Ampification, electrification

[JeffD]

When it comes to PAs and mirophones and all I am an absolute neophyte, and I let whoever is the self identified expert take over and do the sound at the venue and/or the recording or what ever is the case.

I just read Frank Zappa's book, and all of a sudden the lights came on and I understood something I never understood before. Boy do I feel foolish for not "getting it".

The "authenticity" of a recorded ensemble of accoustic instruments, or even the "authenticity" of the sound one hears at the concert, was lost a long time ago. (I am talking about accoustic instrument here.) As soon as the relative strengths of the instruments was compensated by indiviual gain controls, as opposed to physcal distance from the microphone, the sound became a synthetic experience, the sound from nowhere. There is no physical location you can stand at which it will sound as it does in the recording, or from the speakers.

The amplified sound has become the product. The sound at a live concert is not an amplification of what is happening on stage, it is itself the product of what is happening on stage. The amplified sound IS the show, not an amplification OF the the show. It is what you come to hear, or to purchase.

I am not saying this is good or bad or that something is lost while something is gained. It is what it is. I just didn't realize it.

The infinite twiddling at the computer that is required to make the CD is a logical progression - the recorded sound IS the product, not a recording OF the product.

Another quite logical progression, of course, is all electric instruments, with virtually no accoustic sound at all. I mean, why not?


No value judgements here, I am just sharing with you all that I am finally awake.

[Tim2723]

Welcome brother, we've been expecting you.

It really began when Mr. Edison first captured sound in tin foil.

[Tom Wright]

The trend to toward amplifying everything may be inevitable, but it's not inherently necessary. (My orchestra is pretty loud without it, making most of us use earplugs.)

I can see it for our modest stringed instruments, although string quartets typically use none in concert halls. But amplifying drums? Guitars that are already amplified? Granted, the Beatles needed something more than 30 watts on stage to hear themselves against 50,000 screaming girls in a stadium (thus the 100-watt Vox Super Beatle). Mostly, though, it is clubs' and PA companies' sound men throwing watts at the show simply because they can. Most clubs are louder in the house than on stage when rock bands are playing. That is just indulging in the drug of stomach-vibrating bass.

Paganini hesitated to play in large halls until he found his "cannon" a Guarneri to replace his Strad, but watch out for the sound man, whose cannon is an amp.

[mrmando]

Bluegrass as we know it would not have existed without microphones.

[EdHanrahan]

This reminds me of when I was playing rock back in the '60s.

I could sort of understand why the audiophile folks would pay huge bucks for speakers to reproduce the sound of a symphony orchestra (at the time, I'm guessing $50 to $80 for just the driver), but no clue as to why they'd pay the the same big bucks to listen to rock groups, whose Fender, Vox, & Marshall amps were equipped with probably $10 speakers. Huh? Pay $80 to sound like $10?

Of course, the home stereo was running through my band's vocal cabinet and my Fender Bandmaster's, each with two 12s. Made sense to me!

[JeffD]

I hadn't realized it, but I was hanging on to an "authenticity" that was abandoned a long time ago. The accoustic instrument is just one component in all of the "stuff" that goes into a performance, or a recording. No more or less a component than the electric instrument.

Whether it is better to "fix" a bad toned instrument by playing a better instrument, or tweaking the tone you want with electronics, essentially makes no difference. You do what is most effective - intonation is best solved on the instrument, tone at the stomp box, and volume at the amplifier or mixer thingies. It is not a discussion of authenticity or honesty, its a technical discussion of where to tweek what. It is not more or less authentic, it is a problem to be solved to get a better recording, or a more pleasing show.

The instrument in your hands hasn't been the whole show for almost the better part of the last 100 years.

[catmandu2]

...the sound from nowhere.


Or, the sound from everywhere...as there is debate over the nature of electricity. ;)

But, regarding analog experience, I recommend reading Baudrillard's The Precession of Simulacra.

BTW, speaking of Zappa, an interesting read is Ben Watson's The Negative Dialectics of Poodle Play.

[catmandu2]

The instrument in your hands hasn't been the whole show for almost the better part of the last 100 years.

I'm interested in observing behavior (ever since my first certifiably crazy girlfriend) and society. Of course it's always interesting to observe the effects of technology on behavior: I always have opportunity for clinical observation every year when our girls return home for the holidays--they are always "upgraded" with the latest. Technology creates ever expanding (or, contracting..?) modes of communication and experience, which is fascinating to contemplate. As we dwell increasingly in cyberspace, I can't help feeling its contribution to the scourge of modernism: alienation (but I digress--perhaps this isn't particularly germane to a discussion about sound and its "prosthetic" devices...OTOH, perhaps it is...)

