings of orchestra's were done in the analog age, and it required that no audience be present so the orchestra could be optimally placed in the hall to accommodate the minimalist recording practices. Today, most recordings are done in front of audiences which means no tailoring of the venue is possible. Recording in analog affords the use of fewer microphones as the format does not have the loss of precision at distances that digital has. A single Decca Tree set up will work in analog because of that, but it does not work for digital.
Actually today's predominant delivery format(stereo) sets more limits than preferences, convenience and economic realities. Even with the absence of preferences, technical conveniences, and the presence of abundant finances, you still have a limited size pipeline (16/44.1khz stereo) to deliver the recording through. The limits on possibilities is placed by the end user, not the recording practices. As end users embrace higher resolutions and more channels, the recording side steps up to support those changes.
Last edited:
Um, you're talking to a guy who does color for a living. The above sentences are basically nonsense to anyone versed in the craft. Sorry.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.