Possibly, but that will not convince me to not prefer minimally miked recordings of orchestral music over spot miked hell from DG.
No more, but no less than in photography, that is a representation of a 3D landscape on a flat paper. Depending of the lens used and the depth of field you set, you will have a "feeling" of the distance that can be increased or flaten comparing of the "feeling" you have in real life. But it is, in both arts, a "make believe".
Not to forget the Photoshop effects that studio effects can bring as well.
Note, and it is amusing, that many modern music groups try desperately, nowadays, to mimic live... the studio mix of their albums ;-)
Last edited:
You might find this interesting:How To Ruin A Mix: Stop – Enough Already With The Cymbals! - ProSoundWeb
Theres so much energy below 10khz ( all the way down to 30hz) that the stuff over 20khz, thats 30db down is not only inaudable because its above 20 khz but its also 30db down.
Wouldn't it just be easier to just subtract the blue and green and show the difference on a plot of the same timeframe?
Remember, if a modulation sideband is being pulled because it is above cutoff, it will reduce the in band signal envelope.
That is why I need to see the difference. As, if the difference has the same waveform as the blue, then the action of filtering pulled out content we can hear.
jn
Even recordings of classical music, nowadays, use close miking to add precision to the global pair of mikes used as main tracks.
R'n'r rulez ;-)
It is a comparison.... repo to real live in the room. When it sounds the same to you, then it is accurate.
IMO that is not a "like" comparison. Are they equal or not and how so.
THx-RNMarsh
I too have recording experience Just not as extensive in the studio.... mine was live recording.. on stage/location. But mix/playback in studio. Even produced an LP for Kavi at Water Liley Records. Not a long career but enough.
Last edited:
neat, thanks. Interesting the peak is 150 to 200 milliseconds in.
I was thinking more about an FEA on a cymbal...problem is, there are three prop velocities for sound in brass. What a mess that analysis would be.
jn
Agree again. Ive said this before. An album ( there are exceptions mostly in classical) is like a movie, its not reality its an artistic ( hopefully) representation of reality. A live gig is like a play. A play recorded by a camera is not a movie, no one would watch it. A gig recored by a guy in the back of the audience is not an album and no one would listen to it.
whoa...wait...what?Well, I was hoping JN would give his view on this... Still hoping
jn
Thanks for replying Scott.
I want to see if the modulation is present even on a properly prepared file.
On the files I have made, modulation is obvious and extends to some sine freq below fsampling/2. Modulation is visible but I can’t hear that high, so I sampled at 8kHz sinewaves below 4kHz where I could also hear the modulation.
I have also noticed that by upsampling the files, modulation is gone. John Curl's Blowtorch preamplifier part III
If the modulation is due not only to improperly band limiting but also due to time limited signal, then how long has the recording to be?
George
How do you know its audible? What treshold ( not burried in the huge energy below 10khz.) would it need to be over.
When I said audible, I mean of the same waveform shape of the blue, and am simply considering the blue waveform to be all audible content.
edit: in re-reading...I said "audible content", that should be self explanatory.
If you examine the two waveforms scott put up, the unfiltered green on occasion has roughly 20% higher peaks than the blue filtered, but they are of the same form. If the difference is of the same shape of the blue in time, then it is a simple reduction in envelope.
I am not referencing the criteria of audibility by threshold nor by listening tests.
If the difference is just a fraction of the blue and of the same waveshape, it would be a smoking gun saying that the upper sideband removal also altered the audible waveform coming out of the filter.
jn
Last edited:
I do agree that cymbals are one of the hardest instruments to reproduce, (but its not the extended freq. ) fast high level atack plus its such a full spectrum from as low as 30hz and live cymbals are loud. ( people talk about recreating live but if you listen at levels not as loud as live, most people most of the time, how can it sound the same, and drum kits are loud). One of the reasons recorded music is compressed. Imho its the speakers that fail.
I may have missed it, but what about the comment earlier that modern recording is done at a high sample rate and then downsampled or decimated to hit CD... So, the original sine is well oversampled, so not a fish..
George, the data of 20k sampled at 44.1k contains the images but also the information for reconstruction of the original. You need to perform the reconstruction by oversampling and digital filtering or sending the data directly to a DAC and making an analog anti-imaging filter.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.