MOTU Traveler MKIII Preliminary review
Soundhaspriority
, will be used in my next foray into nightclub recording. One of the reviews
provided by MOTU happens to chronicle the use of the original Traveler in
the Outback for aboriginal music:
http://www.motu.com/newsitems/atnewsitem.2005-10-20.7042982533/
Review:
The physical quality is impressive, with a completely aluminum outer shell
and functional rounded edges. The first thing I always do with a new piece
of equipment is a drop-test :) In this case, the Traveler was perched on a
cardboard box that turned out to be unstable. It sustained a three-foot fall
to a carpeted floor, causing a knob to fall off, and slightly bend a shaft.
I straightened the shaft with a wrench, and glued the knob back on. The
Traveler survived with no functional impairment because the rotary encoders
are secured to a metal plate behind the panel, and the shafts themselves are
snap-in. The Traveler uses rotary encoders, not analog pots, which in theory
have an indefinite lifetime. The panels are screwed down with Torx
fasteners. In a word, this is not consumer quality construction; it's
professional quality. It has a locking 4 pin Arri power connector, and it
syncs to SMPTE time code, which means it can go right to work on a movie
set.
The new MKIII has a direct-digital-synthesis clock, which interested me,
because there is good evidence that the original Traveler did not perform up
to the potential of the converters. The reviewers liked the sound of the
original Traveler, but with the subsequent qualifications of users who more
accurately assigned a level of quality of "good", rather than "excellent",
the original reviews are just another indication of the severely flawed
reviews typical of professional and semiprofessional equipment. Since I do
not have the opportunity to make multiple recordings with the same musicians
and conditions, it would be difficult for me to report with authority how it
sounds in comparison with other equipment. My hope is that, with the
considerable revamp of the internals, new A/D, new pres, it may not be an
issue, as it apparently was with the original Traveler. The advertising of
state-of-the-art clock synthesis is a very, very promising indication that
the intent may be to compete with Apogee.
The Traveler has features popular with the amateur musician, such as reverb,
that I will never use. My interest is as a relatively cheap, lightweight,
location recorder. It can be powered via Firewire bus, AC adapter, or
10-24VDC battery, "three ways from Sunday", if not six, and is even
protected against reverse polarity.
The most vocal complaints about the Traveler have been about the Windows
driver (Mac users should skip these remarks.) I have now installed the
Traveler to two Windows XP laptops, and I have a pretty good idea where the
problems lie. I have also compared the performance of the Traveler driver to
that of the Echo AudioFire 12, with some interesting results.
Laptop #1: Compal CL50, a 15" second generation Centrino notebook circa
2003, with a CPU upgraded to a Centrino 765, a 2.1 GHz chip with 2 megs of
cache. The laptop chipset is the 855PM, with Radeon 9000 discrete graphics.
RAM is 2 gigabytes. Hard disk: Western Digital BEVE250, 250GB.
Laptop #2: Asus S5NE, a 2.75 lb subnotebook, first generation Centrino,
circa 2004, with a 1 GHz/1meg cache ultra-low-voltage CPU, an 855GM chipset
which uses the CPU to run the screen. RAM=1.25GB. The hard disk is identical
to laptop #1.
Because Laptop #2 does not have a discrete graphics card, and because the
CPU is not only slower but has less cache, laptop #1 is about 3X faster than
laptop #2.
The Traveler installed without incident to the Compal, using the built-in
Via Firewire chipset. However, the driver exhibited unusual behavior.
Immediately upon turn-on of the Traveler, CPU usage went to 40% and remained
at that level for about a minute. CPU usage also spiked when the Traveler
was turned off. This happened without a DAW program running. The process
table indicated that the CPU usage was happening in the kernel itself, in
other words, in the Traveler driver, or caused by that driver. When the
Traveler was turned off, it took an unusually long time for the event to be
recognized.
A Steinberg Cubase Studio 4.52 project was created with 8 tracks at 24/96.
