On 03/05/10 12:16, Phil Leigh wrote: > To be really picky, unless you are talking about a crossed-pair 2-track > recording (or a soundfield job) in a real ambience with no EQ, reverb > etc there is no "natural"... there is just "engineered"... :-)
Yes, that's true, but some recordings can sound more natural than others. > Most people wouldn't like the natural (untreated) sound of a pop/rock > band without EQ and (especially) compression! Also true, and I'm not suggesting that I don't like pop/rock bands that use compression - far from it! I don't, for example, expect a "natural" sound from AC/DC or Jimi Hendrix :) > And before anyone says "What about the Beatles?" - their early > recordings have all manner of EQ, compression etc on them - much of it > enforced by the microphones, mixing consoles, guitars, amplifiers and > tape decks of the day - you couldn't get a "neutral" sound to build > from so you had to work round that. The reason they sound good? - a lot > of care was taken in the performance, recording, mixing and mastering. > This was a long time before the "fix it in the mix" mentality became > popular... The reason they sound good? Because they were damned good songs, perfectly arranged. I have some Beatles multitracks, ie. copies of the 4-track used before mixdown and it's plain to hear that not a lot is done in the mix - all the good stuff is on the tape. Funnily enough, on Friday night I popped in to a local pub who had a Beatles/60s tribute band playing. They were basically just 4 blokes in their 50s, average musicians - 4-piece, drums, bass, 2 x guitar, three vox singing the harmonies. The Beatles songs sounded simply superb. R. _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
