 |
 |
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 >