naturerecordists
[Top] [All Lists]

2. Re: SD 7 series recorders with / without an additional pre-amp

Subject: 2. Re: SD 7 series recorders with / without an additional pre-amp
From: "Jez" tempjez
Date: Fri Apr 20, 2012 11:34 am ((PDT))
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
>








<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