On 1 Jul 2013, at 08:21, Paul Hodges <pwh-surro...@cassland.org> wrote:
> --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. Well put! And just to echo my last post, I think most modern recording starts from the position that the recording process can and often should be very unrealistic and unconcerned with accuracy. That certainly seems to be born out by most of the stuff that gets released these days. Even 'realistic' classical recordings are often very artificial on examination. Ducking for cover... S. > > Paul > > -- > Paul Hodges > > > _______________________________________________ > Sursound mailing list > Sursound@music.vt.edu > https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound _______________________________________________ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
