The Acoustic Guitar Forum

Go Back   The Acoustic Guitar Forum > General Acoustic Guitar and Amplification Discussion > RECORD

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #16  
Old 08-18-2022, 11:43 AM
AcousticDreams AcousticDreams is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 3,094
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joseph Hanna View Post
I'd submit: room.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug Young View Post
Tubes and transformers (and tape) are altering the sound, making it less accurate. But possibly more "pleasing", which in turn may possibly be because of the sounds some of us grew up listening to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by j3ffr0 View Post
I think one meter might be a standard distance for those plots, but who uses mics at one meter only? Move it forward or backward a few inches or feet, as we all do, and it's very different.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DupleMeter View Post
Saturation is also a form of compression. Linearity isn't really all that inspiring...even our ears aren't linear (just look at the equal loudness curves).

So, in a nutshell: I don't think we want reality. I think the limits of most playback systems are far greater than our ears, and we, therefore, prefer to mess up the recording in ways that play to the strengths of the playback systems and minimize those limits. And that's done by compressing the dynamic range, and adding enough THD to allow us to hear the harmonics of sounds that fall outside the range that the playback system can handle. All things that happen naturally in transformers & tubes. They are far from reality, but that makes them sound better because of how they are "unreal".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Womack View Post
But back to the question: Why do things sound different from that era?

Big budget recording rooms and control rooms, equipment, technique, philosophy, art, craft. Recordings back then were dynamically squashed pretty well with optical and tube compressors in mastering so they could fit on an LP vinyl. Transients were rounded off by transformers and tape. In the seventies there was a period of experimentation with deliberately squashing the transients on acoustic guitars for a new sound. It made them smoother sounding and it added sustain.
There is something about seeing a question in the form of the written word, that kick starts the mind into a heavy analytical mode. Then with a little bit of time the mind sees new pathways. Finishing it off with Key words & phrases- from all of you, and I have a some refined thoughts on this subject matter.

In my mind everyone( including myself) are correct in one way or another. I am not saying this to be diplomatic. I am saying this because I believe this to be the truth. Even if you are at the opposite ends of the scale. I have always resisted absolutes. I find absolutes so restrictive when it comes to the creative process.

When I woke up this morning a big light went off in my head. Would not the Ear have compressive measures to protect or adjust within? Does a microphone work like an ear? Thus began an hour long research on how the ear works. And by the way...an hour is not nearly long enough. I only scratched the surface. I am sure it would takes weeks of research for me to fully understand. But I do believe I found the basics for what I was looking for. Yes, the Ear does have the ability to compress when needed.
And it can do it in several ways.

I found several articles on how the ear works as well as a couple of recording articles talking about different ways in which the ear adjusts frequencies, dynamics and even compresses the signal it receives.

"The human ear DOES have its own built in compression system. When the incoming sound gets too loud, a muscle around the three bones tightens and skews the levers reducing their efficiency, and therefore the level entering the inner ear."

"Our ears act as natural compressors, exponentially reducing volume the louder it gets. Nerves and muscles throughout your inner ear react to incoming sounds and vibrations, which help clamp down these high-pressure signals. The louder the noise, the more our ear "compresses" it, which makes mixing at low volumes even more vital."


There are our parts of the ear that work as a dynamic amplifier of sorts. I would be foolish to think I can even begin to understand or explain it at this point. It has to do with the Cochlea "the spiral cavity of the inner ear containing the organ of Corti, which produces nerve impulses in response to sound vibrations."

My Two Bits: ( I have upped the anti from two cents )

I listen to my guitar at close range when playing. The most predominate sounds I am hearing are from 8 to 10 inches away. And similarly, I seem to enjoy guitars recorded at this approximate distance of 8 to 10 inches as well.
Of course I also hear the sounds reflecting back from the walls as well, but first and foremost I hear the guitar close up.

And from what I have read my ears can compress louder signals. And I play with a heavy hand in a dynamic nature.

Microphones (without tubes and transformers) may not have the protective-compressive qualities to them that a tube and transformer microphone might have. Even the adding of saturation can simulate a compressive quality. This would take a long time to explain how it actually does in relation to how the ear works. And as I previously mentioned...I am certainly no expert on this subject matter. But from what I have gathered...there is a relationship.

There is a whole world of science that one could use to debate on either side of the coin. My head is already hurting as it tries to hold in the information & comprehend....seriously!

For now I will just say, that I now believe there is some credibility that Transformers and Tubes add a TYPE of naturalness to the sound. I would never try and say it is completely natural, Cause I also believe the opposite. That transformers and tubes add something that is not there. Maybe the best description to what I am trying to say is that it Imparts the feeling of naturalness because it is somewhat acting as our ears do. ( a very loose connotation of course )
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 08-18-2022, 12:03 PM
runamuck runamuck is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 2,276
Default

Regarding the word, "natural" when used to describe a recording, I have never heard any recording through any speaker system recorded with tubes, transistors, transformers or not, that sounded like it was live in the room.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 08-18-2022, 12:49 PM
Doug Young's Avatar
Doug Young Doug Young is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Mountain View, CA
Posts: 9,879
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by runamuck View Post
Regarding the word, "natural" when used to describe a recording, I have never heard any recording through any speaker system recorded with tubes, transistors, transformers or not, that sounded like it was live in the room.
Yeah, we're talking about capturing the sound of something (guitar, voice) using a device that isn't the same as our ears, from a location (inches or a few feet away) from which we'd never actually listen. Then reducing it to 1s and 0s, massaging it, adding effects, the re-formulating those 1s and 0s into an electrical signal that vibrates some membrane (speakers) in a room (car, headphones, etc) with totally different sonic characteristics than where the performance took place. Nothing natural about it!


To Victor's point about ear non-linearities, I'd keep in mind that your ears are still in the loop when you listen to playback. So, based on your theory, you're getting a double effect - whatever processing you do plus your ears influence.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 08-18-2022, 01:41 PM
AcousticDreams AcousticDreams is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 3,094
Default

I am no longer thinking of my ears as exactly working like a microphone does. There are similarities with some of the same functions, but overall there are major differences.

The real question at hand...is how the ear's compressive defenses, and the ears dynamics and & frequencies processors, works in relation to loudness and distance. From the little I studied, it is a super complicated mater.
My speculation would be; a closer distances with louder volumes the ear's compressive capabilities kicks in more.

As you may well remember, I am a big fan of noting the "Inverse Square Law" "when it comes to not only light, but to sound. I can not say for sure that it works exactly the same on sound as it does on light...but once again the newer research suggests a very similar relation. Twice the distance might result in one quarter sound received. Basically listening to speakers in playback mode at 10 feet away the ears compressive characteristics may not kick in at all if the volume is lower. But close up? Then they might go to work.

Is not the Fletcher Munson Curve a direct comparison to how the inner ear perceives in relation to volume? Basically saying that sound is different at different volumes? Although not stated, the reason it is different might be because of the ear's compressive abilities?
" Often referred to as equal-loudness contours, the Fletcher Munson Curve is related to physics and the way that the human ear responds to different frequencies. The Fletcher Munson Curve denotes the relationship between sound pressure level and frequency."

Possible why everything sounds good when turned up. Because the ears are compressing, thus everything is now upfront.

For myself, I think that transformers sound a bit more natural than Tubes. But still, tubes inherent compressor qualities may emulate some of what the ear is naturally doing at louder volumes.
Believe me when I say that I am not trying to say that it is natural, only imparting Some of the natural characteristics. The difference being Part versus whole.

I guess when I really think about it, in the simplest of terms...all I am saying is ; we often record at close distance...but listen back at further distances. In order to normalize we might need to do some compression or equalization. There is a strong possibility that the ear might do this very same thing. And we do know that transformers and tubes can add a version of compression.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 08-18-2022, 06:25 PM
Rudy4 Rudy4 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 8,797
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug Young View Post
Yeah, we're talking about capturing the sound of something (guitar, voice) using a device that isn't the same as our ears, from a location (inches or a few feet away) from which we'd never actually listen. Then reducing it to 1s and 0s, massaging it, adding effects, the re-formulating those 1s and 0s into an electrical signal that vibrates some membrane (speakers) in a room (car, headphones, etc) with totally different sonic characteristics than where the performance took place. Nothing natural about it!


To Victor's point about ear non-linearities, I'd keep in mind that your ears are still in the loop when you listen to playback. So, based on your theory, you're getting a double effect - whatever processing you do plus your ears influence.
Isn't that the whole point of binaural recording using the dummy head (and ears) system? It unfortunately requires listening back with high quality headphones, but that's a pretty convincing argument for the touted realism of the recording technique.



The "one mic" recording series is also pretty darned impressive.


Last edited by Rudy4; 08-18-2022 at 07:06 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 08-18-2022, 06:37 PM
Doug Young's Avatar
Doug Young Doug Young is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Mountain View, CA
Posts: 9,879
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudy4 View Post
The "one mic" recording series is also pretty darned impressive.
Agreed, it feels a lot like "being there". I have that mic, don't know how he does it!
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 08-18-2022, 07:21 PM
jim1960 jim1960 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 5,961
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug Young View Post
Agreed, it feels a lot like "being there". I have that mic, don't know how he does it!
There's a lot more going on in that video than one might notice because it's filmed in such a way as to not draw attention to the choreography. I've no doubt there was quite a bit of practice and experimentation to find the correct distances for each instrument depending on the role it was playing at any particular time. I suspect each player had 2, perhaps 3, marks on the floor. One closest to the mic for leads, one less close for playing something complimentary to the lead, and one furthest back for when the instrument was intended to be buried under the others. And I've no doubt they had to move along a predetermined line of longitude to keep their axis point consistent.

It's an amazing feat and I don't think the single mic made it easier; I think it made the project quite a bit harder.
__________________
Jim
2023 Iris ND-200 maple/adi
2017 Circle Strings 00 bastogne walnut/sinker redwood
2015 Circle Strings Parlor shedua/western red cedar
2009 Bamburg JSB Signature Baritone macassar ebony/carpathian spruce
2004 Taylor XXX-RS indian rosewood/sitka spruce
1988 Martin D-16 mahogany/sitka spruce

along with some electrics, zouks, dulcimers, and banjos.

YouTube
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 08-18-2022, 08:46 PM
Chipotle Chipotle is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 2,302
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Knives&Guitars View Post
I am no longer thinking of my ears as exactly working like a microphone does.
And not only do your ear not work exactly like a microphone... neither does your brain. Just think of all the posts on AGF where someone says their guitar doesn't sound the same today as it did yesterday (or even earlier this morning). Chances are the sound night be pretty much identical, but for some reason your brain simply isn't processing it the same way.

The brain has the ability to take sound and focus on certain parts or frequencies or areas and minimize others. Think about how you can pick out a particular conversation in a noisy room if you focus. That certainly could go for sounds, tones or sound "colors" that you have heard in the past and associate with certain music (and feelings).

It's all psycho-acoustics in the end.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 08-18-2022, 09:49 PM
AcousticDreams AcousticDreams is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 3,094
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chipotle View Post
And not only do your ear not work exactly like a microphone... neither does your brain. Just think of all the posts on AGF where someone says their guitar doesn't sound the same today as it did yesterday (or even earlier this morning). Chances are the sound night be pretty much identical, but for some reason your brain simply isn't processing it the same way.

The brain has the ability to take sound and focus on certain parts or frequencies or areas and minimize others. Think about how you can pick out a particular conversation in a noisy room if you focus. That certainly could go for sounds, tones or sound "colors" that you have heard in the past and associate with certain music (and feelings).

It's all psycho-acoustics in the end.
Excellent Point Chipolte. The brain's ability to filter, change perceive is limitless.

This brings us back full circle to the = " Perceived ", " The Learned," & " This is the Norm" theory. After all, many if not most of us are products of social influence.

As with most all things that involves the combination of art and science, there may not be one just answer. Maybe it all boils down to H165's earlier statement " The term "natural sound" is subjective.
For me there is something natural about the Transformer sound. While Tubes are a Learned sound, that has a tinge naturalness because of its compressive qualities.

While this discussion might seem purely philosophical at this point, I assure you it has been of great mechanical help towards my future engineering skills. So I thank you dearly for all the input.
It is only when I fully understand the boundaries of the recording realm, can I then proceed in an orderly fashion.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 08-19-2022, 07:36 AM
KevWind's Avatar
KevWind KevWind is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Edge of Wilderness Wyoming
Posts: 19,887
Default

Also as far as acoustic guitar there is the fact that you as the player are sitting above and (unless you lean over ) just behind the plane of the the guitar top.

Which is going to be somewhat different than being out in front of guitar in the mic position
And no doubt why some engineers have a mic sitting up at,. and in plane with the players ears
When I recorded some demos in Nashville the engineer had a guitar mic siting right above my right shoulder and another out in front of the bridge of the guitar and was feeding those mics into my headphone for my monitoring mix while recording

And I am guessing that is also the reasoning behind the sound hole position in the upper bout of the guitar (which I now have on my new guitar) and is something I had to relearn (listening wise) just a bit
__________________
Enjoy the Journey.... Kev...

KevWind at Soundcloud

KevWind at YouYube
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?lis...EZxkPKyieOTgRD

System :
Studio system Avid Carbon interface , PT Ultimate 2023.12 -Mid 2020 iMac 27" 3.8GHz 8-core i7 10th Gen ,, Ventura 13.2.1

Mobile MBP M1 Pro , PT Ultimate 2023.12 Ventura 12.2.1
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 08-20-2022, 11:16 AM
j3ffr0 j3ffr0 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 1,933
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Knives&Guitars View Post
As with most all things that involves the combination of art and science, there may not be one just answer. Maybe it all boils down to H165's earlier statement " The term "natural sound" is subjective.
I couldn't agree more with this. This is a fun discussion, so I'm going to chip in two cents more. I agree that "natural" is subjective. There is little natural about using electronics to record music in a digital form. I'd also argue against the implication that "natural" necessarily means better sounding. Some guitars and rooms have some nasty resonances in them, and that stuff needs to be filtered in order to get a pro sounding recording -- nothing natural about that. Nothing natural about electronic reverb, compression, EQ, or any of the technical things that are done to make a recording sound better. Why do studio's even need acoustic treatment? Because a great environment for recording doesn't often occur naturally, and if it did we couldn't easily get the rest of the unnatural gear there.

So when some folks say natural, I think what they really mean is vintage or familiar. I think we could all agree that tubes and transformers can offer a vintage or familiar sound that we all grew up with. A lot of times, this is what we want, but maybe not sometimes.
__________________
Alvarez: DY61
Huss and Dalton: DS Crossroads, 00-SP
Kenny Hill: Heritage, Performance
Larrivee: CS09 Matt Thomas Limited
Taylor: 314ce, 356e, Baritone 8
Timberline: T60HGc
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 08-26-2022, 07:00 AM
Rudy4 Rudy4 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 8,797
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by j3ffr0 View Post
I couldn't agree more with this. This is a fun discussion, so I'm going to chip in two cents more. I agree that "natural" is subjective.

There is little natural about using electronics to record music in a digital form.

I'd also argue against the implication that "natural" necessarily means better sounding. Some guitars and rooms have some nasty resonances in them, and that stuff needs to be filtered in order to get a pro sounding recording -- nothing natural about that. Nothing natural about electronic reverb, compression, EQ, or any of the technical things that are done to make a recording sound better. Why do studio's even need acoustic treatment? Because a great environment for recording doesn't often occur naturally, and if it did we couldn't easily get the rest of the unnatural gear there.

So when some folks say natural, I think what they really mean is vintage or familiar. I think we could all agree that tubes and transformers can offer a vintage or familiar sound that we all grew up with. A lot of times, this is what we want, but maybe not sometimes.
Since my parents owned an antique store for 40 years, I spent many hours when I was young listening to Edison cylinder recordings. If you consider how these were actually made they could arguably be called "natural recordings". All of the additional technology and recording techniques since that time have been an effort to improve on that, and I'd say it's been a huge success.

If you consider the ear to be one of the ways that we have evolved to modify what we hear to best suit our needs, with all of the elements that form the core of modern recording technology be be another modifier of "natural" sound, it does make one wonder about the exact nature of what we hear.

Perhaps both of those modifiers are somewhat analogous to mathematics, with two negatives resulting in a positive?

Yeah, that's wacky...
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 08-26-2022, 07:21 AM
KevWind's Avatar
KevWind KevWind is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Edge of Wilderness Wyoming
Posts: 19,887
Default

And another thought
There is a difference between hearing and listening..

And the fact that "Critical Listening" is an intentionally learned skill. And is different than hearing
While there is no doubt that different people naturally have different natural hearing abilities But good hearing and experience at hearing does not necessarily translate to good/critical listening.
In other words just being a musician and having experience in hearing yourself and others play music,, does not necessarily translate to the automatic ability to listen critically (Although many musicians think it does) And in either hearing or listening personal preference is always a factor. Which is a little bit of a side topic, but is related
This difference was demonstrated quite graphically when I took a 12 week Critical Listening course at Berklee Collage of Music .
__________________
Enjoy the Journey.... Kev...

KevWind at Soundcloud

KevWind at YouYube
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?lis...EZxkPKyieOTgRD

System :
Studio system Avid Carbon interface , PT Ultimate 2023.12 -Mid 2020 iMac 27" 3.8GHz 8-core i7 10th Gen ,, Ventura 13.2.1

Mobile MBP M1 Pro , PT Ultimate 2023.12 Ventura 12.2.1
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 08-26-2022, 10:09 AM
AcousticDreams AcousticDreams is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 3,094
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by KevWind View Post
And another thought
There is a difference between hearing and listening..

And the fact that "Critical Listening" is an intentionally learned skill. And is different than hearing
While there is no doubt that different people naturally have different natural hearing abilities But good hearing and experience at hearing does not necessarily translate to good/critical listening.
In other words just being a musician and having experience in hearing yourself and others play music,, does not necessarily translate to the automatic ability to listen critically (Although many musicians think it does) And in either hearing or listening personal preference is always a factor. Which is a little bit of a side topic, but is related
This difference was demonstrated quite graphically when I took a 12 week Critical Listening course at Berklee Collage of Music .
A most excellent point. I often feel that when I play acoustic guitar, my mind is selectively filtering out the room reflections and external noises.

I am hearing the guitar as I want to hear-believe the guitar sounds like.

Unfortunately, I have not practiced singing in many years. I have sung...but not listened to myself and tried correcting my voice. That is because I have been concentrating on becoming a better guitarist.

When I sing, it sounds good to me....until I hear it back. And wow, it is just awful because I have become so untrained.

My mind is only hearing what I want it to sound like, not how it actually sounds. I call this the "American Idol Syndrome"(after the show). You know, those guys you believe they can sing? They get up in front of everyone and they are unfortunately now very good. But they think they are. Of any factor in music, this is what I am most afraid of, "The American Idol syndrome."
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 08-26-2022, 11:08 AM
KevWind's Avatar
KevWind KevWind is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Edge of Wilderness Wyoming
Posts: 19,887
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Knives&Guitars View Post
A most excellent point. I often feel that when I play acoustic guitar, my mind is selectively filtering out the room reflections and external noises.

I am hearing the guitar as I want to hear-believe the guitar sounds like.

Unfortunately, I have not practiced singing in many years. I have sung...but not listened to myself and tried correcting my voice. That is because I have been concentrating on becoming a better guitarist.

When I sing, it sounds good to me....until I hear it back. And wow, it is just awful because I have become so untrained.

My mind is only hearing what I want it to sound like, not how it actually sounds. I call this the "American Idol Syndrome"(after the show). You know, those guys you believe they can sing? They get up in front of everyone and they are unfortunately now very good. But they think they are. Of any factor in music, this is what I am most afraid of, "The American Idol syndrome."
Ha yes listening to a recording of your own voice can be a shock .
It's like who the heck is that gumba ? It does get better with practice and multiple recordings (or maybe you just resign yourself to,,, you aint no Blue Eyes
__________________
Enjoy the Journey.... Kev...

KevWind at Soundcloud

KevWind at YouYube
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?lis...EZxkPKyieOTgRD

System :
Studio system Avid Carbon interface , PT Ultimate 2023.12 -Mid 2020 iMac 27" 3.8GHz 8-core i7 10th Gen ,, Ventura 13.2.1

Mobile MBP M1 Pro , PT Ultimate 2023.12 Ventura 12.2.1
Reply With Quote
Reply

  The Acoustic Guitar Forum > General Acoustic Guitar and Amplification Discussion > RECORD

Thread Tools





All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:22 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, The Acoustic Guitar Forum
vB Ad Management by =RedTyger=