as per my reply to Dan, there's no such thing as a neutral space - every bi=
t of equipment has its own 'sound'.
on a wider point, when it comes to field recordings (used in whatever conte=
xt) i'd put money on the fact that 99% of the work out there (on cd, lp, in=
libraries etc etc) hasn't been anywhere near a 'studio'. To test this, I c=
onsidered one shelf worth of 'field recording' based cd's I have (approx 20=
0). I know, in various degrees, all the artists / recordists who made them =
& not one has a designed listening space. I'd say the nearest to that would=
be those who have whatever they feel are good speakers in a room set aside=
for music making - a 'home studio'. Lots of folks for example use genelecs=
, but these have a very particular sound to them.
Given the point you're making here Robin, how would you account for the fac=
t that the vast, vast majority of work in field recording, sound art & expe=
rimental or creative music has had no connection to studio production ?
Personally, I like working with spatial acoustics in situ & this is always =
far, far more interesting a listening experience than using a studio.
' If you don't have a listening space tuned to be as neutral as possible, t=
hen it's colouring what you are hearing. Any attempt to mix in such an envi=
ronment is inevitably going to produce results that have difficulty transla=
ting to other listeners.'
I'd disagree strongly with this Robin. I'd site the point I made above - th=
e fact that I'd bet most if not all of the work you've listened too & has c=
ommunicated to you has not been made / mixed etc in such spaces. How do you=
explain all the albums by field recordists that folks are passionate about=
but have been mixed at home or have an even more creative approach (such a=
s direct to disc documentation) ? My own view is that I have never really=
been that interested in some 'middle of the road' idea of production that =
says the same thing to all listeners. It has to be personal for me. Further=
more I do ask whether assuming that listeners can't / don't respond to such=
work in the same meaningful way as they could to work produced in 'neutral=
ly tuned spaces' is somewhat of a, shall we say, tricky view to hold.
--- In "robin_parmar_sound" <> w=
rote:
>
> Jez wrote:
>
> > The 'best' mixing environment isn't a 'properly
> > designed listening space' at all.
>
> I would have to disagree. If you don't have a listening space tuned to be=
as neutral as possible, then it's colouring what you are hearing. Any atte=
mpt to mix in such an environment is inevitably going to produce results th=
at have difficulty translating to other listeners.
>
> Of course, their listening environment is highly unlikely to be ideal, bu=
t that is no reason that the mix environment should be poor as well! Two wr=
ongs don't make a right.
>
> > 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.
>
> I now where you're coming from there. If you don't know what the sounds w=
ere like in situ then you have no hope of trying to reproduce them later on=
. Listening with both ears -- and your full body -- is often preferable to =
being trapped in headphones for the duration of the session.
>
> -- Robin Parmar
>
|