- Joined
- Mar 13, 2021
- Messages
- 62
- Likes
- 98
I am long time lurker of this forum and a big big fan of objective measurements. And as a part-time music producer, composer, performer and hi-fi listener I would like to discuss something which is has been in the fringes of many conversation - namely, tonality.
But before that I just want to say that this is not about the validity or benefits of using measurements. Rather, this is to kick off discussions about whether there should be any interrelationship between measurements and tonality, and if so what.
To start with, I would like to share my own experiences from someone who spends more time at the production end than at the listening end - where there are as many disagreements between composers, conductors and performers as there are between hi-fi listeners and manufacturers! If you look at music as a series of processes, where a signal is being created between to links in the chain, ie. dac to preamp. At the risk of offending music performer, I and many composers think of music as a signal between the composer and the audience, with the performers being the processors. So we start with something which we want to communicate. And at this stage, even the process of writing music is already a lossy process because I am confined by the notes on the page and the instruments which are available. Then comes the performer, who has the job of reading the notes he has been presented. 'Ah!' he thinks. 'I can make this music sound good'. So he picks up his instrument and displays his performance techniques, making something a little louder here, a little softer there etc. Maybe he even adds a few overtones because he has a very expensive instrument and good enough technique to do that. Then the production company gets involved and thinks it would sound even better if the piece was recorded in a cathedral. So then comes the recording engineer who has to record the whole thing and capture the environment. So he mikes everything near and far. But it doesn't sound as good so he makes adjustments - adding a carpet here or there, angling the mic or maybe even using EQ (yes, some recording engineers even do that!). At the end of the day everybody packs up and goes home having experienced the performance from completely different perspectives. Up until this point, fidelity is very low in the list of priorities because the performer is more concerned with playing, the recordist is trying to capture or reproduce what to his ears, is unique about the environment and the composer is just happy that people are going to hear what he wrote. In each case, either they are focusing on tonality or the content of the music itself.
Then in the evening, the files get sent to the mastering engineer who fires up his workstation. Note that he is called the mastering engineer for a reason, which is to get paid by the production company for making everything sound good. So he listens to each track again. Playing the raw tracks on his yamaha, JBL and genelac monitors he thinks the instrument is a bit too bright. So he runs the signal through his vintage teletronix compressor to give him that warmth he is so accustomed to hearing from his other recordings. Then he mixes it with the ambient noise track recorded by the recordsist's omnidirectional condensor (which picks up a very faint rumble from a nearby passing train).
Now here we are listening to the recording and discussing our equipment...
But before that I just want to say that this is not about the validity or benefits of using measurements. Rather, this is to kick off discussions about whether there should be any interrelationship between measurements and tonality, and if so what.
To start with, I would like to share my own experiences from someone who spends more time at the production end than at the listening end - where there are as many disagreements between composers, conductors and performers as there are between hi-fi listeners and manufacturers! If you look at music as a series of processes, where a signal is being created between to links in the chain, ie. dac to preamp. At the risk of offending music performer, I and many composers think of music as a signal between the composer and the audience, with the performers being the processors. So we start with something which we want to communicate. And at this stage, even the process of writing music is already a lossy process because I am confined by the notes on the page and the instruments which are available. Then comes the performer, who has the job of reading the notes he has been presented. 'Ah!' he thinks. 'I can make this music sound good'. So he picks up his instrument and displays his performance techniques, making something a little louder here, a little softer there etc. Maybe he even adds a few overtones because he has a very expensive instrument and good enough technique to do that. Then the production company gets involved and thinks it would sound even better if the piece was recorded in a cathedral. So then comes the recording engineer who has to record the whole thing and capture the environment. So he mikes everything near and far. But it doesn't sound as good so he makes adjustments - adding a carpet here or there, angling the mic or maybe even using EQ (yes, some recording engineers even do that!). At the end of the day everybody packs up and goes home having experienced the performance from completely different perspectives. Up until this point, fidelity is very low in the list of priorities because the performer is more concerned with playing, the recordist is trying to capture or reproduce what to his ears, is unique about the environment and the composer is just happy that people are going to hear what he wrote. In each case, either they are focusing on tonality or the content of the music itself.
Then in the evening, the files get sent to the mastering engineer who fires up his workstation. Note that he is called the mastering engineer for a reason, which is to get paid by the production company for making everything sound good. So he listens to each track again. Playing the raw tracks on his yamaha, JBL and genelac monitors he thinks the instrument is a bit too bright. So he runs the signal through his vintage teletronix compressor to give him that warmth he is so accustomed to hearing from his other recordings. Then he mixes it with the ambient noise track recorded by the recordsist's omnidirectional condensor (which picks up a very faint rumble from a nearby passing train).
Now here we are listening to the recording and discussing our equipment...