[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [ARSCLIST] A fundamental Flaw: Was Sampling Theory (was Fred Layn's post on the Studer list re: Quantegy)
We are speaking of live musicians performing on acoustical instruments in an
acoustical environment. When recording, we are not attempting to capture
the concert experience. By artfully placing the microphones and enhancing
the results by further processing, we are trying to create an audio
imitation of that experience to be reproduced in an area of much smaller
cubic volume in which playback is accomplished through speakers, not
headphones.
Sitting on the stage- i.e., inside the acoustical distribution device, one
hears high frequencises directly instead of in the way the shell disperses,
delays and destroys a portion of the upper part of the audible spectrum when
delivering sound to the audience.
The engineer has to decide where in the hall his "listener" is seated as his
focal point. First row, with its wider than deep sound stage is different
from 12 rows back is different from the balcony, lower (audio) level, much
less directional but more even distribution of the spectrum.
A basic flaw in the way classical records are made is that the conductor or
his surrogate has approval of the finished product. He is used to hearing
from yet another physical position, one that exagerates the spread of the
instruments. If he is not kept under control, we get the acoustical diorama
of the "shaded dogs" and "living presence" records, as unrealistic in their
way as ping-pong stereo or 14' wide pianos, though a far more pleasent
listening experience, especially to those of us who fantasy-conduct with the
record.
There may be something positive to be said for mono.
Steve Smolian
----- Original Message -----
From: "Karl Miller" <lyaa071@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2005 8:26 AM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] A fundamental Flaw: Was Sampling Theory (was Fred
Layn's post on the Studer list re: Quantegy)
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005, Richard L. Hess wrote:
I think some of John Eargle's recordings on Delos come close to this, but
he uses outliers, etc. Don uses two mics. Period. He doesn't have a
mixer.
And speaking of John Eargle...I find his work to be amongst the very best.
line was done in the von Karajan recording in question. It's not "wrong"
it's just a different approach to making music.
I find that it is equivalent to "reorchestrating" the music. Is it wrong,
for me, no, but is it Stravinsky...no.
I wonder what percentage of listeners haven't spent time listening to
real
live music--and, today, what is live music? For example, the concert hall
in Fort Worth TX has an augmented "sound" where the reverberation is
electronically enhanced.
And I am reminded of our major concert hall here in Austin...everything,
including the Symphony, is amplified, "reinforced."
Good thread, Jim! I'm not sure ARSCList is the correct place for it, but
still, a good thread.
For me this is an appropriate place, for I believe the points that are
being raised are important to preservation and restoration. From my
perspective, audio reformatting is both a science and an art, not unlike
the original recording process.
Karl
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.6.13 - Release Date: 1/16/2005
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.6.13 - Release Date: 1/16/2005