One hour of recording was accomplished without glitches. CPU usage settled
down to about 30%. I then forced the CPU speed to remain at 600MHz and
repeated the experiment. Although CPU usage went up, the machine acquired
for one hour and remained responsive.
MOTU does not damn the Via Firewire chipset, but they recommend TI. In the
next experiment, the built-in port was replaced by a TI based Cardbus
adapter, even though (important!) the Cardbus slot in this laptop is known
to have a problem: it does not give a Firewire card an exclusive interrupt.
This causes problems with most, but not all, audio drivers. A Tascam FW-1082
works in this configuration. An Echo AudioFire 12 exhibits diginoise, but
the system does not crash.
A Traveler crashes. Badly. It bluescreens, does a ram dump, and on reboot,
the OS telegraphs Microsoft with the message that a serious error has
occurred. A kernel crash is the most serious software-only error that can
occur. The crash was caused by a specific hardware deficiency, but
strangely, MOTU does not address this in their tech notes. And the way it
crashes does not offer suggestion to the user.
The installation was repeated on the Asus laptop. With respect to the
outcome, bear in mind that, in terms of ability, the closest comparable
modern machine is an Atom based netbook. This is a slow machine, and few
would desire to use it for DAW work. But I have, and I do, and I wanted to
continue with the Traveler if it were possible.
When the Traveler is connected, CPU usage goes to 100%. After a few minutes
of doing nothing, it declines to around 20%. However, when Steinberg Cubase
is running, CPU usage goes to 100% and stays there. The cursor will not
follow the mouse pointer. The combination of Traveler and Cubase is not
usable. Increasing the buffer size to maximum, and disabling the optical
connections, made no difference.
Since a TI Firewire interface was recommended, I inserted the Cardbus card
and tried again. Since on the Asus, the Cardbus card does not share an
interrupt, there was no crash. But the problem remained: 100% CPU usage.
Mathematically, this is perfectly expected, since the Asus is 1/3 the speed
of the Compal.
I have had good luck with the AudioFire 12 in the past. Now I wanted to
check it. I set it up for 12-channel recording with the Asus. Running at
full tilt, recording 12 channels, CPU usage was about 30%!
The Traveler and the AudioFire have distinctly different feature sets. The
Traveler has 8 analog inputs including 4 mikes, 10 analog outputs, a
sophisticated digital mike limiter, a lot of digital connectivity, an
internal digital crossbar and mixer, and reverb. The AudioFire has 12 analog
inputs, 12 analog outputs, no mikes, no limiter, an internal digital
crossbar switch/mixer, and no digital connectivity. Nevertheless, I do not
see anything in the Traveler feature set that justifies taking 100% of any
CPU. I think I know the name of the dirty culprit, and his name is:
"Spin lock." This guy is the only method a driver has to reserve resources
for it's own use, and he's tricky. A spin lock can be held for no more than
35 microseconds, or the equivalent of a freeway pileup occurs in the kernel.
When the kernel sees too many cars on the road, i.e., drivers waiting their
turn, it infers a crash -- blue screen. The Traveler driver uses too many
spin locks, because it's easier than multithreading.
There are things that catch a programmer's eye. Size of a driver, for
example. The MOTU driver package is 24 megabytes. The size of the AudioFire
package is 1.5 megabytes. The MOTU package is SIXTEEN times larger, yet, as
far as I can tell, both do essentially the same thing. This is called "code
bloat", and there are a number of reasons for it:
1. Big libraries linked in that contain extraneous code.
2. A universal driver is fitted with a "wrapper", so that it can be used on
both Mac and Windows.
3. Inefficient development environment.
4. Skill. Some programmers are coding geniuses. Some are just very
competent. There are no dumb guys in this business.
5. Money. The more perfect the driver, the more it costs.
I would not be too hard on MOTU for not having the best driver team in the
business. In the right machine, it's solid. Their hardware requirements seem
a bit optimistic, as I see no way a 1 GHz machine could work with the
Traveler without severe impairment. The MOTU driver is not aware of what it
needs to work. Put it in a hardware environment that omits a requirement,
and it will simply blue screen, leading to the considerable numbers of
unhappy MOTU owners, alongside those who, having the "right" environment,
are happy.
