FALSE TRUTHS
In the field of music and recorded music, a lot of principles are taken for granted and practically considered as "rules".
Here are a few questionable examples.
|
|
|
to be continued...
FALSE TRUTHS
In the field of music and recorded music, a lot of principles are taken for granted and practically considered as "rules".
Here are a few questionable examples.
"WHEN RECORDING CLASSICAL MUSIC,
THE GOAL IS TO BE AS TRANSPARENT AS POSSIBLE.
THE RECORD SHOULD SOUND AS IF THE LISTENER
HAD THE MUSICIANS IN FRONT OF HIM"
This is highly questionable :
1. How realistic is a whole symphonic orchestra in one's living room ?
2. If one really had an orchestra in his living room, that would mean half the furniture would be destroyed by the sheer sound level, and the neighbours would be likely to call the police within 5 minutes, if not the firemen. Then, if the overall level is lowered, half of the piece cannot be heard anymore.
This means the recording has to be compressed.3. The two speakers are like a window which looks into a room, in which you've got the musicians. If you put your ear next to one speaker, then you can see the room in which the recording took place, and only the room. If you are further from the speaker, then you get the recording room + your room. The two acoustics are added - this is not realistic at all.
"WHEN RECORDING INSTRUMENTS WITH A DESIRE OF REALISM,
THE SIGNAL SHOULD BE AS PRISTINE AS POSSIBLE"
Once more questionable.
1. What is the sound of a given instrument ?
If you ask this question to the guy who plays it, the answer will be "what I hear when I plays my instrument".
If you ask the same question to a non-musician, the answer will be "what I hear when I go to the concert".
If you ask the same question to a sound engineer, the answer will be something like "distance : critical radius, position : where the directivity pattern indicates the more high freqs"
Those three sounds are quite different from each other.2. Presumably, if the signal should be as pristine as possible, then the best solution would be, during the recording, to have the ADC converters inside the mike, so there is practically no analog path for the signal.
But this method doesnt give good results. It sounds harsh, not nice at all.3. Similarly, the speakers should be of the electrostatic kind (flat speakers, as opposed to the "normal" electrodynamic speakers)
But those speakers, though of a better quality than the normal speakers, are, at length, quite tiring for the ear.4. Speaking of speakers, think about what is a speaker : a magnet attached to some cardboard piece. Is that liable to sound like a violin ?
Speakers are the weak part in the audio chain.
Wouldn't it be wiser, instead of feeding the speakers with a so called "realist" signal, to feed it with an optimized signal ? Meaning : optimized for the cardboard piece and the magnet.
"WHEN MIXING, RESPECT THE MUSIC THAT WAS DONE"
This is inaccurate : what is called "mixing" is part of the music. There is no such distinction.
In fact, what is the difference between arrangement and mixing ? Often, mixing involves completely reworking the timbres.Writing a part with a guitar and vocals is already mixing. Litteraly, you mix the guitar and the vocals.
Making a distinction between writing the music and mixing, as commonly done, is just an habit, which originates in the fact that musicians often didn't know how to work the mixing desks. Nowadays, a lot of musicians do know how to use a computer, and this habit tends to disappear.
to be continued...