When is enough, enough, or how to get off the bandwagon??
- Thread starter DaveyF
- Start date
- Status
My mind isn't running in circles, but your mouth is. Here we go. First we have your pronouncement that ambient recordings don’t exist:
Then on to your pronouncement that recordings that capture the ‘natural’ ambience of instruments in a venue probably don’t exist and are “near myth.”
And then we move onto your description of how ambience of the venue is recorded which previously didn’t exist according to your earlier pronouncements even though the ambience that is captured somehow isn’t still real, or natural, or whatever:
So you are finally admitting to “a bit of hall ambience” being recorded and “a bit of audience noise” being recorded (and you can’t record audience noise without picking up some ambience of the venue) when before we had none. So now you are down to picking apart what ambience was recorded and saying it’s not real or natural. For the life of me I can’t figure out how if you place microphones in different places inside of a recording venue that somehow magically none of the true ambience of the venue gets captured. But hey, you are the answer man. And maybe just maybe you will understand my point when I said you talk in circles.
And when you think about it, what the hell is your point outside of joyously taking another jab at audiophiles? Is it that recording engineers are incapable or unwilling to capture ambience of a venue in a way that meets your standards or are we back to it really doesn't exist?
I think we took this side trip because the discussion about what we strive for took into account source material, and the debate about whether 2 channel stereo was an adequate format to create, or re-create a more genuine musical experience. That, in turn, led to a discussion about the natural acoustic of recordings, the failings of multitrack, and whether it was possible to re-create the acoustic properties of the original venue in a recording (leaving aside digital vs analog for the moment). I found the discussion interesting, but suspect, as a newbie, that there is more going on here than a debate over the merits of different views. I do think that a number of contributors here are well-meaning and pretty well informed, but having been on Internet chat groups for a long time (I used to spend quite a bit of time on one devoted to small red cars from a little town in Italy), I fully appreciate the Hatfield v. McCoy thing - it is probably the inevitable result of strongly held views, and a certain quality to Internet postings which always sounds so absolute. In an in-person debate, there is a lot more nuance that doesn't convey in typed prose. (Also a form of ambience?) 
Gentlemen, may I remind all of those in this thread about some of the terms and conditions of this forum;
This is not directed at anyone in particular. Let's raise the level of discussion up a notch and lose the personal jabs. We are better than this. Have a good Memorial Day weekend and thank you in advance for staying within the guidelines of the terms and conditions of the forum.
This is not directed at anyone in particular. Let's raise the level of discussion up a notch and lose the personal jabs. We are better than this. Have a good Memorial Day weekend and thank you in advance for staying within the guidelines of the terms and conditions of the forum.
And no one has said that. What has been said, by me anyway, is that, alone, is not the way good live recordings are made. There are probably exceptions, but one hasn't been presented here as of yet. If you just wanted to record the ambience of the room, I suspect a pair of stereo mics would do the trick. If you want to record the sound of instruments in that ambient space, the way we would hear them in the audience, it just doesn't come out right. I'm not sure what the problem is. I know the human brain has a remarkable ability to focus on some sounds and "turn down" others. I know this is true of listening to music, or the single voice that is speaking to you in a crowded room. I know we also have a remarkable ability to adapt to rooms, and filter out much of their reflected sounds once we become accustomed to them. What I don't know is why these mechanisms work for the room were in, but don't work for recordings. But it sure is the case in my experience. Set a pair of stereo mics up, 10th row center at your concert, and while the noises of the crowd shuffling, breathing and whispering around the mics will be far too loud, the sound of the pianist, bass player and horn will be too distant. There will be a bad balance of direct and reflected sound. And so when recording live, most recordists -- and by most I mean the overwhelming majority -- will capture room ambience, reverb, whatever you want to call it, and they will also capture the sound of the instruments from mics that are much closer to the instruments, then they will mix it together.
Again, go listen to Barry Diamet's samples on his site. This is very close to what you all are talking about. The closest, and the most successful example I've heard; a stereo pair of microphones recording ensemble performances in a performance space. But even then, to get a more natural balance of instruments and voices in the ensemble (and, I assume, a more natural-sounding balance of direct and reflected sound), the mics are on stage, and the performers are arranged in a line with the quietest sounds closest to the microphone. Barry offers descriptions of his technique, photos, samples to download. Its a great education in what can be done with a stereo pair, but it is still a compromise. If somebody out there has set a pair up in the hall, recorded a live performance and gotten really good instrument sounds and the natural reverb of those sounds in that hall, please, point me to it. I'd love to hear the recording and a detailed description of the recording methodology. The latter shouldn't be hard if the former exists, because the recording will have been unusual and a bit of a breakthrough. Someone will probably have documented it, as Barry has.
And by the way, my temper is fine, in spite of the fact that Mark has attacked my listening experience (again) and he and Myles have both called me "Teflon." It's hard to get angry at guys who are upset because you have answers. You just remind yourself that they're not the only answers and wonder if they're really mad at you, or mad because they have no decent answers of their own.
Tim
Last edited:
That's a shame, because it should be.
This line of thread drift was a civil, spirited discussion of microphone placement and recording techniques until three people in particular came into it in full attack mode. Start at about post #140 or so and you'll be able to see exactly what happened. One of them approached me through PM, apologized for the attack and deleted his aggressive posts. In turn, I deleted the posts in which I had quoted his remarks. All gone. Problem solved. The remaining two individuals who have engaged in personal attacks and name-calling are still here. It occurred to me to report their posts, particularly Mep's very personal attacks, but frankly, I figured this would be the result -- correct the entire class for the sins of two bullies.
Mark and Myles: I'll put you back on ignore. Have the integrity this time to return the favor so I don't have to see you slamming my posts when others quote you this time, please. I'm sure I have nothing to say about audio that you can learn from. What's the point in reading and responding?
Tim
- Status
Similar threads
