crikey, it can get real touchy lately round here. Before I answer John, I just wanna make sure people know I was not deliberately stirring the pot! These points are what I have been wondering, it was not an attempt to light a fuse..I did not know the fuse was even there!
Terry, how many time have you heard cymbals on a playback system sound like rain on a tin roof or applause the same?
Hardly ever...tbh I do not ever recall going 'oh yuck, that applause does not sound like real applause'. For starters, it implies a live recording..well what is being recorded?? The concert, NOT the applause. So where is the recording energy concentrated?? In making the
applause as realistic as possible?? Does that mean then that the entire concert was recorded only from the mics placed "somewhere" out in the audience? Or is the audience ambience just mixed into the album. IF it were recorded 'out there' were the mics chosen that would best pick up the concert in front of them, or chosen to best pick up the audience around the mics? One would lead to a better reproduction of the concert, the other a better reproduction of the audience. Which would you prefer?
OR, were the instruments etc on stage blended together from close mics?? Dunno, not a recording engineer, but you use what you think the audience should sound as your reference???? Or the cymbals??
Edit: You can always have a doubt about the recording until you find a playback that reveals the "realistic" sound of cymbals or applause or ..... then you have your reference recordings!
So you mean you pick a recording that sound right (on a bad system say...) then how would they sound on a good system? See the difficulty? Your reference (and it HAS become a reference, you just said so) sounds good on system X. We have zero idea if the recording is a good one or not (more on that later, it WAS what I mainly wanted to discuss) but you have
elected it a reference
because the
cymbals and applause sound real to you on system X.
That, in order that the point be clear, it was elected that way on the crappiest Bose system around surely introduces a swag of problems. Firstly, it is such a human trait that once we decide things they (mostly always)
never get inspected again..after all you DID make the decision right?...it becomes a hidden variable, a hidden false standard. Hidden because once we have made the decision we move on. Further, as WE decided it we also begin to constantly defend it, thereby not only strengthening it but also ensuring it remains un-inspected. (I have mentioned this a bit recently, it is our assumptions-nothing else-that really stuff us up)
So your 'reference' recording will now sound crap on a good system right? But, as your (false in this example) reference sounds bad, and it IS the reference, you can only conclude that the system is bad.
You
don't see the problem??
Anyway, this is the angle I am coming from. Substitute cymbals or audience if you wish, the question is 'Do you (all of us, not john)
KNOW how much processing goes on in recordings?'' If processing has been done on the instrument you have decided is the one to make judgement, then it has been altered and hence it no longer sounds (as) real as without processing. Yet, we are applying the standard of 'how real is *this* instrument'? (or applause, whatever)
The hidden, uninspected assumptions I am talking about revolves around the word KNOW. Not assume, not 'I think this is how it is'...heck, most people probably never even GOT to the decision making stage of the question. I mean in order to come to a conclusion you must have at least thought about it right? I'd wager few have even asked the question. (not the question of how real is the recording, that is old hat. I mean who knows what sort of processing is involved in the making of albums)
As I said, it is only because I recently have been researching the question (how music is made recording wise) that the
amount of processing in recordings has been made clear. As I said, maybe not these audiophile recordings from mapleshade etc, but your bog standard everyday ones...you'd have NO idea.
Straight away what happened? People jumping to the defence of their hidden assumptions. Oh so common, oh so human.
I wish Bruce would share his knowledge with us, he is a mastering engineer, the final link in the chain and it is not uncommon for him to tweak the recordings given to him. But how much processing has been done even before it get's to him? THAT is the question.
Do *you*
KNOW how much has been done to the guitars?? (or cymbals if you prefer)
If people were honest, surely they would have to say 'well now that I think about it, and put my assumptions aside, I don't
actually know'.
