Because only acoustical performances reliably create and deliver true benchmark fidelity beyond what we can readily create at home.
Why would you buy expired 35mm film?
-
A
- Thread starter Taz777
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
Want to Buy Kodak Polytoner
- Started by Guillaume Zuili
-
For Sale PLAUBEL MAKINA 67 GRIP
- Started by Guillaume Zuili
-
For Sale FS: Gundlach-Manhattan Hyperion Diffusion 7in f/4 Lens
- Started by B.S.Kumar
-
For Sale FS: Linhof Recessed lens board
- Started by dirkfletcher
Forum statistics
Because only acoustical performances reliably create and deliver true benchmark fidelity beyond what we can readily create at home.
Hmm. I'm a musician. A guitarist, specifically. I play both acoustic and electric guitars. I can understand where you're coming from, but I believe your rationale is flawed. Why? Because many guitars, such as your typical solid-body electric, are meant to be used amplified only. So because I must use an amplifier when I perform with an electric, does that somehow invalidate my musical performance? How about the keyboardist who uses a synthesizer, and not an acoustic piano, for his or her work? Because they must use an amplifier in order for their instrument to be heard, does this somehow invalidate their performance? No, I don't think so. There is a lot of nuance that can still be extracted from amplified instruments -- nuance that's every bit as real as that which can be extracted from acoustic instruments. And in some cases, even more. For instance, it's pretty difficult getting nuanced sounds from an acoustic piano -- not impossible, but difficult. Much easier to get nuanced sounds from a synth, however.
If you're going to restrict your definition to "benchmark fidelity" then what's the point in even listening to recordings of your favorite symphony orchestra? Yes, they're all acoustic instruments, but once you're listening to recordings, you've lost some of this "benchmark fidelity." Besides, I would argue that your "benchmark fidelity" exists for performances in which amplification is used. I don't know about others, but I can always tell the difference between the sound of live music and recorded music, whether acoustic or amplified, no matter how good the recording is, and I suspect the reason why I can is because of this benchmark fidelity that you mention. So even live amplified music benefits from being heard by real ears without any intervening additional technology.
If you're going to restrict your definition to "benchmark fidelity" then what's the point in even listening to recordings of your favorite symphony orchestra? Yes, they're all acoustic instruments, but once you're listening to recordings, you've lost some of this "benchmark fidelity." Besides, I would argue that your "benchmark fidelity" exists for performances in which amplification is used. I don't know about others, but I can always tell the difference between the sound of live music and recorded music, whether acoustic or amplified, no matter how good the recording is, and I suspect the reason why I can is because of this benchmark fidelity that you mention. So even live amplified music benefits from being heard by real ears without any intervening additional technology.
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
- Messages
- 29,832
- Format
- Hybrid
i love conversations like this because i am absolutely musically clueless ( other than enjoying listening to it ) 
it makes me wonder if only using a pinhole camera is the same as an accoustic performance because well, the lens changes everything just like amplification.
it makes me wonder if only using a pinhole camera is the same as an accoustic performance because well, the lens changes everything just like amplification.The issue is too complicated to be discussed here. There are many factors you are not taking into account, and would one fail to know about them, or even begin to understand it without the proper knowledge and experience.
And yes, some instrument amps are capable of a reasonable amount of fidelity.
It is a very strange definition of "Live Music"
I think all the Millionaires from The Beatles, Stones, Airplane, Doors, Van Halen, and all the people at Woodstock would disagree.
Amplified music is reproduced. Only the musicians are "live"
Furlongs per fortnight.
Frolicking along mind you.
As a musician, I've never quite understood the audiophile's perspective. It just seems to be the splitting of way too many hairs to me. I'm concerned primarily about sound production. I'll let others argue about how best to listen to it. Regarding these "some" amps that you claim are capable of a reasonable amount of fidelity, I'm curious. Can you name a few? I can't help but wonder if I've played through any, and if I have, whether I've even liked them.
So a synth playing keyboardist or a guitarist who plays an electric guitar -- these people are not musicians? I'm afraid I must absolutely disagree with your notion that amplified music is reproduced, especially since it is the primary source of the sound production for musicians who use electric or electronic instruments..
Last edited:
Hartke is one brand, and my own design another.
Yes, they are musicians, just as I am when I play my electric bass thru an amp and cab, and sing into a microphone..
The primary source in a performance yes, but an imperfect facsimile nonetheless.
I wonder why the furlong–firkin–fortnight (FFF) system hasn't caught on yet.Furlongs per fortnight.
I don't know, but I bet it gets pretty loud...
Its seems that someone mentioned such a thing in this thread awhile back.
It would be nice to get back on topic. You know we could if these music spammers would just shut up for a change. The silence would be deafening.
music = organized noise
photography = organized greys
photography = organized greys
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
- Messages
- 29,832
- Format
- Hybrid
and right here on photrio >>> https://www.photrio.com/forum/groupphotos/expired-film-group.142/
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2012
- Messages
- 2,651
- Format
- Multi Format
I agree.
Don't forget the venue affects fidelity of live acoustic performances. The design of the theatre affects the sound. The shape, the materials, the seating, the bodies, etc.
Which varies from exceptional to terrible! The good halls were preferred venues for recording.
MattKing
Moderator
as well as photography = organized tones and colours
Don't do colour
Don't do colour
Some people don't like the way this world looks. I just plain don't like this world, but I shoot almost exclusively in color.
Remember, when you hear a recording, you are hearing the sound of the instrument, the sound of the reverberations of the room that come from that instrument, the sound of the microphones, preamps, EQ's, compressors, and anything else in the signal chain, the sound of the mixing and mastering process, the sound of the reproduction process which includes all of the speakers, amps, medium, etc. and the sound of the new room. When you're listing to live music, you are just hearing the sound of the instrument and the reverberations of the original room. All of that is kind of the impetus for the idea behind binaural recording (which is still far from perfect, but it is meant to address those issues to give you a more true to life sound).
And you can tell, because pretty much any military, scientific, or otherwise important audio work is done where accuracy is more important than aesthetics, it will be done with digital these days. You can also take my word for it because I have over a decade of experience working with top machines in both mediums, professionally, and had at one point invested over $100k in equipment in my own studio. Or, you can ask any other professional recording engineer who's worked with both in the last 20 or so years.
Now I'm not saying tape doesn't sound subjectively "better". A lot of engineers, including myself, used tape machines to add some color, compression, slight distortion, and shimmer to the high frequencies of our tracks. But these traits are the opposite of fidelity. So a 15 ips tape may sound subjectively better, but it's not objectively more accurate.
Also, pay no attention to audiophiles. Those guys are nuts. They'll spend hundreds of dollars on a bag of crystals that you tape to cables to make things sound better. http://www.machinadynamica.com/machina31.htm
You're confusing taste with accuracy. Tape is far from accurate. It suffers from wow and flutter, heavy compression, and poorer high frequency response. It also tops out at around 90 dB of dynamic range, which is the same as a CD. CD's suffer from other things like dither and jitter, and while their measured range is about the same as 15 ips tape (90 dB), they don't naturally compress like tape does, so they give the impression of a smaller dynamic range. Vinyl, for the record, tops out at around 70 dB of dynamic range. 24 bit digital has a dynamic range of around 144 dB's. That's a whole lot more than any of the other mediums out there. Of course, get a DAC to reproduce that is another story. So let's say you're getting close to 120 dB's out of a decent DAC with a 24 bit wave file. I could go on with other specs as well, but you can look those up yourself.
And you can tell, because pretty much any military, scientific, or otherwise important audio work is done where accuracy is more important than aesthetics, it will be done with digital these days. You can also take my word for it because I have over a decade of experience working with top machines in both mediums, professionally, and had at one point invested over $100k in equipment in my own studio. Or, you can ask any other professional recording engineer who's worked with both in the last 20 or so years.
Now I'm not saying tape doesn't sound subjectively "better". A lot of engineers, including myself, used tape machines to add some color, compression, slight distortion, and shimmer to the high frequencies of our tracks. But these traits are the opposite of fidelity. So a 15 ips tape may sound subjectively better, but it's not objectively more accurate.
Also, pay no attention to audiophiles. Those guys are nuts. They'll spend hundreds of dollars on a bag of crystals that you tape to cables to make things sound better. http://www.machinadynamica.com/machina31.htm
There's a sucker born every minute, time to break out the rock tumbler and get rich!
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |