this could get tricky ! I'd have to disagree with the 75 years comment. For=
one thing, lets not forget that recording began much earlier than this & t=
hat the fact the studio based production has come to dominate popular cultu=
re in terms of sound / music it is only one aspect of it. Also, I think you=
'll find that most creative studio builders & audio technicians a) don't tr=
y to aim for neutral b) understand that there's no such thing as every bit =
of equipment they put into a studio has its own characteristics. Of course =
the most obvious thing to say on this point is that if you look at the hist=
ory of recorded music, whatever your personal tastes in music, the fact is =
that its often the music that has a highly creative approach to studio prod=
uction that is valued mostly. I reckon if you pull your favourite 20 albums=
from the shelves not one will have been produced in an environment that wa=
s 'neutral' or doesn't involve a very hefty dose of the personal take of th=
e producer, most of whom will have experimented with ways to mess with the =
'flat line' nature of studio technical design.
On another point, I personally don't give any particular weight to said 75 =
years of audio tech experience - it certainly doesn't prove anything when i=
t comes to the creative process or the ability we have to listen to sounds =
as they are. In fact there's a lot of evidence to support the view that its=
studio produced music that has restricted our ability to listen to our ful=
l potential by using compression so heavily in order to meet the demands of=
the commercial music industry & technological limits of recorded media.
--- In Dan Dugan <> wrote:
>
> > The 'best' mixing environment isn't a 'properly designed listening spac=
e' 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, wh=
ich 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 'prope=
r' place. When it comes to field recording for example it could be argued t=
hat 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 anyw=
ay & they are always personal of course. I think part of this is also the p=
oint 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 eng=
ineers take great care to create a monitoring environment that is as neutra=
l as possible. We know that listeners will be hearing our productions on hi=
ghly colored systems and at widely varying playback levels. We can't predic=
t 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 ma=
dness.
>
> For example, say an engineer likes bass. So he or she turns up the bass o=
n their monitoring system. Then recordings mixed and equalized on that syst=
em 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 wi=
thout listening to the recording activity - so recording without monitoring=
the equipment. This isn't because I don't care about the recording - far f=
rom it. For me its to do with getting closer to the act of listening in sit=
u. Aside from that, in actuality the history of field recording has only re=
latively recently been about the use of headphones at all times. Location s=
ound, yes - but field recording was very often done without the use of head=
phones other than to set basic levels.
>
> Monitoring while recording is best, though often during a set piece recor=
ding 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 start=
ing 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 a=
nnotate a 90-minute recording back home. If the contents can be noted in th=
e 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 headp=
hone 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 i=
s 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 consum=
ption industry. Knowing that affects our choice of mic arrays and mic posit=
ions.
>
> -Dan
>
|