|
|
Audio systems that capture the timbre of instruments
Whatever any theories about 'absolute fidelity' say or don't say, back
in the real world some things about systems stand out - with some it's bass, treble or mids, others it's transparency and detail, and so forth. I'm one of those guys who's always been very sensitive to the timbre of acoustic instruments, having been a musician for many years, and this would apply to anyone that regularly hears live instruments in the studio or concert hall (or kids practising...). By some fortuitous combination of circumstances my present system has turned out - despite some glaring flaws - to be quite uncanny in reproducing the timbre of instruments. This isn't a question about fidelity in general, it's precisely about timbre - what systems or componants can you name that have, for you, an uncannily realistic portrayal of timbre? I'm interested if there's any pattern to how to achieve this. Andy |
Audio systems that capture the timbre of instruments
an old foreign man was demo-ing his arm (turntable that
is). He played an old Ella mono LP from ancient times. She was in the room - it sounded absolutely wonderful. I think I heard that too - can't remember what it was, maybe Clearaudio. I do remember Ella in a similar room. So, that would be a vote for vinyl in terms of timbre. |
Audio systems that capture the timbre of instruments
In article .com,
Andy Evans wrote: I think I heard that too - can't remember what it was, maybe Clearaudio. I do remember Ella in a similar room. So, that would be a vote for vinyl in terms of timbre. Only because you'd not heard better in those days. ;-) -- *Who is this General Failure chap anyway - and why is he reading my HD? * Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
Audio systems that capture the timbre of instruments
I do remember Ella in a similar room. So, that would be a
vote for vinyl in terms of timbre. Only because you'd not heard better in those days. ;-) I wasn't speaking for myself exactly here, if you look at the context. But, yes I had heard better - to my ears. I once had a system which had stacked Quad 57s (fronts and backs off) with Decca ribbon tweeters, McIntosh amp driven direct by a phono stage I hard wired to the arm, which was Hadcock/Decca Gold in a Thorens 124. Speaking just of timbre and nothing else, that was very good indeed, thanks mostly to the speakers. But yes, I do think that reproduction has progressed and I believe I'm getting better results from CD but only through quite a sophisticated DAC (Chris Found V-DAC 4) - speaking once again of timbre. It's my impression that a really stand-out instrumental timbre is affected by the weakest link in the reproduction chain - could be things like capacitors and output transformers. I can quite see that digital reproduction can bring a really good signal through to one's home reproduction system, and in the case of amps like the very impressive Lyngdorf ones, pretty much to the speakers themselves. I still have a preference for valves between DAC and speaker, but the Lyngdorf is close in terms of timbre, and better than all but the best valve gear. |
Audio systems that capture the timbre of instruments
My own personal take on the instrument timbre issue is that the speakers are
critical (given that the rest of the system is well matched good gear) but not for the usual hifi reasons. I think what really helps to achieve that extra 'magic' is NOT having wide dispersion speakers as it bounces the mid/treble around the room too much with the ears receiving multiple reflections. This lessens the sense of hearing an individual instrument working in it's own acoustic space as was present at the original recording. It becomes a blurred mixture of the original acoustic and the listening room's acoustic signature. Conversely, old speakers like the Quad 57 tend to beam the sound straight at the listener resulting in a hypercritical stereo sweet spot, but you can hear the original acoustic because of that flaw and it can help make an instrument sound more 'real'. |
Audio systems that capture the timbre of instruments
In article , SteveB
sbrads@nildramDOTcoDOTuk wrote: My own personal take on the instrument timbre issue is that the speakers are critical (given that the rest of the system is well matched good gear) but not for the usual hifi reasons. I think what really helps to achieve that extra 'magic' is NOT having wide dispersion speakers as it bounces the mid/treble around the room too much with the ears receiving multiple reflections. This lessens the sense of hearing an individual instrument working in it's own acoustic space as was present at the original recording. I'd agree with the above. It also means that the response in use isn't as measured on-axis in an anechoic chamber. Thus making such measurements considered in isolation of dubious value. It becomes a blurred mixture of the original acoustic and the listening room's acoustic signature. Conversely, old speakers like the Quad 57 tend to beam the sound straight at the listener resulting in a hypercritical stereo sweet spot, but you can hear the original acoustic because of that flaw and it can help make an instrument sound more 'real'. I'd agree that the speakers tend to be the critical part of the system. And I prefer the ESL's. Partly for the dispersion reasons you give. Partly due to the lower levels of colouration and distortion thay can provide. Thus - despite having worked for some years as am amplifier designer - I regard the importance of the amp as being much less than that of the speaker, the room acoustic, and the placement of the speakers and listening position in the room. Slainte, Jim -- Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html |
Audio systems that capture the timbre of instruments
In article , Housetrained wrote:
This invokes memories of Heathrow Hi Fi show c.198?. We went into a very small room where an old foreign man was demo-ing his arm (turntable that is). He played an old Ella mono LP from ancient times. She was in the room - it sounded absolutely wonderful. Unfortunately the arm was way out of our price-range - but I'll never forget that magic moment. I still use (and have never felt any desire to replace) a pair of Bowers & Wilkins DM2 loudspeakers discovered in exactly the same manner at one of those Heathrow shows in 1971 or 1972. I was sitting in the demo room looking at some brochures and heard someone in front of me say something like "Good morning and welcome to Bowers and Wilkins, we'd like to demonstrate our loudspeakers", so I looked up and there was nobody there! The voice had been coming from a tape. Rod. |
Audio systems that capture the timbre of instruments
It's interesting that the examples given so far have been the human
voice - obviously critical for timbre. funnily, the instruments I'm most sensitive to are the woodwind - clarinet, oboe, bassoon, flute - the piano and in particular the jazz drumkit. Since I was a jazz bassist for many years I used to stand right next to the kit for hours and hours on end, and the sounds of hi-hat, snare, ride and crash cymbal, toms and bass drum are etched on my brain. When the drumkit is right, top to bottom, there's not much wrong with the rest of it. Cymbals in particular are a real test of an audio system. So are the toms - they have a particular reverberation which is very distinctive. Andy |
Audio systems that capture the timbre of instruments
In article .com, Andy
Evans wrote: It's interesting that the examples given so far have been the human voice - obviously critical for timbre. funnily, the instruments I'm most sensitive to are the woodwind - clarinet, oboe, bassoon, flute - the piano and in particular the jazz drumkit. Since I was a jazz bassist for many years I used to stand right next to the kit for hours and hours on end, and the sounds of hi-hat, snare, ride and crash cymbal, toms and bass drum are etched on my brain. When the drumkit is right, top to bottom, there's not much wrong with the rest of it. Cymbals in particular are a real test of an audio system. So are the toms - they have a particular reverberation which is very distinctive. Andy Yes, everybody will have their own preferred type of music, but the human voice is probably the sound most commonly heard through a loudspeaker that most people are familiar with as an acoustic source, so provided it has been properly miked it is a very good test for realism. I'd guess that the piano is a close second as far as familiarity goes, though probably a more critical test because of the impulsive components of the waveform. Pianos are notoriously difficult to portray convincingly on loudspeakers for those that do know what the real thing should sound like. The same is probably true of drums for the same reason, though personally I don't listen to drums very much. I think that familiarity with the sound of the real thing has quite a lot to do with the acceptability of a replica. Rod. |
Audio systems that capture the timbre of instruments
In article .com, Andy
Evans writes It's interesting that the examples given so far have been the human voice - obviously critical for timbre. funnily, the instruments I'm most sensitive to are the woodwind - clarinet, oboe, bassoon, flute - the piano and in particular the jazz drumkit. Since I was a jazz bassist for many years I used to stand right next to the kit for hours and hours on end, and the sounds of hi-hat, snare, ride and crash cymbal, toms and bass drum are etched on my brain. When the drumkit is right, top to bottom, there's not much wrong with the rest of it. Cymbals in particular are a real test of an audio system. So are the toms - they have a particular reverberation which is very distinctive. Andy Yep!, DAB MPEG codecs just lurve them!.... -- Tony Sayer |
Audio systems that capture the timbre of instruments
In article .com,
Andy Evans wrote: It's interesting that the examples given so far have been the human voice - obviously critical for timbre. funnily, the instruments I'm most sensitive to are the woodwind - clarinet, oboe, bassoon, flute - the piano and in particular the jazz drumkit. I've recently been listening to/watching the pair of DVDs of the Bach 'Well Tempered Clavier, Books I and II' which is performed by four different artists, and each prelude and fugue in a different room of the chosen locations. This serves as a nice example of just how much the 'sound of a piano' changes from one room to another and with one mic placement to another. Thus the resulting timbe is somewhat variable. Slainte, Jim -- Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html |
Audio systems that capture the timbre of instruments
So are the toms - they have a particular reverberation which is very
distinctive. Andy Yep!, DAB MPEG codecs just lurve them!.... I listened to a transformer volume control once - a beta version - and it sounded good on a lot of things in the orchestra. It completely fell down on the tymps - that distinctive twang wasn't there. -- |
Audio systems that capture the timbre of instruments
how much the 'sound of a piano' changes from one room to another and
with one mic placement to another. Thus the resulting timbe is somewhat variable Yes, it is. That's one reason why I tend to focus on woodwind and drumkit - the drumkit is usually fairly close mic-ed, and the tone of the winds tends to come through the orchestra. The enormous reverberation caused by a grand piano makes it quite unreliable as regards consistancy of timbre, though obviously it can't be completely disregarded as a reference. I find vocals rather unreliable as a reference because the mic and placement tends to be a variable, and of course each singer is quite different in timbre so there's no consistency at all about the quality of the voice. Andy |
Audio systems that capture the timbre of instruments
In article .com,
Andy Evans wrote: how much the 'sound of a piano' changes from one room to another and with one mic placement to another. Thus the resulting timbe is somewhat variable Yes, it is. That's one reason why I tend to focus on woodwind and drumkit - the drumkit is usually fairly close mic-ed, and the tone of the winds tends to come through the orchestra. I don't listen much to music that includes close-miked drumkit, so can't comment on that. However I also find that the sound of woodwind also varies. Depends on the make of instrument - size of bore, etc. Also on the relative mic placement. I am wary of using woodwind as some speakers may have resonances similar to (or do not interact with) those of some instruments. The enormous reverberation caused by a grand piano makes it quite unreliable as regards consistancy of timbre, though obviously it can't be completely disregarded as a reference. I find it very revealing as a test source. Particularly useful for showing the effects of mic placement, room acoustics, and speaker problems. I find vocals rather unreliable as a reference because the mic and placement tends to be a variable, and of course each singer is quite different in timbre so there's no consistency at all about the quality of the voice. Andy It is useful in this context to use recordings/broadcasts from a 'known' venue. I used to find it very useful when I lived in London to go to BBC sponsored concerts, and then hear the same items when broadcast at a later date. I found this very illuminating and caused me to realise how easy it was to make incorrect assumptions about if a given system/recording was good or bad as a representation of the actual event. FWIW I have always found voice and piano quite a telling combination once you have some idea of the sound when present at the venue, etc. Slainte, Jim -- Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html |
Audio systems that capture the timbre of instruments
On 2 Dec 2005 09:21:23 -0800, "Andy Evans"
wrote: Whatever any theories about 'absolute fidelity' say or don't say, back in the real world some things about systems stand out - with some it's bass, treble or mids, others it's transparency and detail, and so forth. I'm one of those guys who's always been very sensitive to the timbre of acoustic instruments, having been a musician for many years, and this would apply to anyone that regularly hears live instruments in the studio or concert hall (or kids practising...). By some fortuitous combination of circumstances my present system has turned out - despite some glaring flaws - to be quite uncanny in reproducing the timbre of instruments. This isn't a question about fidelity in general, it's precisely about timbre - what systems or componants can you name that have, for you, an uncannily realistic portrayal of timbre? I'm interested if there's any pattern to how to achieve this. Andy Mine, for one: http://www.lurcher.org/ukra/stewart_p/stewart_p.html Of course, I would say that! :-) -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
Audio systems that capture the timbre of instruments
"Andy Evans" wrote This isn't a question about fidelity in general, it's precisely about timbre - what systems or componants can you name that have, for you, an uncannily realistic portrayal of timbre? I'm interested if there's any pattern to how to achieve this. Andy Easy - single fullrange drivers. Even cheap 'industrial' FR drivers will demonstrate how much slurry is pumped out of 'traditional', multiway speakers.... |
Audio systems that capture the timbre of instruments
Easy - single fullrange drivers.
That's what I'm using. I keep adding tweeters and taking them off again. I use 5" Monacor AL130 - aluminium cone. It's a very little known driver, but I haven't replaced it in a long while. Cheap and ordinary, but it produces excellent timbre for the most part of its range - some breakup on treble but I can kind of live with it. When I add crossovers something just goes. Bass is there - not extended but the notes are there and it's tight. Andy |
Audio systems that capture the timbre of instruments
FWIW I have always found voice and piano quite a telling combination
once you have some idea of the sound when present at the venue, etc Absolutely, but how often can you say that! |
Audio systems that capture the timbre of instruments
On Sun, 4 Dec 2005 12:30:53 -0000, "Keith G"
wrote: "Andy Evans" wrote This isn't a question about fidelity in general, it's precisely about timbre - what systems or componants can you name that have, for you, an uncannily realistic portrayal of timbre? I'm interested if there's any pattern to how to achieve this. Andy Easy - single fullrange drivers. Even cheap 'industrial' FR drivers will demonstrate how much slurry is pumped out of 'traditional', multiway speakers.... ********. There is no 'full-range' driver which is anything like full range, it's a matter of basic physics. Single-driver speakers *may* on occasion be quite seductive on human voice, but a full orchestral work is utterly beyond them - at both ends of the spectrum. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
Audio systems that capture the timbre of instruments
In article . com, Andy
Evans wrote: FWIW I have always found voice and piano quite a telling combination once you have some idea of the sound when present at the venue, etc Absolutely, but how often can you say that! Not everybody will have heard the particular voice in the particular venue, but everybody knows if a human voice sounds human, and I'd guess that many more people have had the chance to hear a piano than a full orchestra. That's valuable if you're interested in realism of course. I'm sure many people often accept something they regard as "a pleasant sound", never having heard the real thing at all. Rod. |
Audio systems that capture the timbre of instruments
In article . com,
Andy Evans wrote: FWIW I have always found voice and piano quite a telling combination once you have some idea of the sound when present at the venue, etc Absolutely, but how often can you say that! These days I rarely hear broadcasts/recordings from locations which I've visited recently. However for a few decades when I lived in London I used to go to performances at such places a few times per month, and then hear them via R3, etc. I suspect that thousands of other people could have been doing much the same. FWIW it seems to me that if anyone is concerned about the fidelity of their sound system, doing something like this is likely to be an important requirement to 'calibrate' your perceptions. OTOH If the only aim is a 'pleasing sound' then there is no need for such calibration as you only have to twiddle about with the speakers, etc, until you get that, with no regard for what any acoustic performance/venue might sound like. I used to moan about the sound balance from the old (pre 'flying saucers') proms at the RAH - until I started going to proms and realised the BBC were doing a good job of presenting the performance in the relevant acoustic! :-) If I had not done that, and had not also visited the RFH, St John's, Maida Vale, etc, then I might have spent a lot of time trying to 'improve' things away from being a decent representation of the actual sound when sitting at the venues... :-) Slainte, Jim -- Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html |
Audio systems that capture the timbre of instruments
In article .com,
Andy Evans wrote: That's what I'm using. I keep adding tweeters and taking them off again. I use 5" Monacor AL130 - aluminium cone. It's a very little known driver, but I haven't replaced it in a long while. Cheap and ordinary, but it produces excellent timbre for the most part of its range - some breakup on treble but I can kind of live with it. When I add crossovers something just goes. Bass is there - not extended but the notes are there and it's tight So what you're saying is it's a good mid range driver? ;-) -- *One tequila, two tequila, three tequila, floor. Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
Audio systems that capture the timbre of instruments
"Andy Evans" wrote in
message ups.com Whatever any theories about 'absolute fidelity' say or don't say, back in the real world some things about systems stand out - with some it's bass, treble or mids, others it's transparency and detail, and so forth. I'm one of those guys who's always been very sensitive to the timbre of acoustic instruments, having been a musician for many years, and this would apply to anyone that regularly hears live instruments in the studio or concert hall (or kids practising...). By some fortuitous combination of circumstances my present system has turned out - despite some glaring flaws - to be quite uncanny in reproducing the timbre of instruments. This isn't a question about fidelity in general, it's precisely about timbre - what systems or componants can you name that have, for you, an uncannily realistic portrayal of timbre? I'm interested if there's any pattern to how to achieve this. Andy Obviously, you are clueless about the role that recordings play in the natural sound of playback. |
Audio systems that capture the timbre of instruments
"Andy Evans" wrote in
message oups.com how much the 'sound of a piano' changes from one room to another and with one mic placement to another. Thus the resulting timbe is somewhat variable Yes, it is. That's one reason why I tend to focus on woodwind and drumkit - the drumkit is usually fairly close mic-ed, and the tone of the winds tends to come through the orchestra. The enormous reverberation caused by a grand piano makes it quite unreliable as regards consistancy of timbre, though obviously it can't be completely disregarded as a reference. I find vocals rather unreliable as a reference because the mic and placement tends to be a variable, and of course each singer is quite different in timbre so there's no consistency at all about the quality of the voice. Andy The room the recording was done in, the mic and the placement are always major variables in recordings. A playback system is ideal for only one combination of the above. |
Audio systems that capture the timbre of instruments
On Mon, 05 Dec 2005 09:19:46 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
wrote: In article . com, Andy Evans wrote: FWIW I have always found voice and piano quite a telling combination once you have some idea of the sound when present at the venue, etc Absolutely, but how often can you say that! These days I rarely hear broadcasts/recordings from locations which I've visited recently. However for a few decades when I lived in London I used to go to performances at such places a few times per month, and then hear them via R3, etc. I suspect that thousands of other people could have been doing much the same. FWIW it seems to me that if anyone is concerned about the fidelity of their sound system, doing something like this is likely to be an important requirement to 'calibrate' your perceptions. OTOH If the only aim is a 'pleasing sound' then there is no need for such calibration as you only have to twiddle about with the speakers, etc, until you get that, with no regard for what any acoustic performance/venue might sound like. I used to moan about the sound balance from the old (pre 'flying saucers') proms at the RAH - until I started going to proms and realised the BBC were doing a good job of presenting the performance in the relevant acoustic! :-) If I had not done that, and had not also visited the RFH, St John's, Maida Vale, etc, then I might have spent a lot of time trying to 'improve' things away from being a decent representation of the actual sound when sitting at the venues... :-) Slainte, Jim I think that St. John's is the place the Beeb do best. I often go to concerts there, and the R3 broadcasts later on really do sound very similar. Studios like Maida Vale are a bit more problematic, being rather drier, they do tend to add a bit of ambience for broadcast, and the similarity is entirely lost - although the sound is indeed nicer. d Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com |
Audio systems that capture the timbre of instruments
Andy Evans wrote:
Cymbals in particular are a real test of an audio system. So are the toms - they have a particular reverberation which is very distinctive. Agreed, but the *real* test is on the recording side. If the particular properties of the sound are not captured by the recording equipment, any attempt at reproducing them is futile. -- Mark. http://tranchant.plus.com/ |
Audio systems that capture the timbre of instruments
Obviously, you are clueless about the role that recordings
play in the natural sound of playback About as clueless are you are about actually playing live music every night, but a much nicer chap. |
Audio systems that capture the timbre of instruments
"Roderick Stewart" wrote That's valuable if you're interested in realism of course. I'm sure many people often accept something they regard as "a pleasant sound", never having heard the real thing at all. **Ding!** :-) |
Audio systems that capture the timbre of instruments
"Andy Evans" wrote in message oups.com... Easy - single fullrange drivers. That's what I'm using. I keep adding tweeters and taking them off again. I use 5" Monacor AL130 - aluminium cone. It's a very little known driver, but I haven't replaced it in a long while. Cheap and ordinary, but it produces excellent timbre for the most part of its range - some breakup on treble but I can kind of live with it. When I add crossovers something just goes. Bass is there - not extended but the notes are there and it's tight. Andy I have a pair of Loths with a supertweeter - it does nothing, an 8 quid single 3 inch Visaton FR8S I use can equal/better it for top-end sweetness.... |
Audio systems that capture the timbre of instruments
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... On Sun, 4 Dec 2005 12:30:53 -0000, "Keith G" wrote: "Andy Evans" wrote This isn't a question about fidelity in general, it's precisely about timbre - what systems or componants can you name that have, for you, an uncannily realistic portrayal of timbre? I'm interested if there's any pattern to how to achieve this. Andy Easy - single fullrange drivers. Even cheap 'industrial' FR drivers will demonstrate how much slurry is pumped out of 'traditional', multiway speakers.... ********. There is no 'full-range' driver which is anything like full range, it's a matter of basic physics. Relax Pinky, we *know that* - get the industry/world to change the 'label' and we'll call 'em summat else. Plenty of people use FR drivers with either or both of supertweets and subs as well as 'multiway' arrangements with.... with..... with... **CROSSOVERS**!! There! Said it! :-) Single-driver speakers *may* on occasion be quite seductive on human voice, but a full orchestral work is utterly beyond them - at both ends of the spectrum. My turn now: **********..... (Depends on your requirements/expectations/room...) :-) |
Audio systems that capture the timbre of instruments
"Andy Evans" wrote in
message ups.com Obviously, you are clueless about the role that recordings play in the natural sound of playback About as clueless are you are about actually playing live music every night, but a much nicer chap. OK so now you want to claim that you've got some kind of tremendous advantage because you play live music every night a week, and I only mix it 2-3 nights a week? LOL! The bottom line is that musos don't hear music like people in the paying seats do. They don't hear it like a say a minimalist microphone kit does. Given that I can and do colocate myself with either as I wish... |
Audio systems that capture the timbre of instruments
OK so now you want to claim that you've got some kind of
tremendous advantage because you play live music I never said that, but bear in mind that all the years I was working with the timbre of my instrument(s) you were twiddling knobs. This thread is about timbre, not your ego. |
Audio systems that capture the timbre of instruments
"Andy Evans" wrote in
message oups.com OK so now you want to claim that you've got some kind of tremendous advantage because you play live music I never said that, but bear in mind that all the years I was working with the timbre of my instrument(s) you were twiddling knobs. This thread is about timbre, not your ego. Remind me again about how twidding with knobs of the kind I do is less relevant to sound quality than the twidding you do with a musical instrument. A lot of musos need to face up to the fact that the sonic perspective that a player or vocalist has on their instrument is vastly different from that of anybody in the audience. I stand next to performing musos at rehearsals whenever I want to, and do it often. Almost totally irrelevant to the timbre in the room. And you obtain similar results with very close micing. Only a little less strange. |
Audio systems that capture the timbre of instruments
Remind me again about how twidding with knobs of the kind I do is less
relevant to sound quality than the twidding you do with a musical instrument. Both are relevant to recorded music but they are different. Leaving out particular cases of performed experimental and electronic music and looking at, say, the usual classical repertoire, then the composer's directions in the score are reproduced by the musicians. They determine the timbre, nuances, speeds etc of the live performance. The audio engineer is at one remove in the next generation of reproduction - that of reproducing the work of the musicians. The work of the engineer clearly affects the reproduction of timbre (though it doesn't produce it as the musicians do) and adds on to that another new aspect, which is the reproduction - as you say - of the venue and acoustic, which isn't the job of the musicians. All are links in the chain to the listener's armchair. You rightly say "hang on - what about the acoustics - that's engineering" and you would be right. I have been saying "what about the timbre", and that splits into two parts, the musicians who create it and the engineers who reproduce it. On a recording we can't have one without the other, but the work of the musicians is primary and in live concerts exists without the engineer. It's not a question of superiority, it's a question of where the functions lie in the chain of reproduction and how important they are in those stages between the composer's pen and the listener's armchair. For instance, the acoustic is not the job of the composer, and writing the score is not the job of the engineer. All recorded music is a collaboration. |
Audio systems that capture the timbre of instruments
Andy Evans wrote:
Whatever any theories about 'absolute fidelity' say or don't say, back in the real world some things about systems stand out - with some it's bass, treble or mids, others it's transparency and detail, and so forth. I'm one of those guys who's always been very sensitive to the timbre of acoustic instruments, having been a musician for many years, That's surprising; most musicians end up with partial deafness! BugBear |
Audio systems that capture the timbre of instruments
Thus spake bugbear:
Andy Evans wrote: Whatever any theories about 'absolute fidelity' say or don't say, back in the real world some things about systems stand out - with some it's bass, treble or mids, others it's transparency and detail, and so forth. I'm one of those guys who's always been very sensitive to the timbre of acoustic instruments, having been a musician for many years, That's surprising; most musicians end up with partial deafness! BugBear To the point that some orchestras are looking into ways of lessening the problem. Perhaps the HSE will make earplugs compulsory :) |
Audio systems that capture the timbre of instruments
To the point that some orchestras are looking into ways of lessening
the problem. Perhaps the HSE will make earplugs compulsory :) Deafness and tinnitus are common in musicians. Ear devices are already used in the amplified music world, but orchestras are more of a problem. Many have been through the stage of using sound screens in rehearsals and then discarding them for many reasons. Placement in the orchestra is a factor - the strings have more problems than the brass, because they sit in front of the bells of the brass (I should know - I'm a bassist). the instrument is also a factor - violinists have partial loss of upper frequencies on the left side because of the proximity of the violin to the ear on that side. There have been some attempts to sue orchestras for hearing loss, but it's a complex matter because some of the hearing damage is attributable to choice of instrument and some to practice rather than rehearsal or concerts. Proving negligence on the part of the orchestra is difficult but possible, and this is a H&S area that orchestral managers are very loath to think about. The musicians themselves didn't like the screens much, and in any case a number of orchestras are effectively run by a management committee of the musicians themselves, and in several the musicians are freelance and not salaried. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 09:07 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO 3.0.0
Copyright ©2004-2006 AudioBanter.co.uk