Yes they intend it for current commercially available speakers earbuds etc.
However it is these devices / platforms / form factors that influence what will sound good.
Thats why guitar amplifiers have developed and also influenced music creation. Preset, plug-ins and impulses have likely done the same to shape the music we hear.
So really you could argue that a lot of speakers are made to move units and much of current music is made to give something to play. Think of pianos and sheet music. Songs not only to sell records but to sell record players. Films not just for entertainment but to sell merchandise. Think Star Wars and now days lego
Much like light bulbs, radios and other early consumer electronics was developed as a way to sell electricity to the masses that never knew they needed it.
However it is these devices / platforms / form factors that influence what will sound good.
Thats why guitar amplifiers have developed and also influenced music creation. Preset, plug-ins and impulses have likely done the same to shape the music we hear.
So really you could argue that a lot of speakers are made to move units and much of current music is made to give something to play. Think of pianos and sheet music. Songs not only to sell records but to sell record players. Films not just for entertainment but to sell merchandise. Think Star Wars and now days lego
Much like light bulbs, radios and other early consumer electronics was developed as a way to sell electricity to the masses that never knew they needed it.
Last edited:
So its about moving units. Never thought of it that way: maybe its the way it is. I think it best to refer to what we listen to as "processed music" instead of "recorded music".
And in another twist; Examining the Effects of Processed Music on Chronic Pain
The modern music processing process.
The Modern Recording Process | AudioMelody
Would it be wrong to call this process Distortion?
And in another twist; Examining the Effects of Processed Music on Chronic Pain
The modern music processing process.
The Modern Recording Process | AudioMelody
Would it be wrong to call this process Distortion?
Processed Music refers to LIVE Music, say a Band playing in a venue through a PA System, from a small Club to a Stadium.
Recorded Music refers to Audio signal being picked up in some way, stored, and played back later.
Don´t mix those different concepts.
medical and pseudomedical discussions are frowned upon in this Forum.
Even worse: you picked a bad example: the study has not even started.
Suggest you read the whole article instead of just the heading, you would have picked:
In the study, not yet started, I found the reference to processed music intriguing. My point is that all music is processed to some extent, despite the real meaning of the terms, like processed foods as in 'avoid processed foods'.
What this means for the persons attempting to 'reproduce' music is that it is more or less acceptable to the artist and to his or her original intention to play the music back on earphones or whatever speakers they have. That puts the stamp of validity on a large collection of musical playback systems.
Hearing the music is not for the privileged few. That said It would be interesting to obtain the original studio recordings in open reel format and the original studio monitors, at least in near field it would sound pretty close to the original, with all amplifiers sounding the same(!)
https://www.amazon.com/Beatles-Original-Studio-Recordings-Stereo/dp/B002BSHWUU
Curiously, the original recordings are offered in CD as well as vinyl. If the CD and vinyl sound the same, why not just CD? If they do not sound the same then where is the 'original' effect?
Hearing the music is not for the privileged few. That said It would be interesting to obtain the original studio recordings in open reel format and the original studio monitors, at least in near field it would sound pretty close to the original, with all amplifiers sounding the same(!)
https://www.amazon.com/Beatles-Original-Studio-Recordings-Stereo/dp/B002BSHWUU
Curiously, the original recordings are offered in CD as well as vinyl. If the CD and vinyl sound the same, why not just CD? If they do not sound the same then where is the 'original' effect?
Last edited:
Not sure what your point is really.
If your Jack White and maybe you want to record all analog and control the sound as far as you can, till it gets mastered then no maybe he doesn’t care what it sounds like more that what is captured / recorded.
If you are BTS or another K-Pop artist well as long as you are told by the record producer it sounds great then that’s all that matters, even if it doesn’t really sound great except on your Bluetooth speaker, earbuds or phone.
If your Jack White and maybe you want to record all analog and control the sound as far as you can, till it gets mastered then no maybe he doesn’t care what it sounds like more that what is captured / recorded.
If you are BTS or another K-Pop artist well as long as you are told by the record producer it sounds great then that’s all that matters, even if it doesn’t really sound great except on your Bluetooth speaker, earbuds or phone.
You´d be surprised.
I was heavily involved in the Argentine Rock scene in its golden era, from late 60´s to mid 90´s, and among other details, I had to get a Revox A77 15 IPS tape recorder, to listen at "almost ready to print" final mixes and offer opinions and suggestions on sound, go figure.
So yes, I actually got "original studio recordings in open reel format" to listen, not through Studio Monitors which would have also required a properly treated Studio Control Room equivalent, but using very flat (back in the day) 600 ohm Sennheiser headphones, which were very neutral.
I was heavily involved in the Argentine Rock scene in its golden era, from late 60´s to mid 90´s, and among other details, I had to get a Revox A77 15 IPS tape recorder, to listen at "almost ready to print" final mixes and offer opinions and suggestions on sound, go figure.
So yes, I actually got "original studio recordings in open reel format" to listen, not through Studio Monitors which would have also required a properly treated Studio Control Room equivalent, but using very flat (back in the day) 600 ohm Sennheiser headphones, which were very neutral.
If you are an extreme nitpicker, none of them is but the original full width (1/2" or 1") Studio tape, of which they are copies.
My point is that I do not have to care about the 'artists true intentions': I can listen through anything and it will be fulfilling the artists (or producers) intentions. This is liberating on two fronts: I do not have to feel I am missing the point of the recording or the experience the artist wanted me to have, and is fully aware of what his music sounds like on earbuds.
The second point is that I can be more flexible in choosing the playback equipment - small amplifiers, large amplifiers, large speakers, it is all part of the packaged product, in different flavors.
With other forms of art this does not happen: Picasso, Michelangelo etc: the raw piece of art (if I may so put it) is in front of you with minimum distortion or coloration.
Mr. Fahey, you never fail to surprise me. What was the Argentine Rock scene like, any names.
A search on Google serves this up: "Music is the Poetry of Sound:
Here is another haunting melody by the same artist. Very different from the regular rock stuff. To my shame, I listened over laptop speakers and it still sounded good.
You have not told us what they sounded like, these 'original studio recordings' through the Senheiser. Did they sound like you were in the presence of the musicians? Are they different from the "original full width (1/2" or 1") Studio tape" ?
I think what you refer to as “processed” music is more correctly “amplified” music. Amplified and recorded music may or may not be “processed”. Usually BOTH are to various degrees. Reverb on the vocal tracks, running the kick and or snare through a gate, EQ, and compressor. Not always done live either, but sounds pretty dry (even amateur-ish) if you don‘t. Recordings can vary from as realistic as possible to 80’s pop where nothing resembles it’s original sound.
For visual works, yes but the sound re/production is a different concept. More accurate example would be the visual reproduction of those paintings such as photograph.
To take the analogy further, recorded or processed or amplified and processed ... music and vocals are more akin to the impressionist type of paintings, but where the impressionist style is applied after the raw recordings.
We may enjoy the impressionist painting more that the photograph, sometimes. Photographs are also stylized, filters etc.
Where is the clarity, the definition, even the wide range of colors the human eye can detect? And yet the artists intention shines through.
Also note: the attached image is a 284 kb compared to the 17 MB original. Like sound through small speakers or bass-enabled headphones.
(Public Domain Image - Wikipedia)
We may enjoy the impressionist painting more that the photograph, sometimes. Photographs are also stylized, filters etc.
Where is the clarity, the definition, even the wide range of colors the human eye can detect? And yet the artists intention shines through.
Also note: the attached image is a 284 kb compared to the 17 MB original. Like sound through small speakers or bass-enabled headphones.
(Public Domain Image - Wikipedia)
Attachments
Although recorded music can be played through inadequate speakers, there is a minimum configuration (like the picture above) which will yield a reasonable impression of the work of art in question. For the image it is at least 16 colors or more, but for 'best results' - and why don't record labels issue a system specification, tyre manufacturers do - for best results playback on a system with frequency response from 50 Hz to 10 k Hz, less than 1 percent distortion at 85 dB at 1 metre - that would help.
Also, I notice most monitor speakers in studios are in the worst place possible : up against the wall, now I know they do their job and it may not matter, but one can only imagine the effect on the sound stage. How do you mix for a sound stage when you don't have one?
Also, I notice most monitor speakers in studios are in the worst place possible : up against the wall, now I know they do their job and it may not matter, but one can only imagine the effect on the sound stage. How do you mix for a sound stage when you don't have one?
One disappointing aspect of the audio tech so far, is that were locked into what the artist / engineer "intended". We certainly have the bandwidth and the processing for multiple outcomes of how a multi-track recorded piece sounds. They could provide several mix / bandwidth recipes, where one chooses whatever it is they're listening through; if its headphones, its mixed for headphones; BT speaker, its mixed for BT speaker - etc.
This of course implies the "none of the above" option, where the listener - starting with a generic template - mixes the performances sound to taste as heard through their own system. (The playback system automatically remembers the setup at the next listening) Then we could have forums dedicated to the infinity of choice in the user's mixes, where people could debate endlessly about how, say, +3db on the horn section level makes all the difference - yummm!
This of course implies the "none of the above" option, where the listener - starting with a generic template - mixes the performances sound to taste as heard through their own system. (The playback system automatically remembers the setup at the next listening) Then we could have forums dedicated to the infinity of choice in the user's mixes, where people could debate endlessly about how, say, +3db on the horn section level makes all the difference - yummm!
DIY Audio at its extreme. Or is it DIY music? They could charge a fee for each different mix (don't give them ideas). We could have a computer mix the sounds to re-create the studio control room based on how many people were in the room etc. Come to think of it, people do re-mix. This is not the point of recorded music, however.
I think a lot of people here don't realise how albums are recorded and mixed sine at least the 1960's. Most is not played in one take live, but in little pieces, guitars are overdrubbed and blended toghetther, different takes are cut and mixed to one good take. All get eq'ed, compressed, expanded, panned ... reverb and delay is put on.
So the final result, the album is nothing like the live performances in the studio booth, it's an constructed fake reality that is build to work on as much systems as possible, from very big high end systems to transistor radio's and headphones. And with the modern music it's pushed to extremes (due to earbud and phones) that it got to far with autotune and no dynamics anymore. The only music where that isn't the case is classical. And with jazz it's still mixed, but one take recordings (mostly)
And what is also the case, some styles (mainly in electronic underground music like stepperdub, jungle or acid) are specially targetted at one specific dj system and mixed with only that system in mind. They know it won't sound good on average hifi systems, but that is not the target. Those tracks are ment for dj's in a very specific setting.
So the final result, the album is nothing like the live performances in the studio booth, it's an constructed fake reality that is build to work on as much systems as possible, from very big high end systems to transistor radio's and headphones. And with the modern music it's pushed to extremes (due to earbud and phones) that it got to far with autotune and no dynamics anymore. The only music where that isn't the case is classical. And with jazz it's still mixed, but one take recordings (mostly)
And what is also the case, some styles (mainly in electronic underground music like stepperdub, jungle or acid) are specially targetted at one specific dj system and mixed with only that system in mind. They know it won't sound good on average hifi systems, but that is not the target. Those tracks are ment for dj's in a very specific setting.
The point of most (available) recorded music is to make $. Whatever scheme nets the most $, wins - if someone is smart about it. That may not be "the way we've always done it". One example might be the Grateful Dead, who had no issue with tapers setting up, plugging in and recording their live shows - which organically evolved into them being the highest gross $ touring band ever, or for a time. I would not be surprised if mixing by crowd source would not become a future thing - if that could be engineered to generate more $ than the status quo method. As was said, we have the tech a plenty and people do remix already.
