Bernie,
I have a genuine curiosity for this having email Gordon on the s=
ubject some time ago, Would it be possible to elaborate why there are probl=
ems with this method?
I think the problem lies with lack of standards to deal with the complete w=
orkflow, if we compare the color reproduction world to sound - what would t=
he equivalent of an ICC
profile be for both microphone and speaker? (they are both input and output=
devices compared to a camera and high quality printer) - Both still have i=
ssues handling the dynamic range involved.
>From what I understood from Gordon's method is the SPL is taken at the time=
of recording.
If the playback equipment, speakers or headphones are set so the same SPL '=
as observed' then it would be a rough aid, although perhaps not that precis=
e?
To do it properly the recording equipment would need characterizing, as wou=
ld the playback gear and as yet I know of no "Profiles" for recording equip=
ment be they for microphones or speakers. Or do such standards exisit?
ICC Color profiles quite accurately describe input and output devices toget=
her with the transformation matrix/method that is applied to bring the syst=
em close to a known reference (e.g a color target) in the world of color re=
production, does such a mechanism exist for sound reproduction? - Besides m=
aking your own detailed measurements with calibrated gear that is - and tha=
ts perhaps the problem, the gears "all over the place"?
BR
-Mike.
--- In Bernie Krause <> wrote:
>
> There are many serious problems with that premise. The first is that
> because one is
> replicating SPL both at the mic rig and consequently in the studio,
> one achieves a comparable
> result. That's like suggesting that if you measure the sound of a
> generator at 80dBA at the input
> of your mics, and measure the sound of a different biophony at 80dB
> coming out of a pair of monitor speakers,
> the acoustic data is the same. This is, of course, a gross
> exaggeration but a necessary one to make the point.
> When one transforms the data collected at the input of a system
> (which is what recordists do), and then
> transmits it through whatever system used for playback, one has an
> amended program no matter how
> it is sliced. This has nothing whatsoever to do with SPL. It has to do =
> with a judgment about how closely
> one has come to creating the illusion of an experience one has had in =
> the field =96 assuming that is the end-product
> goal. Since profound transformation has occurred from the human
> experience of the soundscape in the real world
> and then reduced to two or more speakers in a more-or-less controlled =
> interior environment, in the end, it remains an aesthetic
> call no matter how many spurious numbers one ascribes to the
> methodology.
>
> If the recording is meant to be heard by a larger audience than one's =
> own personal pleasure, than to a lesser or greater
> degree of success, one is dealing in the art of illusion...the realm
> of transformation. Some do it better than others, of course.
>
> As the late John Cage once told me at a meeting when asked what he
> thought of those who claimed they could closely
> replicate wild soundscapes by simply recording them and releasing
> them, unchanged, on disk, "Found art," he sniffed.
> "That's because all true Artists know that germane to their respective =
> crafts is transformation: the inspired conversion of
> sound or image from one medium to another, or ideas from mind to page =
> =96 ultimate expressions far more resounding than
> the sources from which they spring. It is through the process of
> insurgency that Art in any medium obliges insight into the
> numinous and improbable." Klaus Sch=F6ening, a German colleague of
> Cage's who headed up the arts program at WDR in K=F6ln,
> once said, "Transformation is the key to life and art, the real
> mystery of creative nature. Attempts to replicate or capture aspects
> of the natural world without amendment speak clearly to a vision of
> paralysis and death."
>
> Bernie Krause
>
> On Apr 6, 2009, at 2:28 AM, Greg Simmons wrote:
>
> > --- In Rob Danielson <type@>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > If I'm following umashankar correctly, the only way one could
> > > practice the theory of "flat frequencies response" --that is-- not
> > > correcting for volume and monitoring Hz balances difference-- would
> > > be to match the sound playback level of the original sounds.
> >
> > According to his website, Gordon Hempton uses such a process when
> > preparing his binaural 'sound portraits'. He measures the SPL at the =
> > mic position during recording, and matches it at the monitoring
> > position in his studio when preparing the recordings for release.
> > The idea has always made a lot of sense to me, but I'm too lazy to
> > carry an SPL meter...
> >
> > The SPL Meter widget for iPhones might make it easier, however.
> >
> >
> >
>
> Wild Sanctuary
> POB 536
> Glen Ellen, CA 95442
> 707-996-6677
> http://www.wildsanctuary.com
>
> Google Earth zooms: http://earth.wildsanctuary.com
> SKYPE: biophony
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
|