With my 2 channel stereo set up and listening to orchestral music, my illusion is I'm sitting about 20 rows back, center section in orchestra and I'm content with that. So, that's done and now what I do is simply enjoy AND FOCUS on the music. However, if I'm not content with 20 rows back and want to hear what a conductor hears, then I'm going to be a lot more picky about how I hear it and exactly where each instrument is in front of me and how far back they are placed. If they aren't where I expect them to be, then I'm going to start fool'n around with my gear and room until I'm satisfied. Unfortunately, the extreme fringe guys never seem satisfied. It's not a black or white scenario. It's a slidng scale of audiophilia-nervose.
How many times have you heard a unamplified voice at a concert? So then comes the question what type of microphone was used? Do you know its sonic characteristics?
Funny, I work for a major movie studio and do a lot of side work and I don't hear it daily. So was the bubble of truth busted, or the bubble of exaggeration?
All recordings or is this more exaggeration? Just what flaws would you be talking about? Is is flaws or artistic effect? You don't this with a one sided perspective. Are you making the argument that all recordings have the same flaw? Are you making the argument that all recording techniques are flawed?
But what is the major reproduction format in use? Its stereo.
Can you tell me just what recordings techniques are standardized? Last time I checked recording techniques were based on the music, and the recording location not a standard setup. Different audio engineers use different recording techniques and variations of established recording techniques. So where is the standardization? I have recorded four film scores this year, and not one of them utilized the same recording setup.
With all of the variations in the entire recording, mixing, and mastering chain you don't know what is preserved and what isn't. Without being in the studio hearing exactly what the "reference" is, you have no clue what it was supposed to sound like. It is a big guess game.
Not this year, no. I'll be in Texas or somewhere.
I know what you mean about some home recordings. Yes ago I did a recording of my grandmother arguing with one of her daughter in the kitchen. Simply done with a stereo mic. That recording would take me back to grandma's kitchen like nothing else.
But that doesn't matter. As long as it convinces you that it's real, or comes close to convincing you, why do you need to know what the original setup actually sounded like?
Do all recordings exhibit a 20 row back perspective? I don't think so Doc. What happens if a Decca Tree setup is used? Based on if it is properly set up(over the conductor) you are not going to get a 20 rows back perspective from that setup. No offense, but I don't think anyone can ascertain what spatial perspective is correct without actually being there - and this is especially so since so many engineers are blending standards setups with personal preference setups.
So how does one change the spatial perspective of a recording that has one already built in? What if there were changes in the manufacturing stage of a disc that results in a flat sound stage? What if the recording is too reverberant to clearly ascertain the seating positions of the musicians? What if the conductor prefers the violins on his right, and the viola's on his left? Or the brass section off to the right instead of down the center in back? These are not gear or room related issues, and they cannot be controlled by the end user.
You are right here. It is a sliding or ascending scale that is for sure.
Pano, read what I responded to in context. We were talking about point of reference, and the lack of it.
Real means different things to different people wouldn't you agree?
Supporting seven commercial production studios as part of my responsibilities provides the opportunity to hear familiar voices live versus recorded regularly, no need to call me a liar. How often does that opportunity arise in the the movie world? Can't be that often.
Another part entails choosing microphones for specific uses based on their sonic character. In my world some more accurately capture the sonic source than others.
Not really following the 'standardized' straw man, the goal is for the result to sound like the venue, not the studio. Granted, I never considered the artistic aspect of screechy cat violins, so on that you may have a point. BTW, to correct an earlier error on my part, the number of microphones typically very much determines how a violin sounds. Stereo pairs set much further back and a different angle than the usual multi-mic, 'maximum detail', fix-it-in-the-mix placement.
Did anywhere in my post appear the word liar? I don't think so. Read what is there, not what you think is there.
Unfortunately for you, my world is not confined to just movies.
I own a very busy post production studio that does dozens of movie trailers and hundreds of commercials a year. So in my case, that opportunity happens FAR more than you think. And let's see, every Wednesday, Sunday, and ton's of special events at my church, local concerts and so on. We have not even mention the film scores I have recorded, or the soundtracks I have worked on.
Supporting, and recording are two different functions. I really wonder how much critical listening goes on with support folks as opposed to those who actually place the microphones and push the mixing board sliders.
Exactly, and thanks for making my point
If this is your goal, you are going to have a very hard time achieving it. I hope you have hundreds of microphones, and hundreds of speakers to playback the capture. That is what it will take to get the sound of the "venue". I thought the real goal was to capture the PERFORMANCE within the venue, not the venue itself. What if the venue's acoustics suck? Face it, the studio is where the product is mixed and mastered. What we hear there is the reference to what you hear in your rooms. There is no way the sound of the venue can be reproduced in your room - especially with only two speakers.
