Eddieが語るU-Z Project Tour Liveの音響効果  U-Z Project

 先ほど、EddieがEddie Jobson ForumにU-Z ProjectTour Live


Author: EJ
Date: 02-17-11 21:19

Here's the problem I have with the barbing about the recording:

Firstly, I have no way of knowing what you are listening on, or what your level of understanding of audio actually is. For instance, do you listen on high-end studio-quality monitors? Is your stereo even set up correctly, or are you perhaps unknowingly phase canceling in mono? Are your speakers even wired in phase? Are you judging the mix on a boombox, PC speakers, ear-buds, or some $20 purchase from Best Buy? Are you convinced that the frequency response of your speakers is even remotely linear? Your speakers could be boomy, tinny, sibilant... some speakers can bring out more reverb than others... so many factors. Phase issues could even make a vocal disappear from the mix (which would explain your odd 'Dead of Night' comment).

Secondly, I would charge that most of the audio criticazzi have an erroneous concept of quality. In recording, 'quality' is determined by lack of distortion; full spectrum frequency and dynamic range; stereo perspective etc. My goal from the onset, was to simply capture the magic of the concert - to capture the energy, the atmosphere, and the emotional power of the music. I chose - yes, chose - to make the album ambient. To make it 'live.'

I realize now, after the ceaseless complaining from a persistent minority, that most producers/artists don't mix their albums that way; they tweak and doctor them to sound like processed studio recordings. I went back and listened to Pink Floyd's "Pulse" album, and it certainly is a spectacular recording. But it is clear to me that not only were hundreds of thousands of dollars spent with the finest state-of-the-art mobile-studio recording facilities and one or two of the top engineers in the world, capturing the basic tracks, but that the finished results are so sonically perfect that I am completely convinced that much of the album was re-recorded in the studio, and an audience overdubbed to make it appear live. The reality is that most live recordings sound pretty terrible - bad guitar sounds with squeaks and clunkers; ground hums and buzzes from the lights; pitchy vocal performances etc. The raw live tracks on the U-Z Live album weren't much of an exception - different mics on different amps almost every night; even different drum kits, and certainly different hall acoustics... the challenge was to make it all sound like a unified album that captured the live U-Z experience for those many folks who have not, and may not, get a chance to see an actual EJ concert.

An ambient mix, i.e. one with the hall mics mixed in quite prominently, is not of any lower 'quality' than a processed, dryer studio mix -- it is just more ambient. The U-Z album has punch, clarity, stereo width, energy, sonic fullness, and MAGIC. John's voice sounds good (certainly not "muffled" - listen to it on high-quality headphones), and the band sounds rockin'. What you are apparently objecting to is the choice (which I am frankly now regretting) of making my live album sound... well, LIVE.

Clearly, the layman's association with an ambient live mix is with audience bootlegs; but the reality is that the quality difference between an overblown single-mic bootleg and the "Ultimate Zero" album is vast. It is an insult to equate the two. I believe that the issue is that people are just so conditioned to consider processed, highly compressed, studio recordings with lush artificial digital reverbs to represent 'quality' (which, from a sonic standpoint they do...), that even a live band in a symphonic hall has to also sound just like that to pass sonic muster.

It honestly never crossed my mind that my choices would be perceived as 'low-quality.' I thought I had produced an atmospheric, emotional, and powerful representation of our live shows. Oh well... I guess we have a picky crowd. (Maybe I need to pick up a few tips from Asia...)




teacup.ブログ “AutoPage”