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
>
>
>
>
|