> Oh dear, sorry to upset you, Robert. I _do_ recognise the value of pink > noise and I've used it plenty of times myself for exactly the reasons you > give. However, I don't regret a bit what I said about the far greater > value > of real instrumental recordings for these sorts of purposes. Pink noise is > indeed a very sensitive test of timbral alterations - but just how > important is that in the context of recording real instruments?
Maybe not (or maybe) much. But all the poor chap is saying (if I get the message) is that if we are serious we might measure it ! The exact polar pattern of a cardiod mic probably makes little difference ... bur manufacturers do publish them .... Michael > I've > certainly heard very "real" sounding recordings which I know must have had > timbral modifications but without very close and careful listening they > have not been at all obvious - and I'm sure everyone else who's done any > recording will have observed the same. > > Dave > > On 5 July 2013 17:20, Robert Greene <gre...@math.ucla.edu> wrote: > >> >> 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<https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound> >>> >>> ______________________________**_________________ >> Sursound mailing list >> Sursound@music.vt.edu >> https://mail.music.vt.edu/**mailman/listinfo/sursound<https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound> >> > > > > -- > -- > As of 1st October 2012, I have retired from the University. > > These are my own views and may or may not be shared by the University > > Dave Malham > Honorary Fellow, Department of Music > The University of York > York YO10 5DD > UK > > 'Ambisonics - Component Imaging for Audio' > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20130705/bb080e09/attachment.html> > _______________________________________________ > 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
