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 Sat, 5 Jan 2008 07:39:18 -0800, Tynan AgviŠr wrote
(in article <flo8b60213b@news2.newsguy,com >):
>>>
>>> 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.
Didn't mean to offend. It just seemed to me like your previous statement
inferred that they were the same.
> 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"
Yes, I read a book about Alan Blumlein when I was a teenager.
> "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."
I didn't say that Blumlein didn't originate MS, I merely said that MS and the
miking technique that bears his name aren't the same thing.
>
> "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..
I'll agree with that. It's what happens when whole generations become fixated
on one music type at the expense of all others. Most modern recording
engineers are rockers. While their personal music tastes are certainly their
own business, they make it quite plain that they got into recording at least
partially to be a part of the "pop scene" and that recording pop musicians is
all that they are interested in. Not only do they know little of nothing
about other types of music, they are actually disdainfully ignorant of them,
especially those forms of music that respond well to minimalist miking
techniques that afford them little opportunity to knob twiddle.
It used to be (like in the 50's and 60's) that most recording engineers knew
how to record classical and big-band jazz, while most pop consisted of an
orchestra backing a vocalist (ala Sinatra, Como, et al). Many classical
recording engineers, such as Louis Layton at RCA, C.Robert Fine at Mercury,
and Arthur Haddy at British Decca (London Records in the USA) actually became
well-known figures in the audio world.
> 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.
I have quite a few recordings made with Omnis that are quite good. What I
said is that I wouldn't use them for an orchestral recording because I find
X-Y and M-S BETTER,
>
> 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.
I have Jazz at the pawnshop and it is VERY good. Almost palpable. My only
complaint is that there is too much ambience in the form of night-club
revelers in the recording for my tastes. I would have tried to reduce that.
OTOH, I realize that the night-club audience is part of that recording's
"schtick", but I would have done it differently.
On Sat, 5 Jan 2008 07:39:18 -0800, Tynan AgviŠr wrote
(in article <flo8b60213b@news2.newsguy,com >):
>>>
>>> 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.
Didn't mean to offend. It just seemed to me like your previous statement
inferred that they were the same.
> 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"
Yes, I read a book about Alan Blumlein when I was a teenager.
> "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."
I didn't say that Blumlein didn't originate MS, I merely said that MS and the
miking technique that bears his name aren't the same thing.
>
> "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..
I'll agree with that. It's what happens when whole generations become fixated
on one music type at the expense of all others. Most modern recording
engineers are rockers. While their personal music tastes are certainly their
own business, they make it quite plain that they got into recording at least
partially to be a part of the "pop scene" and that recording pop musicians is
all that they are interested in. Not only do they know little of nothing
about other types of music, they are actually disdainfully ignorant of them,
especially those forms of music that respond well to minimalist miking
techniques that afford them little opportunity to knob twiddle.
It used to be (like in the 50's and 60's) that most recording engineers knew
how to record classical and big-band jazz, while most pop consisted of an
orchestra backing a vocalist (ala Sinatra, Como, et al). Many classical
recording engineers, such as Louis Layton at RCA, C.Robert Fine at Mercury,
and Arthur Haddy at British Decca (London Records in the USA) actually became
well-known figures in the audio world.
> 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.
I have quite a few recordings made with Omnis that are quite good. What I
said is that I wouldn't use them for an orchestral recording because I find
X-Y and M-S BETTER,
>
> 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.
I have Jazz at the pawnshop and it is VERY good. Almost palpable. My only
complaint is that there is too much ambience in the form of night-club
revelers in the recording for my tastes. I would have tried to reduce that.
OTOH, I realize that the night-club audience is part of that recording's
"schtick", but I would have done it differently.
Re: Curious about Stereophile/Recording
>
> Didn't mean to offend. It just seemed to me like your previous
> statement inferred that they were the same.
>
If I implied that, my mistake. You didnt really offend me deeply, but
that statement was offensive. ;)
>
> I didn't say that Blumlein didn't originate MS, I merely said that MS
> and the miking technique that bears his name aren't the same thing.
I misinterpreted what you were saying. No problem.
