Thoughts And Questions On Accuracy

  • Thread starter Thread starter smellyfuzz
  • Start date Start date
smellyfuzz

smellyfuzz

New member
The following post is not meant to insult or offend any
member or his/her expertise in recording.

Lately, their have been a lot of Mp3 posts that have given
members a chance to hear the differences in the way
microphones sound.

I recently really enjoyed the one Blue Bear Sound posted.
I was surprised at how much I "liked" the sound of the
Sm57 on the guitar. I even posted a comment to Bear
of my surprise.

You see not to long ago, I recorded my guitar using the same
microphone, at the time I thought to myself, "well... this will
have to do for now." I figured that when I got a better mic,
I would get a "better" sound.

Wrestling with a current condenser microphone that I use, it has been
exaggerating a strain sound in my voice. I had been trying to combat
this when finally I asked my wife, "Do I sound like this when I'm
singing in a room with you ?", she said, "No."

Then I started thinking about the time I took developing my voice
& how I did not like the Mic changing the sound of my voice.
Then I started thinking that I, like a lot of other musicians, like the
way our instruments sound. I like the way my Guild sounds.
My drummer picks out skins & cymbals to his liking,
Hell, my guitarist loves his 1979 Les Paul but, when we go to tape
& start playing with those Eq nobs to make the song "sound"
better, well not to many of the instruments hold their original
characteristics.

All of a sudden, thoughts of my Audiophile community enters my head
talking endlessly about Accuracy.

It was once said to me, "If a Steinway sounds like a Steinway, then the
speakers, amp etc... must be good."

NOW WAIT A MINUTE !

I'm not trying to start another debate on the Audiophile verses the Engineer.

I for one, am trying to be a little of both.
However, we audiophiles may have a point though,
I mean how much do you want to Eq and change the
sound of a Stradivarius played in some great
sounding church ?

Confusion in my own head begins because, I'm trying to learn about
recording, and I know how to shop & listen for stereo equipment that
makes an attempt at reproducing music (compact disks) the way
they were recorded.

So here are my questions;

1) When going to a recording school is accuracy ever discussed or better yet
taught ?

2) Since all links in a chain starting with the microphone color the sound,
is it ever practice to attempt to Eq the sound back to sound of the
original instrument's characteristics ?

3) Are their known microphones & components that are known for
their accuracy ?

4) I'm reasonably sure that, in the pro world, when one records an
orchestra or a small quartet in a hall or church, they shoot for
accuracy, has any one here ever had experience in this & have
they used similar methods in the studio ?

5) Even though it is not reasonable to think that Home recording
equipment can reproduce accurately, is there a way to at least
come close or a way of practicing the method ?


Although I do appreciate every one's opinion, this post is meant for
the experienced.


Thanks for your input,

Sean
 
The thing of it is, and what many audiophiles don't realize... is that recorded audio is an illusion - there is no stereo image - it's a pyschoacoustic trick provided by a phantom image.
Speakers, no matter how good they are, will NEVER sound like a live instrument or voice playing/performing in front of you.

Microphones DO NOT pick up sound the way our ears do (because our brain does A LOT of interpratation on what we hear), so what hear is almost only what we think we hear.

The idea behind record engineering is not so much to make it sound like the musician's are in front of you, but rather to provide an interesting and good-sounding musical experience WITHIN THE CONTEXT of a stereo system.

Of course, there is a certain standard of sonic acceptability... but even the best classical recordings do not sound the way an orchestra sounds when heard live.

Live and recording are two very different listening experiences, and if are done well, will not sound the same, but will both be enjoyable!

Bruce
 
I'm sorry Bruce I think you missed my point.

Getting away from a debate you seem to want to get into,
I'm more interested in does the drum set in your studio
sound at least close when you put it to tape.
Does better recording equipment reproduce it better &
if not then why bother spending any money at all.

From what I get from your comments, you are saying that, well
any piece of shit instrument can sound just as good as any instrument
that has been carefully crafted once you Eq, compress & record it.


