Taperssection.com
Gear / Technical Help => Ask The Tapers => Topic started by: AT853rxwh on May 23, 2004, 08:13:10 PM
-
Ok, dumb question. Why would you seek out a mic that has the flatest response you can find, only to have the sound "modified" through the preamp?
If someone really wanted that sound, couldn't you accomplish the same through processing afterwards?
It just seems odd that we aim for the best reproduction, but at the same time we are using devices that alter that reproduction...
???
-
Why would you seek out a mic that has the flatest response you can find, only to have the sound "modified" through the preamp?
Because the taper enjoys the particular combination of mics/preamp/ADC. I myself run what many consider to be colored mics (Schoeps), but use a very transparent pre/ADC (V3). Others enjoy transparent mics (DPA) but love a more colored pre/ADC (MiniMe). Still others prefer "colored" mics and "colored" pre/ADC, or both transparent. Strictly personal preference.
If someone really wanted that sound, couldn't you accomplish the same through processing afterwards?
Maybe. I don't know enough about post-processing to say one way or the other with certainty, but I'm guessing it would be difficult to reproduce the intricacies of a particular gear combination's sound in post-processing.
It just seems odd that we aim for the best reproduction, but at the same time we are using devices that alter that reproduction...
We aim for the best reproduction [1] within our budgets [2] that pleases our very different ears and brains [3] on our very different playback systems. I personally don't find anything odd about it. If we all had the exact same goal, e.g. the flattest, most accurate and transparent reproduction, we'd all run the same gear and life sure would be boring!
:twocents:
-
I agree with Brian and will add that we're trying to capture the sound as *our ears hear it*. All our ears percieve different things. I may think the TL-> w-mod produces the most accurate recording of a room while someone else may think that mk41s->V3 capture it more accuratly.
Most gear is biased in some way and is not totally transparent....I just try and match gear to what my ears percieve to be natural, neutral, pleasing results.
-
Ok, dumb question. Why would you seek out a mic that has the flatest response you can find, only to have the sound "modified" through the preamp?
If someone really wanted that sound, couldn't you accomplish the same through processing afterwards?
It just seems odd that we aim for the best reproduction, but at the same time we are using devices that alter that reproduction...
???
it's called "coloration" or "colouration" for you Canucks & Europeans :)
coloration can be a negative OR a positive attribute. just as many guitarists choose the fat sound of a tube amp over solid state ones. that good "fat" tube sound is a potpouri of measurable harmonic distortion, coloration and God knows what other sonic ingredients.
>>If someone really wanted that sound, couldn't you accomplish the same through processing afterwards?
i'm sure you could approximate it with sophisticated softwares that are available today, but why not capture it during the recording from the start. you can have a controlled recording on the master; therefore, you don't need to add it artificially in post prod. also, with all the great technology that exist today, it's impossible to add/remove certain order harmonics into the recording. you can't recreate nature on a computer, no matter how powerful it may be.
no loudspeaker, no computer will ever perfectly reproduce a chord sounded by a piano. however, with high quality mics, pres, etc. we can come up with a pretty good approximation.
>>It just seems odd that we aim for the best reproduction...
i understand what you're saying. but, let me add that "best" is open to a VERY wide range of interpretation especially in music.
hope that i've shed a different light on the subject.
marc
-
+T for the explainations, makes a bit more sense now...
-
Ok, dumb question. Why would you seek out a mic that has the flatest response you can find, only to have the sound "modified" through the preamp?
If someone really wanted that sound, couldn't you accomplish the same through processing afterwards?
It just seems odd that we aim for the best reproduction, but at the same time we are using devices that alter that reproduction...
???
it's called "coloration" or "colouration" for you Canucks & Europeans :)
>>If someone really wanted that sound, couldn't you accomplish the same through processing afterwards?
i'm sure you could approximate it with sophisticated softwares that are available today, but why not capture it during the recording from the start. you can have a controlled recording on the master; therefore, you don't need to add it artificially in post prod. also, with all the great technology that exist today, it's impossible to add/remove certain order harmonics into the recording. you can't recreate nature on a computer, no matter how powerful it may be.
no loudspeaker, no computer will ever perfectly reproduce a chord sounded by a piano. however, with high quality mics, pres, etc. we can come up with a pretty good approximation.
>>It just seems odd that we aim for the best reproduction...
i understand what you're saying. but, let me add that "best" is open to a VERY wide range of interpretation especially in music.
hope that i've shed a different light on the subject.
marc
This is a great posting! And I totally disagree! :-)
(Ok, so I am in a devilish mood).
But I'll confine myself to the statements about mics
A) First, just which microphone is capable of capturing the piano chord in a "true" manner (you ears or mine?)?
B) Second, in light of you stating that that no speakers ever being accurate enough, how would you know that your favorite microphone captured that piano chord accurately?
C) Lastly, look at how microphones are built. It' a complex acoustic, mechanical & electrical system. The condencer microphone f. ex with it's vented rear plate and resonance chambers is a complex loaded resonant system with a _large_ number of adjustable parameters that must be decided by the manufacturer.
What truly is odd is that the makers of microphones gets away with deciding _for_ us what a piano ought to sound like.
So, my conclusion is different. There is nothing unnatural or unphysical about processing digitized sound in the aftermath. But the number of possible parameters to adjust is even more staggering and can quickly take the fun out of things unless you have a strong sense (possibly based on measurements) of what you are after and how you can obtain it.
Regards
Jon
-
Even if we had the technology to completely recreate human hearing as exactly the way we heard it for particular events, I still think I would choose to color my audio. When I listen back to my tapes, I don't always want to think "Wow, it sounds just like a bar", I want to think "Wow, that's some really nice music!".