I am asking this strange question because lately it seems to me that there is a "strange" trend.
I came into possession of some Bach cantatas conducted by a certain Suzuki whom I did not know.
The reading and performance seem truly convincing to me, and it seems to me that they could worthily stand alongside the best Richter. But it would be too good to be true... "all true". The recording is, as often happens to me when listening, full of reverb. It even sounds as if it were made in a church with the microphones outside.
And so I asked myself: do sound engineers really not know that live, the brain and consciousness "eliminate" the reverb, whereas if you find it on a recording, you hear everything and more? What is the point of not wanting to achieve a clean sound, especially with Bach's music, which we all know how it is constructed... whose sublime polyphony would benefit much more than it would with other composers?
Or am I wrong, and even live you can hear all this reverb?
It depends on where the capture takes place. Usually, microphones are positioned very close to the sound source to try to eliminate as much reverb effect as possible (and not 'reverbero', which is coined from the English word reverber), or they are placed in certain strategic points (appropriately calculated) to add natural reverb, thus without using machines that artificially add reverb. Good microphones are made to resemble the human ear as closely as possible, and reverb is something that can be mathematically calculated; it is, in fact, the time it takes for the sound to decay by 60 dB. I believe, therefore, that reverb depends more on the position at the time of capture (in the case of recording) or the position at the time of listening (for the human ear) rather than on psychic factors. Certainly, in an environment very favorable to reverb, acoustic effort is directed toward listening to what interests us most and perhaps one tries to pay less attention to environmental reverb, but it is present in the same amount as in the recording.
D
Dino
Member
Reply 3 by Dino
Posts
277
Stellina wrote:
And so I wondered: do sound engineers really not know that live, the brain and consciousness "eliminate" reverb, whereas if you find it on a recording, you hear everything and more? What is the point of not wanting to achieve a clean sound, especially with Bach's music, which we all know how it is constructed... whose sublime polyphony would benefit much more than it would with other authors?
...perhaps because dry sound wasn't actually that clean? And perhaps because the sublime polyphony in the performance was a chaotic mess that was horrifying?
A good dose of reverb and voilà, problem solved, record sold!
When I use things like http://www.pcorgan.com/Links2EN.html the added reverb is fundamental. In these cases, the sound captured close to the pipes generates a more restricted environment compared to the real one; if the reverb is missing, it sounds terrible. I believe all users add it: without it, you can't play.
Regarding Suzuki, I have the complete cantatas and I really think the flaw should be sought in the singers; the polyphony is not difficult to decipher, even if it is not like with Rifkin or the Swingle Singers.
Speaking of reverb, a recording made in Roskilde.
Michael Praetorius: 'In dulci jubilo'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3p6nAaOmyU
I believe it is enough to position the microphones for this effect. If you are far from the musicians, it is difficult to eliminate the reverb with your brain.