That does exist in a certain way in the form of "dubplates" which are custom remixes of songs for a certain dj in electronic music. Mostly not done by the dj himself, but done by the artist or the studio engineer for the dj for a sum of money. That is how modern reggae artists, who started with this in the late 1960's earn money (record sales and copyright money are quasi non existent in Jamaica, and very small in Europe in that subculture) next to live shows. And a dubplate of a toplevel reggae artist can be a few grand per piece, largely for the artist, but the engineer who mixes it gets a share. In mainstream electronic music this makes even more money when it's done (and it's done).
I never knew what a "dubplate" was, nor that it was something being done going back to the 60's. One time at a dance, say, 10 years ago they played Dido - "Don't Leave Home" (Gabriel & Dresden Mix) by Gabriel & Dresden. Being pretty moved by the song and the enthusiasm of the other dancers at the moment, I went and bought the Dido album with that song. When I played it, I was like "What!?!" It took me a little bit to figure out, but I finally secured the above mentioned version.
Assuming when you're as good as those guys are (were), the original artist is glad to furnish the individual tracks from the original mix for you to work your magic. Whether such an idea could be practically extensible to let the general public have a crack at it - while still retaining good control over your work's value - maybe there's a way to do it, without allowing someone to just steal everything, make it into a work they subsequently claim is all their own.
I have seen where people push the "taper" culture envelope, where people resurrect old cassette tapes (and whatever else they can find...) of live shows using modern digital techniques, then put the material up on a file storage website, where they make a little money per download. The envelope push is some fool around with actual studio recordings, call it "enhanced" and put it up in the same way without regard to copyright infringement. They get called on that, by others in the community.
Assuming when you're as good as those guys are (were), the original artist is glad to furnish the individual tracks from the original mix for you to work your magic. Whether such an idea could be practically extensible to let the general public have a crack at it - while still retaining good control over your work's value - maybe there's a way to do it, without allowing someone to just steal everything, make it into a work they subsequently claim is all their own.
I have seen where people push the "taper" culture envelope, where people resurrect old cassette tapes (and whatever else they can find...) of live shows using modern digital techniques, then put the material up on a file storage website, where they make a little money per download. The envelope push is some fool around with actual studio recordings, call it "enhanced" and put it up in the same way without regard to copyright infringement. They get called on that, by others in the community.
Sometimes it's also the artist who asks for a remix of a song by a known dj, but the remix culture started otherwise from dj's who wanted to have exclusive tracks for their set and paid artists to make them. This started with the soundsystems (dj crews) in jamaica who were in heavy competetion with each other and paid labels and artists to do that from the moment they had multitrack recording availeble (arround 1962) and that also led to the invention of new music styles (like dub, jungle, ...) and the remix culture we have now.
Key figures in the development of that were engineers like King Tubby (working mainly for Treasure Isle and Bunny Lee), Lee Perry (working first for Studio One, later for himself) and Errol Thompson (Studio One, Joe Gibbs). By the mid 1970's this practice was taken over by disco dj's in the US and Europe and so ended up in the dance scene... If you go to a dance festival like Tomorrowland, half of the music you hear you can't buy as it's exclusive tracks or remixes that the dj's play, often build for the night. Those who get a lot of reaction may be released later on in a form for the general public.
Key figures in the development of that were engineers like King Tubby (working mainly for Treasure Isle and Bunny Lee), Lee Perry (working first for Studio One, later for himself) and Errol Thompson (Studio One, Joe Gibbs). By the mid 1970's this practice was taken over by disco dj's in the US and Europe and so ended up in the dance scene... If you go to a dance festival like Tomorrowland, half of the music you hear you can't buy as it's exclusive tracks or remixes that the dj's play, often build for the night. Those who get a lot of reaction may be released later on in a form for the general public.
