> To make a name for learning, When other roads are barred, Take something really easy, And make it really hard.
For the removal of doubt ... I am on your side Robert. Had a student from a certain university convinced that one needed a trillion spot mic's at 5K each and that _recording_ above 16-bit was a waste of time .... their illustrious professor had never mentioned dithering, either ... I will now reach for my homeopathic pills Michael (ackl: Piet Hein) > Hugely long. But one point cries out for comment: > It is simply nonsense to say that it would not > be useful to have the results > available for pink noises sources at various > spots on the stage recorded via various microphone > positions. It is well known and completely established > that pink noise is a very good indicator of general > tonal character. It is for instance by far the most > reliable identification tag for different loudspeakers > or different EQ settings. That one can become > fatigued--take a break occasionally! > > This is just not true to say that this would not give > a lot of information. > > In fact, David's whole response is just more > of the kind of argumentation that prevents > audio from getting anywhere. People seem > unable to understand how analyitical thought works. > One starts with simple situations and answerable > questions: What does this microphone technique > do to the frequency response of a standaidzed source > located at various positions? > > It is silliness to say that this is not information. > It is also silliness to say that this is the > only information one needs. But the former silliness > is worse because no one would think the latter. > > The truth is that the field or recording seems almost > intent upon keeping their methods intellectually mushy. > It is as if they do not want to know how things work. > > And the really odd thing is that other people in > the sound world are not like this. Auditorium > acousticians try like crazy to figure out what > does what in concert hall sound. They do a good job too > (Harris got Benaroya to match Vienna GMVS reverb time > with in 0.1 secs bottom to top--try that with mushy methods). > And people who make and adjust instruments study > constantly the effects of things. All violinists know > which strings do what to the sound. It is part of our > work. Knowning such things does not make life less > "artistic"--it makes it possible to advance. > > Only recording(and playback) seems to be attached to > the idea that no one ought really to know anything. > No one who has made a recording has failed to notice > that unexpected and complex things matter. Blumlein > miking a one point can sound quite different from > the same at another point not far away for example. > > But once again, a field progresses by analyzing its work > one step at a time not be having a club of people > who just mess around with the ways they have always > messed around and say that no analysis is possible because > everything is so complicated. This is the sort of thing > that the mush minded said about genetics say, before > it began to be figured out. "Oh we shall never understand > how things are inherited, it is all so complicated and hidden". > > To return to the main point, I think it is a basic misunderstanding to say that how a microphone technique records a pink noise > source at different spots on a stage is irrelevant information. > I think it is very relevant indeed. A journey of ten thousand > miles begins with a single step. That would be a reasonable > first step in understanding microphone techniques(and microphones). > > And it is surely a most basic misunderstanding to say that pink > noise response is not a useful indicator of sound. Exactly the opposite is true. It is the most reliable and accurate one if one must > have a single source--it is a demonstrated fact that it is > for example the signal that gives the best identification of which loudspeaker is which when comparing blind two similar but different speaker. > > Robert > > On Wed, 3 Jul 2013, David Pickett wrote: > >> At 06:31 3/7/2013, Robert Greene wrote: >> >>> Variations from reality ought surely to be based on knowing >>> how to reproduce the reality first and then introducing the >>> variations. One does not bend pitches for artistic effect >>> until one is able to play in tune, so to speak. >> >> Yes, indeed; but such question begging exposes the problem per >> analogiam. >> What does one define as "in tune"? What you are asking for is the ability to >> reproduce a complete soundfield with 100% accuracy, and then to introduce >> variations. We have not yet progressed to this level. >> >>> If people want to treat recording as a pure art form >>> where one simply judges the results on aesthetic grounds. >>> it would be hard to say that was wrong. But it surely >>> takes recording out of the realm of science. >> >> I am not sure that many of its practitioners (even Blumlein) regarded recording as a science: it is rather an exercise in engineering combined with >> aesthetics and as such intrinsically hard to theorize about. >> >>> To my mind, offensive or no, it remains startling to me >>> that there is no recorded demo of how various stereo mike >>> techniques reproduce the sound of a pink noise source at >>> various spots around the recording stage, for example. >> >> I cannot imagine that anyone would want to listen to a CD of pink nose or >> that anyone can believe that objective determinations can be made by doing so >> for longer than a few minutes. The ear adjusts to what it is hearing, as the >> eye does to colours under different lighting conditions and there is no equivalent to "grey cards" for white balance. Even doing A/B comparisons with >> the flick of a switch is fraught with self-deception, unless the levels are >> controlled and enough time is allowed to accustom oneself to A before assessing B. >> >>> Surely people might want to know whether the mike >>> technique was changing the perceived frequency response of sources depending on where the sources were? >>> How can people NOT want to know this? >> >> There is a book by J?rgen Meyer (Acoustics and the Performance of Music). >> The blurb on Amazon says: "This classic reference on musical acoustics and >> performance practice begins with a brief introduction to the >> fundamentals of >> acoustics and the generation of musical sounds. It then discusses the particulars of the sounds made by all the standard instruments in a modern >> orchestra as well as the human voice, the way in which the sounds made by >> these instruments are dispersed and how the room into which they are projected affects the sounds." >> >> I have had this book for over 30 years. It contains polar diagrams of most >> orchestral instruments plotted for different frequencies. Nobody that I know >> has ever found much use for the data in making a recording, beyond those generalizations that are obvious to the ear. >> >>> I agree with EC that a complete analysis of >>> the relationship between recording and musical sound >>> would be a tremendous >>> task, perhaps one that is not even well defined. >> >> I think that is a conceit: there are far too many independent variables and >> the exercise would probably become what Glen Gould would describe as "centipedal". >> >>> This is how science works. One works out simple cases >>> first. The fact that no one knows if there are infinitely >>> many primes pairs with difference 2(eg 17 and 19) does >>> not make it irrelevant to know that there are infinitely many >>> primes. One answers simple questions first. >> >> Again: recording is not a science. If anything it is a craft with elements >> of engineering. I have been teaching it for over 30 years at university level and the number of textbooks that are of any use whatsoever, and those >> with caveats, can be counted on one hand. Take, for instance, the excellent >> book on Stereo by Streicher: most of the information is either >> theoretical >> (e.g. the combination of unrealizable polar diagrams) or else cannot be used >> without extensive empirical experimentation. >> >>> Personally, I would just like to know which mike technique >>> does what to the tonal character of sources at different >>> locations around the recording stage. If you don't care, you >>> don't care. But I wish I had a disc where I could listen >>> and find out. I find it hard to believe that other people >>> are not interested in this. >> >> As I am sure you know, active listening is a very tiring process that most >> people are not trained to participate in. If one cannot identify differences >> within seconds it is best to take a long rest and try again much later. Few >> have the patience for this and professionals cannot afford the time when musicians are waiting to perform. >> >>> Years ago I decided to learn the piano(I am a violinist!) >>> just to see how it would go, by learning the Rachmaninoff 3rd >>> piano concerto --a measure at a time. As you can imagine I >>> did not get very far! (the first statement of the theme >>> went ok but soon, no soap). Of course this was a joke! >>> I knew from experience of learning to play the violin >>> that one learns the basics step by step and builds >>> up to the complex pieces over a long time. >> >> It is, of course, possible to learn to play the notes of the whole concerto >> if one wants to waste time doing so. There was a young man at my high school >> who had learned to play several complicated pieces. He could not read music >> and had learned them by rote. Of course, though he had "mastered" the last >> movement of the Moonlight Sonata, this did not help him to learn the first >> prelude of the 48 at a faster rate! >> >> David >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > _______________________________________________ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