The question I cannot answer is whether this MKIII will continue to work.
This is a real concern, considering the complaints about late-manufacture
original Travelers. The external ruggedness is real, not cosmetic. At the
same time, the ticking time bomb of bad ROHS soldering in some Chinese
factory cannot be ruled out. I'll use it, hoping the lightning misses me.
Those who want to use the Traveler with the Mac should pay no attention to
the remarks regarding the quality of the Windows driver. It is not in any
way relevant to use with the Mac, and prospective users of the Mac should
obtain information from other sources.
Hope you found this useful,
Bob Morein
TT
"Soundhaspriority" <now...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:F6adnYm2xpDP_ejU...@giganews.com...
> Note to TT: This unit,
> http://www.motu.com/products/motuaudio/traveler-mk3/ , will be used in my
> next foray into nightclub recording. One of the reviews provided by MOTU
> happens to chronicle the use of the original Traveler in the Outback for
> aboriginal music:
> http://www.motu.com/newsitems/atnewsitem.2005-10-20.7042982533/
>
> Review:
>
> Hope you found this useful,
>
Certainly looks the part ;-) Being able to use a few more mikes IMHO should
help with your soundstaging in the less than ideal live venues you record
in.
I'll be interested to hear a sample of how it works out for you.
Cheers Terry
Soundhaspriority
"TT" <TTence...@westnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:C4mdnW-Am9o-JOjU...@westnet.com.au...
venue. The usual equipment is too much of an insurance liability for the
places I want to go.
Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511
Soundhaspriority
ORTF main mike pair, and six or seven spots. The recording equipment is
Sound Devices and Apogee, quite expensive. When I leave the civilized coccon
of Greenwich Village and go uptown, I want to keep the replacement value
down. That is the primary purpose of the Traveler. I can go to ten channels
with a Traveler based setup by adding the Apogee MiniMe, or I can go to
twelve with my Echo Audiofire12 converter, teamed with a pair of Focusrite
8-channel Class A preamps. I can lock the clocks of that setup with the
Sound Devices recorders, and go to twenty channels. But the logistics become
unmanageable.
The paradox of everyone's tastes is that I could probably mix what you've
heard in a way that would be more appealing to you. No two tastes agree. By
reducing the level of the room mike pair, the chatter and clatter can be
made to practically vanish. But along with vanishing of the bad aspects of
the room, so do the good aspects. What remains has been derogatorily called
"panpot" stereo, something Iain could very knowledeably comment on. In the
modern multitrack world of pop music, panpot stereo is more the norm. In the
simplest form of this, each spot is divided in amplitude between the two
channels so as to position them on the soundstage. But this gives only
amplitude clues. At the cost of more work, the individual feeds can be
treated with plugins to provide a sense of space.
And what the hell, I could add a drum track :), and make the whole thing a
"Band in a Box" performance, to parody a well known tool for instant music
creation.
But there are enough people doing this. I decided that, even though I am not
a musician, I could try to fill a tiny corner, of interest, guys like us,
"purists", or audiophiles. Nevertheless, John Atkinson counseled me early
that, to make a commercially acceptable recording in NYC, spots were
necessary. In fact, few auditoriums are quiet enough when empty to do
without them. The trick is to keep the level of the spots low enough that
the ear can continue to enjoy the sensation of space.
I don't know what I'll find uptown. Probably another place with horrible
acoustics that I have to fight tooth-and-nail. The adventure continues ;)
Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511
Iain Churches
>
Morning Bob.
> The paradox of everyone's tastes is that I could probably mix what you've
> heard in a way that would be more appealing to you. No two tastes agree.
That's true. But we quickly become acclimatised to
a "norm". Hence, particularly in classical music, some
listeners favour not only a particular conductor, or orchestra but
a particular location and also the recording approach of a particular
label
>By reducing the level of the room mike pair, the chatter and clatter can be
>made to practically vanish. But along with vanishing of the bad aspects of
>the room, so do the good aspects.
