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
Sonnova <sonnova@audiosanatorium,com > wrote in
news:flb8eg01efd@news3.newsguy,com :
The anticipation of an error that you
> know is there breaks the mood, no matter how good, sonically, the
> recording might be otherwise.
What sort of work do you do? Ive gathered that you are an engineer, but are
you freelance, or do you work with a label? What sort of recordings do you
do mainly? Classical, World Music, or? I am strictly acoustic, myself.
(Mainly Chamber ensembles, "appalachian folk", Choral, and bluegrass.)
Sonnova <sonnova@audiosanatorium,com > wrote in
news:flb8eg01efd@news3.newsguy,com :
The anticipation of an error that you
> know is there breaks the mood, no matter how good, sonically, the
> recording might be otherwise.
What sort of work do you do? Ive gathered that you are an engineer, but are
you freelance, or do you work with a label? What sort of recordings do you
do mainly? Classical, World Music, or? I am strictly acoustic, myself.
(Mainly Chamber ensembles, "appalachian folk", Choral, and bluegrass.)
Re: Curious about Stereophile/Recording
On Tue, 1 Jan 2008 07:53:40 -0800, Tynan Agvišr wrote
(in article <fldnm40s1p@news1.newsguy,com >):
> Sonnova <sonnova@audiosanatorium,com > wrote in
> news:flb8eg01efd@news3.newsguy,com :
>
> The anticipation of an error that you
>> know is there breaks the mood, no matter how good, sonically, the
>> recording might be otherwise.
>
> What sort of work do you do? Ive gathered that you are an engineer, but are
> you freelance, or do you work with a label? What sort of recordings do you
> do mainly? Classical, World Music, or? I am strictly acoustic, myself.
> (Mainly Chamber ensembles, "appalachian folk", Choral, and bluegrass.)
I used to be a freelance recording engineer. I recorded several symphony
orchestras for broadcast/archive purpose, I produced a number of jazz
recordings for National Public Radio's "Jazz Alive" series and I engineered
several records for Musical Heritage Society among other things. It was, at
one time a very serious hobby (and part-time vocation) for me, now it's just
one of a number of hobbies in which being retired allows me to indulge.
On Tue, 1 Jan 2008 07:53:40 -0800, Tynan Agvišr wrote
(in article <fldnm40s1p@news1.newsguy,com >):
> Sonnova <sonnova@audiosanatorium,com > wrote in
> news:flb8eg01efd@news3.newsguy,com :
>
> The anticipation of an error that you
>> know is there breaks the mood, no matter how good, sonically, the
>> recording might be otherwise.
>
> What sort of work do you do? Ive gathered that you are an engineer, but are
> you freelance, or do you work with a label? What sort of recordings do you
> do mainly? Classical, World Music, or? I am strictly acoustic, myself.
> (Mainly Chamber ensembles, "appalachian folk", Choral, and bluegrass.)
I used to be a freelance recording engineer. I recorded several symphony
orchestras for broadcast/archive purpose, I produced a number of jazz
recordings for National Public Radio's "Jazz Alive" series and I engineered
several records for Musical Heritage Society among other things. It was, at
one time a very serious hobby (and part-time vocation) for me, now it's just
one of a number of hobbies in which being retired allows me to indulge.
Re: Curious about Stereophile/Recording
"Sonnova" <sonnova@audiosanatorium,com > wrote in message
news:flb8eg01efd@news3.newsguy,com ...
> 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 hate this as much as you, but keep in mind that it's not the corporate
world that's to blame at all. That's like blaming the current political
mess in the US on Bush. Ultimately, the responsibility is with consumers.
They pay for all the cheap crap that the industry puts out, and not the good
stuff. The industry doesn't drive, it responds.
Go to some cheap store sometime like WalMart or Best Buy, or just listen to
your friends talk around the water cooler. They will complain endlessly and
tell jokes about how bad the service is, and they can't stand it, and why
does the industry suck so much. And then where do they flock to buy their
stuff? At Best Buy. And why? Because it's cheap. Oh they'll complain at
the store about how awful the help is. It's their profit margins that put
thost minimum wage Einsteins there. They'll go to a high end store with
high quality staff, but only to window shop. Then they go online or to Best
Buy to actually purchase.
The entire consumer market is this way, with almost everything. High
quality sales of almost ANYTHING is a real niche market. (Think home
improvement and the Mexican invasion in our next installment :-) )
"Sonnova" <sonnova@audiosanatorium,com > wrote in message
news:flb8eg01efd@news3.newsguy,com ...
> 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 hate this as much as you, but keep in mind that it's not the corporate
world that's to blame at all. That's like blaming the current political
mess in the US on Bush. Ultimately, the responsibility is with consumers.
They pay for all the cheap crap that the industry puts out, and not the good
stuff. The industry doesn't drive, it responds.
Go to some cheap store sometime like WalMart or Best Buy, or just listen to
your friends talk around the water cooler. They will complain endlessly and
tell jokes about how bad the service is, and they can't stand it, and why
does the industry suck so much. And then where do they flock to buy their
stuff? At Best Buy. And why? Because it's cheap. Oh they'll complain at
the store about how awful the help is. It's their profit margins that put
thost minimum wage Einsteins there. They'll go to a high end store with
high quality staff, but only to window shop. Then they go online or to Best
Buy to actually purchase.
The entire consumer market is this way, with almost everything. High
quality sales of almost ANYTHING is a real niche market. (Think home
improvement and the Mexican invasion in our next installment :-) )
Re: Curious about Stereophile/Recording
On Tue, 1 Jan 2008 08:22:58 -0800, jeffc wrote
(in article <fldpd20tmo@news1.newsguy,com >):
> "Sonnova" <sonnova@audiosanatorium,com > wrote in message
> news:flb8eg01efd@news3.newsguy,com ...
>> 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 hate this as much as you, but keep in mind that it's not the corporate
> world that's to blame at all. That's like blaming the current political
> mess in the US on Bush. Ultimately, the responsibility is with consumers.
> They pay for all the cheap crap that the industry puts out, and not the good
> stuff. The industry doesn't drive, it responds.
>
> Go to some cheap store sometime like WalMart or Best Buy, or just listen to
> your friends talk around the water cooler. They will complain endlessly and
> tell jokes about how bad the service is, and they can't stand it, and why
> does the industry suck so much. And then where do they flock to buy their
> stuff? At Best Buy. And why? Because it's cheap. Oh they'll complain at
> the store about how awful the help is. It's their profit margins that put
> thost minimum wage Einsteins there. They'll go to a high end store with
> high quality staff, but only to window shop. Then they go online or to Best
> Buy to actually purchase.
>
> The entire consumer market is this way, with almost everything. High
> quality sales of almost ANYTHING is a real niche market. (Think home
> improvement and the Mexican invasion in our next installment :-) )
>
Much of what you say is true. But you must realize that when stuff gets more
expensive or stays the same price while quality drops (like in the cassette
example I gave, above) that is not the consumer's fault, that's just
corporate greed!
On Tue, 1 Jan 2008 08:22:58 -0800, jeffc wrote
(in article <fldpd20tmo@news1.newsguy,com >):
> "Sonnova" <sonnova@audiosanatorium,com > wrote in message
> news:flb8eg01efd@news3.newsguy,com ...
>> 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 hate this as much as you, but keep in mind that it's not the corporate
> world that's to blame at all. That's like blaming the current political
> mess in the US on Bush. Ultimately, the responsibility is with consumers.
> They pay for all the cheap crap that the industry puts out, and not the good
> stuff. The industry doesn't drive, it responds.
>
> Go to some cheap store sometime like WalMart or Best Buy, or just listen to
> your friends talk around the water cooler. They will complain endlessly and
> tell jokes about how bad the service is, and they can't stand it, and why
> does the industry suck so much. And then where do they flock to buy their
> stuff? At Best Buy. And why? Because it's cheap. Oh they'll complain at
> the store about how awful the help is. It's their profit margins that put
> thost minimum wage Einsteins there. They'll go to a high end store with
> high quality staff, but only to window shop. Then they go online or to Best
> Buy to actually purchase.
>
> The entire consumer market is this way, with almost everything. High
> quality sales of almost ANYTHING is a real niche market. (Think home
> improvement and the Mexican invasion in our next installment :-) )
>
Much of what you say is true. But you must realize that when stuff gets more
expensive or stays the same price while quality drops (like in the cassette
example I gave, above) that is not the consumer's fault, that's just
corporate greed!
Re: Curious about Stereophile/Recording
On Dec 30, 12:03 pm, "Tynan Agvišr" <melee20...@mypacks,net > wrote:
> 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..<snipped>> I dont care for chesky, Reference >recordings, or Telarc since Jack Renner left...
The first recording I played that was edited to superhuman perfection
was Gluck's Iphigenie en Tauride on Telarc from 1999 with the Boston
Baroque under Martin Pearlman. Voices sound perfect but not any more
recognizably human than a perfect plastic doll, and I experienced
terrible listening fatigue within 5 minutes.
I just checked - the recording engineer was...Jack Renner. This
recording is absolutely the pits in terms of over-processed sound.
>(..those amps along with DPA microphones are two more reasons modern >recordings sound awful.)
LOL! Rub it in...I never understood the attraction of DPA's, unless
you like laid-back sound with thin bass. There are so many other
better mics. My favorites now (other than the default Schoeps) are
the AKG C426B Large Diaphragm ones - I have a friend who experimented
a lot with different mics and now uses Blumlein Stereo AKG
C426B>DaviSound TB12>Sonosax MiniR82 and they sound great.
Simonel
On Dec 30, 12:03 pm, "Tynan Agvišr" <melee20...@mypacks,net > wrote:
> 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..<snipped>> I dont care for chesky, Reference >recordings, or Telarc since Jack Renner left...
The first recording I played that was edited to superhuman perfection
was Gluck's Iphigenie en Tauride on Telarc from 1999 with the Boston
Baroque under Martin Pearlman. Voices sound perfect but not any more
recognizably human than a perfect plastic doll, and I experienced
terrible listening fatigue within 5 minutes.
I just checked - the recording engineer was...Jack Renner. This
recording is absolutely the pits in terms of over-processed sound.
>(..those amps along with DPA microphones are two more reasons modern >recordings sound awful.)
LOL! Rub it in...I never understood the attraction of DPA's, unless
you like laid-back sound with thin bass. There are so many other
better mics. My favorites now (other than the default Schoeps) are
the AKG C426B Large Diaphragm ones - I have a friend who experimented
a lot with different mics and now uses Blumlein Stereo AKG
C426B>DaviSound TB12>Sonosax MiniR82 and they sound great.
Simonel
Re: Curious about Stereophile/Recording
Simonel <simonelvladtepes@yahoo,com .au> wrote in
news:flb8kv01f2c@news3.newsguy,com :
> On Dec 30, 12:03 pm, "Tynan Agvišr" <melee20...@mypacks,net > wrote:
>
>> 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..<snipped>> I
>> dont care for chesky, Reference >recordings, or Telarc since Jack
>> Renner left...
>
> The first recording I played that was edited to superhuman perfection
> was Gluck's Iphigenie en Tauride on Telarc from 1999 with the Boston
> Baroque under Martin Pearlman. Voices sound perfect but not any more
> recognizably human than a perfect plastic doll, and I experienced
> terrible listening fatigue within 5 minutes.
>
> I just checked - the recording engineer was...Jack Renner. This
> recording is absolutely the pits in terms of over-processed sound.
I dont doubt that Mr. Renner was at the helm for a few ill-concieved
recordings...All engineers screw up . Micheal Bishop just does it much,
much more. The old Telarc was much better, in my opinion. Back then, if
memory serves correctly, they used a variant of the "3 omnis across the
front" theme quite a bit.
>>(..those amps along with DPA microphones are two more reasons modern
>>>recordings sound awful.)
>
> LOL! Rub it in...I never understood the attraction of DPA's, unless
> you like laid-back sound with thin bass. There are so many other
> better mics. My favorites now (other than the default Schoeps) are
> the AKG C426B Large Diaphragm ones - I have a friend who experimented
> a lot with different mics and now uses Blumlein Stereo AKG
> C426B>DaviSound TB12>Sonosax MiniR82 and they sound great.
>
> Simonel
I know of J.F. I have never spoken to him, but know of him just the same.
I am quite fond of stereo microphones myself, and own a few (AKG c24,
neumann usm69i, modified 426, holophone, soundfield). The guys at Opus 3
use the c24 and AKG 426b, and now Thurresson cm402, and have stereo
microphones as the basis of their recording philosophy. I use a lot of tube
microphones, ribbon mics, and record to both a Stellavox SP-8(tape) and a
Zaxxcom DEVA digital machine. I use the tape capture about 85 percent of
the time.
Simonel <simonelvladtepes@yahoo,com .au> wrote in
news:flb8kv01f2c@news3.newsguy,com :
> On Dec 30, 12:03 pm, "Tynan Agvišr" <melee20...@mypacks,net > wrote:
>
>> 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..<snipped>> I
>> dont care for chesky, Reference >recordings, or Telarc since Jack
>> Renner left...
>
> The first recording I played that was edited to superhuman perfection
> was Gluck's Iphigenie en Tauride on Telarc from 1999 with the Boston
> Baroque under Martin Pearlman. Voices sound perfect but not any more
> recognizably human than a perfect plastic doll, and I experienced
> terrible listening fatigue within 5 minutes.
>
> I just checked - the recording engineer was...Jack Renner. This
> recording is absolutely the pits in terms of over-processed sound.
I dont doubt that Mr. Renner was at the helm for a few ill-concieved
recordings...All engineers screw up . Micheal Bishop just does it much,
much more. The old Telarc was much better, in my opinion. Back then, if
memory serves correctly, they used a variant of the "3 omnis across the
front" theme quite a bit.
>>(..those amps along with DPA microphones are two more reasons modern
>>>recordings sound awful.)
>
> LOL! Rub it in...I never understood the attraction of DPA's, unless
> you like laid-back sound with thin bass. There are so many other
> better mics. My favorites now (other than the default Schoeps) are
> the AKG C426B Large Diaphragm ones - I have a friend who experimented
> a lot with different mics and now uses Blumlein Stereo AKG
> C426B>DaviSound TB12>Sonosax MiniR82 and they sound great.
>
> Simonel
I know of J.F. I have never spoken to him, but know of him just the same.
I am quite fond of stereo microphones myself, and own a few (AKG c24,
neumann usm69i, modified 426, holophone, soundfield). The guys at Opus 3
use the c24 and AKG 426b, and now Thurresson cm402, and have stereo
microphones as the basis of their recording philosophy. I use a lot of tube
microphones, ribbon mics, and record to both a Stellavox SP-8(tape) and a
Zaxxcom DEVA digital machine. I use the tape capture about 85 percent of
the time.
Re: Curious about Stereophile/Recording
On Dec 31, 2:02 pm, "Tynan Agvišr" <melee20...@mypacks,net > wrote:
> recordings...All engineers screw up . Micheal Bishop just does it much,
> much more. The old Telarc was much better, in my opinion. Back then, if
> memory serves correctly, they used a variant of the "3 omnis across the
> front" theme quite a bit.-
Yes, all the newer Telarc stuff I played is processed to death - I'm
not touching their recordings anymore.
Currently the only labels that I can live with most of what they do is
The Italian label Dynamic for opera - they reproduce the acoustic of
the small Italian houses they tape in very well, and the British label
Hyperion for solo instrumental stuff. Now and then I come across
something that is done right almost accidentally. Just got Guido
Schiefen's recording of Bach's 6 cello suites on ARTE NOVA and the
German engineers not only "forgot" to use artificial reverb, they also
got a very realistic sound image (and Mr. Schiefen plays well.)
Steven Isserlis' new 6 cello suites on Hyperion is also free of
artificial reverb(!), but the engineers weren't so daring in terms of
mic placement. But these well engineered recordings are the exception.
> I know of J.F. I have never spoken to him, but know of him just the same.
Oops, it's a small world. I'll let him know he is known...
Simonel
On Dec 31, 2:02 pm, "Tynan Agvišr" <melee20...@mypacks,net > wrote:
> recordings...All engineers screw up . Micheal Bishop just does it much,
> much more. The old Telarc was much better, in my opinion. Back then, if
> memory serves correctly, they used a variant of the "3 omnis across the
> front" theme quite a bit.-
Yes, all the newer Telarc stuff I played is processed to death - I'm
not touching their recordings anymore.
Currently the only labels that I can live with most of what they do is
The Italian label Dynamic for opera - they reproduce the acoustic of
the small Italian houses they tape in very well, and the British label
Hyperion for solo instrumental stuff. Now and then I come across
something that is done right almost accidentally. Just got Guido
Schiefen's recording of Bach's 6 cello suites on ARTE NOVA and the
German engineers not only "forgot" to use artificial reverb, they also
got a very realistic sound image (and Mr. Schiefen plays well.)
Steven Isserlis' new 6 cello suites on Hyperion is also free of
artificial reverb(!), but the engineers weren't so daring in terms of
mic placement. But these well engineered recordings are the exception.
> I know of J.F. I have never spoken to him, but know of him just the same.
Oops, it's a small world. I'll let him know he is known...
Simonel
Re: Curious about Stereophile/Recording
Simonel <simonelvladtepes@yahoo,com .au> wrote in
news:fldnk90s0b@news1.newsguy,com :
on Hyperion
==Speaking of Hyperion..Tony Faulkner is one of the guys I look up to a
lot. I even look past his works with stereophile. ;) Classy gentleman,
brilliant engineer, free with advice and kind words.
Simonel <simonelvladtepes@yahoo,com .au> wrote in
news:fldnk90s0b@news1.newsguy,com :
on Hyperion
==Speaking of Hyperion..Tony Faulkner is one of the guys I look up to a
lot. I even look past his works with stereophile. ;) Classy gentleman,
brilliant engineer, free with advice and kind words.
Re: Curious about Stereophile/Recording
On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 11:02:47 -0800, Tynan Agvišr wrote
(in article <flbecn0tdp@news4.newsguy,com >):
> Simonel <simonelvladtepes@yahoo,com .au> wrote in
> news:flb8kv01f2c@news3.newsguy,com :
>
>> On Dec 30, 12:03 pm, "Tynan Agvišr" <melee20...@mypacks,net > wrote:
>>
>>> 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..<snipped>> I
>>> dont care for chesky, Reference >recordings, or Telarc since Jack
>>> Renner left...
>>
>> The first recording I played that was edited to superhuman perfection
>> was Gluck's Iphigenie en Tauride on Telarc from 1999 with the Boston
>> Baroque under Martin Pearlman. Voices sound perfect but not any more
>> recognizably human than a perfect plastic doll, and I experienced
>> terrible listening fatigue within 5 minutes.
>>
>> I just checked - the recording engineer was...Jack Renner. This
>> recording is absolutely the pits in terms of over-processed sound.
>
> I dont doubt that Mr. Renner was at the helm for a few ill-concieved
> recordings...All engineers screw up . Micheal Bishop just does it much,
> much more. The old Telarc was much better, in my opinion. Back then, if
> memory serves correctly, they used a variant of the "3 omnis across the
> front" theme quite a bit.
Yes, Renner was copying C. R. Fine of Mercury. Three spaced omnis give
terrible stereo in my opinion. Phasey, indistinct imaging, no front to back
layering. Fine got away with it because the old Telefunken omnis he used in
the fifties weren't really omnis as we know them today. I know this because
Bob Fine TOLD me. He also said that were he still recording (this was in the
late 70's at an AES convention at the Waldorf in New York. Bob was in ill
health and died a couple of years later) he wouldn't use spaced omnis any
more but would use cardioids in an X-Y configuration instead. I was recording
a well-known civic symphony at the time and that was what I was using, so I,
of course, agreed with him. To bad that Renner et al never had the same
conversation with him. In Telarc's early days, BTW, they were using Schoeps
calibration mikes. These omnidirectional mikes weren't really designed for
recording, but were, rather, designed for audio measurement and worked best
in an anechoic chamber.
>>> (..those amps along with DPA microphones are two more reasons modern
>>>> recordings sound awful.)
>>
>> LOL! Rub it in...I never understood the attraction of DPA's, unless
>> you like laid-back sound with thin bass. There are so many other
>> better mics. My favorites now (other than the default Schoeps) are
>> the AKG C426B Large Diaphragm ones - I have a friend who experimented
>> a lot with different mics and now uses Blumlein Stereo AKG
>> C426B>DaviSound TB12>Sonosax MiniR82 and they sound great.
>>
>> Simonel
>
> I know of J.F. I have never spoken to him, but know of him just the same.
> I am quite fond of stereo microphones myself, and own a few (AKG c24,
> neumann usm69i, modified 426, holophone, soundfield). The guys at Opus 3
> use the c24 and AKG 426b, and now Thurresson cm402, and have stereo
> microphones as the basis of their recording philosophy. I use a lot of tube
> microphones, ribbon mics, and record to both a Stellavox SP-8(tape) and a
> Zaxxcom DEVA digital machine. I use the tape capture about 85 percent of
> the time.
Sounds like a great lineup. I too prefer stereo mikes and have just purchased
an Avantone CK-40 Stereo mike
http :// www .avantelectronics,com /CK-40%20STEREO%20FET%20MIC.htm
It looks like the old Telefunken Ela M 270 and has 35mm capsules. It sounds
GREAT on orchestra, large wind ensembles and jazz bands and is great for solo
piano as well. And it gives a wonderful stereo sound stage. I use it with an
Apogee Duette and a Mac Powerbook and get great recordings. Better than most
commercial efforts.
On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 11:02:47 -0800, Tynan Agvišr wrote
(in article <flbecn0tdp@news4.newsguy,com >):
> Simonel <simonelvladtepes@yahoo,com .au> wrote in
> news:flb8kv01f2c@news3.newsguy,com :
>
>> On Dec 30, 12:03 pm, "Tynan Agvišr" <melee20...@mypacks,net > wrote:
>>
>>> 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..<snipped>> I
>>> dont care for chesky, Reference >recordings, or Telarc since Jack
>>> Renner left...
>>
>> The first recording I played that was edited to superhuman perfection
>> was Gluck's Iphigenie en Tauride on Telarc from 1999 with the Boston
>> Baroque under Martin Pearlman. Voices sound perfect but not any more
>> recognizably human than a perfect plastic doll, and I experienced
>> terrible listening fatigue within 5 minutes.
