Re: Digital to Analog downloading Question ?

On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 16:44:50 -0700, Jenn wrote
(in article <fu8ndi02b57@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>):

> In article <fu6cbt02j2k@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
>  "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> 
>> "Jenn" <jennconductsREMOVETHIS@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>> news:fu3brn02un6@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
>>> But the mic feed already isn't live, in the the context
>>> that I mean it.
>> 
>> I agree with that, but...
>> 
>> The "but" comes from the fact that I frequently compare the feed from a
mic 
>> or mics to the concurrent live performance.
>> 
>> The differences I hear can be explained by the following:
>> 
>> (1) The mic/headphone combination I use don't have perfectly flat
frequency 
>> response.
> 
> Do any?

Some are reasonable. Omnidirectionals are the most flat and of those, 
microphones called calibration mikes are the absolute best as far as 
frequency response is concerned. Unfortunately, with calibration mikes,
this 
ruler-flat frequency response comes at the expense of everything else,
signal 
to-noise-ratio, maximum SPL, etc. so they usually aren't great for
recording.
> 
>> (2) My head and ears are never at the identically same location as the 
>> mic(s) for pretty obvious reasons.
> 
> Of course.
> 
>> (3) My head and ears don't have flat frequency response, either.
> 
> Of course.
> 
> So do you disagree with the opinion that some recordings sound more real

> and live than others?

Sure. the best recordings sound absolutely un-fiddled with. I.E. huge
dynamic 
range, no compression, no limiting, no EQ, etc. Even with classical stuff,

this type of recording is rare. Recordings made this way tend, on average,
to 
seem recorded at quite a low level compared to most (at least they do
until 
one hits a crescendo and sends the listener diving for his volume control
- 
which is the reason that most recordings have at least SOME compression.
The 
recordings I make are this way and some people appreciate the reason why
the 
average level is so low, and others do not. The San Francisco Symphony
label 
records that ensemble in this manner, and I've mentioned before how good 
their recent Mahler cycle sounds.
> 
>> 
>>> You're hearing it through a speaker, of course.
>> 
>> Or earphones. One major problem with listening through earphones is
that as 
>> typically used, the mic/earphone combination bypasses the human body's
HRTF 
>> (Head Response Transfer Function).
>> 
>>> I believe that you are correct in your
>>> statement, but neither the mic feed nor the recording is
>>> "live".
>> 
>> Agreed. However, a major difference between sitting in the seats and 
>> listening to a mic feed is that the sound is being monitored at two 
>> different locations. The sound field in a concert hall is really quite 
>> diverse. 
> 
> Of course, but the question remains.  IMV, it is obvious that some 
> recordings (and some gear) sound more real and live than others.

Liker I said before, yes they do. Another factor is microphone technique.
A 
forest of microphones cannot make a good sounding recording because no
matter 
how good the mike, instruments don't sound the same up close as they do
when 
they all "mix" in the air between the ensemble and your ears and no amount
of 
electronic mixing can fix that. It is im****tant for a good recording to
mike 
the SPACE that an ensemble occupies, not the instruments. Try listening to
a 
late 60's symphonic recording where a string section sounds like 12
violins 
playing instead of like a string section and the only image the ensemble 
throws is the one where each microphone is pan-potted between one speaker
and 
another.