Print

Print


Keep in mind that before the age of the microphone performers understood
for centuries the importance of the "ambience" of a performing space.
Every violinist understands that the instrument needs a somewhat "live"
space in which to be heard well, as do singers.  Many classical instruments
and voices need the reinforcement provided by a performing space to sound
as intended.  In a live space, even a large one, they can set the air
ringing with sound.  Take them outside, where there is no such
reinforcement, and they become almost inaudible at a short distance. away
 The performing space is part of the expected sound of the instrument.   Of
course that reinforcement is a desirable part of a recording.

Best,
John Haley


On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 5:11 PM, Steven Smolian <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> I'm working on an ARSC  presentation that discusses, among other things,
> why, during the acoustic era,  Victor kept recording the same selection and
> performer over again at an interval of perhaps 5 years,  usually issuing
> the
> same  catalog number even though the recording itself replaced an earlier
> one, this considerable corporate investment being made with no idea that
> electrical recording would make later listeners  mostly ear-blind to what
> at
> the time was considered sufficient improvement to warrant these
> replacements.
>
> The ability to capture some degree of ambience in a recording is one of
> these improvements.  Apparently, it's' something we can hear but cannot
> measure
>
> It's useful to remember that most of the instruments used today for
> measuring audio attributes were not available to engineers at that time.
> Rather, they seem to be a product of the need for them during the
> improvement of telephone technology and were thus available to Western
> Electric as they developed electrical recording from 1920-1921 on.
>
> Steve
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Marcos Sueiro Bal
> Sent: Monday, October 24, 2016 2:44 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Ambience
>
> iZotope's RX4 has something called "deReverb", although I have not tried
> it.
>
> https://rxcookbook.izotope.com/reducing-reverb-rx-de-reverb-module
>
> Marcos Sueiro Bal
> Senior Archivist, New York Public Radio
> 646 829 4063
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Steven Smolian
> Sent: Monday, October 24, 2016 2:37 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Ambience
>
> Ambience of the room.
>
> Steve
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Lou Judson
> Sent: Monday, October 24, 2016 2:21 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Ambience
>
> Are you meaning signal to noise? Or the ambience of the room it was
> recorded
> in?
>
> <L>
> Lou Judson
> Intuitive Audio
> 415-883-2689
>
> On Oct 24, 2016, at 10:27 AM, Steven Smolian <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> > I don't know of any but want to be sure that this attribute falls into
> > audio's "unmeasurables."
> >
> > Stereo creates so many ways of blurring sonic information that  a
> > channel comparative tool might be possible but unreliable- different
> > ways of isolating instruments, artificial reverb, etc.  But mono?  I'm
> > thinking particularly of acoustically recorded 78s.
> >
> > Steve
>