R/E/P Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10
 21 
 on: November 18, 2017, 05:16:11 am 
Started by klaus - Last post by klaus
This is what you wrote, and to which I responded:
Quote
Yes but how do I know that my subjective listening judgement is at least within ballpark?
.
But now you write:
Quote
My post was not about me but anybody

Referring to 'anybody' makes conversations rather imprecise and impersonal. So if this subject does not pertain to your own subjective listening, why not take a break, and let others chime in?

 22 
 on: November 18, 2017, 04:38:29 am 
Started by klaus - Last post by Timtape

...With these kind of experiences under your belt, you will have climbed another rung on the ladder towards recognizing sonic excellence.
My post was not about me but anybody. That's why I wrote: "The person  prepared to  submit their audio claims to public scrutiny gains immediate credibility..."

Of course it could apply equally to the audio claims of a company.


 23 
 on: November 17, 2017, 08:15:19 pm 
Started by klaus - Last post by klaus
Quote
Yes but how do I know that my subjective listening judgement is at least within ballpark?

In the old days, those aspiring to a career in recording engineering did not get their chance to put their hands on the faders until they were thoroughly educated in the finer points of good balance, good splices and good tea-making.

The next hurdle they faced was whether enough artists, producers, or labels would hire them, so they could actually make a living off discretionary listening.

The next step was, whether enough peers of these engineers would agree that theirs was a damn well-engineered record, deserving a Grammy® for their effort. 

Though the path to becoming a recording engineer has radically changed over the last 10-15 years, success in the profession can still be checked out by listening to recordings universally hailed as tops, then listening to enough of them, until it's going to be self-evident what's a well-recorded piece of music, regardless of the reverb fashion of the moment.

If you do not yet have the confidence to trust your opinion whether a recording is well-engineered, start your listening education. Here, more is really better!
And soon enough you will recognize that "Purple Rain" is a rather poorly engineered album, and "Talking Book" an excellent one, regardless of both of them selling Platinum a few times over, and deservedly somas far as the music goes.

Next, listen to your voice through a TLM103; then, if you can swing it, through a real ELA M251 or any other of the Big Five.

With these kind of experiences under your belt, you will have climbed another rung on the ladder towards recognizing sonic excellence.

 24 
 on: November 17, 2017, 04:45:54 pm 
Started by klaus - Last post by Timtape
My life got a lot easier (and my recordings got a lot better) when I ditched any illusion of (or aspiration for) "accuracy," and began to just listen and choose the subjectively best option.

The entire goal of recording is good sound. I am confident in my ability to use discretion, experience, and judgment to make that determination. I don't need any number or specification as a cosigner.

Yes but how do I know that my subjective listening judgement is at least within ballpark?   These days we can easily put our judgement to the test  by presenting what we consider good sound - or improved sound - to our peers, or even the world.  What do 10 or 10,000  people's experienced ears think of my opinion  of good sound, good recording, good musical balance etc - specifically my audio sample file?

Then it's more than just the private, untestable claim: "I know what my ears tell me." The person  prepared to  submit their audio claims to public scrutiny gains immediate credibility, and useful feedback about their own listening judgements.

 25 
 on: November 17, 2017, 03:46:12 pm 
Started by klaus - Last post by Timtape
You misunderstand. The "accurate" microphone's job is to present to the ear what it would have received as input if it had been where the microphone was placed.
Ah, that's what you meant by "place". Understand now.


 26 
 on: November 17, 2017, 12:22:29 pm 
Started by klaus - Last post by klaus
Amen!

 27 
 on: November 17, 2017, 12:20:01 pm 
Started by klaus - Last post by soapfoot
My life got a lot easier (and my recordings got a lot better) when I ditched any illusion of (or aspiration for) "accuracy," and began to just listen and choose the subjectively best option.

The entire goal of recording is good sound. I am confident in my ability to use discretion, experience, and judgment to make that determination. I don't need any number or specification as a cosigner.

 28 
 on: November 17, 2017, 11:52:10 am 
Started by klaus - Last post by jaykadis
You misunderstand. The "accurate" microphone's job is to present to the ear what it would have received as input if it had been where the microphone was placed.

Unfortunately we also need a loudspeaker to deliver that stimulus to the ear so we're screwed regardless of how good the microphone gets at its job.

 29 
 on: November 17, 2017, 05:30:17 am 
Started by klaus - Last post by Timtape
The human auditory system is far from perfect, but in fact that does not matter because what we perceive is interpreted by the brain into "hearing" incorporating the system's imperfections. The "accurate" microphone's job is simply to present to the auditory system a minimally altered representation of what an ear would have heard had it been in the place of the microphone.

Not that I'm aware of. Mics normally output relatively flat. The human ear's response is not flat. It  has a special response a la the Fletcher Munson curves.  If mics responsed like the ear they would have a pronounced wide band peak centred  around 3 kHz and would sound overly midrange to us. But to take account of this fact, there are "weighting curves" incorporated in sound level meters which approximate how humans perceive sound levels and can be more realistic in some measurement situations.

Mics dont take the place of the ear. 





 30 
 on: November 16, 2017, 02:15:21 pm 
Started by klaus - Last post by jaykadis
I envision a transducer that quantizes the air movement and force exerted at the molecular level, integrating the individual contributions in the device itself. Materials like graphene might make such a transducer possible, for instance. Thus the digitization becomes part of the transduction itself rather than a subsequent measurement. Clearly, this does not currently exist.

No argument about loudspeakers - they suck no matter how much money you throw at them.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10