Sean
 
Accuracy

Smelly Fuzz,
I felt the same way around 15 years ago. I would listen to my favorite recorded music and wonder how in the world they made everything sound so accurate. I would try and try and try, but never achieve satisfiying results. Like you I would excuse my equipment and reason that once I had the latest mic, preamp, eq, and compressor I would be able to create the accurate Hi-Fi recordings I admired. As an engineer I have had the chance to work with some of the finest musicians, producers, and engineers such as Al Schmitt, and Elliot Shiner. The most imortant rule that I learned is to really listen and judge your sound before applying any processing. We often reach for the eq before we even tried changing the mic position or switching the mic itself! You would be surprised at the amount of eq that some of these engineer apply...were talking 1 to 3dB tweaks, Yet the sound that comes across is so rich and accurate! Why? Knowing when not to eq and proper mic placement makes all the difference. An entire session can be recorded with SM57's , with proper mic placement and judicous amount of eq I gaurantee that you would never know the difference. I guess what I am really trying to say is that as you gain more valuable experience recording, you will learn to make better more accurate sounding recordings of your own. Trust me
 
This is a good question! My assessment is this: there will never be a mic/pre-amp that is anywhere as detailed, accurate and three dimensional as the human ear and the brain that processes the information. For one thing, hearing is three dimensional, whereas the way we listen to recordings today--with a pair of stereo speakers--is two dimensional. Expecting to achieve an exact replica of what you hear is really beyond the realm of what is possible with current technology (unless you get into binaural recording and listen on headphones exclusively).

Blue Bear makes a good point in saying that recording is an art of illusion. We are trying to put music into a space and make it convincing. In the process, there are a host of problems and hurdles. Regardless of whether you record in a home studio or a million dollar facility, the principles are the same.

I think the goal is to approach or simulate reality as well as we can, and from there, make recordings that are pleasing to listen to overall. That means making some compromises. Beyond that, I'd like to think about this a bit longer and see what else I might add.
 
I had one other thought. One day, I was about to add an acoustic track to a song in progress. I had been rehearsing the part and listening to the sound of the guitar in my lap. I go to record the guitar and begin by placing the mic in my usual placement. I record it, but it doesn't sound anything like what I was hearing during rehearsal, so I decided to try something a bit drastic.

I was thinking "the guitar sounds right the way I am hearing it, but wrong when I stick a mic in front of it". So, I decided that I would record it from the proximity of where my ears were hearing it. I placed the mic facing down at about forehead level towards the guitar and hit the record button.

Though what I captured on tape was not exactly what my ears heard, it was remarkably close. It did capture the sound I was hearing and the track worked out great. I guess the moral of the story is to try and get what your ears are getting and to try unorthodox ways to use your mics.

The ultimate might be a baseball cap equipped with two Ocktava 012's--one on each side with 360 degree swivel mounts! OK, I am kidding! However, someday, I just might be looney enough to try it!
 
Actually there is a technique for Binaural recording. I cant remember the name but you use a matched stereo pair and place them apart about the distance that your ears would be. Use something to baffle between them and represent your head.

The recordings can be amazing when listened back on headphones. It's of limited use when your trying to mix for different systems but it's fun to play with. I always wanted to record a good acoustic group that way.

I think realism is a just another choice when recording. Some songs sound better when done in a more surreal manner. That's the fun of being able to do anything you want.

A mics ability to record accurately is important and something to look for. It is strange how some mics sound more accurate on different sources.
 
The ultimate might be a baseball cap equipped with two Ocktava 012's--one on each side with 360 degree swivel mounts! OK, I am kidding! However, someday, I just might be looney enough to try it!
Click to expand...


I don't know about the audio side but you'd look cool for sure!:D


I am in no way qualified to offer any technical thoughts on this subject but I kind of wanted to chime in and say that I think this a cool thread and certainly a nice contrast to the bickering we've been seeing lately....nice one!

Also, I WILL say that as a general recording newbie, who also does assisting at a local studio as well as some session guitar work, that I have thought of this in one way or another many times. I spend a lot of time getting my guitar rig to sound a certain way and I used to think, "hey throw a mic in front of there and BAM!" I would get bummed when I learned an engineer had to EQ the signal and now I get bummed when I record and it sounds nothing like what i hear.

I think Bruce nailed it about the whole thing being an illusion. Recorded audio will never be able to produce what our ears hear for a variety of reasons but all in all, I think that's ok.

On a related note....some of the bands I've helped engineer have GREATLY benefitted from the above statement as I would never want to recreate what my ears are hearing;) (know what i mean?)

Rattle on...nice thread


heylow
Rock Jedi/Indie Snob
www.heylowsoundsystem.net
 
For one thing, hearing is three dimensional, whereas the way we listen to recordings today--with a pair of stereo speakers--is two dimensional.
Click to expand...


When you think about some of the best recording studios thats is the best soundwise it makes you think they get their rooms as near to perfect as possible to minimise distraction in the sound that is the sound once it has been created like a string being plucked or a drum skin being hit if all sounds correct to begin with then really your creating a less confusing enviroment for for the brain to interpret those sounds more accurately.

inturn your ears transfer a more clear sound to the brain and then you get a less confusing picture to start with

at this stage given a acoustically correct enviroment one should spend more time with correct mic placement and selection once they have listened to piece they are trying to sculpt

so if all this is followed through and your sound chain is well put together you in escence would only be reaching for eq well into the mixing of the pieces and then its only really if its needed i guess if your sound is replicated as true as possible to begin ith that is the source is not coloured to start with adding your colours to your work later on in the piece should be a lot easier so in escence dont fix it in the mix get it right to begin with and in time and with practice we all can maybe reproduce good if not great recordings
 
I read the 1st couple posts, but... have any of you ever heard a 24bit/96khz 5.1 recording, with a sub, recorded with Great River preamps and Earthworks cardioids and omnis as ambiance, of a live band in a good room, mics properly placed for best effect? Geezus, man, you ARE there and it IS realistic as hell.
I just wanted to say that... thanks.

Tube.
 
smellyfuzz, I just opened a homerec email from you that came last night, and it was just a link to this thread.....but you didn't write anything......kinda curious...hope your computer doesn't have some kind of random email virus that's sending mail?......being that I rarely post in this forum, it's particularly strange.......gibs
 
Realistic or not, it's all subjective. I mean there's realistic, accurate recording and there's recording for effect or sound shaping. I view mics and preamps as tools or colors to craft sound with. Some of these are transparent and some have lots of color.
 
Re: Accuracy

safarisound said:
An entire session can be recorded with SM57's , with proper mic placement and judicous amount of eq I gaurantee that you would never know the difference.
Click to expand...

I have to disagree with you here. I operate a mastering studio that works with a lot of indie artists, and I also do side work as a member of the Artistlaunch.com review staff. I have heard WAY too many tracks where the instruments and vocals were recorded with cheap mics and no preamps, and it shows. Quality is almost always absolutely horrendous...
 
Sean,

You should re-read what I posted... there's not even a HINT of debate there....

Bruce
 
Sorry Bruce

Perhaps I misunderstood you.


Quote from TrackRat;

I view mics and preamps as tools or colors to craft sound with.
Click to expand...


This is a thought I had not considered.


That being said, the thing of it is...

On my David Gray CDs, I can tell everytime that he is playing
a Taylor.

I 've played a Taylor at Sam Ash, & that is what one sounds like.

Is that because of State of the art equipment, placement, a little
of both & can this be considered at my home studio ?
 
Re: Re: Accuracy

Griffinator said:


I have to disagree with you here. I operate a mastering studio that works with a lot of indie artists, and I also do side work as a member of the Artistlaunch.com review staff. I have heard WAY too many tracks where the instruments and vocals were recorded with cheap mics and no preamps, and it shows. Quality is almost always absolutely horrendous...
Click to expand...


You are right about that. Cheap mics and bad preamps will really show their ugly head at the mastering level. What I meant is that we often blame the equipment instead of poor production techniques. Over compressing, over eq, and over processing will do more to hurt the sound than improve it. A mastering engineer can really hear things that would be missed in a recording studio like phase problems, distortion from over equalizing or compression, artifacts from bad digital reverbs, etc. I think that if you are recording demos, anything really goes..but if you really are interested in making something that will go on the market special care should be taken. Try to use the best mic for the application and really listen to what is there, and what is not there before reaching for the effects. The more we listen the closer we get to the point where everything that comes out of the speakers is most satisfying!
 
The more we listen the closer we get to the point where everything that comes out of the speakers is most satisfying!
Click to expand...

Spot on, friend :)
 
I think the point of all of this is that the recording engineer strives to make something sound "better than accurate."

Think of the microphones as extensions of your ears. You only have two of them. They are where they are and they hear what they hear.

Now, imagine you have 24 ears. Imagine taking one of your ears, stretching it over really close to a sound source, placing it on just the right angle and just the right position so it captures the instrument/voice where it sounds the best. Now do the same thing with another ear on another sound source at exactly the same time. Now take ear number three and stetch it all the way to the back of the room so you can hear what it sounds like from there, too. Now, we'll take ear number three, shrink it, and stick it right inside the hole of a guitar.

Human hearing is basically two omni-directional microphones at 3 and 9 o'clock, separated by a big rock. :) Pretty boring stuff. In the real world, we can't experience what it sounds like if we were to press our ears right up against a loud Marshall stack, because we would soon lose our hearing privilages altogether!

Recording techniques can, however, offer us a glimpse in to a more ideal world where we can have control over how and what we are hearing, and where it is placed in a stereo spectrum. It is a very similar parallel to TV, movies, and stage. When we watch a movie, we are not watching reality, and we DON'T WANT TO. We want to see beautiful women, good-guys winning, etc.