>>
>> I just checked - the recording engineer was...Jack Renner. This
>> recording is absolutely the pits in terms of over-processed sound.
>
> I dont doubt that Mr. Renner was at the helm for a few ill-concieved
> recordings...All engineers screw up . Micheal Bishop just does it much,
> much more. The old Telarc was much better, in my opinion. Back then, if
> memory serves correctly, they used a variant of the "3 omnis across the
> front" theme quite a bit.
Yes, Renner was copying C. R. Fine of Mercury. Three spaced omnis give
terrible stereo in my opinion. Phasey, indistinct imaging, no front to back
layering. Fine got away with it because the old Telefunken omnis he used in
the fifties weren't really omnis as we know them today. I know this because
Bob Fine TOLD me. He also said that were he still recording (this was in the
late 70's at an AES convention at the Waldorf in New York. Bob was in ill
health and died a couple of years later) he wouldn't use spaced omnis any
more but would use cardioids in an X-Y configuration instead. I was recording
a well-known civic symphony at the time and that was what I was using, so I,
of course, agreed with him. To bad that Renner et al never had the same
conversation with him. In Telarc's early days, BTW, they were using Schoeps
calibration mikes. These omnidirectional mikes weren't really designed for
recording, but were, rather, designed for audio measurement and worked best
in an anechoic chamber.
>>> (..those amps along with DPA microphones are two more reasons modern
>>>> recordings sound awful.)
>>
>> LOL! Rub it in...I never understood the attraction of DPA's, unless
>> you like laid-back sound with thin bass. There are so many other
>> better mics. My favorites now (other than the default Schoeps) are
>> the AKG C426B Large Diaphragm ones - I have a friend who experimented
>> a lot with different mics and now uses Blumlein Stereo AKG
>> C426B>DaviSound TB12>Sonosax MiniR82 and they sound great.
>>
>> Simonel
>
> I know of J.F. I have never spoken to him, but know of him just the same.
> I am quite fond of stereo microphones myself, and own a few (AKG c24,
> neumann usm69i, modified 426, holophone, soundfield). The guys at Opus 3
> use the c24 and AKG 426b, and now Thurresson cm402, and have stereo
> microphones as the basis of their recording philosophy. I use a lot of tube
> microphones, ribbon mics, and record to both a Stellavox SP-8(tape) and a
> Zaxxcom DEVA digital machine. I use the tape capture about 85 percent of
> the time.
Sounds like a great lineup. I too prefer stereo mikes and have just purchased
an Avantone CK-40 Stereo mike
http :// www .avantelectronics,com /CK-40%20STEREO%20FET%20MIC.htm
It looks like the old Telefunken Ela M 270 and has 35mm capsules. It sounds
GREAT on orchestra, large wind ensembles and jazz bands and is great for solo
piano as well. And it gives a wonderful stereo sound stage. I use it with an
Apogee Duette and a Mac Powerbook and get great recordings. Better than most
commercial efforts.
Re: Curious about Stereophile/Recording
On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 09:24:47 -0800, Simonel wrote
(in article <flb8kv01f2c@news3.newsguy,com >):
> On Dec 30, 12:03 pm, "Tynan Agvišr" <melee20...@mypacks,net > wrote:
>
>> 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..<snipped>> I dont care for chesky,
>> Reference >recordings, or Telarc since Jack Renner left...
>
> The first recording I played that was edited to superhuman perfection
> was Gluck's Iphigenie en Tauride on Telarc from 1999 with the Boston
> Baroque under Martin Pearlman. Voices sound perfect but not any more
> recognizably human than a perfect plastic doll, and I experienced
> terrible listening fatigue within 5 minutes.
>
> I just checked - the recording engineer was...Jack Renner. This
> recording is absolutely the pits in terms of over-processed sound.
>
>> (..those amps along with DPA microphones are two more reasons modern
>> >recordings sound awful.)
>
> LOL! Rub it in...I never understood the attraction of DPA's, unless
> you like laid-back sound with thin bass. There are so many other
> better mics. My favorites now (other than the default Schoeps) are
> the AKG C426B Large Diaphragm ones - I have a friend who experimented
> a lot with different mics and now uses Blumlein Stereo AKG
> C426B>DaviSound TB12>Sonosax MiniR82 and they sound great.
>
> Simonel
Large capsule mikes are required for really good bass, that is true. But
also, a lot of recording engineers, including Jack Renner, use spaced omnis
for recording and in my estimation, for the very best stereo image, this is
wrong. People like Renner try to emulate Bob Fine of the old Mercury Record
Co. Because Fine's recordings are so highly regarded. Fine (and Louis Layton
of RCA) used spaced omnis because, in those days, cardioids didn't have very
good frequency response. They spaced them for two reasons: Omnis in a
coincident pair give, essentially, mono, not stereo yet they were still
recording primarily for mono since mono records outsold stereo in the late
fifties by a considerable margin. They needed a microphone technique that
mixed down to mono with no loss yet gave good stereo from a stereo disc.
There is no need for that consideration any more and today's cardioid mikes
are really very good. So the ideal X-Y or coincident pair or MS miking yield
the best orchestral recordings these days.
As for your Telarc Gluck recording, I don't think its the editing that makes
the recording sound like that, I think its a combination of Renner's
microphone technique and the recording venue itself.
On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 09:24:47 -0800, Simonel wrote
(in article <flb8kv01f2c@news3.newsguy,com >):
> On Dec 30, 12:03 pm, "Tynan Agvišr" <melee20...@mypacks,net > wrote:
>
>> 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..<snipped>> I dont care for chesky,
>> Reference >recordings, or Telarc since Jack Renner left...
>
> The first recording I played that was edited to superhuman perfection
> was Gluck's Iphigenie en Tauride on Telarc from 1999 with the Boston
> Baroque under Martin Pearlman. Voices sound perfect but not any more
> recognizably human than a perfect plastic doll, and I experienced
> terrible listening fatigue within 5 minutes.
>
> I just checked - the recording engineer was...Jack Renner. This
> recording is absolutely the pits in terms of over-processed sound.
>
>> (..those amps along with DPA microphones are two more reasons modern
>> >recordings sound awful.)
>
> LOL! Rub it in...I never understood the attraction of DPA's, unless
> you like laid-back sound with thin bass. There are so many other
> better mics. My favorites now (other than the default Schoeps) are
> the AKG C426B Large Diaphragm ones - I have a friend who experimented
> a lot with different mics and now uses Blumlein Stereo AKG
> C426B>DaviSound TB12>Sonosax MiniR82 and they sound great.
>
> Simonel
Large capsule mikes are required for really good bass, that is true. But
also, a lot of recording engineers, including Jack Renner, use spaced omnis
for recording and in my estimation, for the very best stereo image, this is
wrong. People like Renner try to emulate Bob Fine of the old Mercury Record
Co. Because Fine's recordings are so highly regarded. Fine (and Louis Layton
of RCA) used spaced omnis because, in those days, cardioids didn't have very
good frequency response. They spaced them for two reasons: Omnis in a
coincident pair give, essentially, mono, not stereo yet they were still
recording primarily for mono since mono records outsold stereo in the late
fifties by a considerable margin. They needed a microphone technique that
mixed down to mono with no loss yet gave good stereo from a stereo disc.
There is no need for that consideration any more and today's cardioid mikes
are really very good. So the ideal X-Y or coincident pair or MS miking yield
the best orchestral recordings these days.
As for your Telarc Gluck recording, I don't think its the editing that makes
the recording sound like that, I think its a combination of Renner's
microphone technique and the recording venue itself.
