naturerecordists
[Top] [All Lists]

6. Re: Mixing using Headphones

Subject: 6. Re: Mixing using Headphones
From: "Jez" tempjez
Date: Sun May 27, 2012 12:57 am ((PDT))
quite simple Robin, my main point is as follows:

you stated: 'because the ideal has not been reached in a
demonstrable number of existing artefacts, there is something wrong with th=
e
ideal itself'

my view is simply that I don't not agree that there is such a thing as this=
 ideal & that whatever it is that is being referred to is not something tha=
t should be seen as the 'right' way to do things. It is just one way.

The 'ideal' you seem to be speaking about is just an invention & if we take=
 your point about electroacoustic / acousmatic music then i'd argue that of=
 the material that was studio based it was recorded in different studios wi=
th very different ideas of build. Furthermore you'll find that institutions=
 like GRM for example were not, are not concerned with neutrally tuned room=
s per say & most of the composers involved in these forms of music play wit=
h sound in spaces. I doubt any of them would argue that there is an ideal s=
pace or that all music / sound should be mixed & edited there. Most created=
 / create works in different spaces & the edit was done in a variety of dif=
ferent ways / locations.

I'll state again that I have no problem with studios, with tuned rooms or t=
he different ways in which people use them. I just hold the view that what =
matters is the result & the ability of music / sound to be creative, intere=
sting, engaging, emotive etc etc does not depend on these things.

There is one thing you've said here that I think is key: the fact that a st=
udio might have been built to some 'ideal' for transparency but, as you've =
stated, the mixing is actually done in the control room & these are not spa=
ces that are built to be neutral at all. In fact every studio i've ever bee=
n in (including some of the worlds 'best') has had a totally different set =
up & each engineer has their own favourite speakers / position of speakers =
etc etc.

'A studio is not supposed to provide an enjoyable listening experience. Ins=
tead, it is designed to support a clinical and exacting listening experienc=
e, so that the sonic result, played back in more comfortable and varied env=
irons, will be as good as possible despite these vagaries'   - i'd disagree=
 with this Robin. Its not the way studios were ever built & furthermore its=
 not the way they operate at all when it comes to mixing / editing. As near=
 as they get to this is that, especially in the route to mastering, attempt=
s are made to make the music sound ok on different speakers - this again is=
 100% subjective & more to the point is based, again, on mainstream ideas o=
f popular music culture. Interestingly when you refer to classical music re=
cordings what you find here is that these attempts are narrowed significant=
ly. The way most classical mixing is done is to leave the path as clear as =
possible & to include the dynamics of the room & the effect on the tone of =
the instrument intact. Very rarely are recordings put through the same proc=
ess of testing for compatibility with different listening environments.

I don't think we're going to agree on the basic points here Robin but I sta=
nd by the entire history of music & sound - in so much as it has, up until =
the 20th century been pushed forward, developed & enriched by work created =
outside of studio environments &, i'll place my bet on the fact that the wo=
rk that is & will be seen as having done the same more recently will be tha=
t which plays with these spaces & hasn't attempted to be made in any 'ideal=
' - whatever that is. If there really was an ideal then all studios would b=
e made that way & all musicians / artists would pick the same one. In truth=
 they pick the producer or do it themselves because they want the human. Th=
ey want to record the sound 'well' (based on pop culture history & the soun=
d engineering ideas of mainstream technical experts who's ideas of what con=
stitutes music / sound are also subjective) & then have it moulded by an in=
dividual set of ears. The content matters & that is audible through our emo=
tive response to the music too.

there is no ideal Robin.



