Hi folks, I find this talk relevant.
I mean, if we listen in a wrong way, how can we judge what is good and bad?
Thirty years of experience has taught me that a vast majority of
naturesound people have really crappy loudspeakers and crappy headphones.
I think this has changed somewhat in recent years, at least I see
more and more of good headphones. At least in Europe, good
loudspeakers seem to be more and more rare on a common commercial
market, like a local stereo shop or warehouse. You have to be kind of
an expert to find them.
My son is a D&B music composer, which means that he makes music which
is played on clubs VERY loud with VERY much base and a lot of percussion.
But being 14 years old, when he started, he was living in a common
apartment and could not monitor that loud. Besides, even if he had a
studio, he would certainly have damaged his ears.
So, in each case, there was no resemblance between the monitoring
sound and the live sound, replayed at the club. Instead he had to
learn that "if it sounds like this in the studio / headphones, it
will do good at the club". That process took a number of years and
since then he has not changed his equipment much. Instead he has
bought a number of Beyer DT990 to keep, as this model probably will
be discontinued sooner or later and he partly has to start all over.
I am sure that the guys at BBC and likewise knows exactly how they
should manipulate a naturesound recording, but they also have a well
defined goal.
As a musical producer said: "If you don=B4t mix in such a way that it
sounds good in people's cars, you loose half of your sale..." That's
another goal....
Monitoring while recording?
I always monitor a recording made with a parabol. It's a must, more
or less. There are many situations when you find "the best" sound a
bit aside, or above, the bird or insect.
But there is a danger monitoring other recordings. Of course you must
always check that everything works, like Dan says, but after that I
would claim that you should rather take off the headphones. Why?
Because the human hearing is very easy to fool! Standing five minutes
monitoring a recording with good headphones, means that you will
"hear" the monitored sound as "reality". (It is, to your ears and
brain...) Monitoring a lot, I guess, the brain will learn that the
monitored sound is "right" and reality "wrong". That is not what we want.
This I learned in the most brutal way when working with all the
binaural rigs before I found the SSM design. It=B4s a totally different
thing to learn and memorize what reality sounds like, with your ears
only, and then compare with what you hear when you come home.
Having said that, I must empathize that a recording never sounds like
reality, only more or less. Aiming for "best reality", it's best to
sit beside the mic's and take the headphones on and off, carefully
adjusting the listening level.
Klas.
At 17:25 2012-05-24, you wrote:
> > The 'best' mixing environment isn't a 'properly designed
> listening space' at all. It's one of the more interesting
> evolutions in music / sound in recent years that there has been a
> move away from mixing in such places, which don't have any
> relevance to how the results (a cd, a film etc etc) will be
> listened to. As with all these judgements there is no 'right' or
> 'proper' place. When it comes to field recording for example it
> could be argued that the last thing one should always aim for is to
> mix the recordings in a studio / designed for sound setting - which
> is, in effect, the opposite to the material collected. At the end
> of the day its all down to the ears anyway & they are always
> personal of course. I think part of this is also the point you were
> making anyway ?
>
>Sorry, but this opinion flies in the face of 75 years of audio
>technology experience (by audio engineers, not yours truly). Mixing
>and mastering engineers take great care to create a monitoring
>environment that is as neutral as possible. We know that listeners
>will be hearing our productions on highly colored systems and at
>widely varying playback levels. We can't predict that; the best we
>can do is to produce recordings that are balanced in a neutral
>environment, checked in mono and loud and soft. Anything else is madness.
>
>For example, say an engineer likes bass. So he or she turns up the
>bass on their monitoring system. Then recordings mixed and equalized
>on that system will end up being light on bass!
>
> > 'As field recordists, we have no option but to use headphones' -
> I know what you mean but actually we do have other options. I
> sometimes record without listening to the recording activity - so
> recording without monitoring the equipment. This isn't because I
> don't care about the recording - far from it. For me its to do with
> getting closer to the act of listening in situ. Aside from that, in
> actuality the history of field recording has only relatively
> recently been about the use of headphones at all times. Location
> sound, yes - but field recording was very often done without the
> use of headphones other than to set basic levels.
>
>Monitoring while recording is best, though often during a set piece
>recording I'll go for a walk to explore and keep warm. Recording in
>the field I'm listening for two things, first, problems with the
>equipment; a mic starting to sputter, or a cable chomped through by
>a squirrel. Another reason to listen is to annotate the recording in
>real time. It takes 90 minutes to annotate a 90-minute recording
>back home. If the contents can be noted in the field, that's time saved.
>
> > on the basic subject of this thread, whilst its a personal thing
> anyway, I for one can't see the advantage of such an emphasis &
> reliance on headphone listening in this context. It seems to be a
> product of the mainstream music consumption industry rather than
> any effort to improve listening.
>
>With regard to production (making CDs, radio shows) headphone
>listening is more important than before because a larger proportion
>of the audience is listening on earbuds. So you are right, it's a
>product of the music consumption industry. Knowing that affects our
>choice of mic arrays and mic positions.
>
>-Dan
>
>------------------------------------
>
>"While a picture is worth a thousand words, a
>sound is worth a thousand pictures." R. Murray Schafer via Bernie Krause.
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Telinga Microphones, Botarbo,
S-748 96 Tobo, Sweden.
Phone & fax int + 295 310 01
email:
website: www.telinga.com
|