Originally Posted by Redcarmoose
I completely agree with the general paradigm of this thread. You can only imagine what happens to somebody who gets a resolving rig together and all it does is show how every recording is different, with very very few exceptional?
Science has to conquest farther to this paradigm in the study of audio. We can just look at mankind as super cool for recording his musical out-put for the last 95 years, but too bad there was no audio standard consistency apart from the RCA Living Stereo Series.
This is all just our trials and tribulations, learning to first bang wood together for drums. Excuse my allegories, we are starting to see dynamic range recordings for sale so there is a hope.
I just think that recording a concert and actually replaying a grand musical event is still in it's infancy. Yes, we are able to get the emotion to a point packaged then replayed but it is far from sounding totally real. Just put on any live recording to hear that. In the studio where there is more control, I feel maybe only a single instrument can be recorded then replayed to sound convincing that there is a live human playing guitar behind the curtain in the Land of Oz.
I believe you blame science for human parameters.
the lack of consistency has nothing to do with science, same for realism.
the guy in the studio will probably use several mics for one instrument and decide how to mix them all together by himself.
the imaging is also made up from scratch(except for some binaural albums).
you can't ask something built only to add gain, to magically recreate something that was never there to Begin with. an amp is an amp.
when you look at a picture, it would look a good deal more realistic if the light bulb in the room was in the same axis as the sun when the shot was made. nobody bothers with that, and in a studio they will use several light sources making realism impossible when looking at the shot. it's just not made with that purpose because realism would result in a big deal less information for us(too much contrast,burned parts or disgraceful shadows, weird shapes ...). same for audio, a real live performance actually doesn't sound very good to me. the dynamic is huge, the voice goes from not heard to loud, at some points an instrument will trample the others. we can be fans of live performances as a spectacle, but I for one don't look forward to hear that on my albums at home.
-because I would need to listen too loud to get the most of each songs.
-because a studio recording will usually save bad singers (did you try madonna live?).
-because the public cheers bother me
-because I mostly use headphones and any soundstage done in the master will be stretched and ruined to 180°(crossfeed doesn't totally make up for that).
and even if you take a binaural head, recording the entire band at once, the space will be good(if your own head is the same size as the dummy) but then each instrument could probably be recorded better with several mics or at least closer ones(trebles lost in the air).
most of those stuff will not progress much with time or science, because any 3D system will work perfectly only at a given position for 1 given human. if our heads are larger or smaller, it will not be perfect and thus, not natural. and also because it is not the first purpose of most studios to make binaural sound, most don't even try and focus on other factors. nothing to do with science in my opinion. (maybe we should go to the opera with 2mics in our ears and pray that our neighbors will keep quiet ^_^)
I would love to have a few albums recorded like that, but surely not most of them.
I think we accept that 2 bands will never play the same song exactly the same because they are artists(and not machines). the sound engineers IMO should count as members of that band. some are better than others, some have their own style, some have no creativity, and we don't have to love them all.