naturerecordists
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: New thread: Reality check

Subject: Re: New thread: Reality check
From: "obSession" melvoid2002
Date: Mon Apr 6, 2009 1:09 pm ((PDT))
In a nutshell, I've found that if played back at a realistic level, with al=
l
my equipment set flat, it sounds pretty real. I don't actually hear the
extraneous noise and low-end stuff unless I'm listening very closely or muc=
h
louder than normal.

On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 2:44 PM, Bernie Krause <>wrot=
e:

> I don't want to be-labour this point, because it can get arcane and
> boring. I was responding to a realm of claim. Not individuals.
> But I will say that the world as we hear it, is not the same as a
> transformed reduction to a binaural recorded playback.
> And since the best binaural reproduction cannot be expressed through
> any speaker system I know of, but rather primarily through
> a great set of headphones, how does one measure the effect of SPL in a
> live environment, then reduced to headphones? Another way to put it:
> A binaural recording does not accurately replicate what we hear. Lots
> of replicated peer-reviewed publications on that issue.
>
> Look, the important thing is, if a recordist likes what he or she gets
> and produces, even if it's recorded with a wire
> recorder, than that's what matters. Folks just need to be careful
> about the claims behind the work and how they're arrived at. If one's
> work
> is truly good, than no justification one way or the other will add or
> subtract from the value of the acoustic statement.
>
> Bernie
>
>
> On Apr 6, 2009, at 12:18 PM, picnet2 wrote:
>
> > Bernie,
> > I have a genuine curiosity for this having email Gordon on the
> > subject some time ago, Would it be possible to elaborate why there
> > are problems with this method?
> >
> > I think the problem lies with lack of standards to deal with the
> > complete workflow, if we compare the color reproduction world to
> > sound - what would the 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 issues 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 precise?
> >
> > To do it properly the recording equipment would need characterizing,
> > as would the playback gear and as yet I know of no "Profiles" for
> > recording equipment be they for microphones or speakers. Or do such
> > standards exisit?
> >
> > ICC Color profiles quite accurately describe input and output
> > devices together with the transformation matrix/method that is
> > applied to bring the system close to a known reference (e.g a color
> > target) in the world of color reproduction, does such a mechanism
> > exist for sound reproduction? - Besides making your own detailed
> > measurements with calibrated gear that is - and thats 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
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
> Wild Sanctuary
> POB 536
> Glen Ellen, CA 95442
> 707-996-6677
> http://www.wildsanctuary.com
> 
> Google Earth zooms: http://earth.wildsanctuary.com
> SKYPE: biophony
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> "While a picture is worth a thousand words, a
> sound is worth a thousand pictures." R. Murray Schafer via Bernie Krause
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>









<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Admin

The University of NSW School of Computer and Engineering takes no responsibility for the contents of this archive. It is purely a compilation of material sent by many people to the naturerecordists mailing list. It has not been checked for accuracy nor its content verified in any way. If you wish to get material removed from the archive or have other queries about the archive e-mail Andrew Taylor at this address: andrewt@cse.unsw.EDU.AU