Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="kristianjohnsen" data-source="post: 140752" data-attributes="member: 441">Re: Infocomm???Timo.I&#039;m not Ivan, but I have some opinions on the subject.When listening to an instrument or voice directly (&quot;acoustically&quot;), you are listening to the art itself.The sound may be different in various parts of the listening area.&nbsp; All part of the weird and wonderful world of art.&nbsp; Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, etc.When listening to a sound system used to reinforce music, you are listening to a sort of representation of the art.&nbsp; It&#039;s the second-best thing to the real thing, but is the only way to acheive it with a larger audience than just a small one.There will be all sorts of compromises made by the mixing technician (really, the producer, if you think about it).Some of these compromises will be (just a few random examples):&nbsp;In what part of the asymetrical dispersion of the instrument is the microphone(s) placed?&nbsp;Are instruments portrayed as stereo or mono?&nbsp;Are sources panned out to represent how things pan out for the player or for a listener?&nbsp;Will the instrument be reproduced as accurately as possible?&nbsp;Or will it purposefully be changed for effect?&nbsp;Are the natural dynamics of the source changed?&nbsp;Reduced or enhanced?&nbsp;Etc.Considering that someone, a producer, or fellow artist to the musician(s), if you will, is making all these decisions to make his or her &quot;representation of the original art&quot;, it only seems fair that the systems providers make an effort to make sure that most people in the audience are hearing the same results of those changes and decisions.&nbsp; In other words:&nbsp; Someone has to change what we are hearing to make everyone hear, anyway, why not make sure everyone gets a similar experience? In most cases, this is really hard to obtain, but I think it&#039;s a nice goal.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="kristianjohnsen, post: 140752, member: 441"] Re: Infocomm??? Timo. I'm not Ivan, but I have some opinions on the subject. When listening to an instrument or voice directly ("acoustically"), you are listening to the art itself. The sound may be different in various parts of the listening area. All part of the weird and wonderful world of art. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, etc. When listening to a sound system used to reinforce music, you are listening to a sort of representation of the art. It's the second-best thing to the real thing, but is the only way to acheive it with a larger audience than just a small one. There will be all sorts of compromises made by the mixing technician (really, the producer, if you think about it). Some of these compromises will be (just a few random examples): In what part of the asymetrical dispersion of the instrument is the microphone(s) placed? Are instruments portrayed as stereo or mono? Are sources panned out to represent how things pan out for the player or for a listener? Will the instrument be reproduced as accurately as possible? Or will it purposefully be changed for effect? Are the natural dynamics of the source changed? Reduced or enhanced? Etc. Considering that someone, a producer, or fellow artist to the musician(s), if you will, is making all these decisions to make his or her "representation of the original art", it only seems fair that the systems providers make an effort to make sure that most people in the audience are hearing the same results of those changes and decisions. In other words: Someone has to change what we are hearing to make everyone hear, anyway, why not make sure everyone gets a similar experience? In most cases, this is really hard to obtain, but I think it's a nice goal. [/QUOTE]

Verification