>> It used to be (like in the 50's and 60's) that most recording
> engineers knew how to record classical and big-band jazz, while most
> pop consisted of an orchestra backing a vocalist (ala Sinatra, Como,
> et al). Many classical recording engineers, such as Louis Layton at
> RCA, C.Robert Fine at Mercury, and Arthur Haddy at British Decca
> (London Records in the USA) actually became well-known figures in the
> audio world.
Agreed. Also, the limitations of equipment back then actually forced the
people to learn what they were using inside and out. These days if some
kid with a cracked copy of pro tools doesnt get "his recordings as loud
as that All American Rejects Album" he moves on to another cracked
program..Same thing with inexperienced engineers who think that the key
to good sound is whatever equipment they are using rather than assuming
the burden completly themselves(blame the carpenter, not the tools).... I
sort of wish that I didnt have all these choices available to me,
personally. We grow better and achieve much more when circumstances force
us to be inventive.
"Bemalte Blumen duften nicht."
> I have quite a few recordings made with Omnis that are quite good.
> What I said is that I wouldn't use them for an orchestral recording
> because I find X-Y and M-S BETTER,
>>
>> 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.
>
> I have Jazz at the pawnshop and it is VERY good. Almost palpable. My
> only complaint is that there is too much ambience in the form of
> night-club revelers in the recording for my tastes. I would have tried
> to reduce that. OTOH, I realize that the night-club audience is part
> of that recording's "schtick", but I would have done it differently.
See, I love the Ambience. I feel that as long as it doesnt take away from
the recording(as in be too loud to obscure the song).,it is great. It is
a live recording...the crowd ambience helps document that fact.
>
>
> Didn't mean to offend. It just seemed to me like your previous
> statement inferred that they were the same.
>
If I implied that, my mistake. You didnt really offend me deeply, but
that statement was offensive. ;)
>
> I didn't say that Blumlein didn't originate MS, I merely said that MS
> and the miking technique that bears his name aren't the same thing.
I misinterpreted what you were saying. No problem.
>> It used to be (like in the 50's and 60's) that most recording
> engineers knew how to record classical and big-band jazz, while most
> pop consisted of an orchestra backing a vocalist (ala Sinatra, Como,
> et al). Many classical recording engineers, such as Louis Layton at
> RCA, C.Robert Fine at Mercury, and Arthur Haddy at British Decca
> (London Records in the USA) actually became well-known figures in the
> audio world.
Agreed. Also, the limitations of equipment back then actually forced the
people to learn what they were using inside and out. These days if some
kid with a cracked copy of pro tools doesnt get "his recordings as loud
as that All American Rejects Album" he moves on to another cracked
program..Same thing with inexperienced engineers who think that the key
to good sound is whatever equipment they are using rather than assuming
the burden completly themselves(blame the carpenter, not the tools).... I
sort of wish that I didnt have all these choices available to me,
personally. We grow better and achieve much more when circumstances force
us to be inventive.
"Bemalte Blumen duften nicht."
> I have quite a few recordings made with Omnis that are quite good.
> What I said is that I wouldn't use them for an orchestral recording
> because I find X-Y and M-S BETTER,
>>
>> 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.
>
> I have Jazz at the pawnshop and it is VERY good. Almost palpable. My
> only complaint is that there is too much ambience in the form of
> night-club revelers in the recording for my tastes. I would have tried
> to reduce that. OTOH, I realize that the night-club audience is part
> of that recording's "schtick", but I would have done it differently.
See, I love the Ambience. I feel that as long as it doesnt take away from
the recording(as in be too loud to obscure the song).,it is great. It is
a live recording...the crowd ambience helps document that fact.
>
Re: Curious about Stereophile/Recording
On Jan 5, 10:39 am, "Tynan AgviŠr" <melee20...@mypacks,net > wrote:
>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.
See http :// www .stereophile,com /asweseeit/1286awsi/ ,
which has a link to the Blumlein home page.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
On Jan 5, 10:39 am, "Tynan AgviŠr" <melee20...@mypacks,net > wrote:
>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.
See http :// www .stereophile,com /asweseeit/1286awsi/ ,
which has a link to the Blumlein home page.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Re: Curious about Stereophile/Recording
stereoeditor@earthlink,net wrote in news:flqvfs01u8@news2.newsguy,com :
> On Jan 5, 10:39 am, "Tynan AgviŠr" <melee20...@mypacks,net > wrote:
>>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.
>
> See http :// www .stereophile,com /asweseeit/1286awsi/ ,
> which has a link to the Blumlein home page.
>
> John Atkinson
> Editor, Stereophile
>
>
How nice of you to make an appearance, Mr. Atkinson. Why, weve already
rolled out the red carpet for you. ;)
Nice link. I think that far too many people only know Mr. Blumlein for the
microphone recording technique that bears his name...Quite a pity ! the
legacy he left behind, the body of research..the awarded patents..the man
was nothing short of a genius. Where are the A.D. Blumleins of today?
-Tynan
stereoeditor@earthlink,net wrote in news:flqvfs01u8@news2.newsguy,com :
> On Jan 5, 10:39 am, "Tynan AgviŠr" <melee20...@mypacks,net > wrote:
>>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.
>
> See http :// www .stereophile,com /asweseeit/1286awsi/ ,
> which has a link to the Blumlein home page.
>
> John Atkinson
> Editor, Stereophile
>
>
How nice of you to make an appearance, Mr. Atkinson. Why, weve already
rolled out the red carpet for you. ;)
Nice link. I think that far too many people only know Mr. Blumlein for the
microphone recording technique that bears his name...Quite a pity ! the
legacy he left behind, the body of research..the awarded patents..the man
was nothing short of a genius. Where are the A.D. Blumleins of today?
-Tynan
Re: Curious about Stereophile/Recording
On Jan 2, 6:52 pm, Sonnova <sonn...@audiosanatorium,com > wrote:
> 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.
Oops, there seems to be telepathy at work here.
However, the magical staging I was referring to (and that we were both
describing) was achieved with omnis (in various positions) - I have
quite a few orchestral recordings made with omnis with the results you
describe. The difference I think is that with cardioids you are
restricted to the position you are describing but you eliminate much
of the audience noise. With omnis you have more options where and how
to position the mics, but audience noise will be a problem if it's a
live performance.
I share Tynan's preference for omnis for orchestral stuff, but really
the #1 issue is the evil of spotmiking an orchestra - I can compromise
about the pick-up pattern.
Simonel
On Jan 2, 6:52 pm, Sonnova <sonn...@audiosanatorium,com > wrote:
> 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.
Oops, there seems to be telepathy at work here.
However, the magical staging I was referring to (and that we were both
describing) was achieved with omnis (in various positions) - I have
quite a few orchestral recordings made with omnis with the results you
describe. The difference I think is that with cardioids you are
restricted to the position you are describing but you eliminate much
of the audience noise. With omnis you have more options where and how
to position the mics, but audience noise will be a problem if it's a
live performance.
I share Tynan's preference for omnis for orchestral stuff, but really
the #1 issue is the evil of spotmiking an orchestra - I can compromise
about the pick-up pattern.
Simonel
Re: Curious about Stereophile/Recording
Simonel <simonelvladtepes@yahoo,com .au> wrote in
With omnis you have more options where and how
> to position the mics, but audience noise will be a problem if it's a
> live performance.
For me, that is part of the charm of using omnis..not capturing coughs and
pages turning, or other things like that..but hearing the ambience,the
"silence" of the audience, the space around the instruments, how the hall
is reacting to this wall of sound..In my opinion, to use a cardiod in a
favorable acoustic is like seeing a beautiful girl,admiring her beauty, and
then suddenly being struck blind in one eye...
> I share Tynan's preference for omnis for orchestral stuff, but really
> the #1 issue is the evil of spotmiking an orchestra - I can compromise
> about the pick-up pattern.
>
> Simonel
>
My mentor, a very famous Recording Engineer in Europe..once said to me: "If
you ever approach a recording and discover that the situation makes it
impossible to use omnis, just go home and go to sleep.." "you will
accomplish more that way" ..That has stuck with me for life. I dont
compromise any more. Life is too short to compromise. I feel terribly sorry
for the person that must engineer for a living under one of the big labels
(even classical). It must be awful.
-Tynan
Simonel <simonelvladtepes@yahoo,com .au> wrote in
With omnis you have more options where and how
> to position the mics, but audience noise will be a problem if it's a
> live performance.
For me, that is part of the charm of using omnis..not capturing coughs and
pages turning, or other things like that..but hearing the ambience,the
"silence" of the audience, the space around the instruments, how the hall
is reacting to this wall of sound..In my opinion, to use a cardiod in a
favorable acoustic is like seeing a beautiful girl,admiring her beauty, and
then suddenly being struck blind in one eye...
> I share Tynan's preference for omnis for orchestral stuff, but really
> the #1 issue is the evil of spotmiking an orchestra - I can compromise
> about the pick-up pattern.
>
> Simonel
>
My mentor, a very famous Recording Engineer in Europe..once said to me: "If
you ever approach a recording and discover that the situation makes it
impossible to use omnis, just go home and go to sleep.." "you will
accomplish more that way" ..That has stuck with me for life. I dont
compromise any more. Life is too short to compromise. I feel terribly sorry
for the person that must engineer for a living under one of the big labels
(even classical). It must be awful.
-Tynan
Re: Curious about Stereophile/Recording
> Simonel <simonelvladtepes@yahoo,com .au> wrote in
> With omnis you have more options where and how
>> to position the mics, but audience noise will be a problem if it's a
>> live performance
I disagree with this, even though my preference is for using small-spacing
(eg from head spacing to around 15" max) omni mics pairs whenever possible.
With such omni pairs you have fewer options for getting correct placement
as, in the most critical situations, even a few inches of siting the mics
further back from the optimum balance point (ie the point at which
direct:ambient ratio of sound is ideal) results in a sound which is too
washy with room reverberance and becomes indistinct. Thus there is MORE onus
on the engineer to get omni pair placement 'just right' than there is with a
similar pair of XY stereo cardioid mics, which can be placed at about 1.8
times the distance from the 'sound source' to derive the same ratio of
direct: ambient sound as the omni pair. Let me re-state, my preference is
always for an omni pair when I record, but wish to emphasize that correct
placement of them is not a trivial or 'forgiving' process. A curious
phenomenon however, is how forgiving the human ear is capable of being, when
it is placed anywhere within the concert hall (but perhaps not in one's
preferred seat !)...we seem to be able to make adjustments for the variable
ambience and reduced HF perception (the treble muting due to distance) in
our brains which microphones are far more critical of. All hail the
ear/brain interpretive mechanism !
Ray Thomas
"Tynan Agvišr" <melee20160@mypacks,net > wrote in message
news:flmg3a010gl@news5.newsguy,com ...
> Simonel <simonelvladtepes@yahoo,com .au> wrote in
> With omnis you have more options where and how
>> to position the mics, but audience noise will be a problem if it's a
>> live performance.
>
> For me, that is part of the charm of using omnis..not capturing coughs and
> pages turning, or other things like that..but hearing the ambience,the
> "silence" of the audience, the space around the instruments, how the hall
> is reacting to this wall of sound..In my opinion, to use a cardiod in a
> favorable acoustic is like seeing a beautiful girl,admiring her beauty,
> and
> then suddenly being struck blind in one eye...
>
>> I share Tynan's preference for omnis for orchestral stuff, but really
>> the #1 issue is the evil of spotmiking an orchestra - I can compromise
>> about the pick-up pattern.
>>
>> Simonel
>>
>
> My mentor, a very famous Recording Engineer in Europe..once said to me:
> "If
> you ever approach a recording and discover that the situation makes it
> impossible to use omnis, just go home and go to sleep.." "you will
> accomplish more that way" ..That has stuck with me for life. I dont
> compromise any more. Life is too short to compromise. I feel terribly
> sorry
> for the person that must engineer for a living under one of the big labels
> (even classical). It must be awful.
>
> -Tynan
> Simonel <simonelvladtepes@yahoo,com .au> wrote in
> With omnis you have more options where and how
>> to position the mics, but audience noise will be a problem if it's a
>> live performance
I disagree with this, even though my preference is for using small-spacing
(eg from head spacing to around 15" max) omni mics pairs whenever possible.
With such omni pairs you have fewer options for getting correct placement
as, in the most critical situations, even a few inches of siting the mics
further back from the optimum balance point (ie the point at which
direct:ambient ratio of sound is ideal) results in a sound which is too
washy with room reverberance and becomes indistinct. Thus there is MORE onus
on the engineer to get omni pair placement 'just right' than there is with a
similar pair of XY stereo cardioid mics, which can be placed at about 1.8
times the distance from the 'sound source' to derive the same ratio of
direct: ambient sound as the omni pair. Let me re-state, my preference is
always for an omni pair when I record, but wish to emphasize that correct
placement of them is not a trivial or 'forgiving' process. A curious
phenomenon however, is how forgiving the human ear is capable of being, when
it is placed anywhere within the concert hall (but perhaps not in one's
preferred seat !)...we seem to be able to make adjustments for the variable
ambience and reduced HF perception (the treble muting due to distance) in
our brains which microphones are far more critical of. All hail the
ear/brain interpretive mechanism !
