--On 30 June 2013 21:47 -0700 Robert Greene <gre...@math.ucla.edu> wrote:
and audio is still uncertain which mike technique really reproduces the live sound.
But you see, how ever many times it gets said (and it does), the discussions continue to ignore that fact that there are two independent aims in recording: reproduction of an original, and generation of something pleasant.
An accurate recording of an indifferent acoustic will sound indifferent. The question is whether you prefer the realism of that, or the rose-tinting of something which obscures or glosses over the poor acoustic. And given that the performance that took place was worthy, which approach to reproduction will enable the listener to best appreciate it. And this will vary with the listeners preference (to an indeterminate extent trained by their knowledge of previous recordings and the extent of their experience of actually attending performances in real spaces.
For my part, I acknowledge that there are many pleasant-sounding but inaccurate recordings which enable me to enjoy the music; but my interest in recording happens to be in realism and accuracy.
Paul -- Paul Hodges _______________________________________________ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
