At 14:04 31/03/2012, Eero Aro wrote:
David Pickett wrote:
In my experience, early models were also very fussy regarding output
levels: either noisy or distorted.
As is common in Sursound, we are drifting out from the thread subject
Not really drifting: this is a very good reason why the SF mic was
not accepted for professional recording of large ensembles that cost
$$$/ minute.
I dont quite see this argument. We take as much time as necessary to get
things right.
Maybe I was a bit too critical. In my job at the broadcasting the
workflow really
had to be fluent. Getting the programs finished in a certain time
wouldn't have
happened without proper tools and a well thought out workflow. The best way
to achieve that is to get the whole process done within the same application
from beginning to end. When I have discussed with recording studio people
they have told me the same thing.
I confess that my perspective is recording studios, as opposed to
broadcasting and that the time constraints differ between the two.
For recording studios, this is probably the case today when the
bottom line is all, but in the 70s and 80s it was not so: then if we
had to remix or cut a recording three times to get it "right", that
was what was done. Musical and audio values were considered
important enough to devote care on -- and I dont mean the
microediting that is done today with a join every other note!
David
_______________________________________________
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
