Oh dear, sorry to upset you, Robert. I _do_ recognise the value of pink noise and I've used it plenty of times myself for exactly the reasons you give. However, I don't regret a bit what I said about the far greater value of real instrumental recordings for these sorts of purposes. Pink noise is indeed a very sensitive test of timbral alterations - but just how important is that in the context of recording real instruments? I've certainly heard very "real" sounding recordings which I know must have had timbral modifications but without very close and careful listening they have not been at all obvious - and I'm sure everyone else who's done any recording will have observed the same.
Dave On 5 July 2013 17:20, Robert Greene <gre...@math.ucla.edu> wrote: > > Hugely long. But one point cries out for comment: > It is simply nonsense to say that it would not > be useful to have the results > available for pink noises sources at various > spots on the stage recorded via various microphone > positions. It is well known and completely established > that pink noise is a very good indicator of general > tonal character. It is for instance by far the most > reliable identification tag for different loudspeakers > or different EQ settings. That one can become > fatigued--take a break occasionally! > > This is just not true to say that this would not give > a lot of information. > > In fact, David's whole response is just more > of the kind of argumentation that prevents > audio from getting anywhere. People seem > unable to understand how analyitical thought works. > One starts with simple situations and answerable > questions: What does this microphone technique > do to the frequency response of a standaidzed source > located at various positions? > > It is silliness to say that this is not information. > It is also silliness to say that this is the > only information one needs. But the former silliness > is worse because no one would think the latter. > > The truth is that the field or recording seems almost > intent upon keeping their methods intellectually mushy. > It is as if they do not want to know how things work. > > And the really odd thing is that other people in > the sound world are not like this. Auditorium > acousticians try like crazy to figure out what > does what in concert hall sound. They do a good job too > (Harris got Benaroya to match Vienna GMVS reverb time > with in 0.1 secs bottom to top--try that with mushy methods). > And people who make and adjust instruments study > constantly the effects of things. All violinists know > which strings do what to the sound. It is part of our > work. Knowning such things does not make life less > "artistic"--it makes it possible to advance. > > Only recording(and playback) seems to be attached to > the idea that no one ought really to know anything. > No one who has made a recording has failed to notice > that unexpected and complex things matter. Blumlein > miking a one point can sound quite different from > the same at another point not far away for example. > > But once again, a field progresses by analyzing its work > one step at a time not be having a club of people > who just mess around with the ways they have always > messed around and say that no analysis is possible because > everything is so complicated. This is the sort of thing > that the mush minded said about genetics say, before > it began to be figured out. "Oh we shall never understand > how things are inherited, it is all so complicated and hidden". > > To return to the main point, I think it is a basic misunderstanding > to say that how a microphone technique records a pink noise > source at different spots on a stage is irrelevant information. > I think it is very relevant indeed. A journey of ten thousand > miles begins with a single step. That would be a reasonable > first step in understanding microphone techniques(and microphones). > > And it is surely a most basic misunderstanding to say that pink > noise response is not a useful indicator of sound. Exactly the opposite > is true. It is the most reliable and accurate one if one must > have a single source--it is a demonstrated fact that it is > for example the signal that gives the best identification of which > loudspeaker is which when comparing blind two similar but different > speaker. > > Robert > > On Wed, 3 Jul 2013, David Pickett wrote: > > At 06:31 3/7/2013, Robert Greene wrote: >> >> Variations from reality ought surely to be based on knowing >>> how to reproduce the reality first and then introducing the >>> variations. One does not bend pitches for artistic effect >>> until one is able to play in tune, so to speak. >>> >> >> Yes, indeed; but such question begging exposes the problem per analogiam. >> What does one define as "in tune"? What you are asking for is the ability >> to reproduce a complete soundfield with 100% accuracy, and then to >> introduce variations. We have not yet progressed to this level. >> >> If people want to treat recording as a pure art form >>> where one simply judges the results on aesthetic grounds. >>> it would be hard to say that was wrong. But it surely >>> takes recording out of the realm of science. >>> >> >> I am not sure that many of its practitioners (even Blumlein) regarded >> recording as a science: it is rather an exercise in engineering combined >> with aesthetics and as such intrinsically hard to theorize about. >> >> To my mind, offensive or no, it remains startling to me >>> that there is no recorded demo of how various stereo mike >>> techniques reproduce the sound of a pink noise source at >>> various spots around the recording stage, for example. >>> >> >> I cannot imagine that anyone would want to listen to a CD of pink nose or >> that anyone can believe that objective determinations can be made by doing >> so for longer than a few minutes. The ear adjusts to what it is hearing, >> as the eye does to colours under different lighting conditions and there is >> no equivalent to "grey cards" for white balance. Even doing A/B comparisons >> with the flick of a switch is fraught with self-deception, unless the >> levels are controlled and enough time is allowed to accustom oneself to A >> before assessing B. >> >> Surely people might want to know whether the mike >>> technique was changing the perceived frequency response of sources >>> depending on where the sources were? >>> How can people NOT want to know this? >>> >> >> There is a book by J?rgen Meyer (Acoustics and the Performance of Music). >> The blurb on Amazon says: "This classic reference on musical acoustics and >> performance practice begins with a brief introduction to the fundamentals >> of acoustics and the generation of musical sounds. It then discusses the >> particulars of the sounds made by all the standard instruments in a modern >> orchestra as well as the human voice, the way in which the sounds made by >> these instruments are dispersed and how the room into which they are >> projected affects the sounds." >> >> I have had this book for over 30 years. It contains polar diagrams of >> most orchestral instruments plotted for different frequencies. Nobody that >> I know has ever found much use for the data in making a recording, beyond >> those generalizations that are obvious to the ear. >> >> I agree with EC that a complete analysis of >>> the relationship between recording and musical sound >>> would be a tremendous >>> task, perhaps one that is not even well defined. >>> >> >> I think that is a conceit: there are far too many independent variables >> and the exercise would probably become what Glen Gould would describe as >> "centipedal". >> >> This is how science works. One works out simple cases >>> first. The fact that no one knows if there are infinitely >>> many primes pairs with difference 2(eg 17 and 19) does >>> not make it irrelevant to know that there are infinitely many >>> primes. One answers simple questions first. >>> >> >> Again: recording is not a science. If anything it is a craft with >> elements of engineering. I have been teaching it for over 30 years at >> university level and the number of textbooks that are of any use >> whatsoever, and those with caveats, can be counted on one hand. Take, for >> instance, the excellent book on Stereo by Streicher: most of the >> information is either theoretical (e.g. the combination of unrealizable >> polar diagrams) or else cannot be used without extensive empirical >> experimentation. >> >> 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. >>> >> >> As I am sure you know, active listening is a very tiring process that >> most people are not trained to participate in. If one cannot identify >> differences within seconds it is best to take a long rest and try again >> much later. Few have the patience for this and professionals cannot afford >> the time when musicians are waiting to perform. >> >> 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! (the first statement of the theme >>> went ok but soon, no soap). Of course this was a joke! >>> I knew from experience of learning to play the violin >>> that one learns the basics step by step and builds >>> up to the complex pieces over a long time. >>> >> >> It is, of course, possible to learn to play the notes of the whole >> concerto if one wants to waste time doing so. There was a young man at my >> high school who had learned to play several complicated pieces. He could >> not read music and had learned them by rote. Of course, though he had >> "mastered" the last movement of the Moonlight Sonata, this did not help him >> to learn the first prelude of the 48 at a faster rate! >> >> David >> >> ______________________________**_________________ >> Sursound mailing list >> Sursound@music.vt.edu >> https://mail.music.vt.edu/**mailman/listinfo/sursound<https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound> >> >> ______________________________**_________________ > Sursound mailing list > Sursound@music.vt.edu > https://mail.music.vt.edu/**mailman/listinfo/sursound<https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound> > -- -- As of 1st October 2012, I have retired from the University. These are my own views and may or may not be shared by the University Dave Malham Honorary Fellow, Department of Music The University of York York YO10 5DD UK 'Ambisonics - Component Imaging for Audio' -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20130705/bb080e09/attachment.html> _______________________________________________ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