Ray Thomas
"Tynan Agvišr" <melee20160@mypacks,net > wrote in message
news:flmg3a010gl@news5.newsguy,com ...
> Simonel <simonelvladtepes@yahoo,com .au> wrote in
> With omnis you have more options where and how
>> to position the mics, but audience noise will be a problem if it's a
>> live performance.
>
> For me, that is part of the charm of using omnis..not capturing coughs and
> pages turning, or other things like that..but hearing the ambience,the
> "silence" of the audience, the space around the instruments, how the hall
> is reacting to this wall of sound..In my opinion, to use a cardiod in a
> favorable acoustic is like seeing a beautiful girl,admiring her beauty,
> and
> then suddenly being struck blind in one eye...
>
>> I share Tynan's preference for omnis for orchestral stuff, but really
>> the #1 issue is the evil of spotmiking an orchestra - I can compromise
>> about the pick-up pattern.
>>
>> Simonel
>>
>
> My mentor, a very famous Recording Engineer in Europe..once said to me:
> "If
> you ever approach a recording and discover that the situation makes it
> impossible to use omnis, just go home and go to sleep.." "you will
> accomplish more that way" ..That has stuck with me for life. I dont
> compromise any more. Life is too short to compromise. I feel terribly
> sorry
> for the person that must engineer for a living under one of the big labels
> (even classical). It must be awful.
>
> -Tynan
Re: Curious about Stereophile/Recording
On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 07:27:38 -0800, Ray Thomas wrote
(in article <fon55a018dc@news1.newsguy,com >):
>> Simonel <simonelvladtepes@yahoo,com .au> wrote in
>> With omnis you have more options where and how
>>> to position the mics, but audience noise will be a problem if it's a
>>> live performance
>
> I disagree with this, even though my preference is for using small-spacing
> (eg from head spacing to around 15" max) omni mics pairs whenever possible.
> With such omni pairs you have fewer options for getting correct placement
> as, in the most critical situations, even a few inches of siting the mics
> further back from the optimum balance point (ie the point at which
> direct:ambient ratio of sound is ideal) results in a sound which is too
> washy with room reverberance and becomes indistinct. Thus there is MORE onus
> on the engineer to get omni pair placement 'just right' than there is with a
> similar pair of XY stereo cardioid mics, which can be placed at about 1.8
> times the distance from the 'sound source' to derive the same ratio of
> direct: ambient sound as the omni pair. Let me re-state, my preference is
> always for an omni pair when I record, but wish to emphasize that correct
> placement of them is not a trivial or 'forgiving' process. A curious
> phenomenon however, is how forgiving the human ear is capable of being, when
> it is placed anywhere within the concert hall (but perhaps not in one's
> preferred seat !)...we seem to be able to make adjustments for the variable
> ambience and reduced HF perception (the treble muting due to distance) in
> our brains which microphones are far more critical of. All hail the
> ear/brain interpretive mechanism !
What I'd like to know is how you obtain any stereo image at all using omni's
spaced that close together without some form of a baffle between them. I have
a single-point Avantone CK-40 stereo mike (looks exactly like the highly
regarded Telefunken ELA-M-270 < http :// tinyurl,com /2bbmaj>) which has
switchable patterns: Omni/Cardioid/Figure-of-eight. When I select omni, I get
dead mono, and why shouldn't I? Both capsules are directly coincident (one
atop the other) and both have the same pick-up pattern irrespective of which
way they are pointed.
On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 07:27:38 -0800, Ray Thomas wrote
(in article <fon55a018dc@news1.newsguy,com >):
>> Simonel <simonelvladtepes@yahoo,com .au> wrote in
>> With omnis you have more options where and how
>>> to position the mics, but audience noise will be a problem if it's a
>>> live performance
>
> I disagree with this, even though my preference is for using small-spacing
> (eg from head spacing to around 15" max) omni mics pairs whenever possible.
