On 07/03/2013 06:31 AM, Robert Greene wrote:
I apologize if people took offense.
fwiw, i did not take offense at your clear preference for realistic
recordings (which i share and aspire to as well). i do object to
hand-wavey cultural pessimism that postulates the end of scientific
thinking.
stereophonic techniques have been scrutinized and researched in very
great depth and detail, and test recordings of the sort you were
alluding to are routinely done by sound engineering students and
seasoned recordist alike. the papers and data are out there.
stating otherwise doesn't change that fact. let's not make sursound into
a boring solipsistic debate club that negates everything which hasn't
been discussed here before.
<snip>
Except in audio, where no simple question ever seems to
get definitively answered and every almost discussion turns into
mush by means of enlarging the complexity of the situation
to the point that there are so many variables that no analysis is
possible without wild difficulties, if at all.
Personally, I would just like to know which mike technique
does what to the tonal character of sources at different
locations around the recording stage. If you don't care, you
don't care. But I wish I had a disc where I could listen
and find out. I find it hard to believe that other people
are not interested in this.
that's because they demonstrably _are_ interested in this.
it's just not as easy as you make it sound.
let's begin with the simple definition of "tonal character".
you won't be able to separate tonal character from spatial rendition.
coloration and comb filtering are a fact of life, and a perfectly
uncolored monophonic source will often sound less pleasing than a
comb-filtered stereo reproduction (unless your listening room helps a
bit). moreover, the brain is able to extrapolate from severely
comb-filtered sensory input and gives us the impression of hearing an
uncolored auditory event. good luck simplifying that :) i'm looking
forward to hearing about your test design.
Science works like that:one step at a time. Assuming that
people are interested in science.
yeah, that's why we have complete understanding of the human brain.
because it's sooo easy to understand, if only people would read more
sursound and not add needless complications. come on!
Years ago I decided to learn the piano(I am a violinist!)
just to see how it would go, by learning the Rachmaninoff 3rd
piano concerto --a measure at a time. As you can imagine I
did not get very far!
q.e.d.
your approach to scientific evaluation of recording techniques seems
similar.
Audio seems to be missing a lot of the basics.
yes, because psychoacoustics is _hard_.
PS There is a good bit of this sort of thing about
LOCALIZATION. But not so much about timbre.
check out for example theile's "spectral objection to summing
localization", but do get a case of wine and cigars before you dig in,
because it's going to be a loong and very interesting night if you
follow through some more papers.
best,
jörn
--
Jörn Nettingsmeier
Lortzingstr. 11, 45128 Essen, Tel. +49 177 7937487
Meister für Veranstaltungstechnik (Bühne/Studio)
Tonmeister VDT
http://stackingdwarves.net
_______________________________________________
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
