rostain (11/03/82)
I would like to clarify some things that I stated earlier. I have received many responses, and have realized that my complaint against digital recording was misunderstood. I understand what dynamic range is, and know that it isn't just softer portions versus louder portions of a recording. I do appreciate it, too. The difference in sound between a direct-to-disc and undynamic FM is astonishing. The only complaint I had was the way companies initially (and still do, to some extent) exploited this feature. Some people brought up the point that in a concert, there is tremendous dynamic range, and my "straining to hear the softer portions" is an important part of the music's realism. I would merely like to point out that in a real classical concert hall, one can hear a pin drop. In my living room, I hear my refrigerator, other people, the heating system, and a lot of normal noise. I wish I had a soundproof room for listening to music. I don't. Yes, more dynamic range is better. But absolute realism needs absolute replication of the listening conditions. This brings me to an important question that I would like to put up for debate. As the technology of audio gets better and better, will (should) audio begin to go its own way (possibly with added special effects) and no longer try for absolute realism? Maybe the most pleasurable (i.e. biggest seller) listening will someday not be the most real listening? Please respond, Alain Rostain and please don't be so harsh! I'm just asking!
shauns (11/04/82)
The topic is realism and technology. Here's my two cents. As far as I'm concerned, we already have an `alternate audio reality' on most of the records put out nowdays, with all the overdubbing and processing that usually goes on. If you're very strict in your definitions of realism, about the only recordings out that qualify are the single point stereo miked type that haven't monkeyed around with e.q. and compression. There are and always have been recordings that explore the reaches of sound for sound's sake; some of Brian Eno's discs (Music for Airports, etc.) come most immediately to mind. I think this type of art exists independently of the technology available to produce it, and improvements in the state of the home reproduction art bear little on its acceptance by the public. If people want to listen to random computer generated chirps and precisely crafted sound fields of ring-modulated oboe, fine. The ear and brain are remarkably capable of filling in the pieces of the original environment lost in the playback equipment. If the original environment IS the record, then the listener has no aural reference with which to compare, and loses nothing by not having the best reproducing equipment. Artists will go as far as the medium will allow, whether into abstraction or hyperrealism. The buying public will still want to hear its easy listening music. The purpose of improvements to the medium is to insure ever better faithfulness to the artist's intentions (whatever they may be) and more utility for the listener. Trying to figure out what I just said, Shaun Simpkins Tektronix, Inc. Beaverton, OR. tekcad!shauns
wm (11/04/82)
When painters mastered the art of realism, they rejected it and went after the subjective. The result, impressionism and the hundreds of isms after it. You could make a case that music has gone the same way. After all, just what does an electric guitar (or a sine wave generator) without an amp and speaker sound like? I once read an article by someone who was rejecting all music except classical music because it was artificial, not real. It sounded alot like the art critics at the turn of the century complaining about how the new art was trash. Wm Leler - UNC Chapel Hill
thomas (11/04/82)
I terms of recorded music, the definition of "realism" I use is "Sounds like the artist intended it to". In most cases, this means that the recording medium and reproduction system should not add anything to nor subtract anything from the artist's intentions. =Spencer