Why don't you try to do away with the pair, or tree,
altogether? Pull your close mics back a little, and rely
upon them only. You can then use a digital stereo
reverb to sweeten the mix and compensate for the
dryness, You can also by this method, treat individual
instruments separately, even if they are recorded straight
stereo, by placing say a nylon string acoustic guitar with
a pleasing reverb in the centre of an otherwise dryish
ensemble. Use DI (direct injection) for instruments
such as bass gtr and electric piano. And if "focus" which
may entail separation, is important, overdub things like
tambourines. This way, the whole project is much
more under your control.
While trying hard to establish a pleasing acoustic,
bear in mind that, for multi-mic recordings,
inter-microphone leakage is a killer, which can
greatly affect in an adverse way, both the sound
and the phase of your recording. This is something
that TT and I have discussed both on and off list.
You should add a goniometer (or a scope in
XY mode) to your equipment inventory, and
connect this across the console output to the
monitor amp.
What remains has been derogatorily called
> "panpot" stereo, something Iain could very knowledeably comment on. In the
> modern multitrack world of pop music, panpot stereo is more the norm. In
> the simplest form of this, each spot is divided in amplitude between the
> two channels so as to position them on the soundstage. But this gives only
> amplitude clues.
One can also give the impression of depth, and
also height, by the careful use of inter-signal phase.
Recordings by The Moody Blues and Pink Floyd
illustrate this well, on some systems in some rooms.
>At the cost of more work, the individual feeds can be
> treated with plugins to provide a sense of space.
At some stage you will have to accept this.
You don't seem to have mentioned the type of music you
choose to record, Bob Neither do you say much about
the size and type of the locations.
The technique adopted depends so much upon the project itself
and the space in which it is to be recorded.
The Decca label, Phase Four was the "pan pot stereo"
format to end 'em all:-)
It started in the 1960s, when stereo was new and interesting.
Many P4 recordings were made "straight stereo" with the
purpose built 24 channel Decca console, but others which
had soloists to be overdubbed, where recorded across two
tracks of a Studer J37 four track 1" recorder.
Decca III was a huge studio, with quite a live acoustic. Although
there were screens, these were not used to any great extent. One
can after all set the orchestra/band up in a layout to use the studio
to advantage and to follow the stereo image.
It was fun to take a different aproach. Consider a string section,
normally sitting Vlns A,B,C, and altos (violas) left to centre then
celli and orchestral bases (RC ro right) It sounded a lot
more interesting (although probably not to the ears of the
establish classical listeners) with the Vlns A+B left, and Vlns C
plus violas on the right, and then celli centre with the orchestral
basses sitting behind them - just like a Baroque orchestra.
The same was done with brass, horn and saxophone sections,
with multi microphone technique and pan potted to their
particular spot in the stereo image. Arrangements were written
so as to play sections against each other, in a "ping pong"
fashion.
The system evolved to two 4-track machines. At that time,
there was no LTC and machines could not be interlocked, so
the orchestra/band was recorded across four tracks which
were "bounced down" to two tracks on the second machine
(this was called four-to-four) so that the two remaining tracks
could be kept for overdubs. It goes without saying that Decca
were not unique in this approach. Just a kilometer away
at EMI Abbey Road, the Beatles' "Sgt.Pepper" was recorded
using exactly this method. That's a pretty remarkable "pan pot"
album too:-)
Usually, multi-track multi-microphone recordings are built
up instrument by instrument, track by track, (a process
affectionately known ast "musical bricklaying") and so
every element needs to be "placed" in the mix by the
use of a pan pot into the stereo soundstage. One
also needs to build an overall acoustic, as the recording,
which may have been put together in different locations,
often on different continents, does not have one of its own.
> And what the hell, I could add a drum track :), and make the whole thing a
> "Band in a Box" performance, to parody a well known tool for instant music
> creation.
