|
Critic's Corner Discuss a review. Provide constructive feedback. Talk to the industry. |
|
|
|
Critic's Corner Discuss a review. Provide constructive feedback. Talk to the industry. |
|
In Reply to: Boy, can you be obtuse posted by Analog Scott on September 25, 2008 at 14:42:43:
Now let's go back to the beginning of the threadyou said (post 1)
The AR demo clearly relied on heavy room ambient sound to obscure the differences between the musicians and the playback. IOW it was a parlor trick....literally
And I responded (Post 1)
Oh dear... I suggest you re-read Tony's post, the demonstration recording had no ambience, the desired effect is exactly opposite of what you posit, i.e. any recording ambience will have obscured similarities between the live and playback.
You respond (Post 2)
You obviously didn't understand my post. Of course the *recording* was dry. Otherwise the trick doesn't work. I'm talking about the ambient sound of the actual room in which the demo took place.
Now in post 7, I said
You insist demo (room) ambience obscured the differences between playback and live performer. I say the glass is half-full. i.e. the recording room ambiance was removed to approximate live performers sound and accentuate similarities between recording and live performers in the demo room
But then you claim
There is no circular argument you just don't get what I am saying. what am I disagrreing with? Um your comment that you conveniently left out claiming that I disagree with the very idea I have tried to explain to you five different ways
So what comment did I conveniently leave out? Again, what are you disagreeing with?
Moving on, you then proceed with another circular argument
because you continue to fail to understand the basics of room acoustics. that being the fundamental differences between the acoustics that best support playback, the acoustics that best support live performance and the acoustics in recording that best supports this illusion. As I explained to you earlier, the point of removing the ambient sound during the recording for the purposes of this demo is to have the playback best mimic the direct radiated sound from the live musicians.
How bad could the hall acoustics have been for playback if the audience was taken by the illusion? How does recording instruments' sound, sans recording room ambience which is not required, speak to inappropriate hall acoustics considering the audience mistook the playback for live musicians? Considering the outcome of this demo, How do reconcile your claim of inappropriate demo room acoustics with your original claim that the demo room ambience obscured differences? If it was inappropriate why did the demo succeed?
Seems to me, you want to have your cake and eat it.Music making the painting, recording it the photograph
Edits: 09/25/08 09/25/08 09/25/08 09/25/08
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- RE: Boy do you going round in circles - theaudiohobby 21:08:42 09/25/08 (5)
- Boy fo you love to embarrass yourself - Analog Scott 22:02:43 09/25/08 (4)
- RE: Take 2 - theaudiohobby 02:34:45 09/26/08 (1)
- seriously dude GET A CLUE - Analog Scott 09:12:54 09/26/08 (0)
- RE: Boy, you are dense.... - theaudiohobby 22:46:33 09/25/08 (1)
- your post has zero substance - Analog Scott 23:30:50 09/25/08 (0)
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
