The Tyranny of Pop Music

[Bryn]

NO
Because it doesn't necessarily do that AT ALL
You are completely mistaken and insist that this is the case over and over again

And which "recording" are you referring to?
You can't just make nonsense statements about recordings (which seems to be a process which you have no experience of being involved in OR have had any conversations with people who DO) and assume the intention.

I link to the following without comment:

http://www.mdg.de/frame1e.htm

[jean]

Bloomin' 'eck. OK, a recording tries to model or replicate a live performance. Will that do yuh? Same argument applies whatever you call it.

Live Sound

In our view the ideal recording is one in which the music creates the spontaneous impression of a live concert performance and the special atmosphere going along with it. Since our recordings almost always feature human voices and/or classical instruments, which themselves were originally intended as imitations of the human voice, our sound ideal focuses on natural sound balance, the overall harmonious tonal blend, and the authentic reproduction of the individual sound of each instrument.

Criteria of Good Sound

1. Natural tone colors of the instruments (voices)
2. Natural room acoustics
3. Natural reproduction of the ensemble in breadth and depth
4. Natural balance between the instruments
5. Natural dynamics (differences in volume) of the instruments
6. Natural musical flow of the performance/reproduction

I would have said 'natural' wasn't quite the right word for this discussion - but here it is, in an extract from Bryn's link.

.

[MrGongGong]

I'm sure their recordings are wonderful
but the "criteria" are a bit meaningless IMV

But I guess that settles it then as there is at least one other person in the world who agrees with Natty

On the other hand

I doubt that even these folks would say that this is the ONLY way of approaching these things?

Running isn't the only way of catching the bus
and something about methods for cat skinning?

Nice to see they are completely committed to "natural" processes in recording

A CD recording is the product of the musical dialogue during the recording sessions and the careful selection of the right Takes in the final montage of the Master Tape. The sessions yield from eight to twelve hours of tape material for each CD. Now the Tonmeister is faced with the task of making a Cut List on the basis of the precise entries in his score. The master tape gradually takes shape on the Editor in the form of the best musical combination of the best takes. The various cuts are matched to produce a first-class listening experience without resorting to technological tricks to change the character of the original performance.

Ooooops

So it's "natural" but obviously not "real"?
What they are making is really acousmatic music ( and there's nowt wrong with that) but there's nothing "natural" about it,unless they grew their rather impressive piano from seed!
Do you need a hay mulch for that?

[doversoul1]

...our sound ideal focuses on natural sound balance, the overall harmonious tonal blend, and the authentic reproduction of the individual sound of each instrument. Other important factors include a free and natural dynamic and the resolution of even the most nuanced lines of tension. The illusion of the live concert performance also depends a great deal on the "locatability" of the sound sources in space, and here the key terms are "freestanding," "three-dimensional," and "realistic."

This seems to back up nicely what Nat has been on about. However, the word natural here is deceptive. It surely means something to the effect of ‘the naturalness as generally perceived’, since they themselves claim that it is ‘the illusion of the live concert’. Recorded sound of a live concert is not the reproduction of the ‘original’ sound heard and processed by any individual audience member’s ears and brain, which is, naturally, all different. As for recording, be it in a studio or in an old church, there is no audience to hear the ‘natural’ sound to be reproduced. In both cases, recorded sound is the sound picked up by microphones and artificially, and artfully, manipulated to produce the sound and balance that the engineers expect that we ‘feel natural’.

In general, I think recording engineers do an amazing job to create the sense of naturalness. If Nat finds volume balance of CDs and radio programmes such a persistent issue, it is definitely a hearing problem.

[P. G. Tipps]

The idea of the superiority of something being 'natural' means we have also have to accept the rough with the smooth.

It is 'natural' for some (like Beethoven) to be deaf, but I very much doubt the great composer would have refused a modern hearing-aid.

When I purchase a CD I don't want 'the illusion of the live concert'. Why should I? Modern science can provide something even better, imv.

I learned to appreciate classical music through recorded sound not live concerts where one often encounters 'natural' and often ruinous distractions like the inevitable nervous coughers and splutterers in the audience, and behind-the-scenes bar-staff audibly dropping beer glasses sometimes at crucial and poignant moments in the music being performed.

I love attending live concerts as much as anyone but I'm even happier to get back home and listen to great music in recorded sound through a good pair of headphones, and where I can control my own preferred sound volume!

[MrGongGong]

Modern science can provide something even better, imv.

"better" ?
erm

[P. G. Tipps]

"better" ?
erm

Yes, MrGG, "better" ... at least as far as I'm concerned!

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/better

[NatBalance]

Yes, I am fully aware we are tending to post at cross-purposes here but I was responding to Mr GongGong's statement which simply asked what makes one think there is anything 'natural' about recorded sound.

Ah, I see.

The subject of your seemingly bilateral discussion with the aforementioned is rather too technical for the likes of me!

It needn't be technical really. It reality all audio items have their different volumes relative to each other, all I am asking is that those volumes are represented in some way instead of being homogenized to virtually a unified level just like piped music.

There has to be some reduction in decibel range from that in the hall, clearly, but please, not its obliteration or even reversal.

Oh I agree there has to be some reduction and hopefully you will hear I have reduced but not totally obliterated the decibel range of the 1812 Overture on our show relative to the presenter (our next show should replace that edition tomorrow).

NO
Because it doesn't necessarily do that AT ALL
You are completely mistaken and insist that this is the case over and over again

I think we must be discussing different subjects.

And which "recording" are you referring to?

Remember I am just referring to volumes. Nothing else. You must surely agree that all the different items on, say this morning's Breakfast Show, sound different distances. An orchestra or choir will sound, say 50 yards further away than the presenter, and that is because the volumes have been altered dramatically. Not all audio items sound further away, a jazz singer singing softly, an accoustic guitar perhaps, when Sting sang Dowland I remember not having to turn up the volume at all, but when a classical singer sings Dowland I do because they will sound further away if I don't. If you listen to our show I have tried to make it so that every audio item sounds the same distance. I'm not saying an orchestra should sound as if it is actually in your lounge, of course not, therefore a lot of squashing of the high volumes is required but at least on our show big sounds such as orchestra / choir / heavy metal, will retained some of their power.

[ahinton]

I'm not saying an orchestra should sound as if it is actually in your lounge, of course not

Well, I'm mightily relieved to hear this, especially since my lounge would barely accommodate the BBCSO...

[P. G. Tipps]

Well, I'm mightily relieved to har this, especially since my lounge would barely accommodate the BBCSO...

It's THAT large ... ?

[jean]

I'm not saying an orchestra should sound as if it is actually in your lounge, of course not...

Well, I'm mightily relieved to hear this, especially since my lounge would barely accommodate the BBCSO...

That's not the point, as I'm sure you know - the illusion sought is that you are not in your living room at all, but in the concert hall (or church or wherever) along with the performers.

[MrGongGong]

Remember I am just referring to volumes. Nothing else. You must surely agree that all the different items on, say this morning's Breakfast Show, sound different distances. An orchestra or choir will sound, say 50 yards further away than the presenter, and that is because the volumes have been altered dramatically. Not all audio items sound further away, a jazz singer singing softly, an accoustic guitar perhaps, when Sting sang Dowland I remember not having to turn up the volume at all, but when a classical singer sings Dowland I do because they will sound further away if I don't. If you listen to our show I have tried to make it so that every audio item sounds the same distance. I'm not saying an orchestra should sound as if it is actually in your lounge, of course not, therefore a lot of squashing of the high volumes is required but at least on our show big sounds such as orchestra / choir / heavy metal, will retained some of their power.

I'm loosing the will to live

You aren't "just" referring to volume though
because the things you talk about are also about spectrum, phase, room acoustics, loudspeaker frequency response, psychoacoustics and so on...

Well, I'm mightily relieved to har this, especially since my lounge would barely accommodate the BBCSO...

Even though you seem to be living in a airport I guess it would be hard to see the back desks of the second violins through the fog.

(haar haar haar)

[NatBalance]

I'm loosing the will to live

You aren't "just" referring to volume though
because the things you talk about are also about spectrum, phase, room acoustics, loudspeaker frequency response, psychoacoustics and so on...

Uuuuh? ……. Now now Gongers, keep breathing .... deep breaths ... ... count to ten …. and I must do so aswell as I am also loosing that will, but never mind, all us revolutionists against the standard way of things that has existed for ages have to contend with such ridicule.

Right, back to the fight. You are blinding yourself with science? There is no need to go into such details, I have already done it with our show and such things as you refer to may improve the quality of my efforts but I cannot see those considerations are reasons to homogenize all volumes.

[MrGongGong]

There is no need to go into such details,

YES THERE IS

(I'm off to see some folks this week who engineer some of the recordings and broadcasts many folks in here listen to, I'll pass on your opinions if you like?)

There is no need to go into such details, I have already done it with our show

And having listened to it I would say that (IMV) it really doesn't sound good at all, just muddled and messed about with.

(no one is suggesting that anyone should "homogenise" volumes)

ALL of these things are connected, you can't separate them out.

Realising how much one DOESN'T know or understand is rather important I would say (I would suggest finding someone who really understands these things and talking with them)

us revolutionists against the standard way of things that has existed for ages have to contend with such ridicule.

?????

But what would Scrote think?

[Bryn]

With an MDG 'In the certainty that the concert hall in the living room (unfortunately) is not feasible, our efforts focused on the illusion of reality' recording playing on Quad 'the closest approach to the original sound' equipment, you too could tell talk from mutter.

Oops. Forgot to get me coat.