When is enough, enough, or how to get off the bandwagon??

[Johnny Vinyl]

Using just one example, I believe Neil Young: Massey Hall 1971 provides the listener with plenty of ambiance, and when I listen to it (really listen to it with eyes closed and totally relaxed) I could easily be a member of that audience back then. Surely there are other recordings that provide the same sense of being there. Is it the same as actually having been in that audience? Of course not! But man it comes close (IMO). Does anyone know what the mic setup was and what was added during the mastering process?

 

[NorthStar]

---Cowboy Junkies / The Trinity Session

 

[MylesBAstor]

---Cowboy Junkies / The Trinity Session

That is a special case. They used the Cal Rec ambisonic mikes for this recording. (think David Chesky played around with these mikes-esp. in use with multi-channel recordings)

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/Oct01/articles/surroundsound3.asp

http://www.ambisonic.net/NewAge.html

J.J Johnson (yes the infamous JJ) did an article for Ultimate Audio years back on the use of this type of mike technology and the experiments he was carrying out at AT&T at that time. Someday if I make up to my storeroom, will try and look the piece out.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

---Cowboy Junkies / The Trinity Session

Beautiful, utterly unique recording. Sounds wonderful on my modest headphones and computer speakers.

Tim

 

[MylesBAstor]

No, the subject of the post you referenced in your drive-by snarking was the fact that I have heard Mark's speakers extensively, and he hasn't heard my monitors (you'll know them as "computer speakers," Mike) at all. I sometimes feel compelled to bring that up when Mark is pulling one of his random attacks on my listening experience in an attempt to dismiss my opinion as too limited to be taken seriously. Your system? I haven't heard it; can't comment. I'm sure it is very nice. My god, if there is so much as a flaw, what a shame that would be, eh? But the subject of this particular sub-conversation in this thread was, I believe, hall ambience and recording technique. Do you have any information on that? Can you enlighten us regarding how any of the live recordings in your collection were made and the impact the methodology has on the sound of those recordings?

Tim

So explain how the early two mike stereo recordings have tons of ambience.

 

[MylesBAstor]

Beautiful, utterly unique recording. Sounds wonderful on my modest headphones and computer speakers.

Tim

Yes and the mikes have some real issues too. Listen hard and you can hear it.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Using just one example, I believe Neil Young: Massey Hall 1971 provides the listener with plenty of ambiance, and when I listen to it (really listen to it with eyes closed and totally relaxed) I could easily be a member of that audience back then. Surely there are other recordings that provide the same sense of being there. Is it the same as actually having been in that audience? Of course not! But man it comes close (IMO). Does anyone know what the mic setup was and what was added during the mastering process?

A perfect example. This recording has this wonderful, believable hall ambience. Bring up the videos on YouTube. You'll see that the main microphones capturing the voice and instruments were on stage, and as close as they would be in any studio. The ambience is a creation. A combination of close, well-recorded instruments and voices, mixed, after the fact, with hall reverb and crowd noise. And it is lovely. But it is a carefully constructed illusion.

Sorry to burst sacred bubbles.

Tim

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

So explain how the early two mike stereo recordings have tons of ambience.

Which early two-mic stereo recordings, recording whom and where?

Tim

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Yes and the mikes have some real issues too. Listen hard and you can hear it.

The mics on the Shelby Lynn recording referenced above have issues that can be pointed to as well. You may think they sound good, but they "sound," which is, of course, a theoretical if not subjective problem. Yet it is a wonderful recording. The point?

Tim

 

[MylesBAstor]

A perfect example. This recording has this wonderful, believable hall ambience. Bring up the videos on YouTube. You'll see that the main microphones capturing the voice and instruments were on stage, and as close as they would be in any studio. The ambience is a creation. A combination of close, well-recorded instruments and voices, mixed, after the fact, with hall reverb and crowd noise. And it is lovely. But it is a carefully constructed illusion.

Sorry to burst sacred bubbles.

Tim

Tim this is patently absurd. Where do you suggest they put the mikes? In the back of the hall?

Sacred bubbles? Hardly.

 

[microstrip]

A perfect example. This recording has this wonderful, believable hall ambience. Bring up the videos on YouTube. You'll see that the main microphones capturing the voice and instruments were on stage, and as close as they would be in any studio. The ambience is a creation. A combination of close, well-recorded instruments and voices, mixed, after the fact, with hall reverb and crowd noise. And it is lovely. But it is a carefully constructed illusion.

Sorry to burst sacred bubbles.

Tim

Tim,

Perfect. This is just one way of creating ambiance in this type of recordings. But try to create ambiance in a string quartet just adding reverb and crowd noise.

IMHO, ambiance in a recording does not mean picking environmental noise. It means picking the sound of the instruments with such characteristics that the final mix has cues enough to suggest some aspects that help recreating the life performance enjoyment. Too much detail in close miking will spoil it.

Most of the time the rendition of ambiance is system dependent, and even worst depends on the interaction between the playback system and recording characteristics. IMHO, no system is optimized for all of them - there are compromises. Stereo is an individual experience.

The best of the sound recording of the Jazz at Pawnshop is not the in noisy public and glasses, but in the freshness of the instrument sonority and natural sound we get from it. I believe it is due to the recording techniques - several other recordings of the same label show similar characteristics.

 

[MylesBAstor]

Which early two-mic stereo recordings, recording whom and where?

Tim

Ever heard any? Or even three mike recordings.

 

[MylesBAstor]

The mics on the Shelby Lynn recording referenced above have issues that can be pointed to as well. You may think they sound good, but they "sound," which is, of course, a theoretical if not subjective problem. Yet it is a wonderful recording. The point?

Tim

Not what I heard when they played this at the show or a local dealers. Didn't sound all that great to me.

 

[mep]

Well, now Tim is stating that he has possibly spent more time listening to my speakers than I have in 2011. Are you talking about the BP7000SC speakers or just some other Definitive Technology speakers? If you really heard the BP7000SC speakers, what was being used to drive them? A receiver, an integrated amp, or what? And do you really possibly think for one second that you have spent more time with better gear than I have listening to them in the sweet spot and not in a store where you are walking around and they are sharing space with lots of other speakers and the setup is probably not optimum?

Tim-You are truly the answer man. You have an answer for everything. You are the grand poohbah of audio. You are now lecturing all of us on another of your myth-buster crusades. This time your shtick is ambience. Because you don’t like the way it is recorded, you act like it’s not real or it doesn’t exist. If it was captured during the concert with a combination of mikes that were placed both on the stage and in the venue, it’s real. This is not like canned laughter that gets mixed into ‘comedy’ TV shows.

Does anyone beside you agree with your viewpoint about ambience Tim? Can you find one real recording engineer (and not someone with $500 of crap gear in their house that calls themselves an audio engineer) that would agree with your position? We already had another ‘audio expert’ on this forum who specializes in myth busting. I guess you are trying to take on the mantra now. In case you haven’t picked up on the vibe, people are tired of it.

 

[NorthStar]

And now, for a small "Ambiance" Interlude ...

------... From this album ::

---

------^ You can click on it too!

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

IMHO, ambiance in a recording does not mean picking environmental noise.

And I certainly didn't mean to say that it does.

It means picking the sound of the instruments with such characteristics that the final mix has cues enough to suggest some aspects that help recreating the life performance enjoyment. Too much detail in close miking will spoil it.

And to capture those characteristics, the microphones have to be close. Not inches away as in the studio, picking up instrument noises, but not out in the audience, where you can capture natural room ambience. In my experience, the nature of the beast is that you have to be unnaturally close to the instruments to capture them properly. And because they are the most important, it is the ambience that must be compromised. It is very difficult to capture proper instrument sounds from a point source far from the instruments. More often than not, this yields a very unnatural sound. But it is the best way to capture room ambience.

Most of the time the rendition of ambiance is system dependent, and even worst depends on the interaction between the playback system and recording characteristics. IMHO, no system is optimized for all of them - there are compromises. Stereo is an individual experience.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. The ambience, and everything else, is in the recording. It's reproduction is only system dependent as everything in the recording is dependent upon the system's ability to accurately reproduce the signal. Any "interaction" between the system and a specific aspect of a recording would indicate a system flaw.

The best of the sound recording of the Jazz at Pawnshop is not the in noisy public and glasses, but in the freshness of the instrument sonority and natural sound we get from it. I believe it is due to the recording techniques - several other recordings of the same label show similar characteristics.

Do you know anything about the recording techniques/mic placement? I'd love to read about it.

Tim

 

[MylesBAstor]

And I certainly didn't mean to say that it does.



And to capture those characteristics, the microphones have to be close. Not inches away as in the studio, picking up instrument noises, but not out in the audience, where you can capture natural room ambience. In my experience, the nature of the beast is that you have to be unnaturally close to the instruments to capture them properly. And because they are the most important, it is the ambience that must be compromised. It is very difficult to capture proper instrument sounds from a point source far from the instruments. More often than not, this yields a very unnatural sound. But it is the best way to capture room ambience.



We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. The ambience, and everything else, is in the recording. It's reproduction is only system dependent as everything in the recording is dependent upon the system's ability to accurately reproduce the signal. Any "interaction" between the system and a specific aspect of a recording would indicate a system flaw.



Do you know anything about the recording techniques/mic placement? I'd love to read about it.

Tim

Ever hear a crossed pair of figure 8 microphones? Or how about those recordings done with the Blumlein Technique? Huh? Plenty of ambiance there.

 

[treitz3]

Do you know anything about the recording techniques/mic placement? I'd love to read about it.

"All those who have visited Stampen know that the ceiling is about 4 meters high and that the venue houses around 80 people.The stage is situated in the right hand corner seen from the entrance, and is so small that it only carries a grand piano and a small band. Palmcrantz rigged the main microphones facing the stage, about 2 meters above the floor. These microphones were Neumann U47 cardiods, standing 15-20cm from each other and inclined at an angle of 110 to 135 degrees.

Palmancrantz has been perfecting this arrangement of microphones for several years: a couple of O.R.T.F. - stereo microphones as a basis and auxillary microphones where necassary. The O.R.T.F. - stereo named after the French Radio which introduced this simplified kunstkopf technique at the beginning of the sixties - was, according to Palmancrantz, the best method for optimal stereo effect and spatiality:

-Real stereo-effect can only be achieved by placing the microphones in a similar way to the disposition of the spatiality.

Such a couple stood in front of the stage, at Stampen and another couple was placed to the right of the stage, facing the audience in order to create the right "live" feeling. A support microphone was placed next to the grand piano standing on the right hand side of the platform with its lid open and Palmcrantz hung two cardioid Neumann KM56's over the drums on the left side. The bass, standing in the middle, and connected to a little combo amplifier on a chair, was supported by a Neumann M49, also in cardiod mode. The microphone was placed in such a way that it caught sound both from the amplifier and the instrument. The electric amplification of the acoustic bass is particularly noticeable in the song "In a mello Tone", where there is a slight distortion.

Once the microphones were all set up, all that was needed was to connect them all up. In those days, there were no multi-cables, so one had to lead all the eight cables from the stages, past the bar and through the kitchen to a little nook between a refrigerator and a pile of beer crates where Palmancrantz had built his makeshift studio: a Studer mixer, two Dolby A 361 noise reduction unitsand two Nagra IV recorders which he used alternately since the seven inch reels only last for 15 minutes at 39cm/sec. (He adjusted the U47 microphones slightly over 10,000Hz in the treble). The audition was made through two old Ampex monitor loudspeakers with built in amplifiers."

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Excellent. Thanks.

Tim

 

[MylesBAstor]

Palmancrantz has been perfecting this arrangement of microphones for several years: a couple of O.R.T.F. - stereo microphones as a basis and auxillary microphones where necassary. The O.R.T.F. - stereo named after the French Radio which introduced this simplified kunstkopf technique at the beginning of the sixties - was, according to Palmancrantz, the best method for optimal stereo effect and spatiality:

'Nuff said.