Re: [Sursound] Giving Precedence to Ambisonics
On 07/01/2013 06:47 AM, Robert Greene wrote: Embarrassing that after a century and more of recording. there are NO comprehensive demo discs of what really happens to controlled known acoustic sources. Really makes audio look like a silly subject. One hundred years--the scientific world in that time discovered quantum mechanics, relatively, nuclear energym lasers, the genetic code, the human genome--and audio is still uncertain which mike technique really reproduces the live sound. Embarrassing altogether. what is this rant about? every recordist who's at least half serious about her/his tools has made those very test recordings with various miking techniques, knows their properties quite intimately, and choses the most appropriate for each recording depending on acoustics, disposition of the instruments, and above all, taste. and there are hundreds of comprehensive demos of every conceivable stereo technique under the sun, with all kinds of source, and recording professionals have listened to them and honed their skills with them for decades. two-speaker stereo, in terms of spatial accuracy and precision, is more like a charcoal sketch than a photograph (much less a hologram) of the real thing. to claim otherwise is just witch-doctoring, and no amount of POA/UHJ sacred chicken blood is going to make this any more true. knowing this, most engineers prefer a technique which adds an additional layer of abstractness or interpretation or whatever, to convey an _idea_ through a _very_limited_ medium. it's a matter of personal preference, and ranting about this is about as useful as pointing out to picasso how a six-color inkjet would have fixed the disturbing blue tint of some of his paintings, and that the perspective is a little off... like you, i do prefer co-incident miking, but honestly, i don't see how the wide-spread preference for spread omnis can be construed as the end of scientific thinking. best, jörn -- Jörn Nettingsmeier Lortzingstr. 11, 45128 Essen, Tel. +49 177 7937487 Meister für Veranstaltungstechnik (Bühne/Studio) Tonmeister VDT http://stackingdwarves.net ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Giving Precedence to Ambisonics
On 1 Jul 2013, at 08:12, Jörn Nettingsmeier netti...@stackingdwarves.net wrote: On 07/01/2013 06:47 AM, Robert Greene wrote: Embarrassing that after a century and more of recording. there are NO comprehensive demo discs of what really happens to controlled known acoustic sources. Really makes audio look like a silly subject. One hundred years--the scientific world in that time discovered quantum mechanics, relatively, nuclear energym lasers, the genetic code, the human genome--and audio is still uncertain which mike technique really reproduces the live sound. Embarrassing altogether. what is this rant about? every recordist who's at least half serious about her/his tools has made those very test recordings with various miking techniques, knows their properties quite intimately, and choses the most appropriate for each recording depending on acoustics, disposition of the instruments, and above all, taste. and there are hundreds of comprehensive demos of every conceivable stereo technique under the sun, with all kinds of source, and recording professionals have listened to them and honed their skills with them for decades. two-speaker stereo, in terms of spatial accuracy and precision, is more like a charcoal sketch than a photograph (much less a hologram) of the real thing. to claim otherwise is just witch-doctoring, and no amount of POA/UHJ sacred chicken blood is going to make this any more true. knowing this, most engineers prefer a technique which adds an additional layer of abstractness or interpretation or whatever, to convey an _idea_ through a _very_limited_ medium. it's a matter of personal preference, and ranting about this is about as useful as pointing out to picasso how a six-color inkjet would have fixed the disturbing blue tint of some of his paintings, and that the perspective is a little off... like you, i do prefer co-incident miking, but honestly, i don't see how the wide-spread preference for spread omnis can be construed as the end of scientific thinking. And (putting on my asbestos underwear) surely the obvious response to complaints that people don't care about precise localisation is that people don't necessarily care about precise localisation! There are many other factors at play, and since most recording is as much about an artistic result as it is about any particular notion of accuracy, those may be more important in a given case. An informed engineer can make a reasoned decision to do that, as Jörn says. S. PS on my way to Derby... best, jörn -- Jörn Nettingsmeier Lortzingstr. 11, 45128 Essen, Tel. +49 177 7937487 Meister für Veranstaltungstechnik (Bühne/Studio) Tonmeister VDT http://stackingdwarves.net ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Giving Precedence to Ambisonics
On 1 Jul 2013, at 08:21, Paul Hodges pwh-surro...@cassland.org wrote: --On 30 June 2013 21:47 -0700 Robert Greene gre...@math.ucla.edu wrote: and audio is still uncertain which mike technique really reproduces the live sound. But you see, how ever many times it gets said (and it does), the discussions continue to ignore that fact that there are two independent aims in recording: reproduction of an original, and generation of something pleasant. An accurate recording of an indifferent acoustic will sound indifferent. The question is whether you prefer the realism of that, or the rose-tinting of something which obscures or glosses over the poor acoustic. And given that the performance that took place was worthy, which approach to reproduction will enable the listener to best appreciate it. And this will vary with the listeners preference (to an indeterminate extent trained by their knowledge of previous recordings and the extent of their experience of actually attending performances in real spaces. For my part, I acknowledge that there are many pleasant-sounding but inaccurate recordings which enable me to enjoy the music; but my interest in recording happens to be in realism and accuracy. Well put! And just to echo my last post, I think most modern recording starts from the position that the recording process can and often should be very unrealistic and unconcerned with accuracy. That certainly seems to be born out by most of the stuff that gets released these days. Even 'realistic' classical recordings are often very artificial on examination. Ducking for cover... S. Paul -- Paul Hodges ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
