Someone wrote that naturesound recordings rarely come near a studio
or mixing room. That is true, nowadays.
But going back 30 years or so, there were - say - 10 serious
naturesound recordists in Sweden and half of them had some kind of
studio and mixer.
Nothing was simple: No one could afford a multi-track machine, best
case you could play one 1/4 inch reel to reel machine with another
likewise and get, for example, a bird recorded with a mono parabol
mixed into a stereo background.
When I tried to speak about "reality" here, I only meant that all
such mixed recordings could sound fine with loudspeakers, while the
"fraud" was quickly revealed as soon as you took headphones on.
Neither phase, nor acoustics matched.
I had a Blyth's Warbler recorded mono in Helsinki and it had such a
beautiful song and I wanted it to stand out from a stereo background.
It was a easy mix when loudspeakers were used, but not with
headphones. Finally I connected the mono recording to an amplifier
and put a good dome tweeter 25 meters away into the bush, as if it
was the bird, and recorded it with other birds with two MKH20 in a
rig. That worked fine.
So, no doubt there are both "qualities" and "errors" that you can
hear with headphones, but that disappear when using loudspeakers.
If this is important or not is another question.
Klas.
At 10:19 2012-05-27, you wrote:
>'So you believe sound waves to be structurally and acoustically
>different depending on the source? '
>
>no, I believe that all speakers are made to transmit music or tone
>generated patterns & even the most transparent ones are designed for
>the reproduction of music. As genelecs are a make that most folks on
>here will know & probably regard as very high quality lets use them
>as an example. I work a lot with surface vibrations in terms of
>field recordings - most of the genelecs (except for the massive
>studio installation ones) don't handle these sounds well. My old
>pair of AR speakers do, as do lots of others.
>
>'Er, no, since it is defined in terms of room acoustics. Rooms do
>not differ from person to person. People's experience of the rooms
>might, but that is not the same thing, and not what tuning a room
>addresses. (Which is why it does not even require a human listener.)'
>
>I'm not sure I can put into words my thoughts about that statement
>well enough. If we are talking about listening then to remove the
>person from the argument seems pointless. The science of room
>acoustics is based on human invention. It is impossible to know
>whether the way we hear or measure such things has been influenced
>by perceptions we have as a race because of what we believe or have
>decided to be the case. A blunt example would be two identical rooms
>'tuned' by two different people to be acoustically neutral. Each
>will be different & each will employ different interpretations of
>the science of acoustics.
>
>'Acoustics is physics which is not subjective. Since all our
>analogue and digital devices do indeed function in the
>(non-subjective) world, we can be pretty sure that our physics is correct'
>
>well, we're beginning to split philosophical hairs here but physics
>does involve elements that are subjective. Get a bunch of
>acousticians in a room & you'll see them arguing for hours about
>certain points. At the end of the day, removing the personal from
>such things affects the outcome & the science. All of science is a
>human, subjective (to a greater or lesser degree) interpretation of
>what we perceive as facts.
>
>This discussion could go on & on & perhaps its not ideal to do it here ?
>
>
>
>
>--- In "robin_parmar_sound"
><> wrote:
> >
> > Jez wrote:
> >
> > > Likewise there are no speakers designed
> > > specifically for them & so, in one sense,
> > > expecting a monitor to be 'neutral' for
> > > natural sounds when its been designed to
> > > handle electronically produced sounds or
> > > tuned acoustic instruments is just not possible.
> >
> > So you believe sound waves to be structurally and acoustically
> different depending on the source? That is an unusual contention.
> If it were true then electrical circuits and speakers themselves
> would be unlikely to function.
> >
> > > The idea of a 'neutral' acoustic is
> > > only an invention & it differs widely from
> > > person to person,
> >
> > Er, no, since it is defined in terms of room acoustics. Rooms do
> not differ from person to person. People's experience of the rooms
> might, but that is not the same thing, and not what tuning a room
> addresses. (Which is why it does not even require a human listener.)
> >
> > > its all subjective.
> >
> > Acoustics is physics which is not subjective. Since all our
> analogue and digital devices do indeed function in the
> (non-subjective) world, we can be pretty sure that our physics is correct.
> >
> > Hearing and personal interpretation is another matter. But you
> are confusing matters.
> >
> > -- Robin Parmar
> >
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------------
>
>"While a picture is worth a thousand words, a
>sound is worth a thousand pictures." R. Murray Schafer via Bernie Krause.
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Telinga Microphones, Botarbo,
S-748 96 Tobo, Sweden.
Phone & fax int + 295 310 01
email:
website: www.telinga.com
|