Richard Tsuyuki responds to me:

>>I don't think that slick recordings are clear at all; they have an aural
>>glaze and thickness that hangs in the air and damages clarity.
>
>Thanks, Don, this is exactly the kind of thing I am talking about.  Can you
>explain this glaze....
>Does it have to do with echos?  Or a sustained resonance like the damper
>pedal on a piano....

Richard could be on the verge of enlightenment if he was listening to
someone who knows much more about sound engineering than I do.  However,
I'll try to do a decent job of explaining myself.

Let's take a hypothetical example of a string quartet recording and
assume that the decay time of a particular note value is .8 seconds on
a recording having 'normal' levels of resonance and reverberation.  With
a "slick" sound which is souped up in its resonance and reverberation,
the decay time grows to 1.3 seconds.  The result is that it takes longer
for the note to trail off, and this will happen with every note from
each of the four musicians.  To the listener, it might sound as if eight
instruments are being played, and the level of detail will tend to be
blurred.  Considering that two of the primary reasons that folks love
chamber music is for its intimacy and detail, one's enjoyment would
likely be reduced.

Of course, engineers do not increase decay time to reduce our listening
enjoyment.  They do it to enhance the richness of sound.  Some might
consider the tradeoffs acceptable or even advantageous, but I feel that
the attempt to make the sound more symphonic is contrary to the chamber
music style.

Don Satz
[log in to unmask]