I would have to disagree with you here Robin - not because of the science of
biology (though there is a lot of research into how sound coming from 1 or 2
sources in architectural spaces bounces off enough surfaces to emulate a
'natural' sound experience better than when the sounds come from multiple
sources, simply because it lowers the ability of our ears to 'know' that more
signals they are picking up are electronically produced) but because perception
comes into it too. Listening is not a purely scientific act. If one looks at
the history of recorded sound then its fair to say that we are, as a species,
currently trained on stereo - we have all grown up with it as a regular aspect
of our daily lives. Our ears know when something else is added & the majority
of people stepping into a multi channel sound field will perceive it as very
unreal, or hyper-real at best - the same sounds played back stereo will simply
'slot in' to how most people normally listen to recorded sound & therefore
there isn't the same level of sound confusion at first. If there comes a time
when everyone listens to all recorded sound through multiple speakers, then
perception might change & our brains might be able to unscramble multiple
electronic signals in a space to the point where stepping from outside to
inside the space doesn't seem like a dramatic & unnatural change. A simple
example would be the 5.1 systems folks buy for their big screen tv's - it never
sounds more real, it just sounds like the special effects chaps have been going
mad ! (of course this does depend on what you're actually watching)
I'd qualify all that by saying that there are of course two basic groups of
folks - those who actively engage with listening & these technologies & so
would already have shifted their listening or be able to have more open ears to
the process - & those who just encounter such work in a more passive way.
In raising these points i'm not saying I think you're wrong Robin - i'm saying
that it might not be as simple as saying that multi-channel is closer to being
able to represent reality than two channel. In any environment we are hearing
millions of subtle sound sources entering our 'stereo' listening system (our
ears). I've never heard a multi-channel sound piece / installation that sounds
natural & i'd go so far as to say that, as we are a species that suffers from a
problematic sense of ego, its often the case that the more options someone is
given to show off the more they will :) - meaning that if, for example, I hear
100 multi-channel pieces in a year, 90% of them will involve all kinds of
'special' techniques where we are given such things as the sound of a bird
flying from one side of the room to the other - but which cannot track the
actual reality of that sound & so our ears know something is not right with it.
If however the aim of the piece / installation is not to represent 'reality'
then yes, it can often be an impressive sound experience - but its not reality
& not, imo, really quantifiably much closer to it. Its one very very small step
closer perhaps (like 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000001 %) &, because of
how we generally perceive reproduced sound for now, an equal amount, if not
more, further away.
What i'm saying basically is that listening, as an act & an art, is always
moving forward & there are a significant number of people who are thinking
about ways in which improving the science or the technology isn't the only
answer. Lots of folks would probably really like to be able to re-create a
reality in a different space & there are all kinds of reasons why that can be
interesting or even an important tool, but there are also lots of folks whose
interest in listening is concerned with other matters or approaches, including
ones that seek to enhance the openness to listening in the real world.
Perhaps one could also say (in terms of composers, artists etc) that a person
who stands in a natural environment & can think to themselves about how to
represent it with 8 or 12 or 40 speakers is only listening the same amount as
someone who thinks about representing it on 2 speakers.
I'd also say that virtual panning is one of the most unnatural sounding
techniques there is. Perhaps some of all of these discussion really is down to
at what level one is engaging with the listening experience but virtual panning
! noooooo - it's the led zep riff of the sound world :) (joke of course & no
offence intended)
Of course, all of this is somewhat harder to discuss in writing like this.
These kind of very subtle discussions are always better done in person.
--- In "robin_parmar_sound" <> wrote:
>
> Jez wrote:
>
> > Stereo, 8 speakers, ambisonics etc etc - its all valid.
> > I've heard deeply uninteresting work on
> > multi-channel systems (in fact more of
> > it than was interesting) & 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.
>
> Of course there are good and back works for any given medium. However, if the
> goal of the "composer" is to produce an immersive experience approximating
> "reality", two speakers can never suffice due to the directional
> characteristics of sound, not to mention the challenges of reproducing
> complex spectra using a limited number of vibrating cones. Multiple speakers
> surrounding the listener, with virtual panning and other mixing technique,
> can do far better.
>
> Of course if the goals or artistic intent are different then even one speaker
> might be sufficient.
>
> -- Robin Parmar
>
"While a picture is worth a thousand words, a
sound is worth a thousand pictures." R. Murray Schafer via Bernie Krause.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/naturerecordists/
<*> Your email settings:
Digest Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/naturerecordists/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|