Ronald C.F. Antony wrote:
I can appreciate both sides of the argument. However, one thing that I would
love to see:
a) sterile, measurement-like recording of as close to possible to what happened
recording
It is important to see that the reproduction stage also matters. And
that you will adapt some recording choices to the fact that most of the
listeners might or actually will listen to the stereo reduction of some
real world recording.
If you reproduce your recording via two "spaced speakers" aka stereo,
this is not a).
A purist version of a) (on this list) would imply that any
recordist/tonemaster would have to record an HOA soundfield. As we have
seen, people actually doing recordings don't recommend the eigenmike to
be used for (professional) recordings. (At least, not yet.)
Of course you could mix a soundfield from your raw data of many
microphones, but is this a) ? No...
I am aware that our tonemasters might be bored of our contributions.
Best,
Stefan
P.S.: a) is at least difficult if not impossible to achieve, whereas b)
is just a small part of what an artistic approach might be. (Cos this is
not just something about cheap "effects" or "tricks". Maybe you thought
about the rest in "etc."? ;-) )
b) post processing with whatever effects, tricks, etc. is required to have
things sound pleasant and engaging.
What I don't like is the idea of b) being part of a)
In other words, if I want to "fatten up the sound" then I want a "fatten up the sound plug-in" to
process an anemic recording. I don't want the recording be molested by a "fatten up the sound microphone" or
"fatten up the sound preamp".
Basically, the aesthetic choices should be separated from capturing the raw
data as much as anyhow possible, if not for any other reason than to allow some
alternat aesthetic choices to be made at some later point in time to take into
account differing tastes, playback devices and environments.
If the raw master recording already has too many artistic/aesthetic choices
nailed down, it makes it less valuable a resource for posterity.
Ronald
On 6 Jul 2013, at 03:34, Dave Malham <dave.mal...@york.ac.uk> wrote:
All of this, of course, just goes to show how subjective recording is. In
my younger days I naively thought that we should be working towards exactly
re-creating a soundfield as a way of making the best possible recording.
But until such time the day comes that we can record and reproduce, in our
own living rooms, the position of every molecule of air over a significant
volume in real time _and_ make due allowance for the effect of the listener
and furniture that wasn't there in the original....
However, and unfortunately even with that accomplished, we would not
recreate (or create) the percept we would have gotten had we been at the
concert because we haven't walked/cycled/driven to the concert hall, nor
eaten the same food in the same restaurant beforehand, nor met the same
people, or... Anyway, at this point I can hear Peter Lennox laughing his
head off, because that was exactly what we used to argue about when he was
at York - and his side of the argument :-)
Dave
_______________________________________________
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
