"Won't Get Fooled Again" Recording Theories

[AcousticDreams]

There are so many ways in which we can be fooled each and every time we record the Acoustic Guitar.

Doug Young and his tests have proven that over and over.
So I thought it would be fun to list all the ways in which our senses can be Fooled, Physically and Mentally each and every time we record.

Please chime in and let me know of anything I missed.
Physical:

Louder Volume = it has been proven many times right here on AGF…just one Decibel can fool us.

The One Inch Theory( mic placement) = A big one discussed here on AGF…just one inch in mic placement can make a difference in sound.

Hyped Frequencies = Highly EQed material might also fool us. Long term listening highly hyped frequencies tend to cut into our ears like a knife and become disturbing. But at first, it is exciting!

Phasing = More than one microphone can cause Phasing.

Microphone’s Frequency graph-response

= Many microphones have either a built in low frequency roll off, and or a high frequency boast. Many have both. This can dramatically effect how close or how far away you can place the mics. [/INDENT]

Off Axis response = How accurately a given microphone picks up frequencies off Axis to its polar pattern

.

Polar Pattern = The microphones Polar pattern will not only determine how much of the room it hears verses the instrument…but will also directly effect proximity effect.

Proximity effect = Neumann quote “ is the the phenomenon that leads to an increase in low frequency response as you move mic closer to the source.” This then effects how close we can mic an acoustic guitar. Different microphones with their Microphone Frequency graph, Off Axis Response and their Polar Pattern all come into play with how it effects Proximity.

SDC verses LDC = Size of the capsule can greatly effect the sound through transients, width of frequency response & dynamic range.
Type of Preamp = Tube, Transformered, Transformerless. They all sound different.

Listening Fatigue = In many instances, it Only takes about 20 minutes for our senses to become confused and overwhelmed.

Room Acoustics = Have always loved Doug Young's description of this “A flashlight in a bright room versus a flashlight in a dark room”.

Environment = Slightly different than Room Acoustics…Environment can be both physical and mental. The beauty of our recording Environment might effect our mood, thus our judgement. Clean verses messy.
Also Objects near us in our environment…such as a glass window, wood desk, type of flooring material can bounce back and give us reflections of certain frequencies.

B]Humidity[/B] = Can certainly effect how the guitar sounds from day to day. And some theories say that humidity can effect the ear’s working functions.
Background Noise = I have heard other threads about certain times of day in which their guitar sounds better) Some have speculated that late night playing sounds better because there is less background noise.

Fingernails = How they are done day to day. A subject matter by which both Michael Watts and Doug Young have mentioned on a few occasions.
Allergies = Some theories suggest that allergies might cause a type of constriction in the ear canal.

Temperature = A known cause of Wax build up. And can also effect you physically in how you play. Too cold or too hot might effect your performance.

[INDENT]Performance = Each performance can sound physically a little different. If you plug the note harder...it will hit the preamp harder first.
[/INDENT

The Norm, Acceptance and Something New,The Expectant theories are all tied together.

THE Norm.

A big Debate…do we like the sound of older microphones and preamps because they sound better? Or is it because it was the standard of that time and we accept that sound as the Norm. So Anything else..is wrong.

Acceptance Theory .

If you hear something enough, it becomes very acceptable and even likable.
A TV series I really enjoyed had background music that was very cookie cutter type. Me no like big time!… By the end of the series I began to accept the music…and after the series was over, I heard the tune in my head for several days. Still no master piece. Still not a favorite. But I began to accept that music piece.
New recording techniques often fall into this area. Digital is now accepted.

Something New Theory

We have not heard before, there fore, we do not understand the new sound at first. Our judgement therefore is biased. This ties straight into .

The Expectancy Theory

What we expect it to sound like: through our knowledge of the characteristics of each unit are. WE all have our preconceived notions as to what a Tube,Transformer and transformer less electronics might sound like. Therefore we might hear what is not there, based on our preconceived notions.

[Chipotle]

I would add, or at least point out, both recording differences (the bulk of what you posted here) and listening differences (like volume, listening fatigue and the listening environment and expectations). And to listening, add in your mood, time of day, who is with you, and other "psycho-acoustic" pieces of the puzzle.

How many threads do we get here where someone thinks their guitar sound different from day to day, or even hour to hour? While there may be some environmental affects, I'd wager much of it is simply in their head (or ears). Have you ever run a sound comparison test, and then listened to it later and been at a loss to discern the differences?

[phcorrigan]

Thanks for posting this.

You did touch on this, but I think it's important enough to reiterate: Recording and music production have changed dramatically over the last few years. Not only the media--we have moved from vinyl to CD to online and, to some degree, back to vinyl (vinyl records outsold CDs last year), but the very ways music is being made has changed. "Optimizing" music for various streaming services, as well as the way those services apply compression and EQ, are also factors.

Here are some resources I've found useful:

Damon Krukowski's podcast series "Ways of Hearing" (https://www.radiotopia.fm/showcase/ways-of-hearing) (he also has a book of the same name covering the same material), and his book "The New Analog" (https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/16...api_taft_p1_i0}

John Seabrook's book, "The Song Machine - Inside the Hit Factory" (https://www.amazon.com/Song-Machine-...s%2C230&sr=1-1)

[AcousticDreams]

I wanted been wanting to add a few more theories.
However I think this one deserves a classification all on its own:
Sometimes we need to be taught first; what to listen for=theory.

This latest "Won't Get Fooled Again" theory, was brought about by a post this morning on AGF. A person was asking which Guitar Burst finish people liked the best.
https://www.acousticguitarforum.com/...d.php?t=603221
At first I could not see a difference between the two guitars. That is because I was looking at the picture as a whole. Then multiple people started pointing out the physical difference. Then I could clearly & easily see the difference.

I think this very much applies to audio as well.

If we can not outright tell a difference, then does it really make a difference? Hmmm? I think that in some cases this is most certainly true & makes no real difference. But in most situations, even the smallest differences have a very real outcome on the final product's long term listening effect.
Would that not be one of the valid justifications for the expense of Mixing, Mastering? This goes right along with phcorrigan's notes about "Optimizing" & "Ways of Hearing"

This is One of the reasons why I am not a huge believer in blind tests. For me in particular, my mind wanders unless I have a known base point in which to compare to.

Sometimes we need to be taught first what to listen for.

[Brent Hahn]

Originally Posted by Knives&Guitars

Sometimes we need to be taught first what to listen for.

That's true. But honestly, for me as someone who's been involved in pro audio for a really long time, the hardest thing has been to re-learn how to experience recordings like a "civilian." Forest, not trees. Being able to switch back and forth (because you have to) is hard.

[RRuskin]

"Phasing = More than one microphone can cause Phasing." Actually, what you hear is comb filtering, caused when multiple mics pick up the same signal at different positions.


"Polar Pattern = The microphones Polar pattern will not only determine how much of the room it hears verses the instrument…but will also directly effect proximity effect."

Omni's have no proximity effect. Figure 8's have the most.

[Brent Hahn]

Originally Posted by RRuskin

"Phasing = More than one microphone can cause Phasing." Actually, what you hear is comb filtering, caused when multiple mics pick up the same signal at different positions.

The term "phasing" is generally used to describe the swishy-swooshy thing that happens when a mic that's moving is mixed with another that's not. One example would be when an actor has a lav mic clipped on but there's also a boom mic, and the distance between the actor and the boom mic is constantly changing. Another example would be a singer with a handheld mic in front of a drum kit. The mics on the drums are stationary, but the vocal mic isn't, and the resulting bleed from the cymbals is swooshy.

[j3ffr0]

Good discussion. One way I recently got fooled was trying to tame room resonances in my little home/office studio while using monitors to mix in the same room that has the resonance. I've found I must tame the resonances in the phones to avoid over doing it.

Many acoustic guitars also have a resonance or two that one may want to tame a little when recording fingerstyle. Resonances that largely go unnoticed playing anywhere else can come out in a recording.