Virtually all instruments are purposely turned down because the recording chain and home playback systems cannot handle the dynamics. Your system can't handle a grand piano, operatic vocalist, trumpet, drum set or a stack of Marshall amplifiers. My system can't handle them either. To Drubin's point, filling the room with sound is very different than dominating the room which seems to be Richardmr's observation. You can actually fill a room with sound at fairly low volumes. My experience with both live and recorded music is that it's rarely appropriate for the drums to dominate the sound mix. Also, if properly recorded and your system is of high enough quality and well set up, then there shouldn't be a substantial lose of the music's impact at lower volumes. Obviously, this last statement doesn't apply to music that is solely intended to be listened to at LOUD LOUD volumes.
Drums reproduction
Considering audio's desire to reproduce live performance as accurately as possible, why do you think the drums are recorded so far back in the mix? I've attended many jazz and fusion performances and many drummers are at the sonic forefront of their bands. Tony Williams, Billy Cobham, et all sonicly fill the room like nobody's business. Even less powerful drummers are on equal footing with their bandmates. Why does it not sound so on recordings? The drums are politely included for percussive colorations but in no way dominate like live. Example: Elvin Jones live powerfully fills every bit of the room to the point that it can border on exhaustion. But on recordings he can sound like a pipsqueak in comparison, just another polite member of the band. Please don't confuse the performance of the musician. It seems like it is the producers choice. Why?
- ...
- 17 posts total
- 17 posts total