The all important illusion

[nate_dennis]

I was thinking about something that Johnny Greenwood, of Radiohead, said once . . . . he said something about how he used to be really into faithfully reproducing the sounds in the room exactly on record, but then he realized that no matter what he did, it was all an illusion. He said that Thom York would never really be in the room with people singing to them, so it didn't matter so much anymore, as long as it sounded good in context.

Another way of looking at it would be to use an example. I could hire an orchestra, rent a killer room, use some high end mics, and record them for a track . . . that would kick ass. Or I could use some decent software and I wont get exactly the same sound, obviously no software will replace a great orchestra, but if it sounds good in context of the song . . .so be it. So now I leave it to you . . . . Is the perfect representation of each sound more important to you, or is it the context as a whole? I don't see there being any inherintly right or wrong answer . . . I'm just curious what you all think.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Maybe a more enlightening example mught be to look at a photograph or video of someone. No matter how hard you try, there is always going to be an "artificiality" to either one in that no one would ever mistake them for the real thing. You'll drive yourself right into the loony bin if you try to erase that last bit of artifice and actually try to clone reality, because it will never happen. A photo will always look like a photo and a video always a video.

Instead what you shoot for - assuming a documentarian type of recording is what you want - is getting it natural or realistic enough where the witnesses' brain takes over and takes them the rest of the way where their brain kind of glosses over or masks the gap. The willing and the automatic suspension of disbelief.

This, I think, is one of the tricks and difficulties in learning to engineer audio, is being able to make the mental shift from analytic and critical listening and entertainment listening. Critical listening tends to collapse any illusion of "reality" the brain tries to form, because you are purposely looking/listening past that. But at critical points during the process you need to switch over to entertainment listening to see how it sounds that way. If you don't, you'll wind up with the mix job that never ends .

It's like a movie director who needs to at times take off the directors cap and just watch the movie.

Then of course there's the whole other idea that reality is not always what it's cracked up to be. The best looking portrait photo usually involves a substantial amount of retouching because nobody wants to see that varicose vein or that flash reflection on the cornea or whatever. The best-sounding mix usually requires at least some "atrificial" retouching as well. When's the last time one of us used absolutely no compression, no EQ, no levels control and no mechanical panning?

G.

 

[gecko zzed]

I was thinking about something that Johnny Greenwood, of Radiohead, said once . . . . he said something about how he used to be really into faithfully reproducing the sounds in the room exactly on record, but then he realized that no matter what he did, it was all an illusion. He said that Thom York would never really be in the room with people singing to them, so it didn't matter so much anymore, as long as it sounded good in context.

In morality we generally argue that the ends don't justify the means.

In recording, I argue the reverse . . . that the ends do justify the means.

In other words you do what you have to do to create the sound that you are seeking, using whatever resources you have at your disposal.

If you travel down the purist path, you can get yourself tangled up in a mess of conceptual worms. As Greenwood says, "Thom York would never really be in the room with people singing to them". The process of recording is an artifice in itself. But then . . . so are amplifiers and effects pedals.

I have read the assorted debates, for example, about miking amps versus using amp emulators. These debates leave me cold, because if I am trying to create a particular sound, I will use whatever device delivers it. I don't see that a miked cab or an amp sim is intrinsically better than the other.

Hiring an orchestra may be critical if you need that particular sound of a real orchestra playing. But if it is being used as an almost subliminal pad and the character of realism is going to be virtually invisible, then you may as well just use a synth.

 

[nate_dennis]

In recording, I argue the reverse . . . that the ends do justify the means.

In other words you do what you have to do to create the sound that you are seeking, using whatever resources you have at your disposal.

If you travel down the purist path, you can get yourself tangled up in a mess of conceptual worms. ...The process of recording is an artifice in itself. But then . . . so are amplifiers and effects pedals. . . .I don't see that a miked cab or an amp sim is intrinsically better than the other.

I'm so glad that someone is able to speak my mind for me!!! I completely agree. I just thought I'd see what other people's take on it is. Similar to the "Are you an analog purist" poll over in the analog forums. I just like seeing other people's perspectives.

 

[gecko zzed]

There is a place for both schools.

We need both the acoustic purists and the sonic adventurers.

This mirrors a similar discussion relating to traditional music. Some try to render their performances as closely as possible to the source, and the purists feel that using, say, electric guitars or pick-ups on fiddles is an abhorrence to the tradition.

Others are quite happy to use traditional sources and adapt them to contemporary techniques. The extreme element here believes that the purists are stuck in the past.

Again, we need both. The traditionalists are great historians and preservers of what once was. The adapters are great at creating new flavours from old ingredients.

 

[Talldog]

IMO it's all about the song. Use whatever you need to make the tune sound great. My nine year old daughter uses cinnamon and ginger when she makes tomato sauce.........not standard but tastes great in certain dishes.

 

[legionserial]

I'm all for a bit of purism but I think it can go to far. What you have to bear in mind is that in most cases the listener neither knows nor cares what processes you used to make those sounds in the first place. All anyone cares about at the end of the day is that it's sonically pleasing.

 

[GOYA]

I would say this is more of an artistic decision rather than an engineering decision.

 

[omtayslick]

I would say this is more of an artistic decision rather than an engineering decision.

They are intertwined.

 

[gecko zzed]

I would say this is more of an artistic decision rather than an engineering decision.

Omtayslick notes that they are intertwined, which is true. The artistic decision will influence the engineering techniques.

For example, my task about a month ago was to record a four-piece band which played early american music. Their artistic decision was to recreate the methods used in the early days of broadcasting and recording, which was to all gather round and play to a single mike.

This decision (with its attendant paradigm of the 'means' being the 'ends') means that the engineer is removed from mixing decisons, which rest solely with the band and how they configure themselves around the mike.

 

[Seafroggys]

did you manage to find an acoustic mic?

 

[nate_dennis]

An interesting task indeed. Though the engineer (as I understand it) would have a lot of say as far as optimal mic placement.


I would guess (Seafroggy) that he ended up using an LDC or a ribbon mic. But that's just a guess.

 

[gecko zzed]

The mike was a hand-made Lawson.

In this case, it wasn't about optimal mike placement, and more about optimal band member placement.

However, I think Seafroggy's question was tongue in cheek, i.e. finding an 'acoustic' mike to go with the acoustic instruments.

 

[GOYA]

Were the players static?

 

[gecko zzed]

No.

Each moved in and out from the mike according to what the music was doing, i.e. playing a solo or singing, balancing themselves physically.

 

[Seafroggys]

actually before the 20's all they had were acoustic mics, before tube technology had matured enough. Basically they were giant horns that were direct to disc.

 

[Dani Pace]

This reminds me of an old commercial... Is it live or is it Memorex? Did it sound that good before it was sent to the recorder, or, has it been enhanced in the mixing and editing? Can the average listener tell? Does it really matter as long as the finished product sounds good? I'm all for getting a sound as cloce to "right" to start with, but on the other hand I am not at all shy about using a few "mix tricks" to make certain parts stand out or to cut something that seems a little too harsh.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

In this case, it wasn't about optimal mike placement, and more about optimal band member placement.

What if the band member's name was Mike?..... (Sorry, couldn't let that melon float right by... )

G.

 

[doulos24]

i say record it faithfully to the fullest then F$#% it up so it sounds un natural and insane record that smphony then after all that hard work thow a waves phaser over the stereo bus no really whatever sounds good sounds good

 

[gecko zzed]

What if the band member's name was Mike?..... (Sorry, couldn't let that melon float right by... )

G.

I sometimes wonder about nominative determinism here . . . there seem to be so many people called Mike (including me) who post in these forums. I wonder how many other people here have names that relate to their work, e.g. Jack?