ah, but that isn't neutral is it ? it's one step further :) I've been in =
/ recorded in a few & what's interesting is that no two are the same of cou=
rse. If they were really neutral spaces surely there would be just one desi=
gn ?
also, the anechoic question further involves what is natural to our ears. W=
e live in houses, we have sound around us at all times. A space with an abs=
ence of sound reflection is, in effect, un-natural to us - no ?
Perhaps you'd be willing to share some thoughts on why you choose to work w=
ith an AC for mixing / editing ? (if you do that) - especially when it come=
s to working with sound recorded outside the AC.
--- In "Mike Rooke" <> wrote:
>
> re: "I actually only know a small handful of folks who make field recordi=
ngs who use
> a 'studio' to mix/edit & I don't know anyone involved in any aspect of so=
und /
> 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" <tempjez@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Hi Mark,
> >
> > I don't have much time to respond to this today - it would need some ti=
me I think. What I need to say for now is that the 'care' of the recording =
after the fact can of course be very important. I myself think of the recor=
dings as precious elements. However I do believe that holding a view that o=
ne way to do things is the right or best way is problematic to say the leas=
t. For example, lets say there are 2 recordists: one records & then mixes/ =
edits the recordings in a custom built, acoustically tuned space & the othe=
r records & then mixes/ edits on the two speakers they've had for years & a=
re just good off the shelf monitors. There is nothing in those two systems =
that will determine which end result will communicate to the listener or wh=
ich will offer that something more. I say again that, outside the film, tv,=
radio side of things the amount of field recordings that make it to public=
ears have been nowhere near what constitutes this idea of an acoustically =
neutral space.
> >
> > My own tastes, views lead me towards recordings that are personal & tha=
t aren't mixed / edited in environments that were designed for mainstream m=
usic production. I've been fortunate over the years to spend time in some o=
f the worlds most carefully designed acoustic spaces - from studios to conc=
ert halls to rooms built for one specific instrument. but what I will say i=
s that there are no such spaces built for dealing with field recordings. Li=
kewise there are no speakers designed specifically for them & so, in one se=
nse, expecting a monitor to be 'neutral' for natural sounds when its been d=
esigned to handle electronically produced sounds or tuned acoustic instrume=
nts 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 aspec=
t of sound / music who has a personal neutral space to work in. Its not pos=
sible.
> >
> > One point that interests me also is the way we, as a race, invent thing=
s - terms, statistics, definitions, & then become indoctrinated. The idea o=
f 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 one adds in the psychological aspects of listening & sound then a high s=
pec 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 m=
usic as part of the entertainment industry manipulates the listener. The id=
eas of neutrality have mostly come from engineers working with a limited ap=
proach 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 als=
o 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 acou=
stically neutral spaces & find any field recording based ones that were mix=
ed / edited in any kind of commercial studio. There are so few - for the ob=
vious reason (that they are field recordings not studio recordings & to the=
n take them to a studio to clean up, gloss etc is the opposite of an essent=
ial element of what makes them what they are).
> >
> > In terms of sound art (which I know is the focus of some of those invol=
ved 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 c=
reated in a studio setting (again, I don't know anyone involved who works i=
n this way other than having an untuned & un neutral home studio set up) wi=
ll fail to respond to the space in which it is placed. So much sound art, e=
specially that which features aspects of field recording, suffers from an i=
nability to communicate & acts instead like a blunt instrument in the space=
- mostly because the space itself has been ignored in the production proce=
ss. The sound has been produced elsewhere & dropped into the space & only r=
elatively minor adjustments made (partly because of logistical limitations =
sometimes). Some of the more interesting work however has been a representa=
tion of something personal - work that accepts the limitations & plays inst=
ead 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 T=
he Third Ear. He uses that as a basis for explaining that we carry out muc=
h 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 =
capture your sound subjectively (e.i. position ..mic choice etc) after that=
, it deserves a little more objectivity using an as acoustically neutral sp=
ace 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 n=
eutral - it is a human perception of neutrality & furthermore the science b=
ehind such spaces is a product of subjective decisions from audio engineeri=
ng viewpoints. The interesting thing about stepping away from viewing studi=
os / acoustically designed spaces for audio production is that it returns o=
ne to the personal aspects of listening & hearing.
> > > >
> > > > To put it another way: why do we spend so much time & money buildin=
g spaces that remove aspects of how each of us hear in order to believe tha=
t we are creating spaces that will allow us to hear clearer ? In a way it i=
s an attempt to control or defeat 'nature'.
> > > >
> > > > I'll qualify all that by saying that as a musician I have worked in=
studios of course & I am not anti-studios at all. Nor do I have any proble=
m with 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 se=
en as 'the right way' to do things.
> > > >
> > > > On a lighter point: i'd say that if you look at all music / sound r=
ecorded in studios there would be a good argument that this method of produ=
ction has resulted in some of the worst music / sound & contributed to the =
erosion of the listening experience :)
> > > >
> > > > --- In "robin_parmar_sound" <robi=
n@> 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 e=
ar canals, etc. that any attempt to equalise for headphone playback is doom=
ed to failure. No one curve can be applied.
> > > > >
> > > > > And it's unnecessary in any case for the task at hand, which is s=
peaker emulation. This emulation is not attempting to reproduce the perfect=
listener, which is a different problem.
> > > > >
> > > > > -- Robin Parmar
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
|