Thoughts And Questions On Accuracy

  • Thread starter Thread starter smellyfuzz
  • Start date Start date
I was waiting to see how long it would take you to misinterperate and respond to that very sentence, accordingly, Bruce.

I think it was less than 15 minutes, so I was dead on. I owe myself a coffee now. Re-read it, but think more metaphorically this time as opposed to literally.

:)

Take care, and thanks for the, uh, "correction."
 
This is the same question used for the role of a movie. Do you make a movie to interpret life, or use it to go beyond -- take advantage of that "license" to get unreal. The answer is both, whatever you want to do.

I've recorded both ways and like both ways. Surreal and real. A more honest answer, though, is it doesn't matter; what matters is what the listener thinks...do they like it? As much as those of you, who like me, record mostly for hobby and for our own listening pleasure, there is still that degree of wanting someone else to poop their britches while hearing what we've done (pooping because they like it so much).
 
chessrock said:
Human hearing is basically two omni-directional microphones at 3 and 9 o'clock...
Click to expand...
How, exactly, can one mis-interpret THAT statement???


Bruce
 
Hi Sean,

If you're ready to invest in what you're talking about, take a look at this killer deal. I posted it down in "Hot Deals" last week, so I'll just list the URL here:

https://homerecording.com/bbs/showthread.php?s=&threadid=43090

It doesn't replace or negate what anyone else has said. It is simply one approach to one type of recording.

I'm told that when recording with omnis (my experience is limited to dinking around with a recently acquired pair of Behringer ECM8000s), it takes a lot of time and experience to find the right placement for a good-sounding stereo recording. Harvey's specific comments on micing with omnis are very useful, by the way.

Now imagine trying to combine the delicate sensitivity of the human voice with the huge, saturating range of a drum set, for instance. Would that work well in an acoustical space without sound reinforcement for the voice? And the moment you're talking about sound reinforcement, you're talking about multi-miking, whether before or after the recording process has begun.

In other words, yes, with permission, you could place a great set of omnis in the sweet spot of the hall and potentially make an outstanding recording of a rock concert, but you wouldn't be recording the singer, the guitarists, the pianist and the percussionists with any accuracy at all; you'd be recording the sound of their microphones, cables, preamps, processors, amps, more cables and speakers, plus the hall and the audience as well.

I hope this helps. :-)

Best wishes,

Mark H.
 
Blue Bear Sound said:
How, exactly, can one mis-interpret THAT statement???


Bruce
Click to expand...

Well, the word "basically" was my first clue that it was oversimplified, and deliberately so - just to illustrate a point.
 
And the fact that I used the term "rock" to refer to the human head might have been another clue.

Although in some peoples' case, it probably isn't that far off! :)

Just messin' with ya, Bruce. You kinda' crack me up how literal you take things sometimes. What I meant is that we are basically limited to two ears attached to our head. Metaphorically speaking (something I should have included in the sentence), you could compare it to two omni's fastened to a rock. We have no other "micing techniques" open to us (our ears in their natural state, that is), as our ears are pretty tightly fastened to our heads, we only have two of them, and they have limitations as to where they can be placed without damaging them.

24-track recording gives us 24 ears, again metaphorically speaking. And we can place them in all sorts of different places at the same time, and in places where our ears would never dare to go (up against a screaming marshall stack, at the hole and 12th fret of a guitar, or high above a drum set).

If you're still not following me, then all I can conclude is that you're still upset that you could never do a Floyd cover as well as I can. :)
 
Last edited:
I'll Be Back

Just wanted to say this is a VERY good thread going-on hear and I probably have a good few things to say. I'll be back once I get a chance.
 
I agree with Bruce that the recorded audio is actually an illusion. Though some people tend to feel that the term "illusion" means that they have been duped, that is not the case at all. After all we take advantage of illusions all the time to make life more bearable. For instance, the art that hangs on your walls is an illusion created by the placing of pigments on paper.

Another point that hasn't been brought up yet is how accruate the digital recordings can be when they are taking samples of sounds versus the true analog nature of sound.

The really interesting thing is that the analog recording gear actually colors the sound more than the digital gear, yet so many people, audiophiles especially, will claim that the vinyl or analog tape recordings are preferable to the digital recordings. This is truly an example of where the illusion actually makes the sound more pleasing to some people.

:)
 
I hear ya, Chess.......... ;)

RE -- I'm looking forward to your take on this thread!

Bruce
 
I suppose I should just essentially requote myself, since this is an issue I've dealt with many times, as an artist, producer, engineer, and audio equipment and microphone designer... on the subject of accuracy:

"There is no such thing as accuracy. It's a myth. You cannot replicate the human ear, psychoacoutic and pinnae delay interpretation system with any known techno.

The best engineers and producers know this. So the idea is to exaggerate just enough to create the =illusion= of accuracy.

The bottom line? Is the singer 'standing on the console' like a hologram in front of you? Are the instruments appearing in front of your eyes? If so, no matter how you did it, congratulations, you just made a recording."

That's about all I have to say on the matter.

Stephen Paul

http://www.mp3.com/stephenpaul
http://www.spaudio.com
 
Which is basically where I was coming from, only Stephen said it better! ;)

Hey Stephen... nice to see you around these parts again!

Bruce
 
I think you are all off course....

Most MODERN music has no intention of recreating the actual event, because you can make it SOMETIMES sound better. Why would anyone want to listen to a shitty set of drums they way they really sound, when you have gates, multimic techniques, reverbs......etc., etc.? Especially when the drummer thinks tuning keys are for taking drum heads on and off.;)

I love it....people think they can recreate the *gorgeous* sound of their new "Guitar Center aquisition", and hear it back on their Alesis Monitor Ones...

I think it was someone in the MP3 clinic, whose recording that had the cat "smacked" off the table, at the 0:54 point in the recording, that started to approach 'realism':D
 
Ok....

So let me get this straight...

Since accuracy does not exist...

Any instrument regardless of make, model, construction or price
can sound great.

No engineers or artists or producers care what a violin or acoustic guitar
sounds like because once a mic is placed, the original characteristics
are fucked anyway by the time you hit record.
In other words, a steinway & a yamaha will or should sound the same
by the time record is hit.

Good sound is purely relative for the listener and only engineers
can determine what good sound is.

Sound coloring only happens in coloring books therefor, when
Harvey Gerst makes a statement like "cheep pre- amps color the
sound" this should be ignored for in the end it does not matter anyway.

And finally, any mic will do because the Eq board can usually
compensate as long as you have the right engineer or producer
to make the sound end up to be good.(what ever good sound is)

Don't jump on me now but....

Love,

Sean
 
Ah no I'm not sure how you guys read that interpretation into it.
The source is always the most important part of any recording, regardless of the intended output. Think about it.

Slackmaster 2000
 
smellyfuzz said:
Ok....

>>>>....Any instrument regardless of make, model, construction or price
can sound great.....<<<<<
Click to expand...

possibly.....and the rest of the post wasn't worth quoting because you went off on a tangent and started making assumptions.
 
Is the singer 'standing on the console' like a hologram in front of you? Are the instruments appearing in front of your eyes? If so, no matter how you did it, congratulations, you just made a recording."
Click to expand...


Or you're friggin' WRECKED!:cool:

I had a session where this chic singer was standing on the console singing like a hologram and shit. it was cool. She kept singing like a looped thing...like "Obi Wan you are our...............ooops, wait. That was Star Wars.

My bad, my bad

Sorry....back to the smart people;)



heylow
Rock Jedi/Indie Snob
www.heylowsoundsystem.net
 
Just my opinion here. Classical music afficianados love their realistic recordings. Typically recorded with spaced omni's that haven't been moved in ages because they took a hell of a lot of time in placing them in the room until somebody's ears were happy with the sound that they pick up. Then they are mounted hanging down and they don't move...everything that is recorded in that space "should" sound just like that space. That's for classical music. (Things may be different elsewhere but this was my experience recording concerts for an NPR station in college.) When the woman playing flute sounds like she's gasping for her dying breath in between notes that's exactly what the recording sounds like because that's what happened during that performance. And nobody seems to have any problem with this.

Jazz players let you get the mics a little closer, but if you try to put a mic an inch away from anything they'll push it back to a minimum of 6" and call you an idiot because nobody has ever heard that instrument from that distance. (Just my experience here.)

If a rock musician heard a gasp in between 2 words of the vocal they would be appalled. It would be rerecorded or edited out. If it wasn't they would say that you did a crappy job of recording them because they sound better than that.
 
For me, the reason this is such a good thread is because it makes me step back and re-assess my approach to recording and what I want to accomplish. The end goal differs with each project. How real? How processed? What is best for each scenario?

I think (could be wrong) tha most engineers would concur that it is easier to get a great recording with a great sounding instrument than a lousy sounding one. Same goes for vocalists. I have had the extreme pleasure to record a few singers that by virtue of their talents, made my recordings sound excellent. Then, there are the semi-skilled vocalists that no amount of EQ, compression or reverb could salvage!

I have a disc called Tone Poems, which is a collection of songs from 1890 to the present, all recorded with acoustic guitars, mandolins, mandocellos, etc., of the time period corresponding to the era the songs were written. In short, an attempt at accuracy and realism. Beautiful recording. Still, not as "real" as it would have been sitting next to the players in the studio. But its a great approximation.

In contrast, I think of the electric songs on the White Album. Do snares really sound like that? Cymbals? Guitars? Bass? Usually not, but they made some interesting tracks by not going for the realism. Thats the other end of the spectrum.

One lesson I learned from a fellow musician is to work on getting the greatest tone you can from your gear. If you have that great sound, it translates pretty easily to any recording medium. Beyond that, its up to the engineer whta kind of sound is going to make up a recording.

I believe that mic placement is senior to the mic itself and the pre-amp that it runs through. The actual sound source is senior to the mic. EQ, compression and all the other stuff is just there to compensate for what ends up being less than perfect. Yet, sometimes, it takes all these tools to craft that illusion that some have spoken of. Gee, I didn't even mention the room--the sonic space--that the recording takes place in. That is probably the biggest difference between the home studio and the big boys. The other factor is the experience of the engineer. After a while, a good one just knows intuitively to grab a particular mic for particular job to get a good result.

Am I on a tangent here? Yes! But these are all thoughts thast percolated in my mind from this thread. Its good to think about this stuff!
 
Homework

I must say it strikes rather odd that other than Slack touching it a bit in 5), no one has mentioned masking and fusion.

Everyone either go look-up "masking" in your recording book(s) for a simplified version or go here: http://www.minidisc.org/MaskingPaper.html for a good read.

And Stephen, glad to see your comments here!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top