Hi Mark,
I don't have much time to respond to this today - it would need some time I=
think. What I need to say for now is that the 'care' of the recording afte=
r the fact can of course be very important. I myself think of the recording=
s as precious elements. However I do believe that holding a view that one w=
ay to do things is the right or best way is problematic to say the least. F=
or example, lets say there are 2 recordists: one records & then mixes/ edit=
s the recordings in a custom built, acoustically tuned space & the other re=
cords & then mixes/ edits on the two speakers they've had for years & are j=
ust good off the shelf monitors. There is nothing in those two systems that=
will determine which end result will communicate to the listener or which =
will offer that something more. I say again that, outside the film, tv, rad=
io side of things the amount of field recordings that make it to public ear=
s have been nowhere near what constitutes this idea of an acoustically neut=
ral space.
My own tastes, views lead me towards recordings that are personal & that ar=
en't mixed / edited in environments that were designed for mainstream music=
production. I've been fortunate over the years to spend time in some of th=
e worlds most carefully designed acoustic spaces - from studios to concert =
halls to rooms built for one specific instrument. but what I will say is th=
at there are no such spaces built for dealing with field recordings. Likewi=
se there are no speakers designed specifically for them & so, in one sense,=
expecting a monitor to be 'neutral' for natural sounds when its been desig=
ned to handle electronically produced sounds or tuned acoustic instruments =
is just not possible.
I actually only know a small handful of folks who make field recordings who=
use a 'studio' to mix/edit & I don't know anyone involved in any aspect of=
sound / music who has a personal neutral space to work in. Its not possibl=
e.
One point that interests me also is the way we, as a race, invent things - =
terms, statistics, definitions, & then become indoctrinated. The idea of a =
'neutral' acoustic is only an invention & it differs widely from person to =
person, approach to approach & yet its become something that we believe we =
'know' or could tell. It is only an invented idea of what is neutral & if o=
ne adds in the psychological aspects of listening & sound then a high spec =
studio is so far removed from what we respond too or hear.
The history of studio design has included elements to do with the way music=
as part of the entertainment industry manipulates the listener. The ideas =
of neutrality have mostly come from engineers working with a limited approa=
ch to what music / sound means or should mean. Its a valid exploration of c=
ourse but it isn't 'fact' & the application of acoustic science has also a =
large amount of subjective invention involved.
i'll make this challenge (for a bit of fun) - take a look on your cd / lp s=
helves & find any records that matter to you that were recorded in acoustic=
ally neutral spaces & find any field recording based ones that were mixed /=
edited in any kind of commercial studio. There are so few - for the obviou=
s reason (that they are field recordings not studio recordings & to then ta=
ke them to a studio to clean up, gloss etc is the opposite of an essential =
element of what makes them what they are).
In terms of sound art (which I know is the focus of some of those involved =
in this conversation) this is an area that plays with acoustics often & its=
an interesting thing to do. However, I would argue that work that is creat=
ed in a studio setting (again, I don't know anyone involved who works in th=
is way other than having an untuned & un neutral home studio set up) will f=
ail to respond to the space in which it is placed. So much sound art, espec=
ially that which features aspects of field recording, suffers from an inabi=
lity to communicate & acts instead like a blunt instrument in the space - m=
ostly because the space itself has been ignored in the production process. =
The sound has been produced elsewhere & dropped into the space & only relat=
ively minor adjustments made (partly because of logistical limitations some=
times). Some of the more interesting work however has been a representation=
of something personal - work that accepts the limitations & plays instead =
with ideas of subtlety & impact in the space / with the space.
its all subjective.
--- In Mark <> wrote:
>
> Hi Jez,
>
> Joachim Ernst Berent wrote about listening environments in his book The T=
hird Ear. He uses that as a basis for explaining that we carry out much of=
our lives focusing on what the eyes focus on, instead of our ears.
>
> I feel Dan is trying to get at is that once you've done your best to capt=
ure your sound subjectively (e.i. position ..mic choice etc) after that, it=
deserves a little more objectivity using an as acoustically neutral space =
as possible.
>
> Regards,
>
> Mark
>
>
>
>
>
> On May 25, 2012, at 5:05 PM, "Jez" <> wrote:
>
> > replying to a few earlier comments on my comments here:
> >
> > sorry, but my point, basically, is that a 'studio' setting is NOT neutr=
al - it is a human perception of neutrality & furthermore the science behin=
d such spaces is a product of subjective decisions from audio engineering v=
iewpoints. The interesting thing about stepping away from viewing studios /=
acoustically designed spaces for audio production is that it returns one t=
o the personal aspects of listening & hearing.
> >
> > To put it another way: why do we spend so much time & money building sp=
aces that remove aspects of how each of us hear in order to believe that we=
are creating spaces that will allow us to hear clearer ? In a way it is an=
attempt to control or defeat 'nature'.
> >
> > I'll qualify all that by saying that as a musician I have worked in stu=
dios of course & I am not anti-studios at all. Nor do I have any problem wi=
th acoustically tuned spaces - in fact I find them interesting in their own=
right anyway. What I do have issues with is when any method becomes seen a=
s 'the right way' to do things.
> >
> > On a lighter point: i'd say that if you look at all music / sound recor=
ded in studios there would be a good argument that this method of productio=
n has resulted in some of the worst music / sound & contributed to the eros=
ion of the listening experience :)
> >
> > --- In "robin_parmar_sound" <robin@> =
wrote:
> > >
> > > Dan Dugan wrote:
> > >
> > > > In order to provide a reference environment that
> > > > can then be altered to represent different monitor
> > > > speakers and environments, it seems to me that it
> > > > would be necessary to equalize the colorations
> > > > of the headphones being used. Otherwise everyone
> > > > is hearing something different.
> > >
> > > It is precisely because we all hear differently, with different ear c=
anals, etc. that any attempt to equalise for headphone playback is doomed t=
o failure. No one curve can be applied.
> > >
> > > And it's unnecessary in any case for the task at hand, which is speak=
er emulation. This emulation is not attempting to reproduce the perfect lis=
tener, which is a different problem.
> > >
> > > -- Robin Parmar
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
|