--- In  "robin_parmar_sound" <> w=
rote:
>
> Jez wrote:
>
> > as per my reply to Dan, there's no such thing as a
> > neutral space - every bit of equipment has its own 'sound'.
>
> The fact that in practice we can never reach, but only approach, an ideal=
 listening room for mixing (let's call it a studio, though the correct term=
 is really control room), is not an argument for abandoning that ideal in t=
he first place. Every recording engineer knows well the impossibility of pe=
rfection.
>
> > when it comes to field recordings (used in
> > whatever context) 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'.
>
> I don't debate this fact, but in essence your point is a restatement of t=
he above. Your contention is that because the ideal has not been reaching i=
n a demonstrable number of existing artefacts, there is something wrong wit=
h the ideal itself. This simply doesn't follow.
>
> > Given the point you're making here Robin,
> > how would you account for the fact that the
> > vast, vast majority of work in field recording,
> > sound art & experimental or creative music has
> > had no connection to studio production ?
>
> That is too broad a statement. A lot of "experimental or creative music" =
has in fact been made in excellent studio circumstances, with equipment I c=
ould only dream of. We could start with just about all electroacoustic and =
acousmatic music, add in anything ever recorded by the major radio institut=
ions, and keep going from there.
>
> But if we restrict the discussion to nature recordings, I can posit some =
explanations.
>
> First, perhaps many of these mixes were made on headphones, instead of st=
udio speakers, thus being in accordance with my initial statement that it w=
as better and easier for most of us to mix this way. (The price of good hea=
dphones being a couple of orders of magnitude less than good speakers and r=
oom treatment.)
>
> Second, very little mixing in fact occurs on nature recordings. Generally=
 one records in stereo and, after tidying up the files with a bit of trimmi=
ng and EQ, releases the tracks in the same way. Yes, I do realise there can=
 be much more to it than that, but the purist nature recording ethos almost=
 mandates getting it right in the recorder. Thus the mix environment has si=
gnificantly less impact than in other sonic genres. But, don't get me wrong=
, this is not to say it has no impact or that one shouldn't still be aware =
of the limitations imposed by the studio.
>
> Third, it could well be that there are significant problems in the mixes =
of many of these releases, induced by lack of room treatment and so on. Onl=
y in the worst cases would we be likely to tell by listening to the end res=
ult. But if we have the source tapes we would be dismayed at how much bette=
r the results should be. Which is to say that, without a reference, the son=
ic ideal cannot be judged.
>
> Fourth, following on the previous fact, consider how easy it is to judge =
a recording of, say, Chopin waltzes on a particular piano. We know the sour=
ce material, we know what a Steinway Grand should sound like, we know a goo=
d room when we hear it. The more recitals we have been to, the more we form=
 our own idealised sonic result and the easier this task of discrimination =
gets. The same can be done for natural sounds, but the number of variables =
are much greater, so the degree of discrimination is also much less.
>
> For example, choose one subject, say the bittern, and find recordings of =
the characteristic booming. (I pick this example after enjoying such a reco=
rding recently posted to this list.) When we listen to these recordings, it=
 is rather unlikely that the aesthetics of the recording itself will be for=
emost in our mind (unless it is severely lacking and calls notice to itself=
 in this way). Rather, we listen *for the subject*, and forgive a good deal=
 of sonic mayhem that a BBC engineer recording Chopin would never countenan=
ce.
>
> In other words, the listening experiences are not the same. My point of v=
iew supports the plurality of listening(s) that you are also calling for, b=
ut without denying audio engineering.
>
> > Personally, I like working with spatial
> > acoustics in situ & this is always far,
> > far more interesting a listening experience
> > than using a studio.
>
> Naturally. A studio is not supposed to provide an enjoyable listening exp=
erience. Instead, it is designed to support a clinical and exacting listeni=
ng experience, so that the sonic result, played back in more comfortable an=
d varied environs, will be as good as possible despite these vagaries.
>
> > 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.
>
> I agree. Want a list of my favourite recording artists? It'd be pretty da=
rned eclectic. The last three groups I mentioned in public discussion are T=
he Pop Group, The Fire Engines, and The Passage, so consider that a start. =
The next concert I'll be attending is Einstein on the Beach. So I hardly th=
ink I'm writing from some MOR perspective.
>
> But this is irrelevant. The aesthetics of production is a separate matter=
 from room tuning.
>
> > Furthermore 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 'neutrally tuned
> > spaces' is somewhat of a, shall we say,
> > tricky view to hold.
>
> Not at all, since the matters are not even congruent, as I hope I have no=
w demonstrated.
>
> -- Robin Parmar
>








<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Admin

The University of NSW School of Computer and Engineering takes no responsibility for the contents of this archive. It is purely a compilation of material sent by many people to the naturerecordists mailing list. It has not been checked for accuracy nor its content verified in any way. If you wish to get material removed from the archive or have other queries about the archive e-mail Andrew Taylor at this address: andrewt@cse.unsw.EDU.AU