Group: rec.audio.high-end
Add group to favorites
Back to post list
Send new message to group Search:
Post Subject:
Curious about Stereophile/Recording
Re: Curious about Stereophile/Recording
On Tue, 1 Jan 2008 08:20:39 -0800, jeffc wrote
(in article <fldp8n0thr@news1.newsguy,com >):
> "Sonnova" <sonnova@audiosanatorium,com > wrote in message
> news:flb89e01dvd@news3.newsguy,com ...
>>>
>>>> And while you might know the sound of a Marshal amp,
>>>> what does that say about the electronic instrument that is plugged right
>>>> into
>>>> a recording console? And none of this alters the fact that there is no
>>>> soundstage.
>>>
>>> There doesn't have to be a recording console, as there sometimes is not.
>>
>> OH? And how does the "performance" get recorded?
>
> Uh, with microphones and a recorder.
>
>> Rock concerts take thier
>> studios with them on the road in the form of sound reinforcement systems.
>> The
>> purpose of those systems is to recreate a studio facility in front of an
>> audience. A facility without which the performance would not be able to
>> exist
>> at all.
>
> You are living in a very sheltered world if you think that's the only way
> rock/pop recordings can and have been made.
>
>> You mean as long as they don't plug ANYTHING in.
>
> No, they can plug the guitars in. Nothing else needs to be plugged in
> (unless they specifically prefer electric keyboard over acoustic piano, but
> plenty of rock records record acoustic piano.)
>
>> OTOH, I agree with you that
>> if the ensemble consists only of acoustic instruments and these
>> instruments
>> are properly stereo miked, then indeed, such a performance can be used to
>> judge equipment. You seem to have mistaken my argument here. I am not
>> saying
>> that rock-'n-roll cannot be used to judge the sonic performance of
>> playback
>> equipment. I'm saying that a performance of ANY KIND OF MUSIC that exists
>> only in a studio environment should not be used. It doesn't matter if it's
>> rock, or if it's a synthesizer playing Bach Cantatas, it cannot be used to
>> judge the accuracy of any playback system, because there is no way to
>> judge,
>> even superficially, what such a performance REALLY sounds like.
>
> It depends on what the studio is like. Lots of classical music is recorded
> in the studio (not in front of an audience, but in the recording studio.)
> The acoustic space and method of recording is up to the recording engineers
> and producers.
That's not important. A symphony orchestra consists solely of acoustic
instruments recorded in space. And while that space is important, it's
secondary to the fact that the source of the music is acoustic, exists in
real space and is a complete performance right there at the recording venue,
not later in some mix-down.
>
> You seem to be equating "studio" with a bunch of musicians singled off in
> their little cubicles recording into their own little channel, maybe even
> dubbed over one at a time. Sometimes happens, sometimes doesn't.
>
>> Also, I'm not saying that
>> one shouldn't listen to rock, if that's what blows one's skirt up, I'm
>> saying
>> that it is of very limited usefulness when evaluating playback systems and
>> that most audio magazines have fallen into the trap of letting their
>> reviewers test equipment with this type of music as their source material
>> and
>> it's of almost no real use for that purpose. Nothing more, nothing less.
>
> Some is some isn't. Check out Cowboy Junkies Trinity Session, as I said,
> for one very well known example.
No thank, you. I'll take your word for it.
>>> I suppose that's my point. The fact that
>>> there's a guitar amp in the chain isn't the point. It's how they mike
>>> everything and feed it through a 40 channel mixing board that's the
>>> problem.
>>> Read about Cowboy Junkies "Trinity Session" as one example of good rock
>>> sound.
>>
>> The point is that with 40 channels (or even 8) there is NO stereo (just
>> multi-track mono) and there is no sound-stage and there is no imaging.
>
> Well there can be imaging and stereo as the recording engineer intended it.
> It just doesn't exist in a real acoustic space to begin with, yeah.
That's not stereo imaging, it's pan-potting.
>
On Tue, 1 Jan 2008 08:20:39 -0800, jeffc wrote
(in article <fldp8n0thr@news1.newsguy,com >):
> "Sonnova" <sonnova@audiosanatorium,com > wrote in message
> news:flb89e01dvd@news3.newsguy,com ...
>>>
>>>> And while you might know the sound of a Marshal amp,
>>>> what does that say about the electronic instrument that is plugged right
>>>> into
>>>> a recording console? And none of this alters the fact that there is no
>>>> soundstage.
>>>
>>> There doesn't have to be a recording console, as there sometimes is not.
>>
>> OH? And how does the "performance" get recorded?
>
> Uh, with microphones and a recorder.
>
>> Rock concerts take thier
>> studios with them on the road in the form of sound reinforcement systems.
>> The
>> purpose of those systems is to recreate a studio facility in front of an
>> audience. A facility without which the performance would not be able to
>> exist
>> at all.
>
> You are living in a very sheltered world if you think that's the only way
> rock/pop recordings can and have been made.
>
>> You mean as long as they don't plug ANYTHING in.
>
> No, they can plug the guitars in. Nothing else needs to be plugged in
> (unless they specifically prefer electric keyboard over acoustic piano, but
> plenty of rock records record acoustic piano.)
>
>> OTOH, I agree with you that
>> if the ensemble consists only of acoustic instruments and these
>> instruments
>> are properly stereo miked, then indeed, such a performance can be used to
>> judge equipment. You seem to have mistaken my argument here. I am not
>> saying
>> that rock-'n-roll cannot be used to judge the sonic performance of
>> playback
>> equipment. I'm saying that a performance of ANY KIND OF MUSIC that exists
>> only in a studio environment should not be used. It doesn't matter if it's
>> rock, or if it's a synthesizer playing Bach Cantatas, it cannot be used to
>> judge the accuracy of any playback system, because there is no way to
>> judge,
>> even superficially, what such a performance REALLY sounds like.
>
> It depends on what the studio is like. Lots of classical music is recorded
> in the studio (not in front of an audience, but in the recording studio.)
> The acoustic space and method of recording is up to the recording engineers
> and producers.
That's not important. A symphony orchestra consists solely of acoustic
instruments recorded in space. And while that space is important, it's
secondary to the fact that the source of the music is acoustic, exists in
real space and is a complete performance right there at the recording venue,
not later in some mix-down.
>
> You seem to be equating "studio" with a bunch of musicians singled off in
> their little cubicles recording into their own little channel, maybe even
> dubbed over one at a time. Sometimes happens, sometimes doesn't.
>
>> Also, I'm not saying that
>> one shouldn't listen to rock, if that's what blows one's skirt up, I'm
>> saying
>> that it is of very limited usefulness when evaluating playback systems and
>> that most audio magazines have fallen into the trap of letting their
>> reviewers test equipment with this type of music as their source material
>> and
>> it's of almost no real use for that purpose. Nothing more, nothing less.
>
> Some is some isn't. Check out Cowboy Junkies Trinity Session, as I said,
> for one very well known example.
No thank, you. I'll take your word for it.
>>> I suppose that's my point. The fact that
>>> there's a guitar amp in the chain isn't the point. It's how they mike
>>> everything and feed it through a 40 channel mixing board that's the
>>> problem.
>>> Read about Cowboy Junkies "Trinity Session" as one example of good rock
>>> sound.
>>
>> The point is that with 40 channels (or even 8) there is NO stereo (just
>> multi-track mono) and there is no sound-stage and there is no imaging.
>
> Well there can be imaging and stereo as the recording engineer intended it.
> It just doesn't exist in a real acoustic space to begin with, yeah.
That's not stereo imaging, it's pan-potting.
>
Re: Curious about Stereophile/Recording
On Dec 25 2007, 11:43 am, Sonnova <sonn...@audiosanatorium,com > wrote:
>. The second, somewhat paradoxically would
> be a symphony orchestra. A stereo mike or a pair of cardioid mikes at roughly
> 90 degrees to one another and mounted on a "T-Bar" approximately 7" apart and
> "flown" about 10 ft over the conductor's head and about 15 feet behind him
> give a lovely stereo effect with great imaging. Also, I have found that if
> there is a piano playing on-stage with the orchestra, (for Rachmaninoff's 3rd
> Piano Concerto, for instance) and the lid is up. it is very probable that
> accent mikes on the piano won't be necessary and the "mix" that the conductor
> is hearing on the podium is also perfect for the X-Y pair. They are, after
> all, playing the part of our "surrogate ears" and should "hear" what we would
> hear were we there.
Somehow I missed this priceless paragraph before. I think I missed it
because I was taken back by your stating that JA is right - there is
no evidence that he subscribes to this philosophy, quite the
contrary.
You don't seem to have attracted any brickbats for this paragraph (I
wonder how many on this board care about symphonic music), but it's
very controversial. How many recordings are made this way today? I
haven't come across a single one. Yet, as you say, the imaging is the
best this way - you hear the instruments arranged in a real space with
specific locations, some BEHIND others, for example the brass and
winds behind the strings and if there is a chorus it is behind the
orchestra. This is pure magic, it sounds right and there is hardly any
listening fatigue with this method.
Even though this method is never used today for orchestras, I have
never seen engineers justify multimiking orchestras in any way I can
understand. They try to spot-mic an instrument not because of any
issue you might have with your stereo or surround-sound playback, nor
have I read anything about how this could be done, given the varied
acoustic of the playback systems. The justification for spot-miking
always seems to be because something can't be heard as they think it
ought in the hall. Might as well stick an extra ear up there on stage
when you attend the concert. While I might trust Bach or
Furchtwangler to do this rebalancing, I do not trust any audio
engineer this far (and spot-miking is a factor in listening fatigue.)
Simonel
On Dec 25 2007, 11:43 am, Sonnova <sonn...@audiosanatorium,com > wrote:
>. The second, somewhat paradoxically would
> be a symphony orchestra. A stereo mike or a pair of cardioid mikes at roughly
> 90 degrees to one another and mounted on a "T-Bar" approximately 7" apart and
> "flown" about 10 ft over the conductor's head and about 15 feet behind him
> give a lovely stereo effect with great imaging. Also, I have found that if
> there is a piano playing on-stage with the orchestra, (for Rachmaninoff's 3rd
> Piano Concerto, for instance) and the lid is up. it is very probable that
> accent mikes on the piano won't be necessary and the "mix" that the conductor
> is hearing on the podium is also perfect for the X-Y pair. They are, after
> all, playing the part of our "surrogate ears" and should "hear" what we would
> hear were we there.
Somehow I missed this priceless paragraph before. I think I missed it
because I was taken back by your stating that JA is right - there is
no evidence that he subscribes to this philosophy, quite the
contrary.
You don't seem to have attracted any brickbats for this paragraph (I
wonder how many on this board care about symphonic music), but it's
very controversial. How many recordings are made this way today? I
haven't come across a single one. Yet, as you say, the imaging is the
best this way - you hear the instruments arranged in a real space with
specific locations, some BEHIND others, for example the brass and
winds behind the strings and if there is a chorus it is behind the
orchestra. This is pure magic, it sounds right and there is hardly any
listening fatigue with this method.
Even though this method is never used today for orchestras, I have
never seen engineers justify multimiking orchestras in any way I can
understand. They try to spot-mic an instrument not because of any
issue you might have with your stereo or surround-sound playback, nor
have I read anything about how this could be done, given the varied
acoustic of the playback systems. The justification for spot-miking
always seems to be because something can't be heard as they think it
ought in the hall. Might as well stick an extra ear up there on stage
when you attend the concert. While I might trust Bach or
Furchtwangler to do this rebalancing, I do not trust any audio
engineer this far (and spot-miking is a factor in listening fatigue.)
Simonel
Re: Curious about Stereophile/Recording
On Wed, 2 Jan 2008 15:57:26 -0800, Simonel wrote
(in article <flh8d602sqm@news2.newsguy,com >):
> On Dec 25 2007, 11:43 am, Sonnova <sonn...@audiosanatorium,com > wrote:
>
>> . The second, somewhat paradoxically would
>> be a symphony orchestra. A stereo mike or a pair of cardioid mikes at
>> roughly
>> 90 degrees to one another and mounted on a "T-Bar" approximately 7" apart
>> and
>> "flown" about 10 ft over the conductor's head and about 15 feet behind him
>> give a lovely stereo effect with great imaging. Also, I have found that if
>> there is a piano playing on-stage with the orchestra, (for Rachmaninoff's
>> 3rd
>> Piano Concerto, for instance) and the lid is up. it is very probable that
>> accent mikes on the piano won't be necessary and the "mix" that the
>> conductor
>> is hearing on the podium is also perfect for the X-Y pair. They are, after
>> all, playing the part of our "surrogate ears" and should "hear" what we
>> would
>> hear were we there.
>
> Somehow I missed this priceless paragraph before. I think I missed it
> because I was taken back by your stating that JA is right - there is
> no evidence that he subscribes to this philosophy, quite the
> contrary.
I don't have my comment handy, but I think that I only said that JA was right
when he said that a single microphone technique could not suffice for all
situations.
> You don't seem to have attracted any brickbats for this paragraph (I
> wonder how many on this board care about symphonic music), but it's
> very controversial. How many recordings are made this way today?
Some are. Most aren't. A good example would be to try to find some of the
French ORTF "air checks" of the French National Radio Orchestra recorded in
the early sixties, mostly conducted by Charles Munch. They were released on
CD by Disques Montaigne (TCE8730) and should still be available. Your jaw
will drop. Also try most of the DGG orchestral recordings from the late
1950's. They were made with the M-S technique with similar results. They
might be somewhat easier to find.
>
> I haven't come across a single one. Yet, as you say, the imaging is the
> best this way - you hear the instruments arranged in a real space with
> specific locations, some BEHIND others, for example the brass and
> winds behind the strings and if there is a chorus it is behind the
> orchestra. This is pure magic, it sounds right and there is hardly any
> listening fatigue with this method.
I have the recordings to prove it. It doesn't work in every situation, of
course, some need more than one pair of mikes and some solo instruments need
accenting - including vocals.
>
> Even though this method is never used today for orchestras, I have
> never seen engineers justify multimiking orchestras in any way I can
> understand.
Maybe I can enlighten you on this. The justification is financial PERIOD. Set
up a microphone/channel for each instrument before the talent walks through
the door. Have them sit down, play the work, record each instrument without
any regard to level other than "out of the mud and out of the red". Then get
the expensive talent out of there as soon as possible. Then the cheaper
technical staff can sit down with the producer(s) and equivocate about
balances 'til the cows come home. Yes, it makes lousy recordings, No, strings
with microphones sitting 6 inches in front of them do not sound ANYTHING like
a string section heard from 10 ft away, and NO there is nothing that the
engineer can do in the "mix" to fix that.
> They try to spot-mic an instrument not because of any
> issue you might have with your stereo or surround-sound playback, nor
> have I read anything about how this could be done, given the varied
> acoustic of the playback systems. The justification for spot-miking
> always seems to be because something can't be heard as they think it
> ought in the hall. Might as well stick an extra ear up there on stage
> when you attend the concert. While I might trust Bach or
> Furchtwangler to do this rebalancing, I do not trust any audio
> engineer this far (and spot-miking is a factor in listening fatigue.)
>
> Simonel
On Wed, 2 Jan 2008 15:57:26 -0800, Simonel wrote
(in article <flh8d602sqm@news2.newsguy,com >):
> On Dec 25 2007, 11:43 am, Sonnova <sonn...@audiosanatorium,com > wrote:
>
>> . The second, somewhat paradoxically would
>> be a symphony orchestra. A stereo mike or a pair of cardioid mikes at
>> roughly
>> 90 degrees to one another and mounted on a "T-Bar" approximately 7" apart
>> and
>> "flown" about 10 ft over the conductor's head and about 15 feet behind him
>> give a lovely stereo effect with great imaging. Also, I have found that if
>> there is a piano playing on-stage with the orchestra, (for Rachmaninoff's
>> 3rd
>> Piano Concerto, for instance) and the lid is up. it is very probable that
>> accent mikes on the piano won't be necessary and the "mix" that the
>> conductor
>> is hearing on the podium is also perfect for the X-Y pair. They are, after
>> all, playing the part of our "surrogate ears" and should "hear" what we
>> would
>> hear were we there.
>
> Somehow I missed this priceless paragraph before. I think I missed it
> because I was taken back by your stating that JA is right - there is
> no evidence that he subscribes to this philosophy, quite the
> contrary.
I don't have my comment handy, but I think that I only said that JA was right
when he said that a single microphone technique could not suffice for all
situations.
> You don't seem to have attracted any brickbats for this paragraph (I
> wonder how many on this board care about symphonic music), but it's
> very controversial. How many recordings are made this way today?
Some are. Most aren't. A good example would be to try to find some of the
French ORTF "air checks" of the French National Radio Orchestra recorded in
the early sixties, mostly conducted by Charles Munch. They were released on
CD by Disques Montaigne (TCE8730) and should still be available. Your jaw
will drop. Also try most of the DGG orchestral recordings from the late
1950's. They were made with the M-S technique with similar results. They
might be somewhat easier to find.
>
> I haven't come across a single one. Yet, as you say, the imaging is the
> best this way - you hear the instruments arranged in a real space with
> specific locations, some BEHIND others, for example the brass and
> winds behind the strings and if there is a chorus it is behind the
> orchestra. This is pure magic, it sounds right and there is hardly any
> listening fatigue with this method.
I have the recordings to prove it. It doesn't work in every situation, of
course, some need more than one pair of mikes and some solo instruments need
accenting - including vocals.
>
> Even though this method is never used today for orchestras, I have
> never seen engineers justify multimiking orchestras in any way I can
> understand.
Maybe I can enlighten you on this. The justification is financial PERIOD. Set
up a microphone/channel for each instrument before the talent walks through
the door. Have them sit down, play the work, record each instrument without
any regard to level other than "out of the mud and out of the red". Then get
the expensive talent out of there as soon as possible. Then the cheaper
technical staff can sit down with the producer(s) and equivocate about
balances 'til the cows come home. Yes, it makes lousy recordings, No, strings
with microphones sitting 6 inches in front of them do not sound ANYTHING like
a string section heard from 10 ft away, and NO there is nothing that the
engineer can do in the "mix" to fix that.
> They try to spot-mic an instrument not because of any
> issue you might have with your stereo or surround-sound playback, nor
> have I read anything about how this could be done, given the varied
> acoustic of the playback systems. The justification for spot-miking
> always seems to be because something can't be heard as they think it
> ought in the hall. Might as well stick an extra ear up there on stage
> when you attend the concert. While I might trust Bach or
> Furchtwangler to do this rebalancing, I do not trust any audio
> engineer this far (and spot-miking is a factor in listening fatigue.)
>
> Simonel
Re: Curious about Stereophile/Recording
>
> Even though this method is never used today for orchestras, I have
> never seen engineers justify multimiking orchestras in any way I can
> understand. They try to spot-mic an instrument not because of any
> issue you might have with your stereo or surround-sound playback, nor
> have I read anything about how this could be done, given the varied
> acoustic of the playback systems. The justification for spot-miking
> always seems to be because something can't be heard as they think it
> ought in the hall. Might as well stick an extra ear up there on stage
> when you attend the concert. While I might trust Bach or
> Furchtwangler to do this rebalancing, > Simonel
>
Very true. ..A quote from Marc Aubort(another hero of mine, the Head
Engineer of Elite Recordings) sums it up best:
"A timpani SHOULD should sound far away, not as if it were right in the
front row!!!" "Not everything should be heard as if it were right in front
of the listener! That is not how we hear it in the concert hall!"
Mr. Aubort still uses a pair of Schoeps M221Bs and still works down to 2
track..These older guys know what is what!
>I do not trust any audio
> engineer this far (and spot-miking is a factor in listening fatigue.)
>
Nor do I...and the guys who know what they are doing(and whom I look up to
very much) dont trust themselves to do any balancing either!...Hence the
reason they stick to simple techniques, minimal in nature but effective.
>
> Even though this method is never used today for orchestras, I have
> never seen engineers justify multimiking orchestras in any way I can
> understand. They try to spot-mic an instrument not because of any
> issue you might have with your stereo or surround-sound playback, nor
> have I read anything about how this could be done, given the varied
> acoustic of the playback systems. The justification for spot-miking
> always seems to be because something can't be heard as they think it
> ought in the hall. Might as well stick an extra ear up there on stage
> when you attend the concert. While I might trust Bach or
> Furchtwangler to do this rebalancing, > Simonel
>
Very true. ..A quote from Marc Aubort(another hero of mine, the Head
Engineer of Elite Recordings) sums it up best:
"A timpani SHOULD should sound far away, not as if it were right in the
front row!!!" "Not everything should be heard as if it were right in front
of the listener! That is not how we hear it in the concert hall!"
Mr. Aubort still uses a pair of Schoeps M221Bs and still works down to 2
track..These older guys know what is what!
>I do not trust any audio
> engineer this far (and spot-miking is a factor in listening fatigue.)
>
Nor do I...and the guys who know what they are doing(and whom I look up to
very much) dont trust themselves to do any balancing either!...Hence the
reason they stick to simple techniques, minimal in nature but effective.
Re: Curious about Stereophile/Recording
On Thu, 3 Jan 2008 15:33:48 -0800, Tynan Agvišr wrote
(in article <fljrcs02ur6@news3.newsguy,com >):
>>
>> Even though this method is never used today for orchestras, I have
>> never seen engineers justify multimiking orchestras in any way I can
>> understand. They try to spot-mic an instrument not because of any
>> issue you might have with your stereo or surround-sound playback, nor
>> have I read anything about how this could be done, given the varied
>> acoustic of the playback systems. The justification for spot-miking
>> always seems to be because something can't be heard as they think it
>> ought in the hall. Might as well stick an extra ear up there on stage
>> when you attend the concert. While I might trust Bach or
>> Furchtwangler to do this rebalancing, > Simonel
>>
>
> Very true. ..A quote from Marc Aubort(another hero of mine, the Head
> Engineer of Elite Recordings) sums it up best:
Before that he worked with the late Joanna Nikrenz and together they produced
some dynamite recordings for Vox and NoneSuch. Try their Skrowaczewski
recordings (with the Minnesota Orchestra) of Ravel's Orchestral works (some
of which are available on Mobile Fidelity (Bolero- UDSACD 4002, Daphnis et
Chloe- UDSACD 4008). Both of these originally were on a vinyl VoxBox set, and
the pressing were terrible. I had to buy about four sets before I could
composite a good one. Glad those aspects of the vinyl record era are gone
forever, but GOD, those recordings sounded good!
> "A timpani SHOULD should sound far away, not as if it were right in the
> front row!!!" "Not everything should be heard as if it were right in front
> of the listener! That is not how we hear it in the concert hall!"
>
> Mr. Aubort still uses a pair of Schoeps M221Bs and still works down to 2
> track..These older guys know what is what!
>
>> I do not trust any audio
>> engineer this far (and spot-miking is a factor in listening fatigue.)
>>
>
> Nor do I...and the guys who know what they are doing(and whom I look up to
> very much) dont trust themselves to do any balancing either!...Hence the
> reason they stick to simple techniques, minimal in nature but effective.
>
On Thu, 3 Jan 2008 15:33:48 -0800, Tynan Agvišr wrote
(in article <fljrcs02ur6@news3.newsguy,com >):
>>
>> Even though this method is never used today for orchestras, I have
>> never seen engineers justify multimiking orchestras in any way I can
>> understand. They try to spot-mic an instrument not because of any
>> issue you might have with your stereo or surround-sound playback, nor
>> have I read anything about how this could be done, given the varied
>> acoustic of the playback systems. The justification for spot-miking
>> always seems to be because something can't be heard as they think it
>> ought in the hall. Might as well stick an extra ear up there on stage
>> when you attend the concert. While I might trust Bach or
>> Furchtwangler to do this rebalancing, > Simonel
>>
>
> Very true. ..A quote from Marc Aubort(another hero of mine, the Head
> Engineer of Elite Recordings) sums it up best:
Before that he worked with the late Joanna Nikrenz and together they produced
some dynamite recordings for Vox and NoneSuch. Try their Skrowaczewski
recordings (with the Minnesota Orchestra) of Ravel's Orchestral works (some
of which are available on Mobile Fidelity (Bolero- UDSACD 4002, Daphnis et
Chloe- UDSACD 4008). Both of these originally were on a vinyl VoxBox set, and
the pressing were terrible. I had to buy about four sets before I could
composite a good one. Glad those aspects of the vinyl record era are gone
forever, but GOD, those recordings sounded good!
> "A timpani SHOULD should sound far away, not as if it were right in the
> front row!!!" "Not everything should be heard as if it were right in front
> of the listener! That is not how we hear it in the concert hall!"
>
> Mr. Aubort still uses a pair of Schoeps M221Bs and still works down to 2
> track..These older guys know what is what!
>
>> I do not trust any audio
>> engineer this far (and spot-miking is a factor in listening fatigue.)
>>
>
> Nor do I...and the guys who know what they are doing(and whom I look up to
> very much) dont trust themselves to do any balancing either!...Hence the
> reason they stick to simple techniques, minimal in nature but effective.
>
Re: Curious about Stereophile/Recording
Tynan Agvišr wrote:
> I have been a reader of Stereophile for several years now. I will freely
> and readily admit that I am a dedicated and devoted patron. I will also be
> the first to say that I have never considered the magazine to be of any
> real educational significance, or of much value to audio enthusiasts
> seeking to arm themselves with reviews built on a solid foundation of fact
> and logic, untainted by commercial or emotional bias; and most importantly,
> free of that Voodoo Science foolishness that is so popular in "Audiophile"
> Circles. I view Stereophile much in the same way that I view Rolling Stone,
> Spin, and FLEX: As a source of lighthearted-take-with-a-grain-of-salt,
> Marketing Driven and Sustained, Time-Killing Entertainment,,,injected
> sparsely with advice that is hit or miss, and without much to back it up. I
> do enjoy the letters to the editor and the Articles on Stereophile
> Recording Sessions. As a sound engineer of 15 years, and a professional
> musician for much longer(Basso Profundo/Bass Soloist,and Bass for Hire), I
> am always interested to have a glimpse inside recording sessions that are
> not my own. I have learned a lot by observing my peers successes and
> failures, and by decoding the approaches responsible for the end result.
>
> In the November 2007 issue a reader posed a question to John Atkinson that
> has been at the back of my mind for a long time:
<Snip>
>
> those are fine examples of what can be done with a single pair of
> microphones..
>
> ==Taynen
>
I'm no supporter of that publication or the editor there.
However, it is not always possible to record with two mics and get a good
result.
You might be surprised to find that many excellent modern recordings that
may be *minimalist* in terms of mic'ing are not two mic affairs.
The contrast is with the old paradigm for classical recording that, if you
saw a picture, consisted of a plethora of mics hung above the orchestra, or
jutting out on stands as the case may be.
The only question is, "does it sound good"?
- -bear
Tynan Agvišr wrote:
> I have been a reader of Stereophile for several years now. I will freely
> and readily admit that I am a dedicated and devoted patron. I will also be
> the first to say that I have never considered the magazine to be of any
> real educational significance, or of much value to audio enthusiasts
> seeking to arm themselves with reviews built on a solid foundation of fact
> and logic, untainted by commercial or emotional bias; and most importantly,
> free of that Voodoo Science foolishness that is so popular in "Audiophile"
> Circles. I view Stereophile much in the same way that I view Rolling Stone,
> Spin, and FLEX: As a source of lighthearted-take-with-a-grain-of-salt,
> Marketing Driven and Sustained, Time-Killing Entertainment,,,injected
> sparsely with advice that is hit or miss, and without much to back it up. I
> do enjoy the letters to the editor and the Articles on Stereophile
> Recording Sessions. As a sound engineer of 15 years, and a professional
> musician for much longer(Basso Profundo/Bass Soloist,and Bass for Hire), I
> am always interested to have a glimpse inside recording sessions that are
> not my own. I have learned a lot by observing my peers successes and
> failures, and by decoding the approaches responsible for the end result.
>
> In the November 2007 issue a reader posed a question to John Atkinson that
> has been at the back of my mind for a long time:
<Snip>
>
> those are fine examples of what can be done with a single pair of
> microphones..
>
> ==Taynen
>
I'm no supporter of that publication or the editor there.
However, it is not always possible to record with two mics and get a good
result.
You might be surprised to find that many excellent modern recordings that
may be *minimalist* in terms of mic'ing are not two mic affairs.
The contrast is with the old paradigm for classical recording that, if you
saw a picture, consisted of a plethora of mics hung above the orchestra, or
jutting out on stands as the case may be.
The only question is, "does it sound good"?
- -bear
Re: Curious about Stereophile/Recording
"Tynan Agvi?r" <melee20160@mypacks,net > wrote:
> I have been a reader of Stereophile for several years now. I will freely
> and readily admit that I am a dedicated and devoted patron. I will also be
> the first to say that I have never considered the magazine to be of any
> real educational significance, or of much value to audio enthusiasts
> seeking to arm themselves with reviews built on a solid foundation of fact
> and logic, untainted by commercial or emotional bias; and most importantly,
> free of that Voodoo Science foolishness that is so popular in "Audiophile"
> Circles.
Surprising myself, I have to disagree. I was browsing the January issue
in Barnes & Noble today and found myself engrossed in an article about
the intricacies of room treatment/correction and speaker topologies (e.g.,
issues like, how might using bi/omnipolar speakers impact choices
of room treatment/EQ). It's a subject that could use *lots* more coverage,
and I'm glad at Stereophile took it on. The pitiable and maddening thing about
Stereophile is its mixing of good information and subjectivist nonsense,
often within the same article.
The Absolute Sound, on the other hand, is reliably worthless, pandering
almost exclusively to kook faction of audiophiles.
"Tynan Agvi?r" <melee20160@mypacks,net > wrote:
> I have been a reader of Stereophile for several years now. I will freely
> and readily admit that I am a dedicated and devoted patron. I will also be
> the first to say that I have never considered the magazine to be of any
> real educational significance, or of much value to audio enthusiasts
> seeking to arm themselves with reviews built on a solid foundation of fact
> and logic, untainted by commercial or emotional bias; and most importantly,
> free of that Voodoo Science foolishness that is so popular in "Audiophile"
> Circles.
Surprising myself, I have to disagree. I was browsing the January issue
in Barnes & Noble today and found myself engrossed in an article about
the intricacies of room treatment/correction and speaker topologies (e.g.,
issues like, how might using bi/omnipolar speakers impact choices
of room treatment/EQ). It's a subject that could use *lots* more coverage,
and I'm glad at Stereophile took it on. The pitiable and maddening thing about
Stereophile is its mixing of good information and subjectivist nonsense,
often within the same article.
The Absolute Sound, on the other hand, is reliably worthless, pandering
almost exclusively to kook faction of audiophiles.
Re: Curious about Stereophile/Recording
On Tue, 25 Dec 2007 08:50:39 -0800, Steven Sullivan wrote
(in article <yb2dnWqgjqZCqezanZ2dnUVZ_tijnZ2d@pghconnect,com >):
> "Tynan Agvi?r" <melee20160@mypacks,net > wrote:
>> I have been a reader of Stereophile for several years now. I will freely
>> and readily admit that I am a dedicated and devoted patron. I will also be
>> the first to say that I have never considered the magazine to be of any
>> real educational significance, or of much value to audio enthusiasts
>> seeking to arm themselves with reviews built on a solid foundation of fact
>> and logic, untainted by commercial or emotional bias; and most importantly,
>> free of that Voodoo Science foolishness that is so popular in "Audiophile"
>> Circles.
>
> Surprising myself, I have to disagree. I was browsing the January issue
> in Barnes & Noble today and found myself engrossed in an article about
> the intricacies of room treatment/correction and speaker topologies (e.g.,
> issues like, how might using bi/omnipolar speakers impact choices
> of room treatment/EQ). It's a subject that could use *lots* more coverage,
> and I'm glad at Stereophile took it on. The pitiable and maddening thing
> about
> Stereophile is its mixing of good information and subjectivist nonsense,
> often within the same article.
>
> The Absolute Sound, on the other hand, is reliably worthless, pandering
> almost exclusively to kook faction of audiophiles.
>
I think TAS is more entertaining to read than Stereophile, though. That's all
most "buff" magazines are, you know. Just entertainment. That being the case,
TAS does its job OK. It used to be better when it was journal sized and
saddle bound (70's and early 80's) but even though it's slicker now, its
still a fine couple of hours of entertainment every month or so.
On Tue, 25 Dec 2007 08:50:39 -0800, Steven Sullivan wrote
(in article <yb2dnWqgjqZCqezanZ2dnUVZ_tijnZ2d@pghconnect,com >):
> "Tynan Agvi?r" <melee20160@mypacks,net > wrote:
>> I have been a reader of Stereophile for several years now. I will freely
>> and readily admit that I am a dedicated and devoted patron. I will also be
>> the first to say that I have never considered the magazine to be of any
>> real educational significance, or of much value to audio enthusiasts
>> seeking to arm themselves with reviews built on a solid foundation of fact
>> and logic, untainted by commercial or emotional bias; and most importantly,
>> free of that Voodoo Science foolishness that is so popular in "Audiophile"
>> Circles.
>
> Surprising myself, I have to disagree. I was browsing the January issue
> in Barnes & Noble today and found myself engrossed in an article about
> the intricacies of room treatment/correction and speaker topologies (e.g.,
> issues like, how might using bi/omnipolar speakers impact choices
> of room treatment/EQ). It's a subject that could use *lots* more coverage,
> and I'm glad at Stereophile took it on. The pitiable and maddening thing
> about
> Stereophile is its mixing of good information and subjectivist nonsense,
> often within the same article.
>
> The Absolute Sound, on the other hand, is reliably worthless, pandering
> almost exclusively to kook faction of audiophiles.
>
I think TAS is more entertaining to read than Stereophile, though. That's all
most "buff" magazines are, you know. Just entertainment. That being the case,
TAS does its job OK. It used to be better when it was journal sized and
saddle bound (70's and early 80's) but even though it's slicker now, its
still a fine couple of hours of entertainment every month or so.
Re: Curious about Stereophile/Recording
"Tynan Agvišr" <melee20160@mypacks,net > wrote in message
news:rsGdnQDzV-fdffLanZ2dnUVZ_jydnZ2d@pghconnect,com
> and his dodgy response, a retort that would fit right in
> in the Iowa Caucus, CIA Tape Burning Hearing, or a Press
> Briefing at the White House:
> "As I've tried to get across, in both the making of LIVE
> AT MERKIN HALL in September, and in articles on the
> recording of other Stereophile CDs, there is more to
> making an accurate two-channel recording than placing a
> single pair of microphones in front of the performers.
> Stereo is an illusion, and the success of that illusion
> depends on both art and artifice" John Atkinson
Interesting paragraph. The last sentence pretty well discredits the use of
the word "accurate" in the previous sentence. That all said, I agree with
the last sentence, and would even expand on it and generalize it as follows:
Audio recording is about manufacturing an illusion, and the success of that
illusion
depends on both art and artifice.
> My take on it is that JA, a Senior Member of the
> Stereophile Staff, a man apparently with all this
> experience and Scientific Data floating around in his
> head, should be able to approach the recording in such a
> way that he should not need any cheats/crutches(crutches=
> extra microphones, artificial processing, etc).
IME that's only true if you get to be really choosy about the music you try
to record, and who you record for. 2 mics can be an optimal solution for
recording some music if you restrict yourself to the right music, the right
instruments, the right performers, the right room, the right time, and the
right listeners with the right playback equipment and the right kind of
listening room.
> I have heard many recordings with only two microphones, of
> ensembles as big as Attention Deficit Screen or whatever
> they called themselves or bigger..and guess what..they
> sounded AMAZING. (A list of my favorites will be at the
> end of this post)No, It isnt easy to pull off (nothing
> that is worth doing is easy), takes a whole lot of trial
> and error placement, preparation, extensive knowledge of
> the source material, and beyond that, ABILITY. BUT...When
> done right, absolutely nothing trumps a "pure stereo"
> recording...
I'll even go so far as to question whether its the use of the two mics, or
the fact that every other relevant choice was constrained so profoundly that
made the recordings so satisfactory.
> We, the listener, have to trust the judgement of the
> engineer to make balance decisions, decisions on which
> mics to use and on what instruments, How to EQ in post to
> accomodate the strengths/weaknesses of a particular
> microphone(or pair of the same), width of the recording,
> balance of the orchestra.
Agreed.
> .,.and you know what...I dont
> trust John Atkinson to make any of those decisions.
Then walk on by his recordings.
> I trust him to put the pair of microphones in the right
> place, to take his time in doing so(I have spent many an
> hour moving mics an inch or 2, listening, and moving
> back..and so on), and to get out of the way. To stick his
> nose in the score(if available and that's assuming that
> he reads music..and by what Ive seen of todays pro tools
> jockeys, that is assuming a whole lot) and maybe do some
> minor adjustments on the faders..
If you are trying to make an accurate recording and have everything
optimized, then there should be no need to touch the faders during the
recording.
> A well placed coincident pair(Blumlein is superior in my
> opinion, provided that hall conditions are
> accomodating,and that the musicians will fit within the
> given 90 degree angle of incidence ) affords the
> engineer(or in this case, JA) the chance to maintain a
> strict relationship between direct and reverberant sound.
This can work as long as you have all those other stars held in perfect
alignment.
> This balance of direct and reverberant sound gives our
> ear-brain system a series of cues. From these cues such
> information as Length/Width/Depth/and even height of the
> acoustic space can be determined. More microphones in the
> picture, more difficulties maintaining those
> relationships..Lets not invite difficulties, eh John?
We don't invite difficulties, but they are very willing to crash the party,
en masse.
> Multitrackers have to deal with The inherent problems
> associated with collapsing various mics or pairs of mics
> down to stereo...Phase Cancellation, High Frequency
> differences, so on and so forth...
It's only worth the trouble to struggle with those and other issues when
things are suboptimal enough that the job just can't get done right with two
coincident mics. I'll swear to that with my right hand firmly planted on my
favorate Rode NT4. ;-)
> anyway..I could go on and on and on, but I will not. I
> just find it terribly (hypocritical? "antithetical"
> "ironic"?) funny that JA, a major force in an
> "Audiophile" publication, seems to have no clue what he
> is doing when he puts on the engineer hat.
While I'm not exactly an Atkinson fan, and indeed I may have attained no
small amount of fame as his best-known and most energetic gadfly, I will
give him more credit than that. Given a good room, some good equipment, and
some good musicians, he can make some nice-sounding reocordings. But, making
good recordings in a good room with good musicians is not the hardest thing
in the world to do. But, a true incompetent can screw that up. Atkinson is
IMO far better than that.
> All this
> grandstanding, sermonizing, and chest beating about
> "faithful reproduction"...and yet here he is, giving the
> clueless acolytes of his the audio equivalent of bad
> photoshop work. "Pasted on mics, pasted on effects, lacks
> believability" (To quote a real engineer==Tony Faulkner)
I agree that mentioning accuracy and recording in the same breath takes some
very heavy breathing. One side effect of hyperventilation is a feeling of
giddiness, right? ;-)
> "depends on both art and artifice" Yes, John.,it does.
> Unfortunately, sofar as recording goes..you have neither.
> Stick to the written voodoo,and leave the recording up to
> the guys that know what to do:(ALL done with a SINGLE
> pair, all amazing)
Thing is, not everybody gets to work with all that good stuff. What's a boy
to do if everything is almost right, but a spot mic over there would help
the musical balance a needed amount?
> (Opus 3 recordings/ Spirit and the Blues(by eric bibb and
> needed time), test disc 1, Sampler
>
> Waterlily Acoustics/Bourbon and Rosewater, A meeting by
> the river
> RCA Living Stereo-ALL of em
>
> Proprius-Jazz at the Pawnshop, Cantate Domino
>
> Fone/Danielis Ludus
>
> Pope Music--Sciarabin Symphony 7
>
> any D+G recording(Dabringhaus and Grimm-Germany)
>
> those are fine examples of what can be done with a single
> pair of microphones..
But the sun does not rise and set on just the easy jobs.
"Tynan Agvišr" <melee20160@mypacks,net > wrote in message
news:rsGdnQDzV-fdffLanZ2dnUVZ_jydnZ2d@pghconnect,com
> and his dodgy response, a retort that would fit right in
> in the Iowa Caucus, CIA Tape Burning Hearing, or a Press
> Briefing at the White House:
> "As I've tried to get across, in both the making of LIVE
> AT MERKIN HALL in September, and in articles on the
> recording of other Stereophile CDs, there is more to
> making an accurate two-channel recording than placing a
> single pair of microphones in front of the performers.
> Stereo is an illusion, and the success of that illusion
> depends on both art and artifice" John Atkinson
Interesting paragraph. The last sentence pretty well discredits the use of
the word "accurate" in the previous sentence. That all said, I agree with
the last sentence, and would even expand on it and generalize it as follows:
Audio recording is about manufacturing an illusion, and the success of that
illusion
depends on both art and artifice.
> My take on it is that JA, a Senior Member of the
> Stereophile Staff, a man apparently with all this
> experience and Scientific Data floating around in his
> head, should be able to approach the recording in such a
> way that he should not need any cheats/crutches(crutches=
> extra microphones, artificial processing, etc).
IME that's only true if you get to be really choosy about the music you try
to record, and who you record for. 2 mics can be an optimal solution for
recording some music if you restrict yourself to the right music, the right
instruments, the right performers, the right room, the right time, and the
right listeners with the right playback equipment and the right kind of
listening room.
> I have heard many recordings with only two microphones, of
> ensembles as big as Attention Deficit Screen or whatever
> they called themselves or bigger..and guess what..they
> sounded AMAZING. (A list of my favorites will be at the
> end of this post)No, It isnt easy to pull off (nothing
> that is worth doing is easy), takes a whole lot of trial
> and error placement, preparation, extensive knowledge of
> the source material, and beyond that, ABILITY. BUT...When
> done right, absolutely nothing trumps a "pure stereo"
> recording...
I'll even go so far as to question whether its the use of the two mics, or
the fact that every other relevant choice was constrained so profoundly that
made the recordings so satisfactory.
> We, the listener, have to trust the judgement of the
> engineer to make balance decisions, decisions on which
> mics to use and on what instruments, How to EQ in post to
> accomodate the strengths/weaknesses of a particular
> microphone(or pair of the same), width of the recording,
> balance of the orchestra.
Agreed.
> .,.and you know what...I dont
> trust John Atkinson to make any of those decisions.
Then walk on by his recordings.
> I trust him to put the pair of microphones in the right
> place, to take his time in doing so(I have spent many an
> hour moving mics an inch or 2, listening, and moving
> back..and so on), and to get out of the way. To stick his
> nose in the score(if available and that's assuming that
> he reads music..and by what Ive seen of todays pro tools
> jockeys, that is assuming a whole lot) and maybe do some
> minor adjustments on the faders..
If you are trying to make an accurate recording and have everything
optimized, then there should be no need to touch the faders during the
recording.
> A well placed coincident pair(Blumlein is superior in my
> opinion, provided that hall conditions are
> accomodating,and that the musicians will fit within the
> given 90 degree angle of incidence ) affords the
> engineer(or in this case, JA) the chance to maintain a
> strict relationship between direct and reverberant sound.
This can work as long as you have all those other stars held in perfect
alignment.
> This balance of direct and reverberant sound gives our
> ear-brain system a series of cues. From these cues such
> information as Length/Width/Depth/and even height of the
> acoustic space can be determined. More microphones in the
> picture, more difficulties maintaining those
> relationships..Lets not invite difficulties, eh John?
We don't invite difficulties, but they are very willing to crash the party,
en masse.
> Multitrackers have to deal with The inherent problems
> associated with collapsing various mics or pairs of mics
> down to stereo...Phase Cancellation, High Frequency
> differences, so on and so forth...
It's only worth the trouble to struggle with those and other issues when
things are suboptimal enough that the job just can't get done right with two
coincident mics. I'll swear to that with my right hand firmly planted on my
favorate Rode NT4. ;-)
> anyway..I could go on and on and on, but I will not. I
> just find it terribly (hypocritical? "antithetical"
> "ironic"?) funny that JA, a major force in an
> "Audiophile" publication, seems to have no clue what he
> is doing when he puts on the engineer hat.
While I'm not exactly an Atkinson fan, and indeed I may have attained no
small amount of fame as his best-known and most energetic gadfly, I will
give him more credit than that. Given a good room, some good equipment, and
some good musicians, he can make some nice-sounding reocordings. But, making
good recordings in a good room with good musicians is not the hardest thing
in the world to do. But, a true incompetent can screw that up. Atkinson is
IMO far better than that.
> All this
> grandstanding, sermonizing, and chest beating about
> "faithful reproduction"...and yet here he is, giving the
> clueless acolytes of his the audio equivalent of bad
> photoshop work. "Pasted on mics, pasted on effects, lacks
> believability" (To quote a real engineer==Tony Faulkner)
I agree that mentioning accuracy and recording in the same breath takes some
very heavy breathing. One side effect of hyperventilation is a feeling of
giddiness, right? ;-)
> "depends on both art and artifice" Yes, John.,it does.
> Unfortunately, sofar as recording goes..you have neither.
> Stick to the written voodoo,and leave the recording up to
> the guys that know what to do:(ALL done with a SINGLE
> pair, all amazing)
Thing is, not everybody gets to work with all that good stuff. What's a boy
to do if everything is almost right, but a spot mic over there would help
the musical balance a needed amount?
> (Opus 3 recordings/ Spirit and the Blues(by eric bibb and
> needed time), test disc 1, Sampler
>
> Waterlily Acoustics/Bourbon and Rosewater, A meeting by
> the river
> RCA Living Stereo-ALL of em
>
> Proprius-Jazz at the Pawnshop, Cantate Domino
>
> Fone/Danielis Ludus
>
> Pope Music--Sciarabin Symphony 7
>
> any D+G recording(Dabringhaus and Grimm-Germany)
>
> those are fine examples of what can be done with a single
> pair of microphones..
But the sun does not rise and set on just the easy jobs.
Re: Curious about Stereophile/Recording
You may want to consider that many modern recordings can't be made in
real time. Recording artists frequently overdub and other instrument
tracks are added later. With modern computers, that has become very
easy to do even without a professional studio. In addition, audio
engineers will apply various effects to individual tracks that, if
done tastefully, can significantly enhance the final mix. While it is
true that outstanding recordings can be made with just a pair of
microphones, other material is also useful for setting up audio
systems.
You may want to consider that many modern recordings can't be made in
real time. Recording artists frequently overdub and other instrument
tracks are added later. With modern computers, that has become very
easy to do even without a professional studio. In addition, audio
engineers will apply various effects to individual tracks that, if
done tastefully, can significantly enhance the final mix. While it is
true that outstanding recordings can be made with just a pair of
microphones, other material is also useful for setting up audio
systems.
Re: Curious about Stereophile/Recording
On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 08:51:28 -0800, jwvm wrote
(in article <BKKdnRWrI9MNG-_anZ2dnUVZ_qmlnZ2d@pghconnect,com >):
> You may want to consider that many modern recordings can't be made in
> real time. Recording artists frequently overdub and other instrument
> tracks are added later. With modern computers, that has become very
> easy to do even without a professional studio. In addition, audio
> engineers will apply various effects to individual tracks that, if
> done tastefully, can significantly enhance the final mix. While it is
> true that outstanding recordings can be made with just a pair of
> microphones, other material is also useful for setting up audio
> systems.
Quite so. But that's mostly for pop, rock and some jazz (mostly vocals). It's
almost NEVER done for classical recordings. It's another reason why I say
that a performance that doesn't exist in real time or space cannot be used to
evaluate audio components.
On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 08:51:28 -0800, jwvm wrote
(in article <BKKdnRWrI9MNG-_anZ2dnUVZ_qmlnZ2d@pghconnect,com >):
> You may want to consider that many modern recordings can't be made in
> real time. Recording artists frequently overdub and other instrument
> tracks are added later. With modern computers, that has become very
> easy to do even without a professional studio. In addition, audio
> engineers will apply various effects to individual tracks that, if
> done tastefully, can significantly enhance the final mix. While it is
> true that outstanding recordings can be made with just a pair of
> microphones, other material is also useful for setting up audio
> systems.
Quite so. But that's mostly for pop, rock and some jazz (mostly vocals). It's
almost NEVER done for classical recordings. It's another reason why I say
that a performance that doesn't exist in real time or space cannot be used to
evaluate audio components.
Re: Curious about Stereophile/Recording
Sonnova <sonnova@audiosanatorium,com > wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 08:51:28 -0800, jwvm wrote
> (in article <BKKdnRWrI9MNG-_anZ2dnUVZ_qmlnZ2d@pghconnect,com >):
> > You may want to consider that many modern recordings can't be made in
> > real time. Recording artists frequently overdub and other instrument
> > tracks are added later. With modern computers, that has become very
> > easy to do even without a professional studio. In addition, audio
> > engineers will apply various effects to individual tracks that, if
> > done tastefully, can significantly enhance the final mix. While it is
> > true that outstanding recordings can be made with just a pair of
> > microphones, other material is also useful for setting up audio
> > systems.
> Quite so. But that's mostly for pop, rock and some jazz (mostly vocals). It's
> almost NEVER done for classical recordings.
It most certainly is. Patches and edits are not uncommon in
classical recordings, particularly of solo performances.
___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason
Sonnova <sonnova@audiosanatorium,com > wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 08:51:28 -0800, jwvm wrote
> (in article <BKKdnRWrI9MNG-_anZ2dnUVZ_qmlnZ2d@pghconnect,com >):
> > You may want to consider that many modern recordings can't be made in
> > real time. Recording artists frequently overdub and other instrument
> > tracks are added later. With modern computers, that has become very
> > easy to do even without a professional studio. In addition, audio
> > engineers will apply various effects to individual tracks that, if
> > done tastefully, can significantly enhance the final mix. While it is
> > true that outstanding recordings can be made with just a pair of
> > microphones, other material is also useful for setting up audio
> > systems.
> Quite so. But that's mostly for pop, rock and some jazz (mostly vocals). It's
> almost NEVER done for classical recordings.
It most certainly is. Patches and edits are not uncommon in
classical recordings, particularly of solo performances.
___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason
Re: Curious about Stereophile/Recording
On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 08:38:12 -0800, Steven Sullivan wrote
(in article <fl38pk01lr2@news4.newsguy,com >):
> Sonnova <sonnova@audiosanatorium,com > wrote:
>> On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 08:51:28 -0800, jwvm wrote
>> (in article <BKKdnRWrI9MNG-_anZ2dnUVZ_qmlnZ2d@pghconnect,com >):
>
>>> You may want to consider that many modern recordings can't be made in
>>> real time. Recording artists frequently overdub and other instrument
>>> tracks are added later. With modern computers, that has become very
>>> easy to do even without a professional studio. In addition, audio
>>> engineers will apply various effects to individual tracks that, if
>>> done tastefully, can significantly enhance the final mix. While it is
>>> true that outstanding recordings can be made with just a pair of
>>> microphones, other material is also useful for setting up audio
>>> systems.
>
>> Quite so. But that's mostly for pop, rock and some jazz (mostly vocals).
>> It's
>> almost NEVER done for classical recordings.
>
> It most certainly is. Patches and edits are not uncommon in
> classical recordings, particularly of solo performances.
I would agree were we talking about patches and edits, but we're not, we're
talking about recording the orchestral part of Rachmaninoff's "2nd Piano
Concerto" in New York, and adding the piano part in LA. It just isn't done.
___
> -S
> "As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
> metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason
On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 08:38:12 -0800, Steven Sullivan wrote
(in article <fl38pk01lr2@news4.newsguy,com >):
> Sonnova <sonnova@audiosanatorium,com > wrote:
>> On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 08:51:28 -0800, jwvm wrote
>> (in article <BKKdnRWrI9MNG-_anZ2dnUVZ_qmlnZ2d@pghconnect,com >):
>
>>> You may want to consider that many modern recordings can't be made in
>>> real time. Recording artists frequently overdub and other instrument
>>> tracks are added later. With modern computers, that has become very
>>> easy to do even without a professional studio. In addition, audio
>>> engineers will apply various effects to individual tracks that, if
>>> done tastefully, can significantly enhance the final mix. While it is
>>> true that outstanding recordings can be made with just a pair of
>>> microphones, other material is also useful for setting up audio
>>> systems.
>
>> Quite so. But that's mostly for pop, rock and some jazz (mostly vocals).
>> It's
>> almost NEVER done for classical recordings.
>
> It most certainly is. Patches and edits are not uncommon in
> classical recordings, particularly of solo performances.
I would agree were we talking about patches and edits, but we're not, we're
talking about recording the orchestral part of Rachmaninoff's "2nd Piano
Concerto" in New York, and adding the piano part in LA. It just isn't done.
___
> -S
> "As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
> metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason
Re: Curious about Stereophile/Recording
>
> I would agree were we talking about patches and edits, but we're not,
> we're talking about recording the orchestral part of Rachmaninoff's
> "2nd Piano Concerto" in New York, and adding the piano part in LA. It
> just isn't done.
Yes, it is done...quite frequently, unfortunately. Noone bats an eye at
these sorts of practices because these days recordings are edited until
they are absolutely perfect in every way. Humanity, emotional
attachment..these are secondary. Technological advances(DAW-based editing,
particularly) have taken the craft out of the hands of the highly skilled
and placed it in the hands of people who may not know dick about music, but
are skilled Computer Operators.. On one of the other boards I watched in
agony as this guy from Wales typed with what seemed like a great deal of
pride about how his "last recording had over 720 edits including
autotuning, time signature alterations, and patches from ANOTHER
performer"..yeah,,proud of that!!(It took me a while to wrap my brain
around it) He also won a gramophone award for the damned thing. That sort
of thing speaks volumes about the state of music, and the glaring ignorance
of the consumers who line the pockets of these morons. Thank God there are
those labels who fiercely reject this sort of foolishness and who continue
to produce stellar recordings that are untainted by commercial pressures
and fat MBAs in suits whose knowledge of music and engineering doesnt
extend past flipping a Led Zeppelin tape over while repacking a bowl). I
hope that one day focus shifts from convenience and quantity to QUALITY.
Maybe as storage gets cheaper, just maybe things will start to change??...
By the way, as far as labels go.. My favorites are below. A lot of them can
be found on www .archivmusic,com (the best online classical CD dealer, in my
opinion). These guys know how to make recordings. Not all of them are
"strictly two microphone" affairs... They do have competent engineers who
are educated in sound reproduction, and who have many years in the trenches
under their belts).
(Opus 3 Records, Sweden http :// www .opus3records,com / )
(Waterlily Acoustics-- www .waterlilyacoustics,com )
(Tacet http :// www .tacet.de/main/newsen.htm )
( Musikproduction Dabringhaus und Grimm, Germany-- http :// www .mdg.de/ )
(Stockfisch records
http :// www .stockfischrecords.de/stckfish/sf_start.html)
(Pope Music (Defunct, but still some great recordings floating around..grab
em if you can!)
(Klangraeume http :// www .klangraeume.de/ )
(MA recordings- http :// marecordings,com / )
( Pentatone http :// www .pentatonemusic,com / )
( Cybele http :// www .cybele.de/index_en.php )
(Alia Vox - http :// www .alia-vox,com / )
(Fone http :// www .hificollective.co.uk/accessories/fonehome.html )
I dont care for chesky, Reference recordings, or Telarc since Jack Renner
left...(Micheal Bishop has singlehandedly driven that train off the
track..and in spite of his having access to all this new wonderful
technology(such as the Sonoma DSD Editing Platform, DCS and EMM Labs
Conversion, Millennia Preamps(..those amps along with DPA microphones are
two more reasons modern recordings sound awful.) he cant seem to make a
good SOUNDING recording for the life of him.
>
> I would agree were we talking about patches and edits, but we're not,
> we're talking about recording the orchestral part of Rachmaninoff's
> "2nd Piano Concerto" in New York, and adding the piano part in LA. It
> just isn't done.
Yes, it is done...quite frequently, unfortunately. Noone bats an eye at
these sorts of practices because these days recordings are edited until
they are absolutely perfect in every way. Humanity, emotional
attachment..these are secondary. Technological advances(DAW-based editing,
particularly) have taken the craft out of the hands of the highly skilled
and placed it in the hands of people who may not know dick about music, but
are skilled Computer Operators.. On one of the other boards I watched in
agony as this guy from Wales typed with what seemed like a great deal of
pride about how his "last recording had over 720 edits including
autotuning, time signature alterations, and patches from ANOTHER
performer"..yeah,,proud of that!!(It took me a while to wrap my brain
around it) He also won a gramophone award for the damned thing. That sort
of thing speaks volumes about the state of music, and the glaring ignorance
of the consumers who line the pockets of these morons. Thank God there are
those labels who fiercely reject this sort of foolishness and who continue
to produce stellar recordings that are untainted by commercial pressures
and fat MBAs in suits whose knowledge of music and engineering doesnt
extend past flipping a Led Zeppelin tape over while repacking a bowl). I
hope that one day focus shifts from convenience and quantity to QUALITY.
Maybe as storage gets cheaper, just maybe things will start to change??...
By the way, as far as labels go.. My favorites are below. A lot of them can
be found on www .archivmusic,com (the best online classical CD dealer, in my
opinion). These guys know how to make recordings. Not all of them are
"strictly two microphone" affairs... They do have competent engineers who
are educated in sound reproduction, and who have many years in the trenches
under their belts).
(Opus 3 Records, Sweden http :// www .opus3records,com / )
(Waterlily Acoustics-- www .waterlilyacoustics,com )
(Tacet http :// www .tacet.de/main/newsen.htm )
( Musikproduction Dabringhaus und Grimm, Germany-- http :// www .mdg.de/ )
(Stockfisch records
http :// www .stockfischrecords.de/stckfish/sf_start.html)
(Pope Music (Defunct, but still some great recordings floating around..grab
em if you can!)
(Klangraeume http :// www .klangraeume.de/ )
(MA recordings- http :// marecordings,com / )
( Pentatone http :// www .pentatonemusic,com / )
( Cybele http :// www .cybele.de/index_en.php )
(Alia Vox - http :// www .alia-vox,com / )
(Fone http :// www .hificollective.co.uk/accessories/fonehome.html )
I dont care for chesky, Reference recordings, or Telarc since Jack Renner
left...(Micheal Bishop has singlehandedly driven that train off the
track..and in spite of his having access to all this new wonderful
technology(such as the Sonoma DSD Editing Platform, DCS and EMM Labs
Conversion, Millennia Preamps(..those amps along with DPA microphones are
two more reasons modern recordings sound awful.) he cant seem to make a
good SOUNDING recording for the life of him.
Re: Curious about Stereophile/Recording
On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 09:03:45 -0800, Tynan Agvišr wrote
(in article <fl8j1h02mqv@news4.newsguy,com >):
>>
>> I would agree were we talking about patches and edits, but we're not,
>> we're talking about recording the orchestral part of Rachmaninoff's
>> "2nd Piano Concerto" in New York, and adding the piano part in LA. It
>> just isn't done.
>
> Yes, it is done...quite frequently, unfortunately. Noone bats an eye at
> these sorts of practices because these days recordings are edited until
> they are absolutely perfect in every way.
While I have no qualms with editing for perfection, the kinds of piecemeal
symphonic recordings that the previous poster was referring to are simply not
done and not done for a number of reasons. It is true that a single symphonic
recording might be accomplished over several days or weeks, in order to get a
perfect performance, in those cases, the venue and the microphone setup is
not changed through all the sessions. The finished recording sounds like a
single performance. I understand why this is done. Having made hundreds of
recordings in my time, I know what it means to be listening to a work and
suddenly think to one's self "Oh, lord, here comes that annoying french horn
mistake in the next phrase." The anticipation of an error that you know is
there breaks the mood, no matter how good, sonically, the recording might be
otherwise.
Humanity, emotional
> attachment..these are secondary. Technological advances(DAW-based editing,
> particularly) have taken the craft out of the hands of the highly skilled
> and placed it in the hands of people who may not know dick about music, but
> are skilled Computer Operators.. On one of the other boards I watched in
> agony as this guy from Wales typed with what seemed like a great deal of
> pride about how his "last recording had over 720 edits including
> autotuning, time signature alterations, and patches from ANOTHER
> performer"..yeah,,proud of that!!(It took me a while to wrap my brain
> around it) He also won a gramophone award for the damned thing. That sort
> of thing speaks volumes about the state of music, and the glaring ignorance
> of the consumers who line the pockets of these morons. Thank God there are
> those labels who fiercely reject this sort of foolishness and who continue
> to produce stellar recordings that are untainted by commercial pressures
> and fat MBAs in suits whose knowledge of music and engineering doesnt
> extend past flipping a Led Zeppelin tape over while repacking a bowl). I
> hope that one day focus shifts from convenience and quantity to QUALITY.
> Maybe as storage gets cheaper, just maybe things will start to change??...
> By the way, as far as labels go.. My favorites are below. A lot of them can
> be found on www .archivmusic,com (the best online classical CD dealer, in my
> opinion). These guys know how to make recordings. Not all of them are
> "strictly two microphone" affairs... They do have competent engineers who
> are educated in sound reproduction, and who have many years in the trenches
> under their belts).
Unfortunately, advances in technology envisioned to make something better are
always perverted in this modern, corporate world to making the product
cheaper to produce (not to buy, mind you, but to produce). I have a perfect
example and even though it's passe and irrelevant now, it perfectly
illustrates my point:
Back in the late 1970's Dolby labs was continuing their work to make cassette
tapes a more "high-fidelity" medium. They had already reduced the hiss on
cassettes to acceptable levels through a round-trip compansion scheme called
"Dolby-B" noise reduction. Now they were attempting overcome cassettes other
technological bug-a-boo, self erasure (or over saturation) of high
frequencies at high record levels. Because of the cassette's slow linear
speed, high frequencies would erase themselves at recording levels much above
-20 dBM. This could be controlled somewhat by the use of exotic tape
formulations such as metal-particle tapes and chromium dioxide tapes.
Unfortunately, these tape formulations were expensive, and the record
companies were not about to use them for their pre-recorded cassettes. This
over-saturation occurs at some recording level on all analog tape formats
that use AC bias, but at higher tape speeds this point is often above 0 dBM
and not a problem. In cassette tapes it made loud passages sound dull and
lifeless. Dolby fixed this problem by a record-only technology called "Dolby
HX Pro Headroom Extension" which dynamically reduced the bias signal applied
to the tape at any given point to equal the sum of the static bias PLUS the
high frequency content of the signal. This assured that the bias was always
optimal and eliminated the tendency of the high-frequencies to self-erase.
It worked perfectly and required no changes in playback equipment. Well, the
record companies embraced this technology with open arms. Now, finally, there
would be pre-recorded cassettes that had at least some pretension to
high-fidelity, yes? NO. The record companies used Dolby HX Pro NOT to improve
the quality of their product, but rather to allow them to use even CHEAPER
tape to deliver the SAME lousy quality as before. See what I mean about
technology being used to make production cheaper and not better or cheaper to
buy?
>
> (Opus 3 Records, Sweden http :// www .opus3records,com / )
>
> (Waterlily Acoustics-- www .waterlilyacoustics,com )
>
> (Tacet http :// www .tacet.de/main/newsen.htm )
>
> ( Musikproduction Dabringhaus und Grimm, Germany-- http :// www .mdg.de/ )
>
> (Stockfisch records
> http :// www .stockfischrecords.de/stckfish/sf start.html)
>
> (Pope Music (Defunct, but still some great recordings floating around..grab
> em if you can!)
>
> (Klangraeume http :// www .klangraeume.de/ )
>
> (MA recordings- http :// marecordings,com / )
>
> ( Pentatone http :// www .pentatonemusic,com / )
>
> ( Cybele http :// www .cybele.de/index en.php )
>
> (Alia Vox - http :// www .alia-vox,com / )
>
> (Fone http :// www .hificollective.co.uk/accessories/fonehome.html )
>
> I dont care for chesky, Reference recordings, or Telarc since Jack Renner
> left...(Micheal Bishop has singlehandedly driven that train off the
> track..and in spite of his having access to all this new wonderful
> technology(such as the Sonoma DSD Editing Platform, DCS and EMM Labs
> Conversion, Millennia Preamps(..those amps along with DPA microphones are
> two more reasons modern recordings sound awful.) he cant seem to make a
> good SOUNDING recording for the life of him.
On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 09:03:45 -0800, Tynan Agvišr wrote
(in article <fl8j1h02mqv@news4.newsguy,com >):
>>
>> I would agree were we talking about patches and edits, but we're not,
>> we're talking about recording the orchestral part of Rachmaninoff's
>> "2nd Piano Concerto" in New York, and adding the piano part in LA. It
>> just isn't done.
>
> Yes, it is done...quite frequently, unfortunately. Noone bats an eye at
> these sorts of practices because these days recordings are edited until
> they are absolutely perfect in every way.
While I have no qualms with editing for perfection, the kinds of piecemeal
symphonic recordings that the previous poster was referring to are simply not
done and not done for a number of reasons. It is true that a single symphonic
recording might be accomplished over several days or weeks, in order to get a
perfect performance, in those cases, the venue and the microphone setup is
not changed through all the sessions. The finished recording sounds like a
single performance. I understand why this is done. Having made hundreds of
recordings in my time, I know what it means to be listening to a work and
suddenly think to one's self "Oh, lord, here comes that annoying french horn
mistake in the next phrase." The anticipation of an error that you know is
there breaks the mood, no matter how good, sonically, the recording might be
otherwise.
Humanity, emotional
> attachment..these are secondary. Technological advances(DAW-based editing,
> particularly) have taken the craft out of the hands of the highly skilled
> and placed it in the hands of people who may not know dick about music, but
> are skilled Computer Operators.. On one of the other boards I watched in
> agony as this guy from Wales typed with what seemed like a great deal of
> pride about how his "last recording had over 720 edits including
> autotuning, time signature alterations, and patches from ANOTHER
> performer"..yeah,,proud of that!!(It took me a while to wrap my brain
> around it) He also won a gramophone award for the damned thing. That sort
> of thing speaks volumes about the state of music, and the glaring ignorance
> of the consumers who line the pockets of these morons. Thank God there are
> those labels who fiercely reject this sort of foolishness and who continue
> to produce stellar recordings that are untainted by commercial pressures
> and fat MBAs in suits whose knowledge of music and engineering doesnt
> extend past flipping a Led Zeppelin tape over while repacking a bowl). I
> hope that one day focus shifts from convenience and quantity to QUALITY.
> Maybe as storage gets cheaper, just maybe things will start to change??...
> By the way, as far as labels go.. My favorites are below. A lot of them can
> be found on www .archivmusic,com (the best online classical CD dealer, in my
> opinion). These guys know how to make recordings. Not all of them are
> "strictly two microphone" affairs... They do have competent engineers who
> are educated in sound reproduction, and who have many years in the trenches
> under their belts).
Unfortunately, advances in technology envisioned to make something better are
always perverted in this modern, corporate world to making the product
cheaper to produce (not to buy, mind you, but to produce). I have a perfect
example and even though it's passe and irrelevant now, it perfectly
illustrates my point:
Back in the late 1970's Dolby labs was continuing their work to make cassette
tapes a more "high-fidelity" medium. They had already reduced the hiss on
cassettes to acceptable levels through a round-trip compansion scheme called
"Dolby-B" noise reduction. Now they were attempting overcome cassettes other
technological bug-a-boo, self erasure (or over saturation) of high
frequencies at high record levels. Because of the cassette's slow linear
speed, high frequencies would erase themselves at recording levels much above
-20 dBM. This could be controlled somewhat by the use of exotic tape
formulations such as metal-particle tapes and chromium dioxide tapes.
Unfortunately, these tape formulations were expensive, and the record
companies were not about to use them for their pre-recorded cassettes. This
over-saturation occurs at some recording level on all analog tape formats
that use AC bias, but at higher tape speeds this point is often above 0 dBM
and not a problem. In cassette tapes it made loud passages sound dull and
lifeless. Dolby fixed this problem by a record-only technology called "Dolby
HX Pro Headroom Extension" which dynamically reduced the bias signal applied
to the tape at any given point to equal the sum of the static bias PLUS the
high frequency content of the signal. This assured that the bias was always
optimal and eliminated the tendency of the high-frequencies to self-erase.
It worked perfectly and required no changes in playback equipment. Well, the
record companies embraced this technology with open arms. Now, finally, there
would be pre-recorded cassettes that had at least some pretension to
high-fidelity, yes? NO. The record companies used Dolby HX Pro NOT to improve
the quality of their product, but rather to allow them to use even CHEAPER
tape to deliver the SAME lousy quality as before. See what I mean about
technology being used to make production cheaper and not better or cheaper to
buy?
>
> (Opus 3 Records, Sweden http :// www .opus3records,com / )
>
> (Waterlily Acoustics-- www .waterlilyacoustics,com )
>
> (Tacet http :// www .tacet.de/main/newsen.htm )
>
> ( Musikproduction Dabringhaus und Grimm, Germany-- http :// www .mdg.de/ )
>
> (Stockfisch records
> http :// www .stockfischrecords.de/stckfish/sf start.html)
>
> (Pope Music (Defunct, but still some great recordings floating around..grab
> em if you can!)
>
> (Klangraeume http :// www .klangraeume.de/ )
>
> (MA recordings- http :// marecordings,com / )
>
> ( Pentatone http :// www .pentatonemusic,com / )
>
> ( Cybele http :// www .cybele.de/index en.php )
>
> (Alia Vox - http :// www .alia-vox,com / )
>
> (Fone http :// www .hificollective.co.uk/accessories/fonehome.html )
>
> I dont care for chesky, Reference recordings, or Telarc since Jack Renner
> left...(Micheal Bishop has singlehandedly driven that train off the
> track..and in spite of his having access to all this new wonderful
> technology(such as the Sonoma DSD Editing Platform, DCS and EMM Labs
> Conversion, Millennia Preamps(..those amps along with DPA microphones are
> two more reasons modern recordings sound awful.) he cant seem to make a
> good SOUNDING recording for the life of him.
