yes - it has been interesting & its good to discuss such things in a forum =
where there is a basic mutual respect for all viewpoints.
perhaps its been tentative because its would be all too easy to say somethi=
ng that could be taken as critical of one outlook or another but mainly I t=
hink its perhaps because we all seem to be the kind of person who continues=
to ask questions, to think & listen (!) - this means that whilst we all ha=
ve our own views we don't wish to pontificate so much as offer up different=
paths for consideration.
In terms of your further observations, whilst I get what you are saying abo=
ut stereo the same can be said of 8 speaker systems & indeed of ambisonics,=
which whilst impressive sonically don't sound like 'reality'. My main thi=
nking about these kind of issues is that what we hear with our naked ears i=
s one thing & what we hear via recordings is another (of course) & the purs=
uit of capturing reality in terms of sound scapes / nature recording has so=
mewhat moved on from the idea of a reality for all & is increasingly accept=
ing the reality of the personal.
Stereo, 8 speakers, ambisonics etc etc - its all valid. I've heard deeply u=
ninteresting work on multi-channel systems (in fact more of it than was int=
eresting) & massively engaging work presented through 2 speakers. I've also=
heard some very interesting work diffused through one speaker well placed =
in an acoustically different space.
When it does come to straight documents of natural environments, as I said =
earlier, its still relatively rare to find work that really transports you=
for any period of time - but, also one of the very best things about field=
recording (speaking as someone who's also a musician) is that it is democr=
atic - everyone can now make a recording that, for them, brings back where =
they were or what they heard. Recordings can act as keys to the audio locke=
d in our memories.
--- In "robin_parmar_sound" <> w=
rote:
>
> This has been an interesting discussion to read, to see the dialogue betw=
een those who wish to preserve a more "naturalistic" listening environment =
in their recordings and those who have other concerns, though the rather te=
ntative nature of the discussion is unfortunate, perhaps because the debate=
is old and tired to some participants.
>
> In any case, though I have nothing to say about pre-amplification, I will=
make a couple of points that might be regarded as truisms by the very expe=
rienced recordists in the thread. But there are always new readers and so n=
ew reasons to restate points of view. I'll address something Vicki wrote, m=
ore for convenience than to single out one part of the discussion:
>
> "I sometimes try to record 'the air' when nothing is calling much, but I =
can never get that sense of space and airiness that I hear with my ears."
>
> This is a fundamental limitation of stereo playback and stereo recording =
(by which I mean here the common definition of two sound sources, not the p=
roper use of the term to mean anything more than mono). There is only so mu=
ch that can be done with two speakers. Though we listen to an environment w=
ith two ears we hear sounds from all directions. This cannot possibly be si=
mulated with common domestic playback scenarios, which is why I prefer comp=
osing for eight speakers, and indeed would target larger speaker configurat=
ions if they were not even more rarely available.
>
> Likewise the Ambisonic folk are working away on more accurate and envelop=
ing recording setups with multiple speaker caps in tight arrays.
>
> Given the (to me) irrefutable fact of the deficiencies of stereo, any col=
lapse of a sound field to two channels is highly artificial from the very b=
eginning. Stereo recording and listening is a cultural act that is steeped =
in convention. We learn and use these conventions, (which I did when train=
ing as a recording engineer in the eighties) whether we later choose to rea=
ct against them or not.
>
> Dolby 5.1 and other cinema-based standards don't help the situation much,=
since they are all frontally-oriented in a way that our natural hearing is=
n't. By which I don't mean to deny the frontal orientation of our bodies, b=
ut rather that 5.1 etc., with their asymmetrical configurations, don't try =
to simulate this. Instead they overlay other pragmatic and programmatic con=
cerns that have more to do with commerce and traditional staging than natur=
alistic listening.
>
> To be pragmatic, most listening is done today on headphones, not speakers=
. So, to be practical, we should abandon stereo mixes for binaural, achievi=
ng our "perfect" imaging in that way. I continue to find it extraordinarily=
odd that commercially recorded music isn't largely binaural. Nature record=
ists continue to lead the way on that front.
>
> Apologies that this diversion has become longer than intended.
>
> -- Robin Parmar
>
|