The Tyranny of Pop Music

[MrGongGong]

If I understand correctly you are asking why would I expect a choir to be anything other than approximately the same volume as the presenter?

Because it's not a choir it's a recording of a choir.
And before you start the "I don't need to bother about that" nonsense
YOU DO if you are going to understand these things in order to make educated judgements about them.

They only want / expect music to sound loud via the shape of the sound wave, not via its actual amplitude.

What's the difference (in your mind) between "shape" and "amplitude"?

What are the settings on the waveform display you are using?
Are you referring to a phase meter and spectral display as well to ensure that what you are seeing corresponds with what you hear?

And YES you DO need to get your head round this if you want to understand.

and finally

I haven't the foggiest idea what that statement means. Looking at a waveform is purely a means by which we avoid overloading recording and broadcast media, which will result in digital clipping. It tell us very little about subjective loudness, as has been noted already by others.

Exactly

Where do you go to get your ears calibrated?

[doversoul1]

Originally Posted by NatBalance
I'm not that familiar with the iPlayer, couldn't find R3 on it.

Here’s last week’s schedule. You may not use iPlayer yourself but you can choose the programme(s) you had the problem with. Either the name and the date of the programme or the link should do.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio3/programmes/schedules/2015/w47

[ed.] I’d choose a programme that plays CDs or recorded concerts if your concern is the balance between the sound volume between the presenter and the music on Radio 3. When the presenter is in the studio speaking into a microphone and the music is being recorded in a church, I guess there are different issues involved.

[rauschwerk]

Just listened to excerpts from lat night's BBCNOW concert from Cardiff, using ModernDecibel on a Windows Phone. This might not be spot on in absolute terms but I think we can take relative volumes as pretty accurate. I have a good quality sound card and Altec Lansing speakers. The announcements measure around 60 dB. The final bars of Grieg's Piano Concerto measure around 70, peaking at 76. Subjectively, therefore, the loudest music is twice the volume of the announcer's voice. I find this perfectly acceptable - she was not addressing the audience but talking to me in a normal conversational tone as though from the seat next to me.

[NatBalance]

With regards to my comment "They only want / expect music to sound loud via the shape of the sound wave, not via its actual amplitude."

I haven't the foggiest idea what that statement means. Looking at a waveform is purely a means by which we avoid overloading recording and broadcast media, which will result in digital clipping. It tell us very little about subjective loudness, as has been noted already by others.

A sound can sound loud without actually being loud because of what our brains have already learnt about sounds. A piano playing notes loud will have different shaped waves to those same notes played quietly so therefore due to what our brains know of the sound of a piano played loud and quiet we can distinguish between the two even if the two are not played at their respective volumes of loud and soft (crumbs, that was a difficult sentence). When a presenter comes on after Saint-Saens Organ Symphony and says "I hope that woke you up" it's because it sounds loud, not because it actually was loud, because (which is my complaint) it wouldn't have been. Well that's my theory anyway. The shape of a sound wave as I presume you know also dictates whether a sound sounds like a lute or a coot.

Because it's not a choir it's a recording of a choir.

Don't understand the relevance of that. Are you saying a recording should be played to sound further away?

Most of the programmes that have music on iPlayer cannot be downloaded. Is that because of copyright?

Just listened to excerpts from lat night's BBCNOW concert from Cardiff ….

Can't find this

[MrGongGong]

The shape of a sound wave as I presume you know also dictates whether a sound sounds like a lute or a coot.

No it doesn't
Put simply you are wrong here.
Everyone I have met who knows about this (including R3 engineers) would talk about spectra.

Don't understand the relevance of that. Are you saying a recording should be played to sound further away?

No, you are simply confused about the difference between a choir in the room and a recording or a choir.
When you look at the painting of the pipe i'm assuming you know it's a picture of a pipe and not the object that is a pipe?

[doversoul1]

Can't find this

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06pxn69

But which programme from last week’s broadcast did you have the problem? (#468)

Most of the programmes that have music on iPlayer cannot be downloaded. Is that because of copyright?

So you’ve found iPlayer. Good. There’s no need to download. Just copy the link of the programme in you post or simply nominate the programme and the date. I'm sure Bryn can do the rest.

[NatBalance]

When you look at the painting of the pipe i'm assuming you know it's a picture of a pipe and not the object that is a pipe?

Yes, but as far as listening to the radio is concerned, as a listener I am not bothered whether something is a recording or not. I can't carry on the pipe picture analogy. Listening to different items or recordings on the radio is not the same as wondering around an art gallery looking at different pictures. The presenter could be a recording as far as I am concerned. It is also a replication of an acoustic sound in electronic form i.e. not the real thing. As a listener to the radio all I am concerned about is whether I can hear every recording, and I reckon that is best achieved if everything is as close as possible to their natural volume relative to each other.

Actually that example I linked is a particularly good example because there is speaking in the recording. Just listen to how quiet that speaking is compared to the presenter. Have a go at adjusting the volume so that the presenter (which is also a recording) at the beginning is a relaxing volume, not too loud and overpowering, just loud enough so that you can hear her comfortably when in a quiet room, then listen to the speaker in the recording. I don't see the point of creating the effect that you are at the back of the church listening to the service.

But which programme from last week’s broadcast did you have the problem? (#468)

All programmes exhibit this problem to which I refer, on all stations, Radio 2, 1, Classic FM, BBC 1, 2 etc but I will have a go at picking one out that particulalry shows it and find some pointers. It will probably have to wait for the next few days though.

Actually I've already been using the iPlayer but I've always thought of it as the Listen Again feature.

The best way of highlighting this unnatural volume balance is in the recording of Jon Lord's Concerto for Group and Orchestra which I linked on another thread. Surely you must agree that the volume balance of the vocalist relative to the orchestra in this recording is way off the mark? But then a R3 presenter is of a simmilar volume relative to an orchestra so perhaps you won't agree:-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTHS6EMPeVo

He comes in at about 4:45, then listen to the orchestra later on at almost full blast 8:45 not even equalling the volume of the vocalist, and as for the quiet parts of the orchestra, well .... what do you think? That is a superb example of what I am going on about. Surely it is not my own particular hearing that is hearing it this way? Doesn't anyone else hear the vocalist as way way way too loud relative to the orchestra?

[MrGongGong]

Yes, but as far as listening to the radio is concerned, as a listener I am not bothered whether something is a recording or not.

Whether you are bothered or not makes not a jot of difference

I can't carry on the pipe picture analogy. Listening to different items or recordings on the radio is not the same as wondering around an art gallery looking at different pictures. The presenter could be a recording as far as I am concerned.

It IS a recording

It is also a replication of an acoustic sound in electronic form i.e. not the real thing.

Trust me, it IS real

[jean]

No, you are simply confused about the difference between a choir in the room and a recording or a choir.
When you look at the painting of the pipe i'm assuming you know it's a picture of a pipe and not the object that is a pipe?

Drop this analogy.

It doesn't serve your purpose because the painting makes no attempt to reproduce important features of the original object in the way that recorded sound does. You might as well try to prove your point with a photograph of an orchestra playing.

There have been circumstances where I have heard recorded sound I mistook for a live performance. I'm assuming that's the effect whoever devised the programme was after.

[MrGongGong]

Drop this analogy.

No

It doesn't serve your purpose because the painting makes no attempt to reproduce important features of the original object in the way that recorded sound does.

Not always

There have been circumstances where I have heard recorded sound I mistook for a live performance. I'm assuming that's the effect whoever devised the programme was after.

Of course
That's what people sometimes try to create
But not always (which is the point)

[jean]

Then you and NatBalance are talking at cross-purposes.

You cannot successfully make the same arguments about both music that attempts to present an illusion of the listerner's presence at a live performance, and music that explicitly sets out to be something new for which there is no analogous original auditory experience.

[doversoul1]

NatBalance

I don't see the point of creating the effect that you are at the back of the church listening to the service.

You could have been sitting at the back of the church to hear this particular service. Then this would be the natural balance to you. So what’s the problem?

All programmes exhibit this problem to which I refer

In that case, we can ask Bryn to choose a couple and see what he can find out. Or are you trying to get out of it (having to choose a programme) because you don’t really have any problems with Radio3? Or you don’t really know what you are talking about? Forget youtube. It isn’t something you can use to discuss seriously anything about recorded sound. In fact, the way in which you insist on talking about youtube is a good proof that you have little knowledge if any of the subject (recorded sound). Why don’t you try to learn for a change if you are interested in?

jean

There have been circumstances where I have heard recorded sound I mistook for a live performance

That’s probably because the sound of the recording you heard exactly matched your idea/perception of how a live performance of the work should sound in the circumstance in which you heard it, for example, the sound coming out of the window, hearing it in another room, or on the radio. Other people may never have doubted that it was a recording.

This is where Nat’s ‘theory’ is a non-starter. A live performance is heard/perceived differently by each individual in the audience. There is no ‘the sound’ of a live performance. That’s where recording engineers’ ‘art’ comes into it in order to make it sound as closely as possible to the sound that is generally perceived as natural. I suppose you could say that recording music is a creative act borne out of the original performance and not an act of producing a down-sized reproduction like art prints.

[MrGongGong]

You cannot successfully make the same arguments about both music that attempts to present an illusion of the listerner's presence at a live performance, and music that explicitly sets out to be something new for which there is no analogous original auditory experience.

I don't see why that is the case at all.

Just because a recording "sets out" to try and create an illusion of something doesn't make any less a piece of acousmatic music.

[jean]

NatBalanceThat’s probably because the sound of the recording you heard exactly matched your idea/perception of how a live performance of the work should sound in the circumstance in which you heard it, for example, the sound coming out of the window, hearing it in another room, or on the radio. Other people may never have doubted that it was a recording.

Well, obviously. If they could see that no performance was taking place (for example) the would know, whatever they were actually hearing.

...A live performance is heard/perceived differently by each individual in the audience. There is no ‘the sound’ of a live performance. That’s where recording engineers’ ‘art’ comes into it in order to make it sound as closely as possible to the sound that is generally perceived as natural....

No sound engineer in their right mind goes for what's heard in the furthest corner of a concert hall (or church) with poor acoustics. Of course what they're after is a compromise.

But I've only posted again on this thread to point out the difference between that, and the attempt to create something completely without real-world precedent.

(And to try to get rid of the Magritte-pipe analogy, which doesn't work for the reasons I've given, and just confuses the issue.)

[MrGongGong]

(And to try to get rid of the Magritte-pipe analogy, which doesn't work for the reasons I've given, and just confuses the issue.)

I think you don't understand it