Similarly, in the real or "accurate" world, we do not see things in edited frames, we don't see special effects, and we don not see Denise Richards getting naked unless our name is Charlie Sheen. And that is pretty boring (NOT being Charlie Sheen). If we want things to at least "appear" more accurate, we can always watch a play. Just like we can watch a band play live. In this context, it certainly isn't very "real" either, as most of what you hear is being pumped through mixers and monitors.

Which begs a few more questions: "What is acccurate?" and "Is accuracy really worth striving for?"
 
I'm just an amature and I'm always saying stupid things to get myself into trouble...but...well, why stop when I'm already on a roll :)

First, I think bruce hit it on the head.

I think in some cases, accurate and realistic are recording goals. I would imagine classical recordings to fit into this category.

In most cases, however, I think that accuracy and realistic are two terms that don't necessarily apply. Here I've got some random thoughts that pretty much cover my take on this issue:

1) When was the last time you were at a rock concert, and you sat on the drummer's lap for the entire show? (gross!) I have had a few run-ins with audiophiles who claim to be picturing these "sonic stages" while listening to pop recordings, and for a while I thought that maybe I just didn't get it. Then I started learning more about the recording process, and realized that it's not very frequent in pop music to place instruments on a realistic stage; to give the listener the impression that he/she is actually at a concert. You've got one guitar player way on your right, the other on your left, the singer is 2" from your face, and you're sitting on the drummer. heh.

2) My voice sounds better through a sympathetic microphone than it does in real life. In fact, when I think about my favorite vocal performances on record, they're always larger than life. The microphone is an instrument in and of itself, and adds a lot to the sound. I'm not sure how often accuracy is sought after. Think of an electric guitar...I have a certain playing style, and certain guitars will sound better when I play them than others. Which guitar is most *accurate*? Ha, what a silly question, right? Well, I don't think it's any different when we talk about microphones and preamps.

3) Our very own Harvey Gerst has posted to this forum quite a bit recently about overhead drum microphones. Sometimes he uses his Audix, sometimes MXL's, and sometimes our new love the ECM8000. If it was really about accuracy and realism, then wouldn't he use the same combination of microphones all the time? Shouldn't life be that easy?

4) If accuracy and realism were truely the most important factors, then I'm not sure we would have EQ, compressors, and other processors. Surely they exist to either enhance or compensate, and in either case they imply inaccuracy.

5) Consider that mixing takes place in a limited sonic space. In real life, a band might be playing in a room and it all sounds great together. Now even if you could capture each individual instrument *accurately*, would they all mix together to produce a good sounding recording? I'm not so sure. Consider the sound of an acoustic guitar on a typical pop recording. It sounds good and pretty realistic in the recording sure, but what does it sound like on its own? In many cases it'll be pretty scooped out and crappy sounding.

6) If, as an audiophile, you were truely trying to reproduce the intended sound of a recording, then why don't audiophiles purchase the same monitoring systems used by the recording engineers in the first place? I think that all stereo systems are designed to color sound in a pleasing way, and that often times people mistake "good sounding" with "accurate and realistic". Likewise, they mistake "bad sounding" with "inaccurate and unrealistic". Sure my ghetto blaster hypes up the lower midrange to create the illusion of big bass, and sure that might not as good sounding as a $10,000 stereo system, but it doesn't sound bad because it's "unrealistic" or "inaccurate", it just sounds bad.

7) Every single electronic device changes the characteristics of the audio signal passing through it to some extent. Every single listening environment is unique and has has a major impact on the way things sound. Every single EAR is physically unique. Every single brain is unique. Given all these facts, it is impossible to come up with usable baselines to actually quantify "accuracy". Perhaps using some fancy test equipment you could map the sonic characteristics of the source sound at a certain point in a room, and then maybe if the recorded sound listened to at some point in a different room was mathematically equivalent, you could say that you're listening to an accurate and realistic reproduction of the source. Well heck, that sure sounds like an awful lot of work when you can simply forget about accuracy and focus on "good".

That's my take, at least today.....it's subject to change at any time without notice :)

Slackmaster 2000
 
chessrock said:
Human hearing is basically two omni-directional microphones at 3 and 9 o'clock...
Click to expand...
This is NOT the case...

Microphones do not respond to sound waves as our ears do, and you are completely discounting the interpretative analysis our brain automatically puts on anything we hear.

If it really were that simple, recorded sound WOULD simply involve sticking a mic in front of the source and us having hear it as if it were live.

Bruce
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top