- Joined
- Jan 27, 2019
- Messages
- 7,287
- Likes
- 12,192
All good info, but wondering about this..
I think there could be a slight disconnect about what you may be speaking to, vs what some are looking for.
It's worth separating the two goals:
1. Producing a more "natural" sound from a recording (in which we can discuss whether certain reflections help or hinder, which make up for deficiencies in stereo)
vs
2. Accurately reproducing the recording (in which case the recorded acoustic may not play back as fully natural or realistic, but that's ok it's the nature of
recordings. We just want to hear how they sound, not augment them).
As for #2: As is often pointed out, we "hear through" a room to a degree because our brains filter out reflections in order to concentrate on the sound source.
But that isn't what is happening when playing back recordings.
Recordings, say of a symphony, have the particular acoustic as part of the sound source. We don't filter it out - we hear the acoustic as an element as we do with the individual instruments. In this way it's artificial...but essentially expected. So someone who wants to accurately reproduce what's on an orchestral recording may
not be desiring to add reflections for it to sound more natural or like he/she is 'there,' to make up for the deficiencies of stereo. They may want to simply experience the recording...as a recording. And hearing as much unmitigated direct sound as possible will allow them to hear the particular character captured of the recorded acoustic, as represented by a recording, balanced as it was by the recordist/mixers. Vs trying to augment it to sound "more real" than what the recording might provide.
At least, that's my take on how some of the conversation may be a bit talking past one another. Happy to be corrected.
(I go back and forth as to desiring more of 1 or 2...or a mix).
Stereo is inherently flawed in this regard, as @Floyd Toole likes to remind us. The whole idea of "we need to kill room reflections so that we can accurately reproduce the acoustics captured in the recording" is based on a faulty premise - it's trying to reach an outcome that a stereo system cannot deliver. It's counter-productive because, as studies have shown, people prefer the presence of side reflections (the real kind, not the kind that stereo fails to reproduce).
There is only one case where eliminating reflections makes sense to properly reproduce the acoustics capture in the recording:
I think there could be a slight disconnect about what you may be speaking to, vs what some are looking for.
It's worth separating the two goals:
1. Producing a more "natural" sound from a recording (in which we can discuss whether certain reflections help or hinder, which make up for deficiencies in stereo)
vs
2. Accurately reproducing the recording (in which case the recorded acoustic may not play back as fully natural or realistic, but that's ok it's the nature of
recordings. We just want to hear how they sound, not augment them).
As for #2: As is often pointed out, we "hear through" a room to a degree because our brains filter out reflections in order to concentrate on the sound source.
But that isn't what is happening when playing back recordings.
Recordings, say of a symphony, have the particular acoustic as part of the sound source. We don't filter it out - we hear the acoustic as an element as we do with the individual instruments. In this way it's artificial...but essentially expected. So someone who wants to accurately reproduce what's on an orchestral recording may
not be desiring to add reflections for it to sound more natural or like he/she is 'there,' to make up for the deficiencies of stereo. They may want to simply experience the recording...as a recording. And hearing as much unmitigated direct sound as possible will allow them to hear the particular character captured of the recorded acoustic, as represented by a recording, balanced as it was by the recordist/mixers. Vs trying to augment it to sound "more real" than what the recording might provide.
At least, that's my take on how some of the conversation may be a bit talking past one another. Happy to be corrected.
(I go back and forth as to desiring more of 1 or 2...or a mix).
Last edited: