From: bowers@bvc.edu
Newsgroups: rec.music.gdead
Subject: Re: *My* clueless opinion!spawn mail
Date: 14 Aug 92 10:08:29 CDT
Organization: Buena Vista College, Storm Lake, IA

In article <1992Aug13.003326.23756@seas.smu.edu>, quaglia@seas.smu.edu (Bruce Quaglia) writes:
> In article <1992Aug12.173634.1810@bvc.edu> bowers@bvc.edu writes:

>>ACtually, the music may be the same, but the sound is not.  Microphones and 
>>ears hear sound in quite different ways, plus the fact that your ears (
>>hopefully) are connected directly to your brain which interprets and 
>>filters what it hears quite unconsciously.  Example: compare your 
>>experience of listening to someone over a telephone versus listening to a 
>>tape of that same conversation.  The words are the same....the dialogue is 
>>the same...but the sound quality is radically different. When you listen to 
>>a phone your brain will supply frequencies that are not really present in 
>>the transmission, based upon what it knows about the characterisitcs of 
>>human speech. But in the taped version, you'll notice how "tinny" the phone 
>>voice sounds....not at all what you remebered hearing.
>>
> It really doesn't have much to do with the characteristics of human speech.
> The human ear has the amazing ability to resupply missing information such
> as the fundamental tones and lower partials based upon the upper partials
> which are the only one that the telephone's transducer can transmit.
> We recognize speech due to the characteristic formants involved in the
> different phonemes but that doesn't really have much to do with telephones.

Yes I agree, what I meant by characterisitcs of human speech was the tonal/
frequency characterisitcs of human speech.  In reality it is pretty hard to 
separate the phonemes of human speech from their physical characteristics, 
ie. the frequency range in which they are produced.
> 
>>
> <bunch of stuff about microphones vs ears deleted>
> 
>>Hence, there is quite a large difference between recorded experience and in
>>-the-flesh experience.  Generally, I have found that in a live setting, the 
>>tremendous amount of reflected sound tends to soften or blend the ensemble 
>>in ways that direct recording cannot without a lot of mixing.  Some of this 
>>blending can be captured by mics in the audience, but not in quite the same 
>>mix that your ears (and brain) will percieve.
>>
>    All of what you say is basically true, but other things such as where
>    you stand at a show etc. also effects the sound. However, none of this
>    really impacts upon the music, just on the sound. If you feel one
>    way about the music AT the show, and another when you listen to the
>    tape, then it's just a matter of your subjective experience at the
>    show <ie. were you having a good time>, and doesn`t really have anything
>    to do with the music as such. <Unless you mislabeled your tape and are
>    not listening to the same show>. The music isn't any different, and as
>    far as the sound quality goes, if your an audio-phile you're gonna
>    care how well the tape is made, but you're never gonna think it sounds
>    better than the live sound that it came from <unless a: you had bad
>    seats with a poor acoustic profile and your tape was made from where
>    it should have been; or b: you cut out the tunes you really don't care
>    for>.
>    Anyway....

Here, I disagree.  Any significant change in the tonal reproduction 
characterisitcs changes the music.  Music is an interaction of tones and 
overtones.  The interaction that one hears in a live setting is quite 
different than what one hears in a recording. There is a lot of discussion 
elsewhere over digital vs analog formats.  Some serious audiophiles contend 
that digital recording formats harshen the mix ox tones in the music.

For example, the difference between film recording and video recording is 
that in video the small unit (the pixel) is compeltely uniform throughout 
the image. However, in film visual material is reproduced by silver (or 
similar chemical compound)grains on non-uniform shape or size.  Hence film 
has a certain softness that is quite different than the "reality" is seeks 
to record.  Along with other color reproduction characterisitcs, you will 
notice an enormous amount of difference between the video and film records 
of a visual event.  Both will differ quite a bit from the original. 

Basically, the sound reinforcement used for a live concert is designed for 
the live audience and in a modern rock band that uses electric instruments 
and monitoring as much as the GD do, to suggest that it is not part of the 
music is making an awfully gross, albeit classical, distinction. I have not 
heard a tape of any concert I've ever attended that came close to the AURAL 
(i'm eliminating the ambient elements of crowd, etc....) quality of the 
original event. This situation is due mainly to the fact that any recording 
system is (at present) far more limited than human perception. Consider 
that even with all digital formats that the dynamic range is still less 
than your perception.

Doesn't mean I'm tossing my tapes though......


paul b.
Newsgroups: rec.music.gdead