> With such omni pairs you have fewer options for getting correct placement
> as, in the most critical situations, even a few inches of siting the mics
> further back from the optimum balance point (ie the point at which
> direct:ambient ratio of sound is ideal) results in a sound which is too
> washy with room reverberance and becomes indistinct. Thus there is MORE onus
> on the engineer to get omni pair placement 'just right' than there is with a
> similar pair of XY stereo cardioid mics, which can be placed at about 1.8
> times the distance from the 'sound source' to derive the same ratio of
> direct: ambient sound as the omni pair. Let me re-state, my preference is
> always for an omni pair when I record, but wish to emphasize that correct
> placement of them is not a trivial or 'forgiving' process. A curious
> phenomenon however, is how forgiving the human ear is capable of being, when
> it is placed anywhere within the concert hall (but perhaps not in one's
> preferred seat !)...we seem to be able to make adjustments for the variable
> ambience and reduced HF perception (the treble muting due to distance) in
> our brains which microphones are far more critical of. All hail the
> ear/brain interpretive mechanism !
What I'd like to know is how you obtain any stereo image at all using omni's
spaced that close together without some form of a baffle between them. I have
a single-point Avantone CK-40 stereo mike (looks exactly like the highly
regarded Telefunken ELA-M-270 < http :// tinyurl,com /2bbmaj>) which has
switchable patterns: Omni/Cardioid/Figure-of-eight. When I select omni, I get
dead mono, and why shouldn't I? Both capsules are directly coincident (one
atop the other) and both have the same pick-up pattern irrespective of which
way they are pointed.
Re: Curious about Stereophile/Recording
Thank you very much Taynen, for this wonderful post. This question
that that reader posed to John Atkinson and JA's answer has been at
the back of my mind as well for a long time - I was shocked to read
JA's response and felt that the man is a hack. This issue of miking
has been a sore point with me ever since I started doing my own
recording, but I did not post anything about this here because I came
to realize that other than another friend who dabbles in taping, there
is no one in the universe who agrees with me about this issue, and the
reactions to your post supports that.
I could not have expressed what you say so well, but I agree with
every word. There is no way to understand why a two-mike stereo pair
is the best way to go unless you experiment with it yourself. To
realize how clueless JA is about recording you only need to listen to
his much hyped (by himself) recording of Robert Silverman playing the
Diabelli Variations, using Iso-shmizo miking. It sucks - I made dozens
of much better tapes using just a pair of Schoeps omnis with a Jecklin
disc, positioned simply in front of the concert-grand curve. Where you
run into problems using just a two-mike stereo pair is in recording
opera, but even there it can work.
Anyway..I could go on and on and on (and let's not even start about
the rest of the sound effects sound engineers employ to destroy the
sound), but I will not. I don't believe I will convert anyone to a two-
mike stereo pair approach just by stating my preferences or providing
any supporting arguments - you have to listen to the results with a
good setup in a good room.
I 'm glad, though, that there is someone out there who shares my
recording philosophy and knows what he is talking about.
Simonel
On Dec 24, 11:37 am, "Tynan Agvišr" <melee20...@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. 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:
>
> "Editor:
>
> "I have used your Editors Choice CD to set up and check out my system. It
> has been extremely useful-thank you for producing it."
>
> (heres the good part)
> "One thing puzzles me: Many of the recordings seem to have used multiple
> microphones and a fair amount of electronic processing. I would have
> thought these recordings would have used two microphones and much less
> processing, if any. Why is there so much equipment involved, and what is
> the difference, then, between "audiophile" and mainstream recording? Is
> there something wrong with a simple two-mike, direct-to-two-track recording
> process using accurate, high-quality microphones?"
> -James A. Fouche-Schack (jamesafouchesch...@sbcglobal,net )
>
> 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 ive 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"== Jon
> Atkinson
>
> 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). 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.....
>
> 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...and you know what...I dont trust John Atkinson to make any of
> those decisions. 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..
>
> 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 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?
>
> 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...
>
> 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. 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)
>
> "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)
>
> (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..
>
> ==Taynen
Thank you very much Taynen, for this wonderful post. This question
that that reader posed to John Atkinson and JA's answer has been at
the back of my mind as well for a long time - I was shocked to read
JA's response and felt that the man is a hack. This issue of miking
has been a sore point with me ever since I started doing my own
recording, but I did not post anything about this here because I came
to realize that other than another friend who dabbles in taping, there
is no one in the universe who agrees with me about this issue, and the
reactions to your post supports that.
I could not have expressed what you say so well, but I agree with
every word. There is no way to understand why a two-mike stereo pair
is the best way to go unless you experiment with it yourself. To
realize how clueless JA is about recording you only need to listen to
his much hyped (by himself) recording of Robert Silverman playing the
Diabelli Variations, using Iso-shmizo miking. It sucks - I made dozens
of much better tapes using just a pair of Schoeps omnis with a Jecklin
disc, positioned simply in front of the concert-grand curve. Where you
run into problems using just a two-mike stereo pair is in recording
opera, but even there it can work.
Anyway..I could go on and on and on (and let's not even start about
the rest of the sound effects sound engineers employ to destroy the
sound), but I will not. I don't believe I will convert anyone to a two-
mike stereo pair approach just by stating my preferences or providing
any supporting arguments - you have to listen to the results with a
good setup in a good room.
I 'm glad, though, that there is someone out there who shares my
recording philosophy and knows what he is talking about.
Simonel
On Dec 24, 11:37 am, "Tynan Agvišr" <melee20...@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. 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:
>
> "Editor:
>
> "I have used your Editors Choice CD to set up and check out my system. It
> has been extremely useful-thank you for producing it."
>
> (heres the good part)
> "One thing puzzles me: Many of the recordings seem to have used multiple
> microphones and a fair amount of electronic processing. I would have
> thought these recordings would have used two microphones and much less
> processing, if any. Why is there so much equipment involved, and what is
> the difference, then, between "audiophile" and mainstream recording? Is
> there something wrong with a simple two-mike, direct-to-two-track recording
> process using accurate, high-quality microphones?"
> -James A. Fouche-Schack (jamesafouchesch...@sbcglobal,net )
>
> 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 ive 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"== Jon
> Atkinson
>
> 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). 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.....
>
> 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...and you know what...I dont trust John Atkinson to make any of
> those decisions. 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..
>
> 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 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?
>
> 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...
>
> 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. 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)
>
> "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)
>
> (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..
>
> ==Taynen
Re: Curious about Stereophile/Recording
Simonel <simonelvladtepes@yahoo,com .au> wrote in
news:7LqdnbdV3-DuGu_anZ2dnUVZ_gOdnZ2d@pghconnect,com :
> Thank you very much Taynen, for this wonderful post. This question
> that that reader posed to John Atkinson and JA's answer has been at
> the back of my mind as well for a long time - I was shocked to read
> JA's response and felt that the man is a hack. This issue of miking
> has been a sore point with me ever since I started doing my own
> recording, but I did not post anything about this here because I came
> to realize that other than another friend who dabbles in taping, there
> is no one in the universe who agrees with me about this issue, and the
> reactions to your post supports that.
And thank you, for confirming to me that there are at least 3 persons out
there that see JA for what he is(or is not, rather) I had no illusions
whatsoever that anyone would agree with me; as his acolyte pool is deep and
wide.We all know that voodoo and magic is fun, but the actual science behind
it all is sort of boring. I understand that viewpoint; hell, I remember how
jaded I felt after learning that Santa Claus was a product of a vast parental
conspiracy..
I hope that more audio-ethusiasts will educate themselves in the science of
sound reproduction(Reading books by John Eargle(Microphone book, Sound
Recording, Handbook of Recording Engineering) Ron Streicher/Alton Everest(the
new stereo soundbook), Bob Katz(mastering Audio, the art and the science) and
the ilk....(a membership to AES is great too. library
archives=goldmine)....Education is key.
Simonel <simonelvladtepes@yahoo,com .au> wrote in
news:7LqdnbdV3-DuGu_anZ2dnUVZ_gOdnZ2d@pghconnect,com :
> Thank you very much Taynen, for this wonderful post. This question
> that that reader posed to John Atkinson and JA's answer has been at
> the back of my mind as well for a long time - I was shocked to read
> JA's response and felt that the man is a hack. This issue of miking
> has been a sore point with me ever since I started doing my own
> recording, but I did not post anything about this here because I came
> to realize that other than another friend who dabbles in taping, there
> is no one in the universe who agrees with me about this issue, and the
> reactions to your post supports that.
And thank you, for confirming to me that there are at least 3 persons out
there that see JA for what he is(or is not, rather) I had no illusions
whatsoever that anyone would agree with me; as his acolyte pool is deep and
wide.We all know that voodoo and magic is fun, but the actual science behind
it all is sort of boring. I understand that viewpoint; hell, I remember how
jaded I felt after learning that Santa Claus was a product of a vast parental
conspiracy..
I hope that more audio-ethusiasts will educate themselves in the science of
sound reproduction(Reading books by John Eargle(Microphone book, Sound
Recording, Handbook of Recording Engineering) Ron Streicher/Alton Everest(the
new stereo soundbook), Bob Katz(mastering Audio, the art and the science) and
the ilk....(a membership to AES is great too. library
archives=goldmine)....Education is key.
Re: Curious about Stereophile/Recording
interesting thread
I have many of the stereophile recordings and am happy with the sound
no matter what choices/decisions he used in capturing the audio
The silverman piano record is different from some of the rest of them
soundwise
but I enjoy it also.
are you the one with the all the mics mentioned later in the thread?
who do you do recording for.??
I have always been interested in recording but never made it happen
I recently purchase used sony dat machine and thought about making some
recordings
locally.
i am in need of inexpensive analog digital converter for my turntable phono
preamp.
( just best to use soundcard otherwise?)
thanks
--
"Tynan Agvišr" <melee20160@mypacks,net > wrote in message
news:rsGdnQDzV-fdffLanZ2dnUVZ_jydnZ2d@pghconnect,com ...
>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:
>
> "Editor:
>
> "I have used your Editors Choice CD to set up and check out my system. It
> has been extremely useful-thank you for producing it."
>
> (heres the good part)
> "One thing puzzles me: Many of the recordings seem to have used multiple
> microphones and a fair amount of electronic processing. I would have
> thought these recordings would have used two microphones and much less
> processing, if any. Why is there so much equipment involved, and what is
> the difference, then, between "audiophile" and mainstream recording? Is
> there something wrong with a simple two-mike, direct-to-two-track
> recording
> process using accurate, high-quality microphones?"
> -James A. Fouche-Schack (jamesafoucheschack@sbcglobal,net )
>
> 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 ive 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"== Jon
> Atkinson
>
> 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). 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.....
>
> 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...and you know what...I dont trust John Atkinson to make any of
> those decisions. 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..
>
> 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 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?
>
> 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...
>
> 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. 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)
>
> "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)
>
> (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..
>
> ==Taynen
>
interesting thread
I have many of the stereophile recordings and am happy with the sound
no matter what choices/decisions he used in capturing the audio
The silverman piano record is different from some of the rest of them
soundwise
but I enjoy it also.
are you the one with the all the mics mentioned later in the thread?
who do you do recording for.??
I have always been interested in recording but never made it happen
I recently purchase used sony dat machine and thought about making some
recordings
locally.
i am in need of inexpensive analog digital converter for my turntable phono
preamp.
( just best to use soundcard otherwise?)
thanks
--
"Tynan Agvišr" <melee20160@mypacks,net > wrote in message
news:rsGdnQDzV-fdffLanZ2dnUVZ_jydnZ2d@pghconnect,com ...
>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:
>
> "Editor:
>
> "I have used your Editors Choice CD to set up and check out my system. It
> has been extremely useful-thank you for producing it."
>
> (heres the good part)
> "One thing puzzles me: Many of the recordings seem to have used multiple
> microphones and a fair amount of electronic processing. I would have
> thought these recordings would have used two microphones and much less
> processing, if any. Why is there so much equipment involved, and what is
> the difference, then, between "audiophile" and mainstream recording? Is
> there something wrong with a simple two-mike, direct-to-two-track
> recording
> process using accurate, high-quality microphones?"
> -James A. Fouche-Schack (jamesafoucheschack@sbcglobal,net )
>
> 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 ive 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"== Jon
> Atkinson
>
> 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). 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.....
>
> 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...and you know what...I dont trust John Atkinson to make any of
> those decisions. 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..
>
> 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 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?
>
> 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...
>
> 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. 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)
>
> "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)
>
> (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..
>
> ==Taynen
>