Or you could record a real drum kit. Much more fun.
>
> Nevertheless, John Atkinson counseled me early that, to make a
> commercially acceptable recording in NYC, spots were necessary. In fact,
> few auditoriums are quiet enough when empty to do without them.
And when you open you main pair, you can usually hear traffic, passing
aircraft,trains or even birds;.)
>The trick is to keep the level of the spots low enough that the ear can
>continue to enjoy the sensation of space.
Or else artificially recreate that space.
>
> The adventure continues ;)
It's a great adventure, Bob. Please keep us posted as to your
progress. I would be happy to "exchange some tracks, and
some ideas with you, just for fun, if you wish.
I am enjoying this sensible discussion. The never-
ending skirmish with Mr Krueger is starting to
wear very thin indeed:-)
Best regards
Iain
Soundhaspriority
"Iain Churches" <Iai...@kolumbus.fi> wrote in message
news:Byzdl.121692$_03....@reader1.news.saunalahti.fi...
>
> "Soundhaspriority" <now...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:DNadnbCTBMa4i-vU...@giganews.com...
>>
>
> Morning Bob.
>
>> The paradox of everyone's tastes is that I could probably mix what you've
>> heard in a way that would be more appealing to you. No two tastes agree.
>
Good evening, Iain.
I'm hitting the sack here, so I'll respond tomorrow. There's a lot to think
about. Bear in mind I have received my rudimentary education from Streicher
& Everett, ie., coincident techniques, with passing mention of the three:one
rule, so much of what you say is astonishing to me.
But I can't resist afew initial thoughts...
The recordings of a jazz quintet TT sampled were done in a cramped, noisy
NYC restaraunt. Harry Lavo liked them, TT did not. Harry has a high
tolerance for ambience, especially because it felt to him like he was
sitting in a club. TT's focus is more purely on the music, and found the
ambience distracting.
The place was so unimaginably tiny, there was no place to pull the mikes
back to. The main pair was probably about the distance you would suggest for
the spots. Nevertheless, the techniques you mention seem strange and
wonderful to me, if, and this is a big IF, I can be fooled into imagining
they are something else. Can you recommend the best of the breed for
sampling, to determine if this is possible?
Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511
Iain Churches
>
> "Iain Churches" <Iai...@kolumbus.fi> wrote in message
> news:Byzdl.121692$_03....@reader1.news.saunalahti.fi...
>>
>> "Soundhaspriority" <now...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>> news:DNadnbCTBMa4i-vU...@giganews.com...
>>>
>>
>> Morning Bob.
>>
>>> The paradox of everyone's tastes is that I could probably mix what
>>> you've
>>> heard in a way that would be more appealing to you. No two tastes agree.
>>
> [snip]
>
> Good evening, Iain.
>
> I'm hitting the sack here, so I'll respond tomorrow. There's a lot to
> think about. Bear in mind I have received my rudimentary education from
> Streicher & Everett, ie., coincident techniques, with passing mention of
> the three:one rule, so much of what you say is astonishing to me.
Are you familiar with the "tree" mic setup? It was devised by Roy Wallace
at Decca, as a method of overcoming the short-comings of coincidental
techniques. In fact, once they got the tree working satisfactorily, Decca
scrapped the new co-incidental pair recordings they had made for their
stereo catalogue and remade them!!
> But I can't resist afew initial thoughts...
>
> The recordings of a jazz quintet TT sampled were done in a cramped, noisy
> NYC restaraunt. Harry Lavo liked them, TT did not.
One can regard such a recording either as a document, or
as a musical performance. And this greatly affects the
impression it makes on the listener. It is possible that the
clatter of knives and forks on the finest restaurant
porcelain might be distracting to many people.
> Harry has a high tolerance for ambience, especially because it felt to him
> like he was sitting in a club.
I like that idea too. As a young man in London,. I was a frequent
visitor at Ronnie Scott's which was then one of the best Jazz clubs
in Europe. I was present at many sessions that were recorded by
the BBC, and was amazed at the distracting level of "clatter" on
the broadcast which I had not noticed in situ. It is well known
that the visual reference greatly affects what we hear. In recent
years I have noticed the same thing at Stampen in Stockholm.
>TT's focus is more purely on the music, and found the ambience distracting.
Understood.
Both Harry and Terry make interesting and well-informed
posts. I am always keen to hear their points of view.
> The place was so unimaginably tiny, there was no place to pull the mikes
> back to. The main pair was probably about the distance you would suggest
> for the spots. Nevertheless, the techniques you mention seem strange and
> wonderful to me, if, and this is a big IF, I can be fooled into imagining
> they are something else. Can you recommend the best of the breed for
> sampling, to determine if this is possible?
I can send you a "teaching sample" of a big band, which is made to
illustrate to students how musical arrangements are put together and
developed. The usual copyright caveats apply.
>
Meanwhile, I have some other "thoughts" which I will put down
in a couple of hours.
Regards
Iain
PS. I added some comments about recording the
orchestral bass (bass fiddle!) on another thread.
TT
of CDs and see if he will give you his opinion and perhaps some suggestions.
Now to accurately express my opinion on your recordings I did like them but
did dislike the "ambiance". Have people chatter, rustle knives and forks
etc is a put off for me.
I have discussed this with Iain and also Alan. R. who has listened to them
as well. My criticism was that on my system the recordings had a hollow
section in the middle of the sound where there should have been a stereo
image. I was under the impression it was a phasing problem. I even went to
the trouble to copy a track into CEP and reverse the phase on one channel.
It did not help. What did make it better was to reverse the phase and then
combine both tracks to mono.
On headphones this phenomena is not apparent but with large, widely spaced,
full range speakers it becomes very noticeable. At the same time I also had
a Show Reel from Iain and it demonstrated his work very nicely so I had a
comparison to discuss with him.
Finally, since you have mixed these from a multi-track recording perhaps you
could interest Iain into maybe doing a mix for you as well? IMHO It would
definitely be a big help to you ;-)
Cheers Terry
PS for future reference I also HATED the Jazz at the Pawn Shop SACDs as
well. It is like putting a DVD movie on and have the rear surround speakers
rustling with sweet wrappers or some old woman discussing her Hysterectomy
operation. Ambiance is one thing, annoying petty noises are another!
<<<<bitch mode OFF>>> :-)
TT
>
> Both Harry and Terry make interesting and well-informed
> posts. I am always keen to hear their points of view.
>
Awwww shucks............... (Blush) :-))
>> The place was so unimaginably tiny, there was no place to pull the mikes
>> back to. The main pair was probably about the distance you would suggest
>> for the spots. Nevertheless, the techniques you mention seem strange and
>> wonderful to me, if, and this is a big IF, I can be fooled into
>> imagining they are something else. Can you recommend the best of the
>> breed for sampling, to determine if this is possible?
>
> I can send you a "teaching sample" of a big band, which is made to
> illustrate to students how musical arrangements are put together and
> developed. The usual copyright caveats apply.
>>
>
> Meanwhile, I have some other "thoughts" which I will put down
> in a couple of hours.
>
I'm sure Bob will appreciate it.
> Regards
> Iain
>
> PS. I added some comments about recording the
> orchestral bass (bass fiddle!) on another thread.
I have suggested to Bob to send you a disc to evaluate for him and perhaps
even the raw mutitrack recording to see what you can do with it.
Unfortunately I have no idea how to mix, edit or even record so my comments
are purely from a "Mug punter's" point of view who buys this stuff.
Doesn't make a pleasant change to discuss this sort of thing with someone
that actually appreciates some input?
Cheers Terry
Iain Churches
I wonder have you ever been involved in a project with
a complete saxophone section (five players in all) ? To
close-mic a section like this needs five mics, or eight if
the two altos and first tenor saxophone are doubliing
on flutes or clarinets. This can be a considerable drain
on your technