I have always been sceptical of DSP processes and emulation. For instance,
on my ZOOM H4 recorder, there is U-87 , SM57, 414 emulation available but my
ears tell me otherwise. We must remember that in any given piece of gear,
only some of the parameters are measurable. Try to describe a certain human
being in 10 parameters and you will see what I mean. Equipment does not boil
down to harmonic distortion or intermodulation distortion or frequency
response, or noise. There are many yet unknown and therefore unmeasurable
parameters. Anyone who has worked with hardware gear (like Neve, APi,
Fairchild) will tell you that even though plugins have come a long way, they
don't sound the same as the real gear. They sound good and interesting but
not the same. For instance, in a plugin, the capacitors don’t wear out or
dry out. Some manufacturers used to test hundreds of transistors (or tubes)
in order to select one.
In 1990 I was asked by a film producer to listen to a recording that was
done in another studio. It sounded fine to me. But then I asked to see the
picture that went with that music. It was a period film (circa 1940) and the
image showed a live band playing in a club. All of a sudden it sounded all
wrong to me. It had been recorded with modern mics, and modern techniques,
close micing on every instrument. Back then we did not have plugins but I
tried really hard to EQ and noise up that recording. Nothing worked because
it was all wrong from the beginning. Finally the producer agreed that it had
to be redone. So I used a 44, two 77s and an old Altec 639, and captured the
band sound and enough room sound to make it believable. I managed to track
down an old RCA radio console that had 4 inputs and that forced me to limit
the number of mics I could use. It was noisier and more distorted than my
modern console, but that proved to be an advantage. I wouldn't have won a
Grammy for best sound on this one but it worked well with picture. Once
again it boils down to using the right tool and the right technique for the
job.
To paraphrase what Chas said, yes I agree that we can fool the ear (and we
do that constantly).
Louis
-----Original Message-----
From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Charles Lawson
Sent: 5 février 2011 10:49
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [ARSCLIST] Vintage coloration [was: How would a band be setup...]
To which I add this heresy:
Any coloration you desire to add to your “pristine” modern mic/recording
chain can easily be achieved via modern DSP processes and digitally added
after-the-fact. I am not a fan of doing such things, but I have been
called upon more than once to replicate a vintage sound from modern gear
and it works surprisingly well—well enough to fool those who insist on
using only vintage gear. (In one case, all I had to do was sample the
noise floor of a well-regarded tube preamp and add it to a TLM-103
recording in proper proportion.)
Humans can be convinced of anything they want to be convinced of.
(And, yes, I know I ended a sentence with a preposition!)
Skeptically yours,
Chas.
Tom Fine wrote:
>Also, I'm sure there are many recordists on this list who would prefer a
>modern less-colored mic for
>what they are doing. If you look at the published curves on these old
>mics, there was a lot of
>coloration built-in, which is desireable to some and undesireable to
>others. I would suggest that
>modern recording methods, which are essentially noiseless and offer very
>wide dynamic and frequency
>range, emphasize the coloration on these old mics more than
>back-in-the-day recording methods.
>Again, whether that's a plus or a minus depends on the situation and the
>user.
--
Charles Lawson <[log in to unmask]>
Professional Audio for CD, DVD, Broadcast & Internet
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 9.0.872 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3422 - Release Date: 02/04/11
02:34:00
|
