[microsound] project: microacoustic pt2

[Robin Parmar]

David Powers wrote:

> That's interesting thanks for that info -- I'm no 
> recording engineer, and was not aware that modern 
> equipment would actually create a harsher sound. 
> Maybe that's something in favor of lo-fi then...
> 
> But, this may be a naive question, why would a 
> flat response microphone recording a saxophone 
> sound harsher than the same sound if I'm listening 
> to it standing next to the saxophone? Or is it just
> because the mic is normally much closer than the ear?

You are right to question this statement. Current equipment, even at the semi-pro level, is well able to capture the frequencies and dynamics of input sounds very accurately. This does not result in a "harsh" sound; it results in a realistic sound. That is: the output corresponds with the input to a high degree of fidelity.

However, some prefer the "warmth" of older recordings due to the distortion added by tube gear and tape saturation. These mechanical devices tend to add second-order harmonics. If you are indoctrinated into that mode of listening then something "better" might sound harsher, but only because you are used to listening to a distorted signal.

There are other factors. Early digital encoding was inaccurate and "harsh" in a different sense: square wave type distortions were added to the signal chain, clock timings were inaccurate, etc. But this is hardly a problem now unless the gear is really rubbish.

If some wish to go "lo-fi" for aesthetic reasons then so be it. I have been known to employ low-pass filters myself to "warm up" a sound. But claiming digital is harsher is either an anachronism or a tell-tale sign of the analogue fetishist.

--- Robin Parmar