With the warm weather here, I'm glad for my right to bare arms.
S.
S.
Don’t bare legs though, no amendments would cover that crime.With the warm weather here, I'm glad for my right to bare arms.
S.
Don’t bare legs though, no amendments would cover that crime.
My copy arrived about a year ago. Still haven't read the entire book.Dr. Toole's book will be here Oct 19th. Thanks Dr. Toole
Wow Just got the book and I'm enjoying like nothing else in the past 30 years. I'm reading it straight through and it's every consideration, experiment, results, logical evaluation, reasoned direction and anticipated "next question" that I've either experienced or wished I had the time and resources to explore. He's brought together everything in such a logical manner. It's fantastic. And I only at page 75.My copy arrived about a year ago. Still haven't read the entire book.
Absolutely. And preference-based listening tests are a major mechanism by which this drift can come about. Only by sticking with objectively-accurate systems and paying no attention to purportedly scientific listening tests can we avoid that drift.For our members in NYC, AES session with highly respected luminaries of audio science and production, moderated by @Thomas Lund this morning:
We recently acquired technical skills to record sound, but that asset is now degenerating because of cognitive limitations and the circles of confusion, addressed by this panel.
Without proper anchoring of spectral balance and level, drifting over time is inevitable in self-referenced systems, thereby putting legacy recordings at the risk of sounding dated for no good reason, or causing irreversible distortion to be added to pieces of art.
Only by sticking with objectively-accurate systems and paying no attention to purportedly scientific listening tests can we avoid that drift.
The point is that if you fix the characteristics of the transducers/room/human system objectively (and that's a subtle thing to understand - it might still be 'wrong'), the drift is eliminated. As soon as you start changing that system in response to what people say they prefer, drift occurs. One 'round' of preference-based testing might be allowable, but more than that, and it's obvious that drift can occur!What do you define as an objectively accurate system in respect of the one parameter that can't be ascertained objectively - dispersion? I suspect something quite different from the systems used to mix and master those legacy recordings.
If so, how does such a system avoid this drift?
The point is that if you fix the characteristics of the transducers/room/human system objectively (and that's a subtle thing to understand - it might still be 'wrong'), the drift is eliminated. As soon as you start changing that system in response to what people say they prefer, drift occurs. One 'round' of preference-based testing might be allowable, but more than that, and it's obvious that drift can occur!
As the post says, "anchoring" the spectral balance and levels objectively is essential to avoid a continuous drift as listeners buy systems that emphasise, say bass, and then recording engineers begin changing the bass content to get their recordings to sound what they think is good on those commercial systems, but the public then start buying even more bass-heavy systems and so on.I'm not sure I understand In @svart-hvitt's post I took "drift" to mean drift from spectral balance/levels that predominated in the era of legacy recordings. Is this how you're defining it here too?
As the post says, "anchoring" the spectral balance and levels objectively is essential to avoid a continuous drift as listeners buy systems that emphasise, say bass, and then recording engineers begin changing the bass content to get their recordings to sound what they think is good on those commercial systems, but the public then start buying even more bass-heavy systems and so on.
It is easy to see how the average system as it was in the 1950s versus the 1970s will have influenced the balance of those respective recordings, and how headphone-wearing today could affect our current recordings. It also depends on how recording engineers monitor the mixes (near field/far field). Only today's speakers with uniform, relatively narrow dispersion at all frequencies will sound spectrally the same in the near field as they do in the far field.
I could imagine that there's considerable latitude in what sounds good if the 'drift' is due to a change in fader levels e.g. how the bass guitar fader is set versus the vocals etc. rather than a change in frequency-selective EQ or other invasive techniques. I would put the pinnacle of recording quality to be during the 70s, with a lot of those mixes sounding straight and pristine compared to today's. They still sound excellent on a good modern system.I'm not sure I understand In @svart-hvitt's post I took "drift" to mean drift from spectral balance/levels that predominated in the era of legacy recordings. Is this how you're defining it here too?
I would guess that even though people might have a preferred uniform dispersion angle for some recordings, and probably different ones for other recordings, it might not affect how an engineer would mix the recording. I would say it's mainly a 'focus' or 'ambience' issue rather than a spectral or level issue.It also begs the question, which I've raised before, of what the "correct" uniform dispersion characteristic (i.e. directivity index) is.
Indeed, consensus would seem to be the only way to answer this question, and this consensus may be best determined by preferential listening studies and/or with reference to normalised dispersion characteristics of legacy systems.
I would guess that even though people might have a preferred uniform dispersion angle for some recordings, and probably different ones for other recordings, it might not affect how an engineer would mix the recording. I would say it's mainly a 'focus' or 'ambience' issue rather than a spectral or level issue.
(I removed the bit about "relatively narrow" from my earlier comment but you caught a snapshot of it in your reply .)
I could imagine that there's considerable latitude in what sounds good if the 'drift' is due to a change in fader levels e.g. how the bass guitar fader is set versus the vocals etc. rather than a change in frequency-selective EQ or other invasive techniques. I would put the pinnacle of recording quality to be during the 70s, with a lot of those mixes sounding straight and pristine compared to today's. They still sound excellent on a good modern system.
I would cite Rocket Man by Elton John as an example (I think the one I listen to is re-mastered or is it re-mixed), and the first albums by Kate Bush.Which 70s recordings would you say exemplify this?