re: "I actually only know a small handful of folks who make field recording=
s who use
a 'studio' to mix/edit & I don't know anyone involved in any aspect of soun=
d /
music who has a personal neutral space to work in. Its not possible."
I have an anechoic chamber - so now you do...
-Mike.
--- In "Jez" <> wrote:
>
>
> 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 af=
ter the fact can of course be very important. I myself think of the recordi=
ngs as precious elements. However I do believe that holding a view that one=
way to do things is the right or best way is problematic to say the least.=
For example, lets say there are 2 recordists: one records & then mixes/ ed=
its the recordings in a custom built, acoustically tuned space & the other =
records & then mixes/ edits on the two speakers they've had for years & are=
just good off the shelf monitors. There is nothing in those two systems th=
at will determine which end result will communicate to the listener or whic=
h will offer that something more. I say again that, outside the film, tv, r=
adio side of things the amount of field recordings that make it to public e=
ars have been nowhere near what constitutes this idea of an acoustically ne=
utral space.
>
> My own tastes, views lead me towards recordings that are personal & that =
aren't mixed / edited in environments that were designed for mainstream mus=
ic production. I've been fortunate over the years to spend time in some of =
the worlds most carefully designed acoustic spaces - from studios to concer=
t halls to rooms built for one specific instrument. but what I will say is =
that there are no such spaces built for dealing with field recordings. Like=
wise there are no speakers designed specifically for them & so, in one sens=
e, expecting a monitor to be 'neutral' for natural sounds when its been des=
igned to handle electronically produced sounds or tuned acoustic instrument=
s is just not possible.
>
> I actually only know a small handful of folks who make field recordings w=
ho 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 possi=
ble.
>
> 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 t=
o person, approach to approach & yet its become something that we believe w=
e 'know' or could tell. It is only an invented idea of what is neutral & if=
one adds in the psychological aspects of listening & sound then a high spe=
c 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 mus=
ic as part of the entertainment industry manipulates the listener. The idea=
s of neutrality have mostly come from engineers working with a limited appr=
oach to what music / sound means or should mean. Its a valid exploration of=
course 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=
shelves & find any records that matter to you that were recorded in acoust=
ically neutral spaces & find any field recording based ones that were mixed=
/ edited in any kind of commercial studio. There are so few - for the obvi=
ous reason (that they are field recordings not studio recordings & to then =
take them to a studio to clean up, gloss etc is the opposite of an essentia=
l element of what makes them what they are).
>
> In terms of sound art (which I know is the focus of some of those involve=
d in this conversation) this is an area that plays with acoustics often & i=
ts an interesting thing to do. However, I would argue that work that is cre=
ated in a studio setting (again, I don't know anyone involved who works in =
this way other than having an untuned & un neutral home studio set up) will=
fail to respond to the space in which it is placed. So much sound art, esp=
ecially that which features aspects of field recording, suffers from an ina=
bility to communicate & acts instead like a blunt instrument in the space -=
mostly because the space itself has been ignored in the production process=
. The sound has been produced elsewhere & dropped into the space & only rel=
atively minor adjustments made (partly because of logistical limitations so=
metimes). Some of the more interesting work however has been a representati=
on of something personal - work that accepts the limitations & plays instea=
d with ideas of subtlety & impact in the space / with the space.
>
> its all subjective.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In Mark <gnmark@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Jez,
> >
> > Joachim Ernst Berent wrote about listening environments in his book The=
Third 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 ca=
pture your sound subjectively (e.i. position ..mic choice etc) after that, =
it deserves a little more objectivity using an as acoustically neutral spac=
e as possible.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Mark
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On May 25, 2012, at 5:05 PM, "Jez" <tempjez@> wrote:
> >
> > > replying to a few earlier comments on my comments here:
> > >
> > > sorry, but my point, basically, is that a 'studio' setting is NOT neu=
tral - it is a human perception of neutrality & furthermore the science beh=
ind such spaces is a product of subjective decisions from audio engineering=
viewpoints. The interesting thing about stepping away from viewing studios=
/ acoustically designed spaces for audio production is that it returns one=
to the personal aspects of listening & hearing.
> > >
> > > To put it another way: why do we spend so much time & money building =
spaces 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 s=
tudios of course & I am not anti-studios at all. Nor do I have any problem =
with acoustically tuned spaces - in fact I find them interesting in their o=
wn right anyway. What I do have issues with is when any method becomes seen=
as 'the right way' to do things.
> > >
> > > On a lighter point: i'd say that if you look at all music / sound rec=
orded in studios there would be a good argument that this method of product=
ion has resulted in some of the worst music / sound & contributed to the er=
osion 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=
canals, etc. that any attempt to equalise for headphone playback is doomed=
to failure. No one curve can be applied.
> > > >
> > > > And it's unnecessary in any case for the task at hand, which is spe=
aker emulation. This emulation is not attempting to reproduce the perfect l=
istener, which is a different problem.
> > > >
> > > > -- Robin Parmar
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
|