Haven't recorded many orchestra's have you? No record company and no film studio(and no audio engineer in his right mind) would use only a stereo pair to record an orchestra. NONE. Especially not in digital where the definition of instruments is lost at long distances. The farther the instruments are from the stereo pair, the less precise it will sound. Your venue would have to have perfect acoustics, the orchestra perfect balance, and the music itself would have to have very small dynamic changes. All of this "perfection" rarely happens, and it seems your ideology and reality are marching in opposite directions here.
I would never record the San Francisco Symphony with a stereo pair of microphones. Davies Hall acoustics would make that much too difficult. I would never record the Los Angeles Symphony with only a stereo pair. The dense reflection pattern coming from the seats and organ pipes behind the orchestra would make the orchestra sound too diffused and imprecise. I would never record the Lucern Festival Orchestra with a stereo pair of microphones as the orchestra is too large for that. Anything beyond 15 feet from the microphone pair would lose all of its definition.
A stereo pair can be used with a small orchestra, ensemble or even a piano in a small venue. It would not work for anything larger than this. I think people that actually record orchestra's know this.
Only recording amateurs do fix it in the mix recordings. A professional plans out his recording meticulously based on the music, the venue, and the size of the orchestra.
Now that's interesting. How exactly were those speakers placed (distance, angle)? How did the placement minimize pinna distortion?
Originally Posted by Tom Danley
speakers aimed up from the floor on either side (minimizing your ear's pina response).
The binaural recording technique Tom mentioned in post #140 is normally done using a dummy head, and played back using headphones.
The ears pinna allow vertical placement of sound, and 360 degree location, binaural recordings can give a "you are there" realism, the closer the pinna of the dummy or real head match your own, the more lifelike.
The shape of pinna creates a frequency selective small horn generally pointed in a side/forward direction, allowing very accurate vertical placement independent from the path length left to right arrival time placement two ears provide.
I have played around with my Sennheiser dummy head binaural mic system, wearing headphones and turning the head sounds so close to real that with the dummy head turned around, looking directly at a person talking to me, I would swear they were behind.
When played back through normally placed loudspeakers, this placement effect is largely lost, and the effect of the pinna on the recording is mostly heard as the ragged frequency response it imparts.
Standing equidistant between a pair of speakers on the floor (Tom mentioned it only works for one listener) listening to the binaural recording would reduce the listener's pinna location detection which is more sensitive in front than below, but also allows one to be standing in the center of the two radiated hemispheres, which Don Davis and Tom evidently found more convincing than the usual speaker location for playback of this type of recording.
Art
speakers aimed up from the floor on either side (minimizing your ear's pina response).
Markus,
The binaural recording technique Tom mentioned in post #140 is normally done using a dummy head, and played back using headphones.
The ears pinna allow vertical placement of sound, and 360 degree location, binaural recordings can give a "you are there" realism, the closer the pinna of the dummy or real head match your own, the more lifelike.
The shape of pinna creates a frequency selective small horn generally pointed in a side/forward direction, allowing very accurate vertical placement independent from the path length left to right arrival time placement two ears provide.
I have played around with my Sennheiser dummy head binaural mic system, wearing headphones and turning the head sounds so close to real that with the dummy head turned around, looking directly at a person talking to me, I would swear they were behind.
When played back through normally placed loudspeakers, this placement effect is largely lost, and the effect of the pinna on the recording is mostly heard as the ragged frequency response it imparts.
Standing equidistant between a pair of speakers on the floor (Tom mentioned it only works for one listener) listening to the binaural recording would reduce the listener's pinna location detection which is more sensitive in front than below, but also allows one to be standing in the center of the two radiated hemispheres, which Don Davis and Tom evidently found more convincing than the usual speaker location for playback of this type of recording.
Art
Yes, I know. And that's what I said doesn't matter - because I can't know what it is.
You said:
This seems pretty clear to me, no argument. I know very well that the reference is hidden from me if I was not at the recording session. So it doesn't matter. What does matter (to me, at least) is that it sounds like a plausible imitation of real life. I like that.
Let me cite an example. The recent Coen brothers remake of True Grit. In the beginning we are at a trial in an old, wooden courtroom. At my local cinema the sound of the courtroom was so spot on that it startled me. "Holy crap! That just what a room like that should sound like!". Was it real? Did the room really sound like that? Maybe, maybe not. We'd have to ask Craig Berkey and Doug Axtell who recorded and mixed it. You probably know them, you could ask.
But in the end it doesn't matter. What they did made that room sound so real to me it was startling. I liked it, I could believe in it. I doubt 1 in 100 other audience members even noticed.
I guess the fringe elements had better stick together ...
I wouldn't be so fussed about most people not understanding that stereo reproduction can be made to perform at a very high level, except for the fact that the "others" then merrily go on their way setting up PA sound systems and such their way ... and, they sound like total sh!te ... !
I've given up on going to shows and such with amplification and hoping for vaguely reasonable sound ... if it's tolerable for the duration then I count myself as lucky,.
A few people have always understood what's possible - I heard brilliant PA sound 25 years ago - and I'm sure they will still keep coming through, to keep the flame alive. The shame is that the concept hasn't spread out further, so that at least a few more setups can actually be enjoyable to listen to, rather than being a session at the dentist ...
I wouldn't be so fussed about most people not understanding that stereo reproduction can be made to perform at a very high level, except for the fact that the "others" then merrily go on their way setting up PA sound systems and such their way ... and, they sound like total sh!te ... !
I've given up on going to shows and such with amplification and hoping for vaguely reasonable sound ... if it's tolerable for the duration then I count myself as lucky,
.A few people have always understood what's possible - I heard brilliant PA sound 25 years ago - and I'm sure they will still keep coming through, to keep the flame alive. The shame is that the concept hasn't spread out further, so that at least a few more setups can actually be enjoyable to listen to, rather than being a session at the dentist ...
Yes, I know. And that's what I said doesn't matter - because I can't know what it is.
You said:
This seems pretty clear to me, no argument. I know very well that the reference is hidden from me if I was not at the recording session. So it doesn't matter. What does matter (to me, at least) is that it sounds like a plausible imitation of real life. I like that.
Let me cite an example. The recent Coen brothers remake of True Grit. In the beginning we are at a trial in an old, wooden courtroom. At my local cinema the sound of the courtroom was so spot on that it startled me. "Holy crap! That just what a room like that should sound like!". Was it real? Did the room really sound like that? Maybe, maybe not. We'd have to ask Craig Berkey and Doug Axtell who recorded and mixed it. You probably know them, you could ask.
But in the end it doesn't matter. What they did made that room sound so real to me it was startling. I liked it, I could believe in it. I doubt 1 in 100 other audience members even noticed.
I still think you are missing my point. My point is not whether it "matters" or not. My point was the missing "reference" component here. If you have a firm point of reference, then it is much easier to gage whether the end result is accurate and true, or has been altered when compared to the reference by the end users system.
I'm not missing your point. It's clear. It's just that in the end that reference doesn't (or shouldn't) matter to the listener. If you have to do the mixing and mastering work, it's a lot more important.
But most of us have heard voices, violins and drums in person, we have a good internal reference for those sounds. If the reproduced sound comes close to our lifelong experience of those sounds, then we tend to believe it - the illusion is better. We can't know what happened in the studio, so why worry?
But most of us have heard voices, violins and drums in person, we have a good internal reference for those sounds. If the reproduced sound comes close to our lifelong experience of those sounds, then we tend to believe it - the illusion is better. We can't know what happened in the studio, so why worry?
What are we talking about now?
The original concept was so confused its hard to tell if we are still on track......
I first read 'we are still on crack'. My first read was more hmhmmm" accurate. He he "
This is so semantically silly. Can't believe this soundtrack guy goes to church and admits it while acting like this. PREACH Glad I figured out how to stop the email notifications.
Anyone know of a professional recording that wasn't fixed in the mix? No need to answer for me--I'm not reading it.
Do yourself a favor and don't get wrapped up in this insanity. Many people are just arguing. Life is fairly short--too short for this insanity.
Okay, we agree on this and I think I have stated as much.
Your point is quite limited here. We may remember our experience with a certain seating position in a certain hall, studio, or performance space, but we have ZERO experience at microphone heights, distance, microphone characteristics(i.e reach, pickup pattern, and optimum frequency response) and various other parameters. The best way to hear various instruments is not necessarily the best way to capture them with microphones.
What if your lifelong experience is limited? Your perspective is will probably be much limited compared to the highly and profoundly exposed person. Whether the illusion or the live experience is better is highly subjective. We can convince ourselves of anything, but can we convince others? Not always, that is for sure.
Getting back to the swing of the conversation, without a reference to compare, we just don't know how anything is supposed to sound like. That is a fact.
Maybe you are not expressing clearly, or the term sound is used in another way
The strong factuarization...HEY sounds like FATWA
The pointification ...Hey !! That sounds like pope talkin'
....in the end....
Art,
I'm quite familiar with binaural recording/reproduction techniques. I was asking because I can't recall having seen HRTF data for a sound source at 90° on the floor. I doubt there is less HRTF-related distortion than in other directions. Other than that there's probably a bit more head shadowing effect and therefore less interaural crosstalk with that configuration.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.