William Sommerwerck wrote: >> And just as accurate speakers came along, that incredibly >> realistic vinyl went away! Bummer!
> Get the SACD of Helmut Rilling conducting the Britten "War Requiem", and let > me know what you think about "realism".
> The new Blu-ray of "North by Northwest" has the soundtrack in stereo, and > the sound is magnificent. The best analog recordings of the late 50s and > early 60s hit exactly the right balance between accuracy and euphony.
My standard is , and probably will always be the Columbia soundtracks of the great musicals, best exemplified by "The Sound of Music".
>My standard is , and probably will always be the Columbia soundtracks >of the great musicals, best exemplified by "The Sound of Music".
See, I find that stuff aggressively overmiked. It might sound kind of cool, but it doesn't sound anything like what the orchestra does from the audience. Everything is right up in your face. --scott
-- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Over the past few days I went through all of the Vanska performances of the B9. I'm also getting around (finally!) to listening to the MTT cycle of Mahler symphonies.
Last night I listened to the first half of the 3rd, one of my favorites. This is an exceptional recording, by any standard. It sounds reasonably close to hearing a performance in a concert hall.
It's not perfect -- but I don't have to close my eyes to imagine I'm there. We haven't reached perfection, but I never really expected to live long enough to see this level of quality.
muzician21 wrote: > On Nov 8, 8:37 am, walki...@nv.net (hank alrich) wrote:
>>> How are either of the above determined, and if so, when pro studios >>> pay however many multiples of thousands for monitors, I assume there >>> must be a reason they do so? >> Some speakers give me a sense of the _reality_ of the sources coming >> through them. Some do not. Mind you, I most often deal with what I'll >> call "natural" sounds - acoustic instruments, human voices, sounds that >> are generated without electrical amplification.
> Isn't what the speakers are reproducing in many cases not what things > sound like to your ears as a spectator but what they sound like to the > mic - generally a few inches away? I.e. I imagine if you were at the > same vantage point to Faith Hill as her mic, she'd sound very > different.
In article <acc48b04-9eb9-418f-9f50-d2f6a5ff9...@s15g2000yqs.googlegroups.com>,
muzician21 <muzicia...@yahoo.com> wrote: > so how you do you tell that you're accurately reproducing sound that's > to some degree inaccurate to begin with?
In the world of commercial recording studios, accurate is a misnomer. You literally wanna get a drum sound that sounds "better" than the drum sound in the recording room. You want a vocal that sounds great in your mix. Not great by itself but sucky in the mix. That is the context - the final product, the mix.
And you want to be sure that your mix will sound right on what the client plays them back on.
The way you know your monitor system works is by using it. By trial and error you'll determine for yourself that your monitors "work". So will your clients ;>
One of the essential skills of being an engineer is learning how to listen to, how to make sonic decisions listening to your monitors. And being right.
Best of luck on your journey to get to that promised land. ;>
|
