corynrrsmethurst@tiscali.co.uk
Date: Thu Feb 10 2011 - 08:34:15 EST
I agree that rooms do profoundly affect what is heard - although in my
experience if rooms are reasonably neutral you can usually find a sweet-
ish spot and, as a bibliophile, I have found bookcases filled with
books can act as good diffusers - one argument agrainst e-books.
I always think you should spend as much time as possible getting as
good an initial recording as you can - and, usually, the simpler the
recording chain the better. But, I have to say, past a certain level
of processing very little survives - and what doesn't isn't usually
that great.
The reply on cost / performance was to James.
crrs
>----Original Message----
>From: kevin.austin@videotron.ca
>Date: 09/02/2011 14:07
>To: <cec-conference@concordia.ca>
>Subj: Re: Josephson Microphones
>
>
>http://cec.concordia.ca/econtact/9_3/
>
>http://cec.concordia.ca/pep/mastering_e.html
>
>
>All acoustical deficiencies in the room are transferred to every
sound that comes from the loudspeaker.
>
>
>Regarding the quality of the original recording, I agree. I
don't agree. ... Well, that will make no one happy.
>
>It will depend upon what you are looking to do. If "the sound" is
going to be an important part of the end product, then my
recommendation is to start with the best recording possible, mics,
preamps etc etc.
>
>If on the other (aesthetic) hand, the recording is to be used for its
'signal' value, then the original recording may make almost no
difference whatsoever. If the piece is "pure" glitch, working at the
sample and multiple sample level, the objective of the recording is to
load a memory buffer with numbers that represent a wide range of
values. An example would be to create a piece using 150ms of signal. A
number of students over the years have done pieces that used less than
500 ms of source materials.
>
>
>Kevin
>
>
>
>On 2011, Feb 9, at 8:52 AM, Pierre Alexandre Tremblay wrote:
>
>> Coryn let me disagree politely with one point, and precise another
one.
>>
>> When I meant £100k, I was not talking about loudspeakers, but a
properly flat listening room, including the loudspeakers, which is
quite modest budget if you compare to real recording studios (and
mastering even more)
>>
>> As for source-for-processing-does-not-matter, Dominique Bassal wrote
a paper on this. the bottom line is that better sources sounds better
at the end: less noise, more natural transients, etc. As the good old
pop producer's proverb says: shit in, shit out!
>>
>> if you pardon my French ;-)
>>
>> Now we obviously don't talk about music quality but strictly sonic
one.
>>
>> p
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Feb 10 2011 - 19:34:52 EST