Most of Stereophile's recordings are made with a stereo pair of mics, either spaced omni's or near-ORTF cardioids, with some accents from (typically) one or two other mic pairs. In the booklet for each CD is included detailed descriptions of recording methods, venue, etc.
When is enough, enough, or how to get off the bandwagon??
- Thread starter DaveyF
- Start date
- Status
Yes. Enough said. Just not enough read:
And of course, these six microphones, four of which were on stage, were all sent to a mixer....where it's a pretty save assumption that someone achieved a balance between the horns picked up by the stereo pair and the quieter and less directional instruments captured much closer, on the stage. Oh and it mentions another pair, aimed at the audience to pick up crowd sounds to be mixed in as well in the creation of this ambient space on tape. So 8 mics, only two of which were the stereo pair.
It would appear that Jazz at the Pawnshop, like Massey Hall, is recorded exactly as I've been describing. Don't get me wrong. I think capturing a room's natural reverb of the music being recorded, and mixing it back in with the more direct signal is the right way to make a live album. Is it "more natural" than taking the signal for everything directly from the board and capturing no room sound at all? Yes. But it is still largely a constructed space, not the one you'd hear if you walked into the same room with the music playing.
Hell. It's probably better.
Tim
And the only thing we have. So let's just enjoy it, rather than picking it apart. It's obvious, to me anyway, that there is no perfect way of recording a live session and bringing that experience into our homes. All we can hope for is that cues are taken from recordings (JatP and MH) and then applied in future. Of course, I doubt the same methods could be applied for a live rock concert or anything beyond a small venue, but at least there is a basis.
I don't mean to be picking it apart, John, I'm just very interested in the process. And I think very similar methods can be used with a live rock concert. The microphones all go to the board and then to the PA, of course, but you can still record the natural reverb of the venue and the crowd sounds and mix them back in to get a really nice live feel. The classic Van Morrison LP "It's Too Late To Stop Now" is a great example.
Tim
Tim
That has been my experience recording many (in excess of 150) live blues/rock bands. Depending on the situation, I have used 110 degrees ORTF cardiod patterning and omni directional mics spaced 8 feet apart. Preferred position is dead center in front of the bands mixing console. The sound is best there as that is where the mixers ears are. No problem getting room ambience there....at least im my experience. Schoeps CMC/MK series are my mics of choice for recording in that position.
I was listening to several Reference Recordings today, IMHO Keith Johnson has the science of recording down to a VERY fine art
If you cannot hear ambience and purity of tone with these recordings, then IMO there is something wrong with your gear.
If you cannot hear ambience and purity of tone with these recordings, then IMO there is something wrong with your gear.
hummmmm.
Tom,
could you be specific on which RR recordings you think are 'sweetened'. or are you saying any/all recordings with tubes in the recording chain are sweetened? or just RR's tubes?
and if tubes always sweeten, then does solid state always do a particular thing? or does it depend?
thanks.
I'm not aware that RR uses tubes anywhere in the recording chain. KOJ is a SS guy.
You agree with Tim with regards to what? I don’t even remember what Tim’s original point was because he talks in circles. Does ambience exist in live recordings? Yes. Is it recorded perfectly? I think good engineers do the best they can with the technology limitations we have and I think there are lots of live recordings that give you a good dose of what the venue sounds like. Do you hear more of the ambience clues as your system improves? Yes, I think you do.
So what is Tim’s point? Ambience is there, but it’s not there. It’s there, but it’s not ‘real’ or it doesn’t meet his standards for how it should be recorded to get his seal of approval. Whatever. I’m over it.
Tom, I don't hear any 'sweetening' in any of the RR Jazz recordings. On the contrary, IMO these recordings are exemplary, for example, in their retrieval of the bite of brass instruments, at least in my system. I guess YMMV.
Last edited:
I think the only time KOJ used tubes might have been on his earliest efforts. Something like the Astounding Sound Show that features short excerpts from early recording might have been with tubes. After that, KOJ is all ss. But OTOH, all of Keith's gear is custom designed all the way from the mikes to the tape deck (or currently digital drive). His tape deck is one of a kind with its focused gap technology.
Wrong. You know it is this type of speculation that both you and Tim do that galls the rest here. You can quite easily research how KOJ records since he's been frequently interviewed about his work. And for the record, if you think RR are sweet, then there's really something wrong with your system. If anything, they have the "California" sound and are on the lean side. But of course, I assume you're listening to the CD. You should educate yourself and hear the 15 ips tape.
Is it your system or ears Tom?
You're definitely in the minority on the sound of RR recordings. And here you go again knocking something without having heard it. It's amazing that you can tell us what something sounds like without having heard it.
While stereo may not be the end all, what I've heard in multi-channel sucks. It sounds so unremotely like anything I've heard as to be silly.
It's your mind that's running in circles, Mark. Now it has placed the recording techniques I'm talking about "below my standards," when I have clearly said that, IMO, they are the best way to record a live performance. I have also claimed that they are the dominant way such recordings are being made, and the examples that have been brought to the conversation have only supported that claim. Are there recordings made from a single pair of mics placed mid-venue in an attempt to capture the natural ambience of the space? I'm sure there are. I'm sure many techniques have been tried. I've been trying to discuss the techniques that, to my knowledge, yield the bests results. And I thought it a more interesting conversation that believing in something that is not on the recording magically coming to life in listening rooms.
You want the point Tom agrees with? You may have missed it. It was prior to your entry attack -- Posts #141 and 146.
Tim
Binaural gives me a headache. Those Sonic Arts binaural recordings were dreck.
If only I had those dummies ears. If anything, history has taught us a size fits all approach doesn't work.
Tim could you let the rest of us know where you buy Teflon fabric? You are starting to do a second loop.
Teflon? Because I have answers, Miles? Because your own examples (well, the Audiophile answers of Jazz at the Pawnshop and Massey Hall) support my answers instead of disproving them? That's Teflon?
Because the attacks and name-calling really looks a lot like some people here lack the intellectual curiosity to explore and understand how their audio is made, and very quickly ran out of answers.
Tim
Boy, lots of tempers flaring and I've just been gone a couple of days
How about we calm down ey?
Ambience is the environmental sounds of a given space. It is not to be confused with Room Tone nor is it to be confused with Reverberation. It is almost always recorded in stereo.
Mental exercise. Room tone is what you hear in a space when all is "quiet" and everything like HVAC is off assuming you aren't getting sound transmission from outside the space. Ambience is what happens when the HVAC is on, other people are in the room with you, sound from outside is leaking in, performers are fiddling about etc. Reverberation is the sum of reflected sound of anything and everything that makes a sound.
By definition, ambience is always present unlike room tone which by definition will exist in a vacuum or an anechoic environment, the total lack thereof being a room tone in itself. Think Sci-Fi movies that cut to outer space and the deafening silence even if the theater has its own room tone because the latter is filtered out by our brains. It's also the reason this gimmick is limited to very short durations of time. A good example is the opening crash sequence in the movie Pitch Black.
To say you can not record ambience with only two mics is preposterous. It IS recorded in stereo and you don't need more than two microphones to do it. It is recorded in stereo because if you recorded it in mono it would ball up in the middle of your stage and if you split and panned it hard left and right it sounds unnatural because you'd have mirror images of say a guy coughing to your left on your right. It would make you feel like the guy was coughing inside your skull. If anything your result using only two microphones will simply have a higher ratio of ambience vis a vis the performed music the farther away you place the microphones from the performers. In the purely 2 ch recording scenario it is only the ratio that is affected. Now, the closer you get to the instrument the ratio drops but proximity alone does not guarantee isolation. Iso booth anyone? In older recordings of classical music in the sixties where producers and engineers wanted more intensity thereby placing microphones closer the ambience in the TWO CHANNELS were augmented and not replaced by the addition of the third or third and fourth microphones. The different arrival times also created a reverb effect which is why it works. To sum up, it's a balancing act between detail and believability.
Now, I don't buy into the notion that you can't get a whole lot of the tone, ambience and reverberation on the recording in anything other than a nearfield set up or headphones. Again we're talking about the ratio of direct to reflected sounds this time what comes out of the loudspeakers and those introduced by the room. You just simply need a better room/loudspeaker interface. Using headphones or nearfields are simply the cheaper way of doing this but not the only way. What you give up is low end frequency extension which by the way is an important element of ambience because ambience is not some bandwidth limited thing. You also give up the visceral aspect of the reproduction from the midrange down or what we like to call punch.
Could someone please explain to me how any of this has got anything to do with getting off the bandwagon?
How about we calm down ey?
Ambience is the environmental sounds of a given space. It is not to be confused with Room Tone nor is it to be confused with Reverberation. It is almost always recorded in stereo.
Mental exercise. Room tone is what you hear in a space when all is "quiet" and everything like HVAC is off assuming you aren't getting sound transmission from outside the space. Ambience is what happens when the HVAC is on, other people are in the room with you, sound from outside is leaking in, performers are fiddling about etc. Reverberation is the sum of reflected sound of anything and everything that makes a sound.
By definition, ambience is always present unlike room tone which by definition will exist in a vacuum or an anechoic environment, the total lack thereof being a room tone in itself. Think Sci-Fi movies that cut to outer space and the deafening silence even if the theater has its own room tone because the latter is filtered out by our brains. It's also the reason this gimmick is limited to very short durations of time. A good example is the opening crash sequence in the movie Pitch Black.
To say you can not record ambience with only two mics is preposterous. It IS recorded in stereo and you don't need more than two microphones to do it. It is recorded in stereo because if you recorded it in mono it would ball up in the middle of your stage and if you split and panned it hard left and right it sounds unnatural because you'd have mirror images of say a guy coughing to your left on your right. It would make you feel like the guy was coughing inside your skull. If anything your result using only two microphones will simply have a higher ratio of ambience vis a vis the performed music the farther away you place the microphones from the performers. In the purely 2 ch recording scenario it is only the ratio that is affected. Now, the closer you get to the instrument the ratio drops but proximity alone does not guarantee isolation. Iso booth anyone? In older recordings of classical music in the sixties where producers and engineers wanted more intensity thereby placing microphones closer the ambience in the TWO CHANNELS were augmented and not replaced by the addition of the third or third and fourth microphones. The different arrival times also created a reverb effect which is why it works. To sum up, it's a balancing act between detail and believability.
Now, I don't buy into the notion that you can't get a whole lot of the tone, ambience and reverberation on the recording in anything other than a nearfield set up or headphones. Again we're talking about the ratio of direct to reflected sounds this time what comes out of the loudspeakers and those introduced by the room. You just simply need a better room/loudspeaker interface. Using headphones or nearfields are simply the cheaper way of doing this but not the only way. What you give up is low end frequency extension which by the way is an important element of ambience because ambience is not some bandwidth limited thing. You also give up the visceral aspect of the reproduction from the midrange down or what we like to call punch.
Could someone please explain to me how any of this has got anything to do with getting off the bandwagon?
- Status
Similar threads
