An Eclectic Music Show with a Difference

[Lat-Literal]

Now then, I wasn't going to post this untill I'd finished with my other post but then I realised 'Wait a minute, folks on this forum should be interested in the actual content of the present episode of the show because our guest was a classical composer, and that will change after next Wednesday'. The content of the show is not what this post is about but if anyone would like to discuss that then so be it. The presenter says he is a popular composer but you'll find it very difficult to find anything about him, or examples of his music, on the Internet. I don't know how popular the Welsh composer Brain Hughes is, he might only be popular locally, but then as far as I know he may be very popular within the classical music community. I'd be interested to know how many folks here have heard of him.

http://www.calonfm.com/105fm/?page_id=28681

I think he has some things to say that folks here might find interesting, but that is not why I am posting this thread. The reason for this thread is because I am interested to know if anyone will notice anything unusual about the show itself. There is nothing unusual about the format or content except that we try to encourage an eclectic choice from our guests, something from both the classical and pop world (or whatever the best way of saying that is) but we can only go so far with that given the title of the show, and this edition of the show is all classical, and serious classical aswell, which of course folks on this forum won't mind at all, not sure about the listeners to the radio station though, they might be turning off in droves. I feel it's almost like putting this kind of show on Radio 1. It's a fortnightly show and after next Wednesday it will change.

It's only a community radio station run by volunteers, except for two paid administrators, and I am new to the world of sound engineering so don't analyse too closely the quality of the recording. That's not what I am asking you to listen to. I'm not going to tell you yet what to look out for, but a clue is in my forum name and some of you might already know what that stands for, or perhaps can guess. You won't have to listen to the whole show in order to hear what is different about it, something I will be bold enough to say you won't find on any other show or station, you can just skip through and you might notice it. I have a feeling that many of you will not like it, on the other hand you might not even notice any difference.

Rich

Do you have any formal links with Resonance in London?

https://www.resonancefm.com/

[NatBalance]

Do you understand how multiband compression works (for example)?

You're going into unnecessary detail again. All you need to do is listen. Listen to the volumes of the music on Radio 3, listen to the volume of one piece relative to another, listen to the volume of an orchestra relative to the presenter. Go here ….

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06kbhzb

….. listen to the presenter's voice and then click on any of the boxes indicating a piece of music. You'll find that at their loudest everything sounds roughly the same volume.

[MrGongGong]

You're going into unnecessary detail again. All you need to do is listen. Listen to the volumes of the music on Radio 3, listen to the volume of one piece relative to another, listen to the volume of an orchestra relative to the presenter. Go here ….

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06kbhzb

….. listen to the presenter's voice and then click on any of the boxes indicating a piece of music. You'll find that at their loudest everything sounds roughly the same volume.

So
HOW do you listen?
Speakers?
Headphones?

Do you listen in an environment that has been engineered for the purpose using equipment that will give a reasonably accurate impression of what is on the recording?

Everything sounds the "same" volume at its loudest on a broadcast / stream BECAUSE that's the way you get the most signal to noise ratio

You said you had used "compression"
Which compressor ?
Hardware or software
They are ALL different and cost from FREE to over £1,000s there IS a difference and if you don't know how to use it you will just mangle something that has been made by someone who does.

What is this "natural" bullshit anyway?

I guess you know that it all has to be at A=432HZ for the universe to be aligned with your chakras?

[NatBalance]

Do you listen in an environment that has been engineered for the purpose using equipment that will give a reasonably accurate impression of what is on the recording?

All this is irrelevant, you're going into too much detail again. The differences in volume to which I am referring are so vast i.e. presenter as loud as an orchestra at full volume, that such detail is totally irrelevant. It's simple really (a phrase some else used once on another thread), when you record music you make sure that everything, at its loudest, goes up to that certain point where distortion will result, you will probably know the technical name for that, in order to get the best signal to noise ratio. When recording that's fair enough, but the end result is that everything you have recorded, at their loudest, will be the same volume, or there abouts. If you recorded a lute, one of the quietest instruments so I believe, and then you recorded an orchestra, the end result, if you put those two recordings together, would be that at their loudest the orchestra and lute will be the same volume.

Now just suppose for argument's sake that the recording of that lute and orchestra where to actually go on the same CD. What would happen? Would the sound engineer take into account that the lute and orchestra are now the same volume (at their loudest)? They may to a certain extent I don't know, but I doubt they would get the volume balances back to their natural comparative level, and they would use the reasoning that people want to hear the lute. Of course they want to hear the lute, but they also want to hear the quietest instrument within the orchestral piece when it plays solo at ppp volume.

Does not the same reasoning apply to radio and TV broadcasting?

What is this "natural" bullshit anyway?

Now now Mr G. Your rough edges are showing. I can't take anyone seriously when they type such bullsh*t ..... ah ...... ooooops :)

Incidentally, should this be on another board? Could the host transfer it then?

[NatBalance]

Do you have any formal links with Resonance in London?

https://www.resonancefm.com/

No I don't. Why do you ask?

[MrGongGong]

All this is irrelevant, you're going into too much detail again. The differences in volume to which I am referring are so vast i.e. presenter as loud as an orchestra at full volume, that such detail is totally irrelevant. It's simple really (a phrase some else used once on another thread), when you record music you make sure that everything, at its loudest, goes up to that certain point where distortion will result, you will probably know the technical name for that, in order to get the best signal to noise ratio. When recording that's fair enough, but the end result is that everything you have recorded, at their loudest, will be the same volume, or there abouts. If you recorded a lute, one of the quietest instruments so I believe, and then you recorded an orchestra, the end result, if you put those two recordings together, would be that at their loudest the orchestra and lute will be the same volume.

Now just suppose for argument's sake that the recording of that lute and orchestra where to actually go on the same CD. What would happen? Would the sound engineer take into account that the lute and orchestra are now the same volume (at their loudest)? They may to a certain extent I don't know, but I doubt they would get the volume balances back to their natural comparative level, and they would use the reasoning that people want to hear the lute. Of course they want to hear the lute, but they also want to hear the quietest instrument within the orchestral piece when it plays solo at ppp volume.

Does not the same reasoning apply to radio and TV broadcasting?

Oh dear (again)


Your fundamental premise, whilst based on a little knowledge is fundamentally wrong.


and anyway your Britten Mint Sauce piece WAS distorted
have YOU ever recorded music?
There are people on this message board who really know shed loads about this and the details of the broadcasting process who i'm sure would be more than willing to help you out if you phrased your questions well.

I don't know where you live BUT I would suggest that you might be able to enrol at a college for a Btec music technology course which I'm sure you will find really interesting and useful.

SO what is this "natural" thing of which you speak? (if you like it put that way)

[NatBalance]

SO what is this "natural" thing of which you speak? (if you like it put that way)

Oh that's much better. GOOD GRIEF don't you know I mean by a natural balance? Are you a complete IDIOT????

Oh cripes, sorry Mr G. I was such a nice boy before I joined this forum :)

Actually I am rather surprised that you don't know what I mean, especially after my essay about the lute and the orchestra and after listening to our radio show and then comparing it to Radio 3 volumes. Forget the quality for now, even the signature tune is bad quality but I know what I did wrong there and will correct it, this is purely about volumes.

What is the difference in volume between 1 violin and 16 violins? I know it's not 16 times as loud, but it is louder is it not? And an orchestra (at its loudest) is louder than a lute (at its loudest) is it not? And such differences in volume will not be broadcast on radio will it not? Cripes, I've gone all Shakespearean now.

[MrGongGong]

What has that got to do with the word "natural" ?

There's nothing "natural" about electronic music (which is what ALL recordings ultimately ARE)

hat is the difference in volume between 1 violin and 16 violins? I know it's not 16 times as loud, but it is louder is it not?

NO, it all depends on what they are playing, where they are playing, how far away you are and and and and. This isn't pedantic "detail" but part of the essence of music


Come to HCMF and hear the La Monte Piece for 8 trumpets (Which will probably be quieter than many solo violin pieces)

Have you ever made an instrumental recording?

[Lat-Literal]

No I don't. Why do you ask?

Well, some of community radio has much to teach local radio, especially local radio in the commercial sector. I was struck by how your station was attempting something different - notwithstanding that the programme is Private Passions which in turn is Version Roy Plomley - and Resonance is so different it should be considered a yardstick for a lot of radio.

Some of my broadcasting principles are located in the 1970s. Most of the other ones have considerably earlier reference. Radio in the seventies is historically interesting because it was on the cusp. It was the last of the old and the start of the new but more the former. I think with 'highbrow', for want of a better word, the key 'vision' should be to aim for an extraordinary standard. Having decided on the content on that basis, those doing the deciding should leave it for an hour after which it should all be taken 'up' another notch.

Having established that point in broad terms, there should be the confidence to drop 'down' knowingly on occasions with the emphasis on the eclectic. Resonance does those things. Its combination of the erudite and the bizarre comes across as benignly dangerous. That is to the good. It is like a light being shone across modern media's 'liberal' East Germany.

I accept that I questioned in earlier posts your references to height and I stick by what I said but it is difficult to convey the points I'm making other than by using height terms.

[NatBalance]

NO, it all depends on what they are playing, where they are playing, how far away you are and and and and. This isn't pedantic "detail" but part of the essence of music

You're loosing me Gongers. I think you are referring to volume balances within each recording, the fact that an oboe as part of an orchestra is further away from the violins, and if that oboe was then playing an oboe concerto it would then be louder because it is front stage.

Have you ever made an instrumental recording?

I've had a go on a live sound course I did but I don't see that I need to have done. All I need is experience of what the natural sound balances are.

[MrGongGong]

I've had a go on a live sound course I did but I don't see that I need to have done. All I need is experience of what the natural sound balances are.

I feel the same about my hobby of Neurological Surgery, I mean it can't be that difficult and I do have a brain (I even have a mate called Brian).

More dangerous than people who don't know things are those who are entirely unaware of how much they don't know.

Resonance is so different it should be considered a yardstick for a lot of radio.

Absolutely, and one of the most valuable broadcasters in the UK

and here are the Wombles (again,as I think you missed it last time?)

'Whit aboot Wombles, Mr McHoan?'

'What's that, Darren?'

'The Wombles, Mr McHoan. Of Wimbledon Common.' Darren Watt was holding the hand of his little brother, Dean, who was staring up at McHoan and looking like he was about to burst into tears. 'Are they real, Mr McHoan?'

'Of course they are,' he nodded. 'You've seen them on television, haven't you?'

'Aye.'

'Aye. Well then, of course they're real; real puppets.'

[NatBalance]

I feel the same about my hobby of Neurological Surgery, I mean it can't be that difficult and I do have a brain (I even have a mate called Brian).

More dangerous than people who don't know things are those who are entirely unaware of how much they don't know.

All you need to judge the volume balances to which I am referring are your ears.

[doversoul1]

NatBalance

How about stating your definition of ‘natural balance’? Without it, you’ll be forever more dancing to Master G’s tune.

What is the difference in volume between 1 violin and 16 violins? I know it's not 16 times as loud, but it is louder is it not? And an orchestra (at its loudest) is louder than a lute (at its loudest) is it not? And such differences in volume will not be broadcast on radio will it not?

You may think this as your definition but I’m afraid it isn’t. This only says what it says about these particular examples. And as for the difference in volume between 1 violin and 16 violins, this may be an interesting example (this is on TV but broadcast all the same):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZYNH05qBYI

All you need to judge the volume balances to which I am referring are your ears

.

Whose ears are you referring to? Mr G’s? Or do you assume that every single listener of your programme has exactly the same hearing level/ability/tendency? Or for that matter, listening to the same receiver / sound system in exactly the same condition?

But why do you try so hard to argue things that you clearly have very little knowledge about? I have no technical knowledge on the matter but reading your post #19, a little common sense is enough to see that you are talking about only what you think. It almost makes me wonder if you have ever listened to any recorded (classical) music, on CDs or broadcast.

Sound balance is one of the favourite subjects of many Forum members. Why don’t you just ask and listen to them instead of posting yards and yards or your ‘essay’?

By the way, has it ever occurred to you that there is absolutely nothing natural about the sound of music performed. It is art, opposite to natural.

[NatBalance]

How about stating your definition of ‘natural sound’? Without it, you’ll be forever more dancing to Master G’s tune.

I've done better than state my definition, I've audibly demonstrated that with our show (remember, it's only about volumes, not quality).

And as for the difference in volume between 1 violin and 16 violins, this may be an interesting example (this is on TV but broadcast all the same):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZYNH05qBYI

I don't know what your point is with this. Do you think you are hearing the natural balance on this video? I don't know, perhaps he has a violin that is actually louder than the others, but that is all irrelevant to my point. My point is basic and plain, an orchestra is louder than a string quartet (all things being equal Gongers), a brass band is louder than a lute (probably even if the lute is playing loudly and the brass band's playing quietly). Do you realise that it is the nature of a concerto that the solo instrument is given centre stage within the score, in other words it is not just the fact that the soloist plays up front that gives them greater volume, a composer worth his salt is not going to score the other instruments to drown out the soloist now is he? Concerto type pieces have been in existence before amplification but yet some sound engineers still instist on amplifying the soloist in a concerto.

Whose era are you referring to? Mr G’s? Or do you assume that every single listener of your programme has exactly the same hearing level/ability/tendency? Or for that matter, listening to the same receiver / sound system in exactly the same condition?

I am referring to ratios. Ratios can alter depending on the equipment being used due to different frequencies being heard, but not to the extent that affects the difference between the spoken word and an orchestra at full volume. When you listen to Radio 3 don't you hear that when an orchestra comes on it sounds about 20 yards away from the presenter?

[MrGongGong]

Good try Dover

"I've done better than state my definition"

He hasn't

There's nothing "natural" about any of it