Considering Husserl and phenomenology, sound is completely subjective anyway, so I suppose it matters not what mechanism it travels. ;)

[allenhopkins]

Not sure of the point here. Playing the same instrument "acoustically" in different rooms produces different sounds. Symphony orchestras don't use (as a rule) "sound systems," yet the same orchestra sounds different in a theater, from an outdoor bandshell. I help run a little "coffeehouse concert" series where we don't use microphones at all (well, some groups insist on a vocal mic), and yet I'll bet my mandolin sounds different there from how it sounds in my living room. I'll bet it sounds different depending on where you sit in the audience, or if the humidity changes, or if I'm having a bad night (but that's a different thread).

The idea that there's some kind of "authentic" -- presumably unamplified, close-range -- sound, and that when we interpose amplification, we then produce a product that's not only qualitatively and quantitatively, but somehow essentially different from that authentic sound -- can't see it. That's like saying canned cream corn is essentially different from a fresh-picked ear. Yes, amplified sound is changed by processing, but the initial ingredient is that "authentic" or original sound, without which -- etc.

The sound that is heard is the crucial variable; the tree falling in the forest produces atmospheric vibrations, but they're not "sound" until someone's ear receives them. And to add another level of unneeded complexity, each auditor's hearing apparatus works differently, so that there are 500 "sounds" in an audience of 500 -- not including what the musicians themselves are hearing.

The one lesson I do take away, is that the person/people responsible for delivering that original sound to the audience are every bit as crucial and necessary as the musicians who produce it, and letting the bassist's Goth teenage nephew run the bluegrass band's sound board is flirting with disaster. Been there, done that, as they say...

[Jim Nollman]

It can quickly get annoying in a studio situation, when you are asked to record a group of self-described purists who demand that the CD you are producing for them sounds exactly as they sound in their own ears. Except what they hear in their ears is usually more perfect than any audience hears. And as soon as the recording is done, and the CD is test-pressed so they can listen to it, their own identity changes from performer to "any audience".

When they can't play the tune all the way through without losing half a beat, you correct it by punching in a second or third or fourth take, then cut and paste, then cross fade (the production equivalent of a band-aid). When the singer can't keep one particular chorus properly intonated, you pull out the trusty pitch corrector plug-in, and repair it with one mouse click. But the singer complains that this technology isn't how he actually sounds, and that's cheating, and he'll get it right next take. But he doesn't. So trying to salvage what is actually beginning to sound OK using your maligned hi-tech corrections,you explain to them that a musical performance exists in the eternal present tense, but a CD is forever. Their own audience may not hear the bad pitch or the rough transition the first time, but if he/she listens a few more times, the mistakes turn front and center.

From the other side of the same coin, your expensive acoustic mandolin possesses wonderful tone. So you start throwing money at microphones, transducers, EQ, reverb, band member placement, in a never-ending experiment to transparently reproduce that wonderful tone envelope as it gets beat up, and, muddied differently through every sound system in every venue you play. Last might I played a contra dance, using a 1970's era Nakamichi small condenser I have just discovered in a closet. It sounded good, (meaning flat) although, unfortunately, it also made me wonder what my studio's Blue Baby Bottle condenser would sound like at the next gig. So it goes.

[Avi Ziv]

I play mostly in Irish traditional sessions. As such, I do not benefit from an orchestral arranger who will give me sonic space. Nor do I have amplification of any sort. We like it that way. However, it's clear to me that my playing is different if I have to push the volume all by myself on the instrument. Not saying it's a bad thing but I play differently. Different dynamics, different patterns, different ornamentation and tone compare with me able to tickle the strings and have the sound reverberate in the room as loud as a box or a fiddle. I would even choose to play different tunes depending on the presence or lack of amplification. This is another dimension. If you like the sound of a Cajun singer, you will have to realize that the particular sound was highly influenced by the lack of amplification in the older days and the singers belting out the songs just to heard. These days it's become part of the style. Cajun singers do not sing softly into loud PA systems. I realize that this is perhaps different than an orchestra who is playing in a set way and may be recorded and later on manipulated by the mixing/mastering engineer and producer. But I do feel that in many cases the person on the receiving end of the music is hearing not only the result of engineering on the captured sound but also the result of the musician responding to the presence of a mic. This is just an observation on my part and not an opinion of value

Thanks Jeff for the thread

[TonyP]

In a certain way I can see your point Jeff. But I also believe it's painting with way too broad of stroke. It reminds me of those who explored the idea of a transporter ala Star Trek. With the idea that if you went through, the original was destroyed, and an exact replica was produced at the other end.

I don't think that's the point of some of us who are concerned with audiophile type sound production. We want that "sound" of our voices and instruments to be reproduced faithfully as possible. Warts and all. And yes, there are all kinds of electronica available that can shape tone, change timing, correct pitch, even produce harmonies. But I don't use any of that, and I don't think most who play acoustic music would consider it as something they would use. It's why I don't use pickups, or electric mandolins. For me, it would completely defeat the purpose of what I'm trying to do. It's fine for those who want to go that route, more power to them.

Amplification has all kinds of tradeoff's, and I personally try and avoid those that make me step over the line into more synthetic ways of reproduction. It's also why I play acoustic string music. I have played with some very sensitive and wonderful kit drummers, and it was really fun. But most of the threads that appear here are those trying to keep up with a full on, or close to, rock band. And they want their cake and have it still taste like it. Lot o' luck wit dat.

I've seen concerts where it sounds just like I'm sitting right in the middle of the band. Clear, nuanced, perfect. I've also been in the same place, looked like the same equipment, and good players, but just didn't get it.

I like you was pretty much not aware of what the back story was to the reason for this difference. Until my old best friend from school daze, who we'd gone through the whole audiophile phase together, showed up in my life again. He'd burrowed deep into the live pro audio world, rubbing shoulders with golden ears that are the most sought after audio engineers in the industry. What he showed me was the technical side of what I was hearing at those different concerts. And a lot of it really boiled down to the "nut behind the wheel". You can have all the equipment in the world, but without those golden ears, it's all just junk. And those golden ears can make yesterday's so so gear sound like a million $$. Or burnt out, beat up by too much loud music, ears, make a million $$$ rig sound like an am radio. There used to be only so much those good ears could do, but now with programs like SmaartLive, your good tech is now transformed into a super tech, able to do stuff not so long ago, impossible. Like taking all that "stuff", all those sound sources, and almost perfectly time aligning them. That one, time consuming, and at one time hard thing to do, is what can enable a huge PA to sound like a high end home stereo. That to me is what I aspire to, and am in awe of. All that equipment in service to that "sound", not the other way around.

[catmandu2]

The idea that there's some kind of "authentic" -- presumably unamplified, close-range -- sound, and that when we interpose amplification, we then produce a product that's not only qualitatively and quantitatively, but somehow essentially different from that authentic sound...

I'm thinking that the crux of the biscuit, here, is the idea, which is why I think the discussion has more philosophical proportion than practical (or, musical), and is really the domain of aesthetics, running the gammut from the "pure" (or ideal form) to maybe a gestalt (it sounds like a mandolin).

[JeffD]

I don't think that's the point of some of us who are concerned with audiophile type sound production. We want that "sound" of our voices and instruments to be reproduced faithfully as possible. Warts and all. And yes, there are all kinds of electronica available that can shape tone, change timing, correct pitch, even produce harmonies. But I don't use any of that, and I don't think most who play acoustic music would consider it as something they would use. It's why I don't use pickups, or electric mandolins. For me, it would completely defeat the purpose of what I'm trying to do. It's fine for those who want to go that route, more power to them.


This would argue for a single microphone on the stage. Or to be absolutely crazy about it, two microphones, a head's width apart. (With some kind of accoustic mush material between, and yada yada.)

As soon as you give each instrument its own gain control, you have, (I now see), changed the rules of the game entirely, and where you stop in the electrical manipulation from this point on is an arbitrary decision based on sound choices and preferences, not based on a search for pr preservation of an "authentic" accoustic experience.

So one might say you want to keep the individual sounds as accoustic as possible, but balance the ensemble sound out with the multi channel mixer. OK. No problem. But there is nothing more or less authentic about the choice. Its purely what you want to do based on what you want to hear. There is nothing accoustically authentic about the experience. There is no "real world" experience represented by the recording or by what comes out of the speakers, because the is nowhere, real or imaginary, that you can hear it that way accoustically.

So if there is no authentic accoustic experience to preserve, or to even emulate, then the argument to apply further manipulation, or not, is purely based on the sound choices you want.

So one person wants to preserve the individual waveforms shape (tone and frequency) but manipulate the relative magnitudes (volume and gain), someone else wants to manipulate the shape, perhaps add or subtract some of the harmonics, someone else wants to manipulate the timing, or take this chunk and move it over there in time. What ever results in the desired sound. There is nothing to preserve anyway.

[JeffD]

The idea that there's some kind of "authentic" -- presumably unamplified, close-range -- sound, and that when we interpose amplification, we then produce a product that's not only qualitatively and quantitatively, but somehow essentially different from that authentic sound -- can't see it. That's like saying canned cream corn is essentially different from a fresh-picked ear. Yes, amplified sound is changed by processing, but the initial ingredient is that "authentic" or original sound, without which -- etc.

...

I guess "essentially" is the key here. Using a mixing board, an amplified accoustic ensemble is fundamentally different from an accoustic ensemble amplified. (OK I know I am sounding like I started my bourbon early, but stick with me.)

If you define the sound coming out of the speakers as the show, or the recorded sound as the product, then the original accoustic instruments become just a link in the chain. The performance can't happen without the instrument, sure, but it can't happen without the microphone, or the wires, or the mixers and amplifiers, etc. either.

I am going to say that a single accoustic instrument recorded with a single microphone and unprocessed, OK yea there are some differences, but I am comfortable saying: "that is what I sound like".

But with an accoustic ensemble amplified through a mixer, to be precise, I have to say: "that is what we sound like when the sound equipment is used in that way." Because "what we sound like" has been lost. Or if not lost, at the least any relation between "what we sound like" and "what we sound like coming out of the speakers" or "what we sound like on the CD" is fortuitiously lucky and/or beside the point.

Yea my mandolin is still essential, but the whole sound is a chain and I am but a link, and everything is on the critical path.

[JeffD]

Well anyway, I am getting repetitive. You can see it blew my world apart.

[catmandu2]

If you define the sound coming out of the speakers as the show, or the recorded sound as the product, then the original accoustic instruments become just a link in the chain....

Yea my mandolin is still essential, but the whole sound is a chain and I am but a link, and everything is on the critical path.

Consider, too, that the "end product" could also be defined as that stimuli registering in the anatomy and physiology of the receiver--whether it be from electrically powered speakers, acoustic instruments, or analog and digital "records," and our experience of the product is governed by bio-psycho-social phenomena too numerous to mention.

[JeffD]

Consider, too, that the "end product" could also be defined as that stimuli registering in the anatomy and physiology of the receiver--.

Absoloutely, and its perhaps somewhat arbitrary where to draw the line in all of this.

[catmandu2]

The simulacrum is never that which conceals the truth--it is the truth which conceals that there is none. The simulacrum is true.

-Ecclesiastes

[foldedpath]

As soon as you give each instrument its own gain control, you have, (I now see), changed the rules of the game entirely, and where you stop in the electrical manipulation from this point on is an arbitrary decision based on sound choices and preferences, not based on a search for pr preservation of an "authentic" accoustic experience.

So one might say you want to keep the individual sounds as accoustic as possible, but balance the ensemble sound out with the multi channel mixer. OK. No problem. But there is nothing more or less authentic about the choice. Its purely what you want to do based on what you want to hear. There is nothing accoustically authentic about the experience. There is no "real world" experience represented by the recording or by what comes out of the speakers, because the is nowhere, real or imaginary, that you can hear it that way accoustically.

I think I detect something of a straw man argument here. ;)

Those of us who aim for an "authentic" sound, are not saying that what you hear sitting in front of a PA speaker array is exactly the same as hearing the instrument un-amplified in a nice acoustic space. Of course it's a translation, and not the same.

However, GIGO (garbage in = garbage out) still applies, and there are still different choices to be made in hardware and technique. Some of those choices are going to sound more "acoustic" and "authentic" to the audience than others. A pickup stuck to the body or bridge will never sound quite like a clip-on mic with just a little air between the capsule and instrument, or the sound of a mic on a stand placed a foot away.

The fact that the output from a transducer is converted to electricity (and in some cases, digitized), doesn't alter the fact that some transducers capture more information than others: i.e. a larger portion of the vibrating top, the sound of the internal body airmass resonating through sound holes, and the "maturing" of the sound as it travels through even an inch or two of free air.

In the case of an electric guitar player like Zappa, the goal is actually to reduce information captured at the guitar through the use of narrow-band pickups and speakers, while also adding more sonic information through harmonic distortion of tubes and paper cones in the amp. I'm a Zappa fan, but I don't think his point about how "it's all just a signal chain" is very relevant to sound reinforcement of acoustic instruments. The choices made at the front end of the chain -- whether you use pickups or mics -- still matter.

Aside from all that, I agree with everything TonyP wrote. :) It's a thrill to attend a concert where both the performers and the sound techs obviously care a great deal about achieving an "authentic" sound.

[TonyP]

My son made a statement about art, that I think is totally applicable here. If you notice it, it's not good. I didn't really notice the sound of the good concert until about half way through, when it dawned on me I was listening to this through a huge array, in a big hall, and it was seamless. You could tell the performers were just playing, not having to fight the system. No feedback, no, hey, could you turn up what's's name. You could hear everything, and nothing stood out. That's as good as it gets for me. And that's happened with electric bands too. I saw King Crimson do the Lark's Tongue In Aspic album along about '72 in the old Winterland in SF. Perfect. Now neither the band before, or after sounded, or were that good. Same stage, same equipment, probably different soundman.

When I don't notice the sound, that's the best. Usually when I notice, it's because there's something wrong. And it can be really subtle,(and understand the vocals) or blatant(feedback, musicians unhappy on stage).

You can say that one mic is the purest, and in a certain way I agree. When we can set the mic on omni(where it picks up 360) and all gather around it, yeah. I love that. Done demo's that way, and people always asked, how'd you do that? But that's part of the limitations of live sound. You can't use omni mic's live as it will just go into feedback hell. And if you want to include the audience in any kind of experience, you have to face them. So you are once again set against the limitations of the field of the mic vs how people of different volumes and heights are going to have to find a way to get into the working field and make it work. It's all a trade off. I just don't want to trade the soul of what I'm doing, for sheer volume.

Speaking of experience, have you ever hear a band go from using the sound system, then go acoustic? I heard Nickle Creek do it, and AKUS. Both in the same great old Fox theater. While sweet, it totally illustrates how, if you are going to be able to really communicate with your audience you are going to have to dance with that little electronic devil, IMHO of course.

[Charlieshafer]

Yup, gotta reinforce the sound in most instances, but you CAN control the quality of the sound. I'm often baffled by all the questions about pickups with preamps, eq's and so on. Too many devices, too many connections (which ALWAYS add some degree of distortion or noise to the signal). The purest and simplest form, which also gives back acoustic instruments their acousticness (what the heck is that??) is really very basic. Small condenser mic on the instrument, like the DPA, straight into a board with phantom power, like Soundcrafts or Allen and Heaths (invest in a good board, it's worth every penny) then right through the amps to the speakers. Works every time, and you don't need to eq this or that, you can leave everything flat. The only thing better would be sitting right next to the musician and having him play solo for you. Even moderate sized halls where the musicians can play unamplified have their own "sound". One hall can be lively, another mellow, some dead, some have weird peaks at certain frequencies. Once you're a few rows back, the sound changes a slight bit, so amplification is the only way to even out the natural sound.

[catmandu2]

My son made a statement about art, that I think is totally applicable here. If you notice it, it's not good.

My personal feeling on visual art critique (if that is what we're talking about here) is: all art is abstract. Or, realism in art is not art. Not sure that this has any bearing on the topic of sound reinforcement, but it does have much to do with the peripheral discussion (re: authenticity, simulacra, etc.).

As far as the OP, I surrendered to technology the first time I plugged my cheapo Yamaha A/E nylon-string guitar into a cheapo Zoom processor, which made it sound like a Ramirez in a concert hall through my cheapo little acoustic amp. Toasters, computers...this technology thing is a keeper.

[Matt DeBlass]

The only thing better would be sitting right next to the musician and having him play solo for you. .

That's it, from now on I'm going to charge large dollar amounts per-ticket and only play to audiences of six or fewer.
Well... at the moment I've got the "six or fewer" part down, anyway ;)

[Charlieshafer]

That's it, from now on I'm going to charge large dollar amounts per-ticket and only play to audiences of six or fewer.
Well... at the moment I've got the "six or fewer" part down, anyway ;)

For the best sound, keep it to three. Any more and you get these odd sound diffractions and it all goes wonky. $500 per ticket should be about right.

[JeffD]

I think I detect something of a straw man argument here. ;)

I wish my thoughts were well enough developed to engage this topic on that level. No, I am just newly realizing lot of things and its causing a sea change in the way I think about it.


Those of us who aim for an "authentic" sound, are not saying that what you hear sitting in front of a PA speaker array is exactly the same as hearing the instrument un-amplified in a nice acoustic space. ...

However, GIGO (garbage in = garbage out) still applies, and there are still different choices to be made in hardware and technique. Some of those choices are going to sound more "acoustic" and "authentic" to the audience than others. A pickup stuck to the body or bridge will never sound quite like a clip-on mic with just a little air between the capsule and instrument, or the sound of a mic on a stand placed a foot away.

The fact that the output from a transducer is converted to electricity (and in some cases, digitized), doesn't alter the fact that some transducers capture more information than others: i.e. a larger portion of the vibrating top, the sound of the internal body airmass resonating through sound holes, and the "maturing" of the sound as it travels through even an inch or two of free air.

While all that is true, I have little problem identifying that one is amplifying an event occuring on stage. Where my head exploded is with accoustic ensembles, where the sound is not an amplifying of an event occuring on stage. Changing the relative volumes creates an experience different from what could be had on stage. The sound you hear, with all the instruments equally set all around you, did not really occur. Thats what gets me. Thats why I say its nolonger amplifying an event, the processed sound is the event. Well I have said this already. Its still banging around in my head.

If an "authentic" sound is what you want - it should be quite possible to create it. I have no doubt that a box could be built that is put in the chain, and with it you should be able to "turn up the authenticity".

[rico mando]

Well if this post is winding down i would like to share one of my many favorite Frank Zappa quotes :

`a mind is like a parachute , it only works when its open`

this is relevant only because frank`s been mentioned a few times and is not meant to insinuate anything about any particular post.

[Jim Nollman]

It's been pleasing to read this thread, and notice that the discussion hasn't devolved into a debate for or against new technology.

All of us who play acoustic music onstage are constantly reconsidering how best to control our live sound so it still sounds acoustic at each unique venue. Obviously, certain tools make that job much easier than others. Likewise, those of us who produce acoustic music for distribution, eventually learn to use mastering tools that, essentially, blunt (or "average") the perfect mix so it sounds more the same, no matter what kind of sound system any listener may be using.

[allenhopkins]

If an "authentic" sound is what you want - it should be quite possible to create it. I have no doubt that a box could be built that is put in the chain, and with it you should be able to "turn up the authenticity".

But I doubt that what the audience craves is "authenticity." They want a pleasing, listenable sound. If the banjo is four times as loud as the Dobro, they want the sound balanced so that they can hear both instruments. If the instruments, unmixed, drown out the vocals, they want the vocals "brought up in the mix" so that audience members can hear the notes and understand the words. The musicians onstage want monitor sound mixed so they can hear what they need to hear to do their jobs properly. If the product of the various mixing consoles is quite different from what you'd hear with no amplification or mixing, the audience and the musicians accept that and in fact prefer it.

I think that most people who work with amplification, instinctively accept the premise of the argument -- the sound "product" that goes out to the audience is both qualitatively and quantitatively different from the "original" unamplified, unmixed sound. Where I part company from some of the discussion, is in accepting the "two sounds" as somehow essentially different -- questioning whether the retail product is not just a processed "retail" version of the "wholesale" music you'd hear if the PA went away and you were sitting on a stool amidst the band.

The shirt you're wearing is different from the bolt of cloth from which it was made, which in turn was different from the thread out of which it was woven, and that differed from the cotton fibers growing in the field. Is one stop on that journey, where the "authenticity" was stripped away from the product? What the audience/customer wanted was a shirt, not a chance to sit in the cotton field.

[Markus]

My question about all this is when does the desire to capture an authentic sound require so much planning and effort as to eclipse the music itself?

If playing to create a perfected sound loses the feeling in the music, it might as well sound inauthentic.

I lean towards Allen's thought that listeners are looking for more truthiness than authenticity, that a pleasing sound is more important than perfect authenticity. If you listen to a record/radio, vocalists haven't breathed in decades at least when singing, except where considered dramatic or artistic. That's what the listener wants, inauthentic as it is.

If the listener is looking for something more pleasing to their ear than a perfect acoustic representation [such as balanced banjo and mandolin so both are heard] then it's good to realize that as musician and aim for pleasing sound instead of trying to have them hear what I do. As I'm rarely to be playing for a room of mandolin players ... their idea of pleasing mandolin might not be accurate in the first place.

Great discussion here, reminds me to re-read Zappa. I've forgotten more than I knew and half of it I never understood in the first place.

[catmandu2]

Zappa...

Well what the hel* anyway ... despite all of this, electricity is more reliable and cheaper than musicians.

[JeffD]

The shirt you're wearing is different from the bolt of cloth from which it was made, which in turn was different from the thread out of which it was woven, and that differed from the cotton fibers growing in the field. Is one stop on that journey, where the "authenticity" was stripped away from the product? What the audience/customer wanted was a shirt, not a chance to sit in the cotton field.

I guess this discussion reflects the conviction I had for my prior predjudices and all that I am seeing now. (Buddy Hackett once said he was walking along and he came to a fork in his head.) I was one who eschewed processing and electrics as much as possible because of a predjudice that I was "preserving" an "authentic" sound. I was objecting to electric manipulation on more of a sort of moral high ground than an aesthetic preference.

Now I know that "authenticity" in this case is exactly like "sincerity" in acting, and the famous George Burns quote applies.

Now that I "get it", that the product is what the audience hears, I see that you are obviously correct.

My Gibson has a wonderful tone. (I really lucked out on that one.) So in our little ensemble, I would have the aesthetic preference that as much of the accoustic tone of the instrument as possible be evident in the final mix. How that is done I will leave up to the experts. And if it means getting the best mike and not fiddling with the sound, being as "transparent as possible" thats great. If it means applying a series of notch filters designed to make it sound "real-er than real", and if that sounds good, thats fine too. The final sound is the show, and how my mandolin sounds accoustically is only the starting point.

See I get it. I would love our show to sound like you are all sitting in my living room. But I don't really want you all sitting in my living room!

[JeffD]

My question about all this is when does the desire to capture an authentic sound require so much planning and effort as to eclipse the music itself?


This is exactly where I was before I read that Zappa book. Now I see that the correct way to look at this is not that we capture an authentic sound, but that we create a sound that people find pleasing because it sounds somehow authentic to them.

There is no "capturing" of anything "authentic", only "creating" something that sounds the way you want it to sound.


Frank Zappa's book is a great and funny and often irritating read by the way. I like very creative folks, who look at the same things we all look at but see something different. I am not sure I would want to live with one though.

[catmandu2]

...we create a sound that people find pleasing because it sounds somehow authentic to them.


This is why gestalt psychology has much impact on aesthetics, and why with ever expanding forms of technology--synthesization and simulation--experience is a fascinating study.

BTW Jeff, have you seen Baby Snakes?--"a movie about people who do stuff that is not normal"... (and no, you do not want to live with one, unless you are the type of person who can manage paradox well .......... :mandosmiley::(:mandosmiley::(:mandosmiley: .....)

[JeffD]

unless you are the type of person who can manage paradox ....

Let me tell you....

Truth is, however, that where ever there is a paradox, its a problem in perception or in labeling or in our understanding. There are no paradoxes in that inaccurately perceived reality.

In the mind / body problem, the body has no problem.

[catmandu2]

Let me tell you....

Truth is, however, that where ever there is a paradox, its a problem in perception or in labeling or in our understanding. There are no paradoxes in that inaccurately perceived reality.

In the mind / body problem, the body has no problem.

Or, all existence is paradox..

R.D. Laing said that a psychotic or schizophrenic manifestation is a rational response to an insane situation--the world (or some such). Nietzsche said beware in casting out your demons... Then there's the absurd response a la Camus and Joseph Heller, or Zappa, Einstein, and the dadaists..


Try living with a wife and four girls and maintaining an ideal perspective.. ;)


Somewhat more seriously, my wife and I both work in the mental health field, and have had ample occasion to get to know many folks with various psychopathologies. The perspective of experiencing the world and its phenomena with such equanimity so as to resolve paradox so efficiently is one behavioral trait that folks with pronounced mental illness generally all share in lacking. Indeed, their pathologies usually ensue from or are inexorably associated with the inability to moderate their experiences. At the same time, and probably related by the same cognitive deficit mechanisms, folks with mental health disorders tend to be extraordinarily creative--the same psychic apparatus which we use to filter and mediate our stimuli and response is to one degree or other impaired or not functional, allowing this cohort to let it loose, as it were, to see and respond to the world with less limitation. Many folks with severe disorders experience multi-modal hallucination, for example. But, those with serious mental health disorders can be pretty challenging domestic partners, and the person with these issues who may be untreated or treated ineffectually can present with extremely challenging behavior.

[Rob Gerety]

What?

[JeffD]

folks with mental health disorders tend to be extraordinarily creative--.

Yep.


But back to the amp/electric thing - of course I think I am right, but more importantly, my new point of view is more usefull. It doesn't disallow any electric manipulation on the grounds of "tradition" or "authenticity". It may rule out some practices that screw up what starts out as a darn nice sound, but not on the grounds of "corrupting something pure."

[Jim Nollman]

My question about all this is when does the desire to capture an authentic sound require so much planning and effort as to eclipse the music itself?

Eclipse? Why would anyone want to play out without sounding the best he/she can? Your statement suggests that playing in a closet produces a more worthy (authentic?) sound than playing onstage. No more, nor no less worthy. Often different. But not always.

A performance works best when the players act from a place of respect for the music. That includes preparation. I often refer to it as "setting the field". Optimizing sound is a key issue of playing out. It is a matter of straightforward physics, because sound bounces around every room differently. Getting it under control in each room may seem like a chore to some. With slightly different thinking, it could just as easily be viewed as one of the most satisfying aspects of playing out. Every audience agrees with that view of it.

[JeffD]

Your statement suggests that playing in a closet produces a more worthy (authentic?) sound than playing onstage. No more, nor no less worthy. Often different. But not always.

Bingo.

[Markus]

A performance works best when the players act from a place of respect for the music.

Tying it into this fundamental is very useful, if it's serving the music then it's a very useful tool - if not, then maybe not.

I don't disagree with your points at all, especially when the sound-shaping tools out there currently are so powerful and each context just about demands it's own solution.

When every performance requires it's own solution, you use the largest possible toolbox to solve it - so that the end product [people engrossed in music] works the best. While the kitchen table jam might have no use for sound equipment, in many other cases the sound equipment seems like it's most of the toolbox.

If the end product [music, delivered to audience ears] is superior, I'd use rubber bands for strings despite how it sounded to me. Despite the fact that how to properly use sound equipment often makes about as much sense to me as using rubber bands for strings ... the proof is in the end product, not my preconceptions. My preconceptions wonders at it's place - yet it's hearing the end result that is the final arbiter. Despite what I might prefer - if the end product serves the music best, that's the best method.

Like it or not, the microphone had better be my friend - as much so as the fretboard, the guy behind the board, and my ears. Same goes for all technology ... if I'm going to get explore the effects of different picks I had better explore the massive effects of different sound reinforcing technology.

It's incredible to have thousands of gigs of experience collected here, I'm incredibly grateful to read along and continually go `search' mining through old threads.

A number of years ago a friend at a rock show remarked at how well the guitarist `played the pickup'. When I asked why, he stated much what OP did - that what we were hearing was the pickup generating a signal, that anything prior to the pickup had no purpose but to drive that piece of technology. He was playing to create things from the pickup, not to make noise from the guitar.

[Rob Gerety]

Great thread. I have two lives. In one life I play music. In the other I listen. I come to this forum to enrich my playing. This thread leaves me thinking that I need to spend more of my time playing pure acoustic music - with my friends, for myself and my friends and family. That, to me, is what I get the most pleasure from as a player. My listening life is another story. When I am a listener I try to wipe my mind clean and ignore what I know about amplification and just listen. But, I generally do not succeed. I find that my experience as a listener is diminished a bit because my attention is drawn to the qualities of the amplification.

[JeffD]

When I am a listener I try to wipe my mind clean and ignore what I know about amplification and just listen. But, I generally do not succeed. I find that my experience as a listener is diminished a bit because my attention is drawn to the qualities of the amplification.

I have a friend who has a passionate interest in opera. I have spent many moments with him in his garage workshop as he listens to opera on this crummy little radio/CD player. The accoustics of the thing are terrible.

He acknowledges that all that is true. His idea is "look, I am listening to the music, not the spaces between the music. If you are not going to listen live you have decided to compromise anyway. I respect the live performance too much to think I can simulate it here in my garage."

[Charlieshafer]

I have a friend who has a passionate interest in opera. I have spent many moments with him in his garage workshop as he listens to opera on this crummy little radio/CD player. The accoustics of the thing are terrible.

He acknowledges that all that is true. His idea is "look, I am listening to the music, not the spaces between the music. If you are not going to listen live you have decided to compromise anyway. I respect the live performance too much to think I can simulate it here in my garage."

And that's a great way to sum it all up. Sure, really bad sound hurts a performance, but really great sound doesn't make it memorable, either. It's all in the sense of community that's built up during the performance that makes it worthwhile. This ties into another thread being discussed, on the e-book preaching the values of performance and connecting with the audience. Absolutely go for the best sound you can, keep the stage as clear as you can, but when it's all said and done, that's the least of the issues an audience will have with a performance.

[Jon Hall]

And that's a great way to sum it all up. Sure, really bad sound hurts a performance, but really great sound doesn't make it memorable, either. It's all in the sense of community that's built up during the performance that makes it worthwhile. This ties into another thread being discussed, on the e-book preaching the values of performance and connecting with the audience. Absolutely go for the best sound you can, keep the stage as clear as you can, but when it's all said and done, that's the least of the issues an audience will have with a performance.

Maybelle Carter's advice to her daughters was "If the microphone is causing trouble, smile real loud."

[pops1]

This reminds me of when I was playing rock back in the '60s.

I could sort of understand why the audiophile folks would pay huge bucks for speakers to reproduce the sound of a symphony orchestra (at the time, I'm guessing $50 to $80 for just the driver), but no clue as to why they'd pay the the same big bucks to listen to rock groups, whose Fender, Vox, & Marshall amps were equipped with probably $10 speakers. Huh? Pay $80 to sound like $10?

Of course, the home stereo was running through my band's vocal cabinet and my Fender Bandmaster's, each with two 12s. Made sense to me!

If you want to hear the sound of your vox or whatever from your stereo then you need speakers that won't color the sound. Guitar amp use $10 dollar speakers because they are trying to color the sound, stereos use $80 speakers so that it sounds like it is supposed to sound and not be colored again into something else. Hence the art of recording and sounding like it's supposed to as the composer heard it in his/her ears. and again sounding like it is supposed to thru a nice stereo or your car radio. real challenge here.

[Elliot Luber]

Somebody hasn't been shopping for Celestion speakers lately. Ouch!
http://www.google.com/products/catalog?q=replacement+celestion+12%22+guitar+speak er&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&cid=10712444843732151925&ei=Fuj_TJ3qC8WBlAe-msGGDQ&sa=X&oi=product_catalog_result&ct=image&resnum=3&ved=0CEAQ8gIwAg#

[Charlieshafer]

I build our own stage monitors using these: Fostex (https://www.madisound.com/store/product_info.php?cPath=45_241_308&products_id=265)

Sound like buttah. If the audience does get any monitor bleed-through, at least it sounds great. Check out that response curve. Two of these in one enclosure make beautiful sounding PA speakers as well. I did disassemble the PA cabs, though, and use the drivers for more monitors as they got a bit heavy to haul around.

If you really need to blow some bucks, $165k will get youthese (http://www.soundstagelive.com/factorytours/wilson_x2/).

If you want to have fun with great home audio on a budget, THIS (http://www.audiogon.com/)is the site to peruse. It's basically a "Mandolin Cafe" for audio addicts.