From: Klas Strandberg <>
> What I think is "State of the Art" quality, is when you sit back and list=
en
> to a stereo recording, with loudspeakers, and you feel curious, impressed
> and excited, still relaxed. The recording is interesting, the stereo pict=
ure
> is "live" and the ambience "spacy". When you listen to it, you feel no ne=
ed
> whatsoever to regulate base or treble or volume or anything else. You sit
> back, fully pleased with what you hear.
>
> As the recordist of such a recording, you can also tell how it was done a=
nd
> you are full of memories, which still thrill you. Sometimes you recall th=
e
> temperature, the flowers and the odors of them, and you recall what a nic=
e
> coffee break you just had.
> You are "back on the spot" and the sounds trigger feelings and memories
> which you didn't know was still there.
It's what I strive to achieve. I don't see any value in anything that's
not heard.
> Now: There is no need whatsoever to analyse such a recording on your PC t=
o
> find atrac or other possible digital errors with it - WHICH CAN BE SEEN, =
but
> not noticed when you listen to it.
I consider this the province of the lab analysis hobbiest. If you get
your jollies looking at such displays and never really caring to listen
to the real effect of a good recording as detailed above, by all means,
enjoy your hobby. Just quit telling the real recordists that yours is
the more pure or higher quality way. That's the route to elevator music
with no soul in it. I see no reason why nature recording should be so
ruined.
> THAT is what the scientist need to do, to make sure he is recording what =
he
> presumes he is recording.
As a scientist I'd have to say I don't agree here. Nor would most of the
herps scientists in the SE US that I deal with. Universally, they make
the final arbiter of the quality of the recording and it's value to
science what they hear. They are far more expert than any lab test at
determining if a recorded frogcall is true to the actual sound.
Of course scientists use analysis, but it's secondary, mostly part of
their attempts to communicate what they heard to someone else. Their
expert ears are primary, and they are extremely good at it.
THAT is also what the technician / designer needs
> to do, to develop improvements.
>
> That is also what you need to do when you hear that something is wrong,
> distorted, whatever - and you don't know what it is.
Here it's worth reading Pohlmann's comments on how to evaluate
perceptual encoders. He views those who base their evaluations on lab
displays as failing to even understand what perceptual encoders are
about. Their tests are highly inappropriate. He strongly advocates
listening panels of folks who have been trained in what they are really
listening for to evaluate and improve such encoders. Such training can
only be done by listening, basing it on lab displays throws it off
providing erroneous bias to the listening. That's where the real
improvements are coming from, listening. He has considerable more to
say, but I suggest people read it. As well as reading his sections on
digital in general, uncompressed digital, and at least the particular
compressions you are interested in.
I agree with Pohlmann, and would not limit that view to just perceptual
encoders. The lab stuff is not what's going to improve recording. It
will be improved as a result of listening. And not by just what one
person thinks they hear.
> To be provocative: All people spending their lives reading and writing ab=
out
> digital errors - have they ever looked at the errors of their loudspeaker=
s??
> Microphones?? Reflections in their listening room? Their hearing curve? N=
o?
I've tried to make this point numerous times. One has to maintain a
balance in any evaluation. Those writing about digital errors tend to
drag in all kinds of stuff that's from some other part of the chain and
chant that it's all from whatever they dislike. They are general talking
about trivia compared to the big picture. That, definitely won't improve
anybody's understanding of what's going on and is willful misleading,
particularly of the less experienced. Unless you have gone through all
parts of your recording chain, and the acoustics of the site you
recorded, you have no reason to pick out some part of the chain every
time for blame. Time and again the simplest reflection on and simple
tests of a problem will show that the so called digital experts are way
off base. They are far from scientifically evaluating the problem. If
it's even a problem. Such people who cannot even do the basics are not
experts in my view. More like snake oil salesmen.
> I don't want to sound arrogant, but I am SO tired of debates, based on
> judging sound quality from the picture of a PC software, in the same time=
as
> people use 50 dollar computer loudspeakers. (For example)
Especially when the picture the PC generates has it's own inherent
errors. Yes, I've had my fill of that. Get out and use the equipment the
way it was intended, to record naturally occurring sound. Engage the
brain just a little in evaluating what you get recording naturally
occurring sound. And don't forget to give your recordings soul, which
won't come from any technologic bottle. The technology is in the way of
that.
Walt
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
|