In Reply to: RE: You bring up interesting--even important--concepts, yet your understanding is incomplete, therefore misleading posted by Raymond Leggs on July 4, 2012 at 15:55:04:
which are not hight in fidelity to anything a person could hear acoustically. (We can't be close up to several instruments all at once.) Indeed many such recordings few or none of the musician have played WITH any other of those on 'the mix'.
These recording conventions in 'the industry' are a pity, are unnecessary and are lossy by definition.
Try some of the Water Lily recordings with Ry Cooder to hear the difference that real simple stereo gives. Not to the space but to the conversation between musicians. Almost completely lacking now on most 'industry' recordings.
I haven't mentioned Eq, phasing, Aphexing. LOUDNESS and etc.
I know heaps of people with truly catholic or eclectic tastes in music, and I would exclude from that people who only like popular forms. They are missing out IMO. But I would include those who get right into one form, like Jazz or the Blues, and don't have time/energy left for much more. I have many interests outside of music and audio, and have yet managed to dig into quite a few. Within audio it's simple recordings and HIP/early music.
While I am bothered by the 'faux' nature of the C&W / southern swing culture, and of what is now called R&B, good work will be done in them.
? The 80/20 rule. :-). Examples of musicianship are Waylon Jennings &/ Willie Nelson. In the noughties I had a collision with the bluesman R.L. Burnside who is extraordinary.
Warmest
Tim Bailey
Skeptical Measurer & Audio Scrounger
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Graet work happens in all genres, but the =se are almost universally multimple close mono-miked recordings - Timbo in Oz 16:40:08 07/04/12 (0)