Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The artist of final decision
All this discussion of venue, sound producers, mic herders, knob/slider
jockies, etc. all comes down to what we can call the artist of final decision. This is the person listening to speakers just before jabbing the final record button. It is that event that is the only "honest" event on a recording as the artist wanted it. For honest reproduction of his intentions having both an industry reference speaker on both ends of the chain is desired. Using a digital industry reference sound source played through the recording speaker, all factors using the same reference can be used on the reproduction end to reproduce even in more detail the original artist's intention. All of the contributions of the venue and soundstaging and all those contributing to the final product as judged by the artist of final decision would be there. If he wanted "air" around the sound makers or strict location of same or relative amplitude or any other factor of his choosing, it would be their. The listener would be free to fiddle with his decisions as they desired. This could include having a digital template that forces the speakers to reproduce as brand xyz would without the true hifi the above would allow. Wire, amps, digital sources, etc. are now pretty much matters of commodity decisions as to functions etc. and not inherent reproduction. Isn't it time to make the rest of the reproduction chain same? Isn't it time to have a straight wire with gain from the artist of final decision ear's to ours? |
#2
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The artist of final decision
On Nov 11, 1:18=A0pm, wrote:
All this discussion of venue, sound producers, mic herders, knob/slider jockies, etc. all comes down to what we can call the artist of final decision. =A0This is the person listening to speakers just before jabbing the final record button. It is that event that is the only "honest" event on a recording as the artist wanted it. =A0For honest reproduction of his intentions having bot= h an industry reference speaker on both ends of the chain is desired. Using a digital industry reference sound source played through the recording speaker, all factors using the same reference can be used on th= e reproduction end to reproduce even in more detail the original artist's intention. All of the contributions of the venue and soundstaging and all those contributing to the final product as judged by the artist of final decision would be there. =A0If he wanted "air" around the sound makers or strict location of same or relative amplitude or any other factor of his choosing, it would be their. The listener would be free to fiddle with his decisions as they desired. = =A0 This could include having a digital template that forces the speakers to reproduce as brand xyz would without the true hifi the above would allow. Wire, amps, digital sources, etc. are now pretty much matters of commodit= y decisions as to functions etc. and not inherent reproduction. =A0Isn't it time to make the rest of the reproduction chain same? =A0Isn't it time to have a straight wire with gain from the artist of final decision ear's to ours? I'm fine with that........So long as I get to pick the system that becomes the standard. |
#3
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The artist of final decision
|
#4
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The artist of final decision
On Nov 11, 4:18=A0pm, wrote:
All this discussion of venue, sound producers, mic herders, knob/slider jockies, etc. all comes down to what we can call the artist of final decision. =A0This is the person listening to speakers just before jabbing the final record button. It is that event that is the only "honest" event on a recording as the artist wanted it. =A0For honest reproduction of his intentions having bot= h an industry reference speaker on both ends of the chain is desired. Much snippage.... So, the same problem arises as with the last attempt to discuss this issue in "circle of confusion". One cannot control anything but the front end. And that is thoroughly controlled as it is by the preferences of the recording engineer and the artists-at-play. Inasmuch as cats can be controlled without a large leavening of skill, art and pure blind luck. Imagine that as the generator inside the nuclear plant, or at the base of the Hoover Dam. Making only the purest of power for the discriminating user. Now, add 100 - 500 miles of power-grid and all the conversions and transformations. That would be the 'everything else' between the recording and the end-user's ears. Possible that there is some linearity betwixt the two - but not likely. And even so, the industry does try to (or at the very least pretends to try to) achieve that linearity anyway. Imposing some fixed series of settings or against a single rigid model smacks much of institutionalizing incompetence via arbitrary standards. Point being that if the front end is where the art both as the 'music' and the recording of it is expressed, all the back end need do is reproduce that as closely as possible without reference to 'forcing' speakers to do anything much more than play what goes into them. Anyone here remember Mark Twain's notes on how Riverboat Captains unionized? Peter Wieck Melrose Park, PA |
#5
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The artist of final decision
On Nov 11, 5:47=A0pm, Peter Wieck wrote:
On Nov 11, 4:18=3DA0pm, wrote: Point being that if the front end is where the art both as the 'music' and the recording of it is expressed, all the back end need do is reproduce that as closely as possible without reference to 'forcing' speakers to do anything much more than play what goes into them. Given the fact that a speaker is fed an electrical signal that is essentially two dimensional (time and amplitude) and the speaker converts that to acoustic energy into a three dimensional space so you have essentially a four dimensional output and we have room bounderies which will inevitably interact with the speakers out put AND we have the issue of speaker/listener position AND we have speaker interaction (providing we are not talking mono), given these facts...... your simple task for the speaker proves to be anything but simple.. But really... all the back need do is please it's owner. |
#6
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The artist of final decision
Scott wrote:
On Nov 11, 5:47=A0pm, Peter Wieck wrote: On Nov 11, 4:18=3DA0pm, wrote: Point being that if the front end is where the art both as the 'music' and the recording of it is expressed, all the back end need do is reproduce that as closely as possible without reference to 'forcing' speakers to do anything much more than play what goes into them. Given the fact that a speaker is fed an electrical signal that is essentially two dimensional (time and amplitude) and the speaker converts that to acoustic energy into a three dimensional space so you have essentially a four dimensional output and we have room bounderies which will inevitably interact with the speakers out put AND we have the issue of speaker/listener position AND we have speaker interaction (providing we are not talking mono), given these facts...... your simple task for the speaker proves to be anything but simple.. But really... all the back need do is please it's owner. Wouldn't you have to be in the same size room, with the same wall & ceiling materials to exactly duplicate the sound of the original performance. Kinda tough for a symphony. |
#7
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The artist of final decision
On Nov 11, 8:25=A0pm, Tom wrote:
Scott wrote: On Nov 11, 5:47=3DA0pm, Peter Wieck wrote: On Nov 11, 4:18=3D3DA0pm, wrote: Point being that if the front end is where the art both as the 'music' and the recording of it is expressed, all the back end need do is reproduce that as closely as possible without reference to 'forcing' speakers to do anything much more than play what goes into them. Given the fact that a speaker is fed an electrical signal that is essentially two dimensional (time and amplitude) and the speaker converts that to acoustic energy into a three dimensional space so you have essentially a four dimensional output and we have room bounderies which will inevitably interact with the speakers out put AND we have the issue of speaker/listener position AND we have speaker interaction (providing we are not talking mono), given these facts...... your simple task for the speaker proves to be anything but simple.. But really... all the back need do is please it's owner. Wouldn't you have to be in the same size room, with the same wall & ceiling materials to exactly duplicate the sound of the original performance. =A0Kinda tough for a symphony.- Hide quoted text - That wouldn't work either. you would have to match the acoustic output of each instrument along with the same radiation patterns. There is no practical way to record the actual total acoustic output of any instrument that isn't electric to begin with. Hifi isn't about a literal recreation of an original acoustic event. it is about creating an aural illusion of an original acoustic event. Very different. |
#8
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The artist of final decision
On Nov 11, 10:24=A0pm, Scott wrote:
But really... all the back need do is please it's owner. Yabbut - that would be too simple. This blather about 'standards' (at least to me) is not much more than endorsing already established avoidance behavior on the part of the industry so that it will no longer have to even pretend to be creative - and at the same time crush any actual creativity as exists within it. Hence the reference to Mark Twain. Peter Wieck Melrose Park, PA |
#9
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The artist of final decision
Scott wrote:
: On Nov 11, 8:25=A0pm, Tom wrote: : Scott wrote: : On Nov 11, 5:47=3DA0pm, Peter Wieck wrote: : On Nov 11, 4:18=3D3DA0pm, wrote: : : Point being that if the front end is where the art both as the 'music' : and the recording of it is expressed, all the back end need do is : reproduce that as closely as possible without reference to 'forcing' : speakers to do anything much more than play what goes into them. : : Given the fact that a speaker is fed an electrical signal that is : essentially two dimensional (time and amplitude) and the speaker : converts that to acoustic energy into a three dimensional space so you : have essentially a four dimensional output and we have room bounderies : which will inevitably interact with the speakers out put AND we have : the issue of speaker/listener position AND we have speaker interaction : (providing we are not talking mono), given these facts...... your : simple task for the speaker proves to be anything but simple.. : : But really... all the back need do is please it's owner. : : Wouldn't you have to be in the same size room, with the same wall & : ceiling materials to exactly duplicate the sound of the original : performance. =A0Kinda tough for a symphony.- Hide quoted text - : : That wouldn't work either. you would have to match the acoustic output : of each instrument along with the same radiation patterns. You'd also need to have the same sized and shaped ears, same brain lateralization, and the same width head, as the artist of final decision (and I'm not kidding here, especially about the ear shape, size, and orientation). Me, I just like it when the music sounds great. Whether it sounded better or worse or just different in the studio? Don't care so much. -- Andy Barss |
#10
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The artist of final decision
Andrew Barss wrote:
Scott wrote: : That wouldn't work either. you would have to match the acoustic output : of each instrument along with the same radiation patterns. You'd also need to have the same sized and shaped ears, same brain lateralization, and the same width head, as the artist of final decision (and I'm not kidding here, especially about the ear shape, size, and orientation). Me, I just like it when the music sounds great. Whether it sounded better or worse or just different in the studio? Don't care so much. Me, I find it sad that some people seem to think the application of standards to the chaotic standard practices of music recording would somehow impede the creation of *consistently better sounding* recordings. -- -S We have it in our power to begin the world over again - Thomas Paine |
#11
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The artist of final decision
On Nov 17, 3:37=A0am, Steven Sullivan wrote:
Andrew Barss wrote: Scott wrote: : That wouldn't work either. you would have to match the acoustic outpu= t : of each instrument along with the same radiation patterns. You'd also need to have the same sized and shaped ears, same brain lateralization, and =A0the same width head, as the artist of final decision (and I'm not kidding here, especially about the ear shape, size, and orientation). Me, I just like it when the music sounds great. =A0Whether it sounded b= etter or worse or just different in the studio? =A0Don't care so much. Me, I find it sad that some people seem to think the application of standards to the chaotic standard practices of music recording would some= how impede the creation of *consistently better sounding* recordings. I find it sad that some people with very little understanding of the creative process think that freedom of choice for artists is frightening, chaotic and is something to be limited to some form of "standardization." I think we have been blessed by the wide variety of recordings throughout the years. Now some people see that as a "circle of confusion," and with that deem it as a bad thing that needs to be reduced as much as possible. |
#12
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The artist of final decision
Steven Sullivan writes:
Andrew Barss wrote: Scott wrote: : That wouldn't work either. you would have to match the acoustic output : of each instrument along with the same radiation patterns. You'd also need to have the same sized and shaped ears, same brain lateralization, and the same width head, as the artist of final decision (and I'm not kidding here, especially about the ear shape, size, and orientation). Me, I just like it when the music sounds great. Whether it sounded better or worse or just different in the studio? Don't care so much. Me, I find it sad that some people seem to think the application of standards to the chaotic standard practices of music recording would somehow impede the creation of *consistently better sounding* recordings. Me too, but I have seen something very similar before. ICC colour management has brought accuracy and repeatability to the printing and graphic arts industries, but there were similar objections, and indeed there still some experienced professionals who are not convinced. Of course, people who were highly skilled at doing things one way weren't happy about having to change the way they worked, especially since there were things that they no longer could control. And also, territory has been ceded by the arty types to the propellerheads, and the arty types really hate that. In the long term, victory for the "calibrationists" is certain, but in many cases it'll have to wait for the old guard to retire. Andrew. |
#13
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The artist of final decision
On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 03:37:50 -0800, Steven Sullivan wrote
(in article ): Andrew Barss wrote: Scott wrote: That wouldn't work either. you would have to match the acoustic output of each instrument along with the same radiation patterns. You'd also need to have the same sized and shaped ears, same brain lateralization, and the same width head, as the artist of final decision (and I'm not kidding here, especially about the ear shape, size, and orientation). Me, I just like it when the music sounds great. Whether it sounded better or worse or just different in the studio? Don't care so much. Me, I find it sad that some people seem to think the application of standards to the chaotic standard practices of music recording would somehow impede the creation of *consistently better sounding* recordings. Having made thousands of pro-quality recordings over the years, I think the idea of applying standards to a creative process such as recording is as ludicrous as the idea of telling a Van Gough or a Picasso how and what to paint by setting standards for both content and style. |
#14
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The artist of final decision
On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 10:17:41 -0800, Scott wrote
(in article ): On Nov 17, 3:37=A0am, Steven Sullivan wrote: Andrew Barss wrote: Scott wrote: That wouldn't work either. you would have to match the acoustic outpu= t of each instrument along with the same radiation patterns. You'd also need to have the same sized and shaped ears, same brain lateralization, and =A0the same width head, as the artist of final decision (and I'm not kidding here, especially about the ear shape, size, and orientation). Me, I just like it when the music sounds great. =A0Whether it sounded b= etter or worse or just different in the studio? =A0Don't care so much. Me, I find it sad that some people seem to think the application of standards to the chaotic standard practices of music recording would some= how impede the creation of *consistently better sounding* recordings. I find it sad that some people with very little understanding of the creative process think that freedom of choice for artists is frightening, chaotic and is something to be limited to some form of "standardization." I think we have been blessed by the wide variety of recordings throughout the years. Now some people see that as a "circle of confusion," and with that deem it as a bad thing that needs to be reduced as much as possible. Well said. I agree 100%. If you don't like a recording, don't buy another from that producer/recording engineer/label. Recording is as much art as science. Talk to 5 different recording engineers about the way to mike a certain event, and you'll get 5 different opinions. Same with photographers, painters, conductors, etc. These arts are interpretive arts and the beauty is in the eye (and/or ear) of the beholder. |
#15
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The artist of final decision
On Nov 17, 7:22=A0pm, Sonnova wrote:
Recording is as much art as science. I think that's simply nonsense, and typical of your exaggerations in threads like this one. The Science bit is far more important and without it there are no recordings. You can of course prove me wrong simply by providing a high end recording made without any microphones and played back without loudspeakers. Without art you have a bad recording, no doubt. Without science you have no recording whatsoever. Talk to 5 different recording engineers about the way to mike a certain event, and you'll get 5 different opinions. But, while some of them may prefer one microphone over another, or one set of monitor speakers over another, you will find that each and every one of them uses a microphone of some kind to record with, and a set of monitor speakers of some kind to master with. There is art in recording, yes. But there is a lot more science and engineering. Indeed the art is only possible because of the science and engineering. To claim otherwise is to put the cart before the horse. |
#16
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The artist of final decision
On Nov 18, 8:01=A0am, Ed Seedhouse wrote:
On Nov 17, 7:22=A0pm, Sonnova wrote: Recording is as much art as science. I think that's simply nonsense, and typical of your exaggerations in threads like this one. =A0The Science bit is far more important and without it there are no recordings. =A0You can of course prove me wrong simply by providing a high end recording made without any microphones and played back without loudspeakers. Without art you have a bad recording, no doubt. =A0Without science you have no recording whatsoever. Talk to 5 different recording engineers about the way to mike a certain event, and you'll get 5 different opinions. But, while some of them may prefer one microphone over another, or one set of monitor speakers over another, you will find that each and every one of them uses a microphone of some kind to record with, and a set of monitor speakers of some kind to master with. There is art in recording, yes. =A0But there is a lot more science and engineering. =A0Indeed the art is only possible because of the science and engineering. =A0To claim otherwise is to put the cart before the horse. However much like driving a car it's possible to master that art without knowing anything whatsoever about "the science and engineering" involved. |
#17
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The artist of final decision
On Nov 18, 11:57=A0am, " wrote:
snip However much like driving a car it's possible to master that art without knowing anything whatsoever about "the science and engineering" involved. That is highly questionable. Understanding the theory behind signal processing is of great benefit for producing well-mastered recordings. While a deep understanding of the theoretical basis may not be a big advantage, some knowledge is essential for proper use of the available tools. Sound engineering a good bit more complicated than simply driving a car. |
#18
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The artist of final decision
On Nov 18, 8:57=A0am, " wrote:
There is art in recording, yes. =3DA0But there is a lot more science an= d engineering. =3DA0Indeed the art is only possible because of the scienc= e and engineering. =3DA0To claim otherwise is to put the cart before the horse. However much like driving a car it's possible to master that art without knowing anything whatsoever about "the science and engineering" involved. This is true of many technologies, especially those with good designs. Computers being perhaps the most obvious day to day examples, but power to the home being perhaps more pertinent. It's pretty easy to master the art of turning on the lights, but that doesn't make the technological and scientific aspects any less important. No one would claim, I imagine, that there is as much art as science in turning on the lights. But the two cases, light switching and sound recording, are about equally dependent on science and technology as each other. |
#19
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The artist of final decision
Steven Sullivan wrote:
: Andrew Barss wrote: : Scott wrote: : : That wouldn't work either. you would have to match the acoustic output : : of each instrument along with the same radiation patterns. : You'd also need to have the same sized and shaped ears, same brain : lateralization, and the same width head, as the artist of final : decision (and I'm not kidding here, : especially about the ear shape, size, and orientation). : Me, I just like it when the music sounds great. Whether it sounded better : or worse or just different in the studio? Don't care so much. : Me, I find it sad that some people seem to think the application of : standards to the chaotic standard practices of music recording would somehow : impede the creation of *consistently better sounding* recordings. I can't figure out whether you agree or disagree with me. Can you clarify? Are you saying a) pursuit of true/accurate/optimal fidelity to the original signal is the standard that one should hold recordings to (which is subject to the issues I and others have raised), or b) you think the quality and aesthetics of the final recording is what matters, since that fnal recordng is what we music listeners listen to? (my position). -- Andy Barss |
#20
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The artist of final decision
On 18 Nov, 05:01, Ed Seedhouse wrote:
On Nov 17, 7:22=A0pm, Sonnova wrote: Recording is as much art as science. I think that's simply nonsense, and typical of your exaggerations in threads like this one. =A0The Science bit is far more important and without it there are no recordings. =A0You can of course prove me wrong simply by providing a high end recording made without any microphones and played back without loudspeakers. Oh c'mon, that's like saying auto racing is more of a science than a sport "lets see them do it without the cars." Sonova isn't talking about the invention of microphones and speakers. he is talking about the aesthetic judgement made by recording engineers. Without art you have a bad recording, no doubt. =A0Without science you have no recording whatsoever. That is the point though is it not? We are talking about quality of recordings not the 'existance" of them. Talk to 5 different recording engineers about the way to mike a certain event, and you'll get 5 different opinions. But, while some of them may prefer one microphone over another, or one set of monitor speakers over another, you will find that each and every one of them uses a microphone of some kind to record with, and a set of monitor speakers of some kind to master with. Really? Thanks for clearing that up. There is art in recording, yes. =A0But there is a lot more science and engineering. =A0Indeed the art is only possible because of the science and engineering. =A0To claim otherwise is to put the cart before the horse. Quite to the contrary. That is like saying "yeah Shakespeare was a great writer but where would he be without the quill and paper. So lets give the inventors of paper and ink most of the credit. |
#21
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The artist of final decision
On Nov 18, 10:16=A0am, jwvm wrote:
However much like driving a car it's possible to master that art without knowing anything whatsoever about "the science and engineering" involved. That is highly questionable. Understanding the theory behind signal processing is of great benefit for producing well-mastered recordings. While a deep understanding of the theoretical basis may not be a big advantage, some knowledge is essential for proper use of the available tools. Sound engineering a good bit more complicated than simply driving a car. It might very well help if more drivers had at least some understanding of the physics of inertia and friction, of which most seem to be entirely ignorant, at least in my part of the world. |
#22
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The artist of final decision
On 18 Nov, 16:26, Ed Seedhouse wrote:
On Nov 18, 10:16=A0am, jwvm wrote: However much like driving a car it's possible to master that art without knowing anything whatsoever about "the science and engineering" involved. That is highly questionable. Understanding the theory behind signal processing is of great benefit for producing well-mastered recordings. While a deep understanding of the theoretical basis may not be a big advantage, some knowledge is essential for proper use of the available tools. Sound engineering a good bit more complicated than simply driving a car. It might very well help if more drivers had at least some understanding of the physics of inertia and friction, of which most seem to be entirely ignorant, at least in my part of the world. No. It wouldn't help. They "know" the practical applications through experience. By the time any athlete is doing their thing it is second nature. If they are thinking about the physics of it while in action they are in trouble. Now if we get back on subject instead of over analysing our analogies we can ask the question what knowledge will help the recording engineer make better recordings. Tough question to answer. "Better" is not universally agreed upon. This strikes at the heart of the issue of standardization. Whose standards will be applied? HK's ::snicker:: I'm sure they would love that. "We need standards in recording and playback, oh and we have that right here in our latest products." I think knowledge is a good thing for recording engineers. I'd rather they have that and use to to figure out what to do than have standard rules to tell them what to do. |
#23
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The artist of final decision
On Nov 18, 7:26=A0pm, Ed Seedhouse wrote:
On Nov 18, 10:16=A0am, jwvm wrote: However much like driving a car it's possible to master that art without knowing anything whatsoever about "the science and engineering" involved. That is highly questionable. Understanding the theory behind signal processing is of great benefit for producing well-mastered recordings. While a deep understanding of the theoretical basis may not be a big advantage, some knowledge is essential for proper use of the available tools. Sound engineering a good bit more complicated than simply driving a car. It might very well help if more drivers had at least some understanding of the physics of inertia and friction, of which most seem to be entirely ignorant, at least in my part of the world. That would be of no more of a help in getting out of my pajamas from bed in the AM than it is in driving my car. :-( |
#24
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The artist of final decision
On Nov 19, 9:27=A0am, Scott wrote:
[ Please provide cites for each level of quotation. -- dsr ] It might very well help if more drivers had at least some understanding of the physics of inertia and friction, of which most seem to be entirely ignorant, at least in my part of the world. No. It wouldn't help. They "know" the practical applications through experience. The plainly observable evidence in my city is that the do not know that at all. They tend, rather, to believe in entirely imagined "laws of physics" that do not correspond to the actual ones except peripherally. For instance they believe, generally it would appear, that they can bring their vehicles to a halt in about half the distance that is actually physically possible. The experiment is often tried around here, and uniformly fails with distressing results. But I suppose in your part of the world rear end collisions never occur... By the time any athlete is doing their thing it is second nature. If they are thinking about the physics of it while in action they are in trouble. And yet whole departments of universities these days are occupied in analyzing many sports scientifically and then passing the results on to athletes, who then use this knowledge to improve their performances. According to your theory this would be a futile enterprise. |
#25
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The artist of final decision
On Nov 18, 4:25=A0pm, Scott wrote:
On 18 Nov, 05:01, Ed Seedhouse wrote: On Nov 17, 7:22=A0pm, Sonnova wrote: Recording is as much art as science. I think that's simply nonsense, and typical of your exaggerations in threads like this one. =A0The Science bit is far more important and without it there are no recordings. =A0You can of course prove me wrong simply by providing a high end recording made without any microphones and played back without loudspeakers. Oh c'mon, that's like saying auto racing is more of a science than a sport "lets see them do it without the cars." No, it's nothing like that at all. A sport is a performance, like a concert is a performance. Both of them involve high degrees of art, much higher than the scientific aspects. But recording is not a performance, it is a recording and, ideally, should involve no art at all. As our science is not perfect it does involve some art. Now while we would all agree that motor racing is a sport, I don't imagine that any of us would think that broadcasting the Indy 500 is a sport. The race is a sport, the broadcast is not. Similarly, the performance of a musical event is art. Recording the performance is a technology which uses science to make possible. To argue that recording is an art is equivalent to arguing that broadcasting a race over television is itself a sport. That is the point though is it not? We are talking about quality of recordings not the 'existance" of them. That is not my recollection at all. The claim as I remember is was that recording was an art as much as a science. And, in my opinion, that's nonsense. every one of them uses a microphone of some kind to record with, and a set of monitor speakers of some kind to master with. Really? Thanks for clearing that up. Well, it shouldn't have needed clearing up, but you apparently had forgotten about it or deliberately chose to ignore it. There is art in recording, yes. =A0But there is a lot more science and engineering. =A0Indeed the art is only possible because of the science and engineering. =A0To claim otherwise is to put the cart before the horse. Quite to the contrary. That is like saying "yeah Shakespeare was a great writer but where would he be without the quill and paper. So lets give the inventors of paper and ink most of the credit. It is nothing like that at all. You are completely distorting and misrepresenting what I did say. By the way, I believe that if you research the matter, you will find that so far as we know, Shakespeare himself never made any attempt to record or preserve his own plays. |
#26
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The artist of final decision
|
#27
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The artist of final decision
On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 16:49:12 -0800, Ed Seedhouse wrote
(in article ): On Nov 18, 4:25=A0pm, Scott wrote: On 18 Nov, 05:01, Ed Seedhouse wrote: On Nov 17, 7:22=A0pm, Sonnova wrote: Recording is as much art as science. I think that's simply nonsense, and typical of your exaggerations in threads like this one. =A0The Science bit is far more important and without it there are no recordings. =A0You can of course prove me wrong simply by providing a high end recording made without any microphones and played back without loudspeakers. Oh c'mon, that's like saying auto racing is more of a science than a sport "lets see them do it without the cars." No, it's nothing like that at all. A sport is a performance, like a concert is a performance. Both of them involve high degrees of art, much higher than the scientific aspects. But recording is not a performance, it is a recording and, ideally, should involve no art at all. As our science is not perfect it does involve some art. Now while we would all agree that motor racing is a sport, I don't imagine that any of us would think that broadcasting the Indy 500 is a sport. The race is a sport, the broadcast is not. Irrelevant. Recording is an art and a science. Doing it right is not in any manual, and although the basics can be taught, just as the basics of playing a piano can be taught, knowing either is no guarantee of success. It takes talent and experience to make a decent recording and nothing about is cut-and-dry as you seem to think (obviously, you've never done it). Similarly, the performance of a musical event is art. Recording the performance is a technology which uses science to make possible. Wrong. Recording the performance USES the technology and science to make it possible, but recording in and of it self is the applications of skills and experience which uses the technological skills provided by modern scinece and engineering. To argue that recording is an art is equivalent to arguing that broadcasting a race over television is itself a sport. Ridiculous. Broadcasting a race over television is just as much of an art as is recording. I'll guarantee you that I could give you the latest and greatest high-definition television tools, and you couldn't do it (and neither could I). I don't have the skills, you likely don't either. And even if you did have the skills, without the artistic judgement that has to accompany those skills, what you end up with would be boring amateurish. That is the point though is it not? We are talking about quality of recordings not the 'existance" of them. That is not my recollection at all. The claim as I remember is was that recording was an art as much as a science. And, in my opinion, that's nonsense. Obviously, what you call nonsense is based upon a total lack of comprehension about what is involved in making a recording. Next you're going to tell us that there is no art in cinematography or still photography because both require science. If so, I'm sure James Wong Howe and Ansel Adams are spinning in their graves! every one of them uses a microphone of some kind to record with, and a set of monitor speakers of some kind to master with. Really? Thanks for clearing that up. Well, it shouldn't have needed clearing up, but you apparently had forgotten about it or deliberately chose to ignore it. I believe that he was being sarcastic... There is art in recording, yes. =A0But there is a lot more science and engineering. =A0Indeed the art is only possible because of the science and engineering. =A0To claim otherwise is to put the cart before the horse. Quite to the contrary. That is like saying "yeah Shakespeare was a great writer but where would he be without the quill and paper. So lets give the inventors of paper and ink most of the credit. It is nothing like that at all. You are completely distorting and misrepresenting what I did say. No, he isn't. It's an extreme analogy, to be sure, but an apt one for illustrative purposes. Actually comparing the art of recording to photography is a much better analogy in my opinion. By the way, I believe that if you research the matter, you will find that so far as we know, Shakespeare himself never made any attempt to record or preserve his own plays. That's debatable and surely beside the point. |
#28
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The artist of final decision
On Nov 20, 5:23=A0am, Sonnova wrote:
[ Please attribute your quotes properly. -- dsr ] That is the point though is it not? We are talking about quality of recordings not the 'existance" of them. That is not my recollection at all. =A0The claim as I remember is was that recording was =A0an art as much as a science. =A0And, in my opinio= n, that's nonsense. Obviously, what you call nonsense is based upon a total lack of comprehen= sion about what is involved in making a recording. Next you're going to tell u= s that there is no art in cinematography or still photography because both require science. If so, I'm sure James Wong Howe and Ansel Adams are spin= ning in their graves! Please stop twisting my words. I neither said nor implied that there is no art in the process of recording. In fact I said there was. I just said that to say there is "as much" art as sciences is obviously nonsense. It remains nonsense for the reasons I gave, and the fact that you are now putting words in my mouth that I never said does not make it any less nonsense. Furthermore accusing me of things like "total lack of comprehension" is merely name calling and based on no evidence whatsoever. This kind of thing, is alas, replete in your last message and I don't think I'll continue what seems to have become a take no prisoners war on your part rather than a conversation. [ This section of the thread is now over. I suggest that everyone step back and calm down for a while. -- dsr ] |
#29
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The artist of final decision
On Nov 20, 5:23=A0am, Sonnova wrote:
That is the point though is it not? We are talking about quality of recordings not the 'existance" of them. That is not my recollection at all. =A0The claim as I remember is was that recording was =A0an art as much as a science. =A0And, in my opinio= n, that's nonsense. Obviously, what you call nonsense is based upon a total lack of comprehen= sion about what is involved in making a recording. Next you're going to tell u= s that there is no art in cinematography or still photography because both require science. If so, I'm sure James Wong Howe and Ansel Adams are spin= ning in their graves! Please stop twisting my words. I neither said nor implied that there is no art in the process of recording. In fact I said there was. I just said that to say there is "as much" art as sciences is obviously nonsense. It remains nonsense for the reasons I gave, and the fact that you are now putting words in my mouth that I never said does not make it any less nonsense. Furthermore accusing me of things like "total lack of comprehension" is merely name calling and based on no evidence whatsoever. This kind of thing, is alas, replete in your last message and I don't think I'll continue what seems to have become a take no prisoners war on your part rather than a conversation. |
#30
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The artist of final decision
Mpffff.... this is straying far from the subject.
Please indulge me and allow me to express a couple of opinions as my position is likely already clear. No artist will object to his paints, tools, materials or equipment being manufactured to rigid, repeatable and predictable standards. That will allow him to do his job not worrying about those aspects. Of course he is also entitled to mix his own pigments, make his own tools and so forth. Neither choice detracts from his art or the expression thereof. No engineer will object to his equipment, tools, materials and systems being made to rigid, repeatable and predictable standards. And he is certainly expected to hew to the laws of physics. Verily, it must be so for him to do his engineering. But he is still allowed to extract the most possible function out of the equipment in a way that best meets the intent and/or requirement. And he is also free to engineer those things he needs to his own standards and requirements if the available choices are inadequate. Neither choice interferes with or detracts from his work. Point being that standards as they do not interfere with creativity make that creativity easier to express. And when the standards are inadequate, creativity must-needs be allowed to supercede them. The Recording Industry is no different. Peter Wieck Melrose Park, PA |
#31
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The artist of final decision
On 19 Nov, 16:49, Ed Seedhouse wrote:
But recording is not a performance, it is a recording and, ideally, should involve no art at all. I was going to leave your post alone as I felt it pretty much defeated itself but i thought this comment and the ones that follow simply need to be addressed. How do you figure "ideally a recording should involve no art at all?" I honestly don't want to offend but this one leaves me scratching my head. How would one have recorded Pink Floyd Dark Side of the Moon with no art at all? You can even imagine perfect technology, how does one record that album without making artistic choices as a recording engineer? Lets take a less obvious example. How would Rudy Van Gelder have done his recordings, and lets give him "perfect technology for laughs" without making artistic choices? Lets take the ultimate least obvious example. How does one record something as clearly finished and pollished in it's natural form as a classical concert without making artistic choices? What would constitute a recording sans any artitic choices in the recording itself? maybe you can describe a scenerio in which a recording engineer, even with perfect technology, would make a recording sans any artistic choices. I can't see how it is possible. It's like painting a room without choosing a color. As our science is not perfect it does involve some art. Science is not perfect? I'm guessing you mean the technology. I don't think this is the reason there is artistry in recording. Imagine what it would mean to have perfect technology and then try to describe a recording that due to perfect technology is now free of artistic choices, conscious or not. Now while we would all agree that motor racing is a sport, I don't imagine that any of us would think that broadcasting the Indy 500 is a sport. The race is a sport, the broadcast is not. Of course it is not a sport. but it does involve choices that are quite artistic, Camera placement, Camera movement, lens choices, editing, Not to mention writing and a whole skill set that comes with being an anouncer. There is a great deal of technology involved but the excellence in broadcasting such an event is highly dependent on the artistic choices of the director and his crew. You did know that didn't you? I understand that such things as sports broadcasting can become so common place that viewers become quite oblivious to these things. |
#32
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The artist of final decision
On 20 Nov, 16:19, Peter Wieck wrote:
Mpffff.... this is straying far from the subject. Please indulge me and allow me to express a couple of opinions as my position is likely already clear. No artist will object to his paints, tools, materials or equipment being manufactured to rigid, repeatable and predictable standards. That will allow him to do his job not worrying about those aspects. As an artist I beg to differ. I thrive on the vast variety of options I have due to the very distinct differences in philosophies and beliefs held by the various manufacturers of my tools and materials. If they were all held to some set of universal standards along the lines that Sean Olive is proposing be done in audio my choices would be severely constricted. Of course he is also entitled to mix his own pigments, make his own tools and so forth. Neither choice detracts from his art or the expression thereof. Well that just wouldn't be true if there were some inforced set of standards in play. I'm pretty sure that Olive is not thinking of institutionalizing a set of standards in recording just so the recording engineer can go in there and rework and customize the equipment. I'm pretty sure he is trying to do the opposite. No engineer will object to his equipment, tools, materials and systems being made to rigid, repeatable and predictable standards. That isn't at issue here. This sin't about makers of audio equipment being consistant to their own designs but complying to a standard that is imposed upon them so they can be in the loop. And he is certainly expected to hew to the laws of physics. Verily, it must be so for him to do his engineering. But he is still allowed to extract the most possible function out of the equipment in a way that best meets the intent and/or requirement. And he is also free to engineer those things he needs to his own standards and requirements if the available choices are inadequate. Neither choice interferes with or detracts from his work. Point being that standards as they do not interfere with creativity make that creativity easier to express. And when the standards are inadequate, creativity must-needs be allowed to supercede them. The Recording Industry is no different. I don't think this is where Olive is going with standardization. |
#33
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The artist of final decision
On Nov 20, 8:30=A0pm, Scott wrote:
On 19 Nov, 16:49, Ed Seedhouse wrote: But recording is not a performance, it is a recording and, ideally, should involve no art at all. =A0I was going to leave your post alone as I felt it pretty much defeated itself but i thought this comment and the ones that follow simply need to be addressed. How do you figure "ideally a recording should involve no art at all?" I can only suggest you refer yourself to a dictionary and find the definition of the word "ideal". I will not deal with your specific points as they all seem to me to come from either a complete misunderstanding of common word usage, or, well let's be charitable and leave it at that. |
#34
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The artist of final decision
On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 16:19:05 -0800, Peter Wieck wrote
(in article ): Mpffff.... this is straying far from the subject. Please indulge me and allow me to express a couple of opinions as my position is likely already clear. No artist will object to his paints, tools, materials or equipment being manufactured to rigid, repeatable and predictable standards. That will allow him to do his job not worrying about those aspects. Of course he is also entitled to mix his own pigments, make his own tools and so forth. Neither choice detracts from his art or the expression thereof. No engineer will object to his equipment, tools, materials and systems being made to rigid, repeatable and predictable standards. And he is certainly expected to hew to the laws of physics. Verily, it must be so for him to do his engineering. But he is still allowed to extract the most possible function out of the equipment in a way that best meets the intent and/or requirement. And he is also free to engineer those things he needs to his own standards and requirements if the available choices are inadequate. Neither choice interferes with or detracts from his work. Point being that standards as they do not interfere with creativity make that creativity easier to express. And when the standards are inadequate, creativity must-needs be allowed to supercede them. The Recording Industry is no different. Peter Wieck Melrose Park, PA Absolutely agreed. |
#35
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The artist of final decision
On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 16:20:47 -0800, Dick Pierce wrote
(in article ): Sonnova wrote: Next you're going to tell us that there is no art in cinematography or still photography because both require science. If so, I'm sure James Wong Howe and Ansel Adams are spinning in their graves! Certainly I didn't read such out of his statement. And, while you're digging up Adams, I might suggest you actually read what Adams wrote: he is quite explicit that his invention of the Zone system is based on a very complete SCIENTIFIC analysis and understanding of the sensitometric properies of every partion of the media, INCLUDING the human perceptive system. His process of being able to "see through: the camera all the way to the finished print is vitally dependent upon the training of the photographer to recognize and understand the specific properties of the film, the development processes and then the printing paper, it's development process, even to the effect of drying, mounting, hanging and illuminating the final print. Yes, I not only know what he wrote, I took a class from him in Yosemite one summer and got to know the man very well. His art USED the sciences of photometery and chemistry to achieve and wouldn't have been possible without them. Yet, using those same tools, a lesser artist (such as myself) is clearly not able to elicit the same results. Yes, just as in recording, the medium enters into the equation as a condition of the art, but does not define that art. The artist does that by manipulating his or her unique and personal vision of reality. That's why the tools (and the methodology of using them), without the artist, are just useless hardware. |
#36
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The artist of final decision
Andrew Barss wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote: : Andrew Barss wrote: : Scott wrote: : : That wouldn't work either. you would have to match the acoustic output : : of each instrument along with the same radiation patterns. : You'd also need to have the same sized and shaped ears, same brain : lateralization, and the same width head, as the artist of final : decision (and I'm not kidding here, : especially about the ear shape, size, and orientation). : Me, I just like it when the music sounds great. Whether it sounded better : or worse or just different in the studio? Don't care so much. : Me, I find it sad that some people seem to think the application of : standards to the chaotic standard practices of music recording would somehow : impede the creation of *consistently better sounding* recordings. I can't figure out whether you agree or disagree with me. Can you clarify? Are you saying a) pursuit of true/accurate/optimal fidelity to the original signal is the standard that one should hold recordings to (which is subject to the issues I and others have raised), or b) you think the quality and aesthetics of the final recording is what matters, since that fnal recordng is what we music listeners listen to? (my position). What recorded music listeners listen to -- whether it's the consumer at home or the producers in the control room -- is the recording + the coloration of the loudspeakers + the coloration of the room. Don't you think that is going to impact judgement of 'quality and esthetics' of the recording? The circle of confusion encompasses both the recording/production end and the playback end. -- -S We have it in our power to begin the world over again - Thomas Paine |
#37
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The artist of final decision
I will try once more to see if I 'get' this - and why I think the
entire issue is so much blather if I do. On Nov 18, 7:25=A0pm, Andrew Barss wrote: I can't figure out whether you agree or disagree with me. Can you clarify? Are you saying a) pursuit of true/accurate/optimal fidelity to the original signal is th= e standard that one should hold recordings to (which is subject to the issues I and others have raised), or b) you think the quality and aesthetics of the final recording is what matters, since that fnal recordng is what we music listeners listen to? (my position). Actually, neither. It is not necessary to take an either/or position - take your example from William of Occam and just use Is/Is Not. Example for clarification: Color - Either something Is black or Is Not black. Black is _only_ black. Not Black is anything at all _except_ black but NOT NECESSARILY WHITE. Get it? The original *signal* implies the electrical pulses laid down at the first recording by the microphones. My preference would be to extend that to what is heard by the typical listener at any given random spot in the audience - and this is important. The final recording is *necessarily* not equivalent to what every listener hears. At best and using heroic measures it closely approximates what one specific listener might hear - and then only if reproduced with headphones. Those measures would have to include two closely spaced microphones approximately a head apart and with the proper material between them, placed at an appropriate height in an appropriate location in the actual audience. Not typically how it is done - although this process is being used in some cases. a) Ain't nohow no speakers on earth other than *perhaps* those inside headphones that will reproduce this experience. b) So, the moment standard recording techniques are used the product of those techniques is radically different and separate from what one might hear. c) The moment there is a change in the recording venue (Avery Fisher Hall vs. The Academy of Music, for instance) an additional layer of separation is added. d) The moment the product is reproduced via speakers an additional layer of separation is added. e) The moment those _very-same_ speakers are moved even a few inches much less to a different location, an additional layer of separation is added. f) Much less with different speakers *and* a different location. So, what it comes down to is that standardization across the simple divide of the recording venue and the listening venue is impossible to any practical or reasonable approximation. So what it comes down to is that standardization across recording venues alone is impossible to any practical or reasonable approximation. Which leaves us with the Recording Engineer, Mixing Engineer and Re- Mastering Engineer whether the same or different and how the signal as received at the microphones is laid down, printed and sent along to us. And how we then take that signal and play it back through our particular and peculiar prejudices, preferences and processes further colored by our actual system and the room it is in and the time of day and what we had for breakfast and so forth and so on. I hope what the various or singular engineer laid down is compatible with my preferences at my destination. And two different engineers will hear things differently - thank goodness for that!! As if the standard became the product of the most incompetent and wretched engineer's preferences (standards become the _lowest_ acceptable point) then nothing good is possible. I keep referring to Mark Twain and his story of unionization of the Mississippi Riverboat Captains. Those of you less literary and more practical might think about the term "work to rule" when advocating 'standards'. One last thing: Studio Recordings are 100% artificial constructs whether classical or rock or folk or spoken word. And as with many artificial things, anything is possible from sublime to truly horrible. "Work to Rule" with studio recordings gives me the cold shivers! No confusion here at all. Peter Wieck Melrose Park, PA |
#38
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The artist of final decision
Peter Wieck wrote:
: I will try once more to see if I 'get' this - and why I think the : entire issue is so much blather if I do. : On Nov 18, 7:25=A0pm, Andrew Barss wrote: : I can't figure out whether you agree or disagree with me. Can you : clarify? : : Are you saying : : a) pursuit of true/accurate/optimal fidelity to the original signal is= the : standard that one should hold recordings to (which is subject to the : issues I and others have raised), or : : b) you think the quality and aesthetics of the final recording is what : matters, since that fnal recordng is what we music listeners listen to= ? : (my position). : Actually, neither. It is not necessary to take an either/or position - : take your example from William of Occam and just use Is/Is Not. : Example for clarification: Color - Either something Is black or Is Not : black. Black is _only_ black. Not Black is anything at all _except_ : black but NOT NECESSARILY WHITE. Get it? Yes. I teach logic a the graduate level, FWIW.=20 You don;t need to invoke the law of the excluded middle, nor the=20 difference between not having a property and having a different property. I just asked a simple question! : The original *signal* implies the electrical pulses laid down at the : first recording by the microphones. My preference would be to extend : that to what is heard by the typical listener at any given random spot : in the audience - and this is important. I chose my words badly, and what you say in the quote above is what I=20 meant. I avoided "performance" since a lot of the music I listen to is not recorded, nor is some of it ever played, live, but created through= =20 multiple recordings. : The final recording is *necessarily* not equivalent to what every : listener hears. Yes -- see my post earlier about ear shape, cerebral lateralization, and=20 so on. I would strengthen your "every listener" to "any listener (in the=20 studio/performance venue".=20 : b) So, the moment standard recording techniques are used the product : of those techniques is radically different and separate from what one : might hear. Yes, agreed. : c) The moment there is a change in the recording venue (Avery Fisher : Hall vs. The Academy of Music, for instance) an additional layer of : separation is added. Yes, agreed. : d) The moment the product is reproduced via speakers an additional : layer of separation is added. Indeed so. : e) The moment those _very-same_ speakers are moved even a few inches : much less to a different location, an additional layer of separation : is added. Yup. : f) Much less with different speakers *and* a different location. Certainly. : So, what it comes down to is that standardization across the simple : divide of the recording venue and the listening venue is impossible to : any practical or reasonable approximation. I agree totally. =20 But what I was asking about was somewhat different, and simply whether=20 you were saying (in your earlier post) that the goal is music sounding=20 terrific, regardless of fidelity to any stage of the chain of producing=20 the music you identify above (including the first one), or not (e.g,=20 "fidelity to the original performance", as many here suggest is the goal)= .. : So what it comes down to is that standardization across recording : venues alone is impossible to any practical or reasonable : approximation. Again, my question wasn't about standardization, it was about the end=20 product and whether it sounding excellent as music was the goal or not. : Which leaves us with the Recording Engineer, Mixing Engineer and Re- : Mastering Engineer whether the same or different and how the signal as : received at the microphones is laid down, printed and sent along to : us. And how we then take that signal and play it back through our : particular and peculiar prejudices, preferences and processes further : colored by our actual system and the room it is in and the time of day : and what we had for breakfast and so forth and so on. snip Okay, so we are in complete agreement. Thanks. -- Andy Barss |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Final Buying Decision ~ Protools or Cubase? | Pro Audio | |||
Marantz 670 and 671 Comparison for Decision? | Pro Audio | |||
Headphone decision | Pro Audio | |||
newbie system decision help please | Pro Audio | |||
Newbie needs help to make decision... | General |