The Tyranny of Pop Music

[doversoul1]

No, it was not one aspect of the experience rather than another - they both combined to convince me.

deleded by mistake.

[NatBalance]

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?

Don't know why you are so confrontational, you and Gongers. It doesn't inspire confidence. Also don't understand why you are so concerned about it not being a YouTube clip. I am refering to ratios not quality. It's like looking at a model railway where every item on it is at a different scale, a car is at a bigger scale than a locomotive, making the car the same size as the locomotive (analogous to making a string quartet same volume as an orchestra). Now it does not matter how I look at that car and locomotive, whether I look through glasses not suited to my eyes or glasses suited to them, the car is still going to look the same size as the locomotive, in other words it is not going to make the car and the locomotive the same scale so that the latter is bigger than the former, like the things they are replicating are (better not say 'like they are in the real world' or Gongers will be on my back that the models are real).

Same with the Jon Lord piece I linked. Are you saying that if I found a HD version of that the vocalist would not sound so over the top loud compared to the orchestra?

Anyway, let's choose one Radio 3 programme:-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06p51d0

So, remember what my complaint is, that everything sounds different distances. The louder something is in the real world the further away it sounds on the 'real' (that's for MrGG) broadcast or 'real' recording.

Click on the button to hear Clemency's introduction to Frank Martin's Kyrie Eleison from Mass for Double Choir at 1:05 and then listen to the volume of the choir. I mean, surely you must agree that that is rediculously quiet compared to Clemency's voice? It starts off so quiet you would not be able to hear it in a noisy environment. What are we hearing at the start? A few tenors? Singing at piano volume? They would be roughly the same volume or louder than Clemency's spoken word would they not?

Now listen to the Schubert string trio that follows the choral piece. That is not the natural volume of a string trio compared to a double choir.

Now listen to the Suppe orchestral piece that follows the string trio. Is that the true volume of an orchestra relative to a string trio?

I'd be interested what Bryn sees when popping it into his software but remember, I am referring to what it sounds like and I recal MrGG saying something to the effect that you cannot trust the visual representation of the sound as it depends on many factors but still, being as my hearing is being questioned here, and if you can't hear what I can hear (i.e. the above mentioned examples sound different distances), then the only way I can attempt to prove my point is by the graphical representation.

So, bearing that provisor in mind, and going just by my hearing I will stick my neck out and guess that the graphical representation of the examples I quote above are that ….

Clemency's voice is as loud as the double choir at full volume, perhaps a tad quieter (visually) but generally the choir is a lot quieter throughout
Schubert string trio at forte is as loud as the double choir at forte
Suppe overture does not get much louder than the Schubert string trio.

There, that's put my neck on the line.

MrGG - Refering to my previous link of the R3 broadcast of a choral evensong you mentioned that the reason the recording of the choral evensong is so quiet, or rather sounds further away, relative to the presenter is because the choral evensong is a recording but in message #474 you agree that the presenter is also a recording.

[MrGongGong]

MrGG - Refering to my previous link of the R3 broadcast of a choral evensong you mentioned that the reason the recording of the choral evensong is so quiet, or rather sounds further away, relative to the presenter is because the choral evensong is a recording but in message #474 you agree that the presenter is also a recording.

That's not a reason why it's quiet
BUT it is a recording

Sounding "quiet" and sounding "far away" are two different things. You DO need to take spectral image into account (much discussed in electroacoustic music). My mate Dallas can make a recording sound louder and further away OR quiet and closer OR increase the perceived depth of the image .... and you know how he does that? He has spent his entire life learning about it, understanding in minute detail HOW these things interact both in terms of physics and psychology. It simply IS much more complicated that you can imagine.

Maybe the reason why some people are exasperated with you is that every time someone tells you something you don't appear to know you ignore it and carry on in your own sweet way.
I'm NOT an expert in the broadcast process, multi-band compression, psychoacoustics, phase etc BUT have worked with enough people who know more about this than I ever knew existed so I tend to defer to them.
If you fail to understand some of the basics of the perception of sound in space (in recordings and live situations) you will carry on in a randomly deluded way occasionally bumping into something that appears to support your stubbornly held views.

It seems to me there are two things here (maybe three)

1: The technicalities of recording processes and the way in which they interact with our psychology and physiology.
and
2: More philosophical concerns about music/sound/art (hence the Pipe).
and maybe
3: Time to book the audiologist appointment

And, again, you still haven't (in your other thread or this one which appears to be turning into a doppelgänger) explained exactly WHY you are so insistent on volumes being the way you want.
"Because it's natural" is NOT an answer, it's been pointed out countless times that NONE of it is "natural".

[doversoul1]

NatBalance

Clemency's voice is as loud as the double choir at full volume, perhaps a tad quieter (visually) but generally the choir is a lot quieter throughout
Schubert string trio at forte is as loud as the double choir at forte
Suppe overture does not get much louder than the Schubert string trio

.

This is because you are listening to the radio. If you don’t like the idea that the ‘volume’ has been messed about, you will have to stick to live performances, hopping from the RAH to Wigmore Hall and all the rest of concert venues where you can hear the performance in ‘real’ volume.

Your model railway analogy is actually quite good. Why do you think the engine and the car, or maybe a level crossing, a few cows and sheep along the railway are reduced in size in the ‘wrong’ ratio? Are the people who made them too stupid to understand the concept of ratio? No, they are made that way so that they serve the purpose: children (or adults for that matter) can play with them. They are not for studying railway engines. The music and music programmes on the radio are ‘designed’ to be heard on the radio. As I said, if this is against your principle, you’ll just have to give up listening to the radio.

Anyway, let's choose one Radio 3 programme:-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06p51d0

Thank you.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Your model railway analogy is actually quite good. Why do you think the engine and the car, or maybe a level crossing, a few cows and sheep along the railway are reduced in size in the ‘wrong’ ratio? Are the people who made them too stupid to understand the concept of ratio? No, they are made that way so that they serve the purpose: children (or adults for that matter) can play with them. They are not for studying railway engines. The music and music programmes on the radio are ‘designed’ to be heard on the radio.

[MrGongGong]

The music and music programmes on the radio are ‘designed’ to be heard on the radio. As I said, if this is against your principle, you’ll just have to give up listening to the radio.

Well put

[rauschwerk]

"Because it's natural" is NOT an answer, it's been pointed out countless times that NONE of it is "natural".

I quite agree that someone sitting in a studio introducing recordings is an entirely artificial setup. In this case I want to imagine that she is in the same room as me whilst introducing a selection of recordings all made in different buildings with mics placed at different distances from the performers. I am not at all bothered by her voice peaking at roughly the same level as the recordings, or by the recordings peaking at the same level as one another. In any case (as I have pointed out above) a string quartet heard up close in a modest sized but lively room might well sound half as loud as an orchestra heard at some distance. I cannot see the point in trying to introduce 'natural' balance criteria into an artificial situation, and if Clemency's voice had been balanced at the same volume as the opening of the Martin, I probably would have been reaching for the volume control at the end of each item, especially if listening in the car.

With broadcasts of actual concerts (less artificial perhaps, but artificial nonetheless) it's a bit different, and on the basis of two samples (BBCNOW from St David's Hall, Cardiff and chamber music from the Cadogan Hall) it looks as though the announcer's voice peaks at about 10 dB below the music peak level (subjectively half as loud). In the Cadogan Hall I have a clear aural picture of Petroc Trelawney standing on the stage addressing the audience, as I can hear the hall acoustic when he speaks and he uses a tone which is louder than normal conversation. To be honest, I don't much care whether anyone else thinks that's 'natural' - the aural picture works for me.

[MrGongGong]

“nothing is accomplished by writing a piece of music
nothing is accomplished by hearing a piece of music
nothing is accomplished by playing a piece of music
our ears are now in excellent condition.”

[NatBalance]

Maybe the reason why some people are exasperated with you is that every time someone tells you something you don't appear to know you ignore it and carry on in your own sweet way.

I think that is very unfair. I have tried to answer every reply as much as my computer time will allow and I am sorry if I have missed some. I am aware that I have questioned people's replies. That is different from ignoring.

And, again, you still haven't (in your other thread or this one which appears to be turning into a doppelgänger) explained exactly WHY you are so insistent on volumes being the way you want.
"Because it's natural" is NOT an answer, it's been pointed out countless times that NONE of it is "natural".

I could say that you have ignored my answer to that question, which has been that I don't see that the fact that a recording or broadcast is not natural is relevant. Is it not the purpose of a recording to replicate?

Have you listened to the episode of Breakfast that I linked? What are your comments?

When I switch on my radio I set the volume for a distance I want audio items to sound. It's like sitting at a performance where there is no amplification involved, except the odd subtle bits perhaps, and I have decided to sit a certain distance from the stage, say the fifth row. I don't then expect the announcer to come and sit next to me to introduce the music, a string quartet comes on and is so close to the front of the stage they are nearly falling off it. Then an orchestra comes on and they all congregate at the back of the stage. A choir is virtually outside.

By 'natural' I mean they all sound as if the same distance.

[jean]

I think that is very unfair.

So do I.

Only two people seem to be exasperated, and Mr GG gets exasperated with almost everybody.

[MrGongGong]

. Is it not the purpose of a recording to replicate?
.

Which part of NO do you not understand?

This

When I switch on my radio I set the volume for a distance I want audio items to sound.

Is precisely why I said you ignore what people say.

Volume and "distance" are NOT the same

Would you like me to say it again?

[NatBalance]

So do I.

Only two people seem to be exasperated, and Mr GG gets exasperated with almost everybody.

Thank you Jean

[MrGongGong]

So do I.

Only two people seem to be exasperated, and Mr GG gets exasperated with almost everybody.

It comes "naturally" to me

[NatBalance]

Your model railway analogy is actually quite good. Why do you think the engine and the car, or maybe a level crossing, a few cows and sheep along the railway are reduced in size in the ‘wrong’ ratio? Are the people who made them too stupid to understand the concept of ratio? No, they are made that way so that they serve the purpose: children (or adults for that matter) can play with them. They are not for studying railway engines. The music and music programmes on the radio are ‘designed’ to be heard on the radio. As I said, if this is against your principle, you’ll just have to give up listening to the radio.

No, I think you are describing a toy train set. A model railway tries to replicate the real world as accurately as possible. As for 'hearing' on the radio. Are you saying you can 'hear' the Frank Martin in my link? I mean hear it properly, not just hear it.

[jean]

Which part of NO do you not understand?

But the answer isn't 'NO', is it? It's much more like 'YES, BUT...'

And it's the details of what follows the 'but' that could be interesting, and that some posts - rauschwerk's #503 for example - address.