Re: Curious about Stereophile/Recording
There is no need for that consideration any more and
> today's cardioid mikes are really very good. So the ideal X-Y or
> coincident pair or MS miking yield the best orchestral recordings
> these days.
>
I do love the RCA Living Stereo Discs..but in practice, as far as my own
recordings go,I tend to choose blumlein, OSS or the Faulkner Phased Array
every time(assuming a good acoustic ). I have not lived in the USA so long,
having been in Europe for much of my recording/singing career.So I have no
idea what sort of environments I will be working in. My work in Europe/Asia
was primarily in Stone Churches, Vast Wooden Cathedrals, Outdoor
Ampitheatres and the like. (and the occasional hole in wall Jazz Club). I
almost never used cardiods, consider omnis to be vastly superior. I have
used them from time to time for spot/outriggers, but most of what I have is
Omni/Supercard/Fig 8. When I have no time to set up, and the environment is
ok, I find the "3 omni across the front" to be no fuss, no muss..Yeah, of
course imaging wont be as great..but the benefits are many.
for Bob Fine...There are no doubts in my mind that the recordings are as
good as they are partly because they used omni directional mics. The
natural response, bass extension, realism etc cannot be equaled by a
cardiod. (In a bad acoustic perhaps a better choice, but never as good as
omni for "natural" sound).. I hardly ever saw colleagues(classical persons
anyway) use cardiods as a main pair for work..only in bad enviroments or
for "photoshopping" rock/pop work..Omnis dominated, especially in Germany
when I was there..spaced pairs, spaced pairs, always spaced pairs!!!
(allergie to Coincident I think?...maybe Americans gravitate more towards
these coincident techniques??)
There is no need for that consideration any more and
> today's cardioid mikes are really very good. So the ideal X-Y or
> coincident pair or MS miking yield the best orchestral recordings
> these days.
>
I do love the RCA Living Stereo Discs..but in practice, as far as my own
recordings go,I tend to choose blumlein, OSS or the Faulkner Phased Array
every time(assuming a good acoustic ). I have not lived in the USA so long,
having been in Europe for much of my recording/singing career.So I have no
idea what sort of environments I will be working in. My work in Europe/Asia
was primarily in Stone Churches, Vast Wooden Cathedrals, Outdoor
Ampitheatres and the like. (and the occasional hole in wall Jazz Club). I
almost never used cardiods, consider omnis to be vastly superior. I have
used them from time to time for spot/outriggers, but most of what I have is
Omni/Supercard/Fig 8. When I have no time to set up, and the environment is
ok, I find the "3 omni across the front" to be no fuss, no muss..Yeah, of
course imaging wont be as great..but the benefits are many.
for Bob Fine...There are no doubts in my mind that the recordings are as
good as they are partly because they used omni directional mics. The
natural response, bass extension, realism etc cannot be equaled by a
cardiod. (In a bad acoustic perhaps a better choice, but never as good as
omni for "natural" sound).. I hardly ever saw colleagues(classical persons
anyway) use cardiods as a main pair for work..only in bad enviroments or
for "photoshopping" rock/pop work..Omnis dominated, especially in Germany
when I was there..spaced pairs, spaced pairs, always spaced pairs!!!
(allergie to Coincident I think?...maybe Americans gravitate more towards
these coincident techniques??)
Re: Curious about Stereophile/Recording
On Tue, 1 Jan 2008 21:03:42 -0800, Tynan Agvišr wrote
(in article <flf5ve026dc@news5.newsguy,com >):
> There is no need for that consideration any more and
>> today's cardioid mikes are really very good. So the ideal X-Y or
>> coincident pair or MS miking yield the best orchestral recordings
>> these days.
>>
>
> I do love the RCA Living Stereo Discs..but in practice, as far as my own
> recordings go,I tend to choose blumlein, OSS or the Faulkner Phased Array
> every time(assuming a good acoustic ). I have not lived in the USA so long,
> having been in Europe for much of my recording/singing career.So I have no
> idea what sort of environments I will be working in. My work in Europe/Asia
> was primarily in Stone Churches, Vast Wooden Cathedrals, Outdoor
> Ampitheatres and the like. (and the occasional hole in wall Jazz Club). I
> almost never used cardiods, consider omnis to be vastly superior. I have
> used them from time to time for spot/outriggers, but most of what I have is
> Omni/Supercard/Fig 8. When I have no time to set up, and the environment is
> ok, I find the "3 omni across the front" to be no fuss, no muss..Yeah, of
> course imaging wont be as great..but the benefits are many.
>
> for Bob Fine...There are no doubts in my mind that the recordings are as
> good as they are partly because they used omni directional mics.
Except that those Telefunken condenser mikes he used were more "soft
cardioids" than true omni. If he's used modern omnis, his recordings wouldn't
be a s good as they are.
> The natural response, bass extension, realism etc cannot be equaled by a
> cardiod. (In a bad acoustic perhaps a better choice, but never as good as
> omni for "natural" sound)..
You should hear some of my symphonic recordings. Made using a pair of Sony
C-37P microphones set to cardioid and mounted on a stereo 'T' bar about 7
inches (18 cm) apart with the capsules 90 degrees to one another and the mike
assembly hung about 10 ft (3 meters) above the conductor's head and roughly
15 ft (4.5 meters) behind him. I doubt that you've ever heard a commercial
recording with that kind of soundstage and imaging. It's uncanny. In a
darkened room, you can literally "see" the entire orchestra spread out before
you. The strings on the left, the cellos in the front row left of center, the
violas to the right, the woodwinds right behind the cellos and violas. the
brass, up high and in the extreme rear of the ensemble with the bass viols on
the far right and the percussion in the left rear behind the violins. When
the percussionist hits the triangle it shimmers and floats over the left side
of the orchestra, just as it does in a real concert hall. Also, because of
the pick-up pattern, much less of the audience intrudes in a live performance
recording. These recording are so realistic that they give listeners
goosebumps. I kid you not. Oh, yes, if there's a solo piano on stage, (as in
a piano concerto) using this technique obviates the need to separately mike
the piano. It comes out perfectly balanced with the rest of the orchestra and
anchored in space EXACTLY where it should be.
> I hardly ever saw colleagues(classical persons
> anyway) use cardiods as a main pair for work..only in bad enviroments or
> for "photoshopping" rock/pop work..
They don't know what they are missing. Omnis give lousy stereo, IMHO.
> Omnis dominated, especially in Germany
> when I was there..spaced pairs, spaced pairs, always spaced pairs!!!
I certainly wouldn't record an orchestra that way. It's simply wrong-headed
as far as I'm concern and I have the recordings to prove it. After all,
you're two ears are NOT twenty feet apart and you don't have three of them
and they're not omnidirectional either.
> (allergie to Coincident I think?...maybe Americans gravitate more towards
> these coincident techniques??)
Well, MS is a German invention and it's coincident in that the mikes are very
close together - DGG used to record that way exclusively. Want to hear some
great stereo? Find the Von Karajan DGG Beethoven symphony set from the late
50's. Incredible orchestral sound.
Telefunken and B&O made two of the most famous stereo mikes and they're
European. ORTF uses a stereo spaced pair of cardioids. They're exactly the
same distance apart as what I use, but they are a little more widely spaced
at 110 degrees. Essentially, though, they're the same Idea. The original
"Decca tree" was similar, although it uses more than two mikes. Blumlein is
also a coincident pair, but a coincident pair of figure-of-eight mikes. They
work well in an empty hall and can give the recording a nice ambient bloom.
Looks to me like Europe has a rich heritage of closely spaced microphone
techniques using cardioids.
On Tue, 1 Jan 2008 21:03:42 -0800, Tynan Agvišr wrote
(in article <flf5ve026dc@news5.newsguy,com >):
> There is no need for that consideration any more and
>> today's cardioid mikes are really very good. So the ideal X-Y or
>> coincident pair or MS miking yield the best orchestral recordings
>> these days.
>>
>
> I do love the RCA Living Stereo Discs..but in practice, as far as my own
> recordings go,I tend to choose blumlein, OSS or the Faulkner Phased Array
> every time(assuming a good acoustic ). I have not lived in the USA so long,
> having been in Europe for much of my recording/singing career.So I have no
> idea what sort of environments I will be working in. My work in Europe/Asia
> was primarily in Stone Churches, Vast Wooden Cathedrals, Outdoor
> Ampitheatres and the like. (and the occasional hole in wall Jazz Club). I
> almost never used cardiods, consider omnis to be vastly superior. I have
> used them from time to time for spot/outriggers, but most of what I have is
> Omni/Supercard/Fig 8. When I have no time to set up, and the environment is
> ok, I find the "3 omni across the front" to be no fuss, no muss..Yeah, of
> course imaging wont be as great..but the benefits are many.
>
> for Bob Fine...There are no doubts in my mind that the recordings are as
> good as they are partly because they used omni directional mics.
Except that those Telefunken condenser mikes he used were more "soft
cardioids" than true omni. If he's used modern omnis, his recordings wouldn't
be a s good as they are.
> The natural response, bass extension, realism etc cannot be equaled by a
> cardiod. (In a bad acoustic perhaps a better choice, but never as good as
> omni for "natural" sound)..
You should hear some of my symphonic recordings. Made using a pair of Sony
C-37P microphones set to cardioid and mounted on a stereo 'T' bar about 7
inches (18 cm) apart with the capsules 90 degrees to one another and the mike
assembly hung about 10 ft (3 meters) above the conductor's head and roughly
15 ft (4.5 meters) behind him. I doubt that you've ever heard a commercial
recording with that kind of soundstage and imaging. It's uncanny. In a
darkened room, you can literally "see" the entire orchestra spread out before
you. The strings on the left, the cellos in the front row left of center, the
violas to the right, the woodwinds right behind the cellos and violas. the
brass, up high and in the extreme rear of the ensemble with the bass viols on
the far right and the percussion in the left rear behind the violins. When
the percussionist hits the triangle it shimmers and floats over the left side
of the orchestra, just as it does in a real concert hall. Also, because of
the pick-up pattern, much less of the audience intrudes in a live performance
recording. These recording are so realistic that they give listeners
goosebumps. I kid you not. Oh, yes, if there's a solo piano on stage, (as in
a piano concerto) using this technique obviates the need to separately mike
the piano. It comes out perfectly balanced with the rest of the orchestra and
anchored in space EXACTLY where it should be.
> I hardly ever saw colleagues(classical persons
> anyway) use cardiods as a main pair for work..only in bad enviroments or
> for "photoshopping" rock/pop work..
They don't know what they are missing. Omnis give lousy stereo, IMHO.
> Omnis dominated, especially in Germany
> when I was there..spaced pairs, spaced pairs, always spaced pairs!!!
I certainly wouldn't record an orchestra that way. It's simply wrong-headed
as far as I'm concern and I have the recordings to prove it. After all,
you're two ears are NOT twenty feet apart and you don't have three of them
and they're not omnidirectional either.
> (allergie to Coincident I think?...maybe Americans gravitate more towards
> these coincident techniques??)
Well, MS is a German invention and it's coincident in that the mikes are very
close together - DGG used to record that way exclusively. Want to hear some
great stereo? Find the Von Karajan DGG Beethoven symphony set from the late
50's. Incredible orchestral sound.
Telefunken and B&O made two of the most famous stereo mikes and they're
European. ORTF uses a stereo spaced pair of cardioids. They're exactly the
same distance apart as what I use, but they are a little more widely spaced
at 110 degrees. Essentially, though, they're the same Idea. The original
"Decca tree" was similar, although it uses more than two mikes. Blumlein is
also a coincident pair, but a coincident pair of figure-of-eight mikes. They
work well in an empty hall and can give the recording a nice ambient bloom.
Looks to me like Europe has a rich heritage of closely spaced microphone
techniques using cardioids.
Re: Curious about Stereophile/Recording
I kid you not. Oh,
> yes, if there's a solo piano on stage, (as in a piano concerto) using
> this technique obviates the need to separately mike the piano. It
> comes out perfectly balanced with the rest of the orchestra and
> anchored in space EXACTLY where it should be.
I dont doubt what you are saying at all. Unfortunately good sound and those
who are passionate about it seem to always take second seat to mediocrity
and mass appeal.
>> I hardly ever saw colleagues(classical persons
>> anyway) use cardiods as a main pair for work..only in bad enviroments
>> or for "photoshopping" rock/pop work..
> They don't know what they are missing. Omnis give lousy stereo, IMHO.
Well, imaging is one thing, but spaciousness and full-frequency range
pickup are two other considerations. For something like a pipe organ, where
one is a bit away from the sound source; where the ambience is so
important...the use of an omni is a given, seems almost instinctual. One
always has to choose their poison(s) carefully, and ive found that omnis
and figure 8s work best to capture the sound as I hear it. If I go to a job
to check it out and the conditions are such that I cannot use omnis or 8s,
I normally dont take the job. :) I know that this is not the best way to
generate revenue..but for that, I have my voice.
>
>> Omnis dominated, especially in Germany
>> when I was there..spaced pairs, spaced pairs, always spaced pairs!!!
>
> I certainly wouldn't record an orchestra that way. It's simply
> wrong-headed as far as I'm concern and I have the recordings to prove
> it. After all, you're two ears are NOT twenty feet apart and you don't
> have three of them and they're not omnidirectional either.
The spaced pairs are not always so far apart..but yes,you are right. Most
of what I do is smaller ensembles, normally blumlein, jecklin, or carefully
spaced omnis.
> Well, MS is a German invention
Alan Dower Blumlein was british, not German. British Patent # 394325 (June
14, 1933)
-by the way, The Life and Times of Alan Dower Blumlein was a great book. A
good friend gave me a copy and I just finished it. Highly reccomended.
> Telefunken and B&O made two of the most famous stereo mikes and
> they're European. ORTF uses a stereo spaced pair of cardioids. They're
> exactly the same distance apart as what I use, but they are a little
> more widely spaced at 110 degrees. Essentially, though, they're the
> same Idea. The original "Decca tree" was similar, although it uses
> more than two mikes. Blumlein is also a coincident pair, but a
> coincident pair of figure-of-eight mikes. They work well in an empty
> hall and can give the recording a nice ambient bloom.
>
> Looks to me like Europe has a rich heritage of closely spaced
> microphone techniques using cardioids.
>
I dont doubt they have a heritage of cardiod use..But these days, spaced
pairs dominate. I dont know why that is, but it is what it is!
-Tynan
I kid you not. Oh,
> yes, if there's a solo piano on stage, (as in a piano concerto) using
> this technique obviates the need to separately mike the piano. It
> comes out perfectly balanced with the rest of the orchestra and
> anchored in space EXACTLY where it should be.
I dont doubt what you are saying at all. Unfortunately good sound and those
who are passionate about it seem to always take second seat to mediocrity
and mass appeal.
>> I hardly ever saw colleagues(classical persons
>> anyway) use cardiods as a main pair for work..only in bad enviroments
>> or for "photoshopping" rock/pop work..
> They don't know what they are missing. Omnis give lousy stereo, IMHO.
Well, imaging is one thing, but spaciousness and full-frequency range
pickup are two other considerations. For something like a pipe organ, where
one is a bit away from the sound source; where the ambience is so
important...the use of an omni is a given, seems almost instinctual. One
always has to choose their poison(s) carefully, and ive found that omnis
and figure 8s work best to capture the sound as I hear it. If I go to a job
to check it out and the conditions are such that I cannot use omnis or 8s,
I normally dont take the job. :) I know that this is not the best way to
generate revenue..but for that, I have my voice.
>
>> Omnis dominated, especially in Germany
>> when I was there..spaced pairs, spaced pairs, always spaced pairs!!!
>
> I certainly wouldn't record an orchestra that way. It's simply
> wrong-headed as far as I'm concern and I have the recordings to prove
> it. After all, you're two ears are NOT twenty feet apart and you don't
> have three of them and they're not omnidirectional either.
The spaced pairs are not always so far apart..but yes,you are right. Most
of what I do is smaller ensembles, normally blumlein, jecklin, or carefully
spaced omnis.
> Well, MS is a German invention
Alan Dower Blumlein was british, not German. British Patent # 394325 (June
14, 1933)
-by the way, The Life and Times of Alan Dower Blumlein was a great book. A
good friend gave me a copy and I just finished it. Highly reccomended.
> Telefunken and B&O made two of the most famous stereo mikes and
> they're European. ORTF uses a stereo spaced pair of cardioids. They're
> exactly the same distance apart as what I use, but they are a little
> more widely spaced at 110 degrees. Essentially, though, they're the
> same Idea. The original "Decca tree" was similar, although it uses
> more than two mikes. Blumlein is also a coincident pair, but a
> coincident pair of figure-of-eight mikes. They work well in an empty
> hall and can give the recording a nice ambient bloom.
>
> Looks to me like Europe has a rich heritage of closely spaced
> microphone techniques using cardioids.
>
I dont doubt they have a heritage of cardiod use..But these days, spaced
pairs dominate. I dont know why that is, but it is what it is!
-Tynan
Re: Curious about Stereophile/Recording
On Thu, 3 Jan 2008 15:35:18 -0800, Tynan Agvišr wrote
(in article <fljrfm02uv1@news3.newsguy,com >):
> I kid you not. Oh,
>> yes, if there's a solo piano on stage, (as in a piano concerto) using
>> this technique obviates the need to separately mike the piano. It
>> comes out perfectly balanced with the rest of the orchestra and
>> anchored in space EXACTLY where it should be.
>
> I dont doubt what you are saying at all. Unfortunately good sound and those
> who are passionate about it seem to always take second seat to mediocrity
> and mass appeal.
>
>>> I hardly ever saw colleagues(classical persons
>>> anyway) use cardiods as a main pair for work..only in bad enviroments
>>> or for "photoshopping" rock/pop work..
>
>> They don't know what they are missing. Omnis give lousy stereo, IMHO.
>
> Well, imaging is one thing, but spaciousness and full-frequency range
> pickup are two other considerations.
Both of which good cardioids can do very well.
> For something like a pipe organ, where
> one is a bit away from the sound source; where the ambience is so
> important...the use of an omni is a given, seems almost instinctual.
Oh, I agree. Anyone who tells you that one size fits all in miking disparate
sound sources is suspect. There is no one mike nor one mike pick-up pattern,
nor one microphone placement technique. The successful recordist is flexible,
keeps in mind the source, the shape and size of the venue, the desired
result, and chooses his options accordingly.
> One always has to choose their poison(s) carefully, and ive found that omnis
> and figure 8s work best to capture the sound as I hear it. If I go to a job
> to check it out and the conditions are such that I cannot use omnis or 8s,
> I normally dont take the job. :) I know that this is not the best way to
> generate revenue..but for that, I have my voice.
To each his own. There are many ways to skin a cat.
>
>>
>>> Omnis dominated, especially in Germany
>>> when I was there..spaced pairs, spaced pairs, always spaced pairs!!!
>>
>> I certainly wouldn't record an orchestra that way. It's simply
>> wrong-headed as far as I'm concern and I have the recordings to prove
>> it. After all, you're two ears are NOT twenty feet apart and you don't
>> have three of them and they're not omnidirectional either.
>
> The spaced pairs are not always so far apart..but yes,you are right. Most
> of what I do is smaller ensembles, normally blumlein, jecklin, or carefully
> spaced omnis.
>
>> Well, MS is a German invention
>
> Alan Dower Blumlein was british, not German. British Patent # 394325 (June
> 14, 1933)
> -by the way, The Life and Times of Alan Dower Blumlein was a great book. A
> good friend gave me a copy and I just finished it. Highly reccomended.
Blumlein and Mittle-Siete mking are NOT the same thing.
>> Telefunken and B&O made two of the most famous stereo mikes and
>> they're European. ORTF uses a stereo spaced pair of cardioids. They're
>> exactly the same distance apart as what I use, but they are a little
>> more widely spaced at 110 degrees. Essentially, though, they're the
>> same Idea. The original "Decca tree" was similar, although it uses
>> more than two mikes. Blumlein is also a coincident pair, but a
>> coincident pair of figure-of-eight mikes. They work well in an empty
>> hall and can give the recording a nice ambient bloom.
>>
>> Looks to me like Europe has a rich heritage of closely spaced
>> microphone techniques using cardioids.
>>
>
> I dont doubt they have a heritage of cardiod use..But these days, spaced
> pairs dominate. I dont know why that is, but it is what it is!
Maybe that's why I'm so disappointed in many modern orchestral recordings
from Europe.
On Thu, 3 Jan 2008 15:35:18 -0800, Tynan Agvišr wrote
(in article <fljrfm02uv1@news3.newsguy,com >):
> I kid you not. Oh,
>> yes, if there's a solo piano on stage, (as in a piano concerto) using
>> this technique obviates the need to separately mike the piano. It
>> comes out perfectly balanced with the rest of the orchestra and
>> anchored in space EXACTLY where it should be.
>
> I dont doubt what you are saying at all. Unfortunately good sound and those
> who are passionate about it seem to always take second seat to mediocrity
> and mass appeal.
>
>>> I hardly ever saw colleagues(classical persons
>>> anyway) use cardiods as a main pair for work..only in bad enviroments
>>> or for "photoshopping" rock/pop work..
>
>> They don't know what they are missing. Omnis give lousy stereo, IMHO.
>
> Well, imaging is one thing, but spaciousness and full-frequency range
> pickup are two other considerations.
Both of which good cardioids can do very well.
> For something like a pipe organ, where
> one is a bit away from the sound source; where the ambience is so
> important...the use of an omni is a given, seems almost instinctual.
Oh, I agree. Anyone who tells you that one size fits all in miking disparate
sound sources is suspect. There is no one mike nor one mike pick-up pattern,
nor one microphone placement technique. The successful recordist is flexible,
keeps in mind the source, the shape and size of the venue, the desired
result, and chooses his options accordingly.
> One always has to choose their poison(s) carefully, and ive found that omnis
> and figure 8s work best to capture the sound as I hear it. If I go to a job
> to check it out and the conditions are such that I cannot use omnis or 8s,
> I normally dont take the job. :) I know that this is not the best way to
> generate revenue..but for that, I have my voice.
To each his own. There are many ways to skin a cat.
>
>>
>>> Omnis dominated, especially in Germany
>>> when I was there..spaced pairs, spaced pairs, always spaced pairs!!!
>>
>> I certainly wouldn't record an orchestra that way. It's simply
>> wrong-headed as far as I'm concern and I have the recordings to prove
>> it. After all, you're two ears are NOT twenty feet apart and you don't
>> have three of them and they're not omnidirectional either.
>
> The spaced pairs are not always so far apart..but yes,you are right. Most
> of what I do is smaller ensembles, normally blumlein, jecklin, or carefully
> spaced omnis.
>
>> Well, MS is a German invention
>
> Alan Dower Blumlein was british, not German. British Patent # 394325 (June
> 14, 1933)
> -by the way, The Life and Times of Alan Dower Blumlein was a great book. A
> good friend gave me a copy and I just finished it. Highly reccomended.
Blumlein and Mittle-Siete mking are NOT the same thing.
>> Telefunken and B&O made two of the most famous stereo mikes and
>> they're European. ORTF uses a stereo spaced pair of cardioids. They're
>> exactly the same distance apart as what I use, but they are a little
>> more widely spaced at 110 degrees. Essentially, though, they're the
>> same Idea. The original "Decca tree" was similar, although it uses
>> more than two mikes. Blumlein is also a coincident pair, but a
>> coincident pair of figure-of-eight mikes. They work well in an empty
>> hall and can give the recording a nice ambient bloom.
>>
>> Looks to me like Europe has a rich heritage of closely spaced
>> microphone techniques using cardioids.
>>
>
> I dont doubt they have a heritage of cardiod use..But these days, spaced
> pairs dominate. I dont know why that is, but it is what it is!
Maybe that's why I'm so disappointed in many modern orchestral recordings
from Europe.
Re: Curious about Stereophile/Recording
>>
>> Well, imaging is one thing, but spaciousness and full-frequency range
>> pickup are two other considerations.
>
> Both of which good cardioids can do very well.
They can, but they generally dont do as well as omnidirectionals.In my
opinion, of course ;)
>
> To each his own. There are many ways to skin a cat.
Amen. You can say that again. Dogma is deadly like, man.
>
> Blumlein and Mittle-Siete mking are NOT the same thing.
Ja, any fool with half an idea about professional Audio, or basically
anyone that hasnt lived under a rock for the past decade knows that..To
imply that I am ignorant of this glaring fact is a bit offensive. I
suggest you read the Patent mentioned previously and the Book about Alan
Blumlein. His inventions were many, and extended far outside of the
technique that is his namesake.(128 Patents in all on various subjects
from Audio to Radar transmission systems) MID-SIDE miking was his
creation too. Germans did invent Jecklin Disc(OSS), which I also love,
though! See below:
"In this patent (British #394,325), Blumlein examines the physiology of
the human binaural hearing process and the spatial illusion produced by
ćtwo or more loudspeakersä; describes the use of multiple
microphones÷including the crossed figure-8 (now known as the Blumlein
technique) and ****!!!Mid-Side stereo-miking method!!!!!s;**** details a
dual 45/45-degree phono cutter head for producing stereo record masters;
and proposes a means of transmitting stereo radio"
"Some years back I delivered a paper at the annual convention of the
Audio Engineering Society on a "Mid-Side Boundary Layer" technique I had
devised. It was an adaptation of the classic ****!!!Mid-Side" stereo
arrangement described by the great British inventor, Alan Blumlein!!!!
**** in a patent dating back to 1935 (as it happens, the year of my
birth). Blumlein proposed placing a figure-of-eight microphone sideways,
facing away from the sound source, and pairing it with a directional mike
placed midway on top of it, pointing forward at the sound source."
"In the same patent of 1933, Blumlein also described a mathematical
transformation of these crossed bidirectionals, ****!!!!which he termed
the Mid/Side
technique!!!!****. Also employing the bidirectional microphone as the
essential contributor to
the stereophonic imaging, this Side microphone was oriented laterally,
with the null-
axis aimed directly at the sound source. The Mid microphone had its
principal
pickup axis aimed directly at the sound source, hence again co-aligned
with the null
axis of the bidirectional microphone."""
MID
+Side
-Side
THE MID-SIDE TECHNIQUE
> Maybe that's why I'm so disappointed in many modern orchestral
> recordings from Europe.
>
>
I dont like many modern recordings either. Primarily because modern
engineers are incompetent idiots with no idea of how to do their
jobs..not because of any polar pattern use. A good engineer can work with
any polar pattern...I prefer omnis and fig 8s, but I would never say that
I dont like any recordings made with cardiods. That is bordering on
dogmatic and dangerous, and would be quite foolish to say.
Opus 3, Waterlily, Delos, and Proprius...the final 4 as far as I am
concerned. They seem to do no wrong. Check the Opus 3 samplers and the
Proprius CANTATE DOMINO and Jazz at the Pawnshop recordings..be amazed.
>>
>> Well, imaging is one thing, but spaciousness and full-frequency range
>> pickup are two other considerations.
>
> Both of which good cardioids can do very well.
They can, but they generally dont do as well as omnidirectionals.In my
opinion, of course ;)
>
> To each his own. There are many ways to skin a cat.
Amen. You can say that again. Dogma is deadly like, man.
>
> Blumlein and Mittle-Siete mking are NOT the same thing.
Ja, any fool with half an idea about professional Audio, or basically
anyone that hasnt lived under a rock for the past decade knows that..To
imply that I am ignorant of this glaring fact is a bit offensive. I
suggest you read the Patent mentioned previously and the Book about Alan
Blumlein. His inventions were many, and extended far outside of the
technique that is his namesake.(128 Patents in all on various subjects
from Audio to Radar transmission systems) MID-SIDE miking was his
creation too. Germans did invent Jecklin Disc(OSS), which I also love,
though! See below:
"In this patent (British #394,325), Blumlein examines the physiology of
the human binaural hearing process and the spatial illusion produced by
ćtwo or more loudspeakersä; describes the use of multiple
microphones÷including the crossed figure-8 (now known as the Blumlein
technique) and ****!!!Mid-Side stereo-miking method!!!!!s;**** details a
dual 45/45-degree phono cutter head for producing stereo record masters;
and proposes a means of transmitting stereo radio"
"Some years back I delivered a paper at the annual convention of the
Audio Engineering Society on a "Mid-Side Boundary Layer" technique I had
devised. It was an adaptation of the classic ****!!!Mid-Side" stereo
arrangement described by the great British inventor, Alan Blumlein!!!!
**** in a patent dating back to 1935 (as it happens, the year of my
birth). Blumlein proposed placing a figure-of-eight microphone sideways,
facing away from the sound source, and pairing it with a directional mike
placed midway on top of it, pointing forward at the sound source."
"In the same patent of 1933, Blumlein also described a mathematical
transformation of these crossed bidirectionals, ****!!!!which he termed
the Mid/Side
technique!!!!****. Also employing the bidirectional microphone as the
essential contributor to
the stereophonic imaging, this Side microphone was oriented laterally,
with the null-
axis aimed directly at the sound source. The Mid microphone had its
principal
pickup axis aimed directly at the sound source, hence again co-aligned
with the null
axis of the bidirectional microphone."""
MID
+Side
-Side
THE MID-SIDE TECHNIQUE
> Maybe that's why I'm so disappointed in many modern orchestral
> recordings from Europe.
>
>
I dont like many modern recordings either. Primarily because modern
engineers are incompetent idiots with no idea of how to do their
jobs..not because of any polar pattern use. A good engineer can work with
any polar pattern...I prefer omnis and fig 8s, but I would never say that
I dont like any recordings made with cardiods. That is bordering on
dogmatic and dangerous, and would be quite foolish to say.
Opus 3, Waterlily, Delos, and Proprius...the final 4 as far as I am
concerned. They seem to do no wrong. Check the Opus 3 samplers and the
Proprius CANTATE DOMINO and Jazz at the Pawnshop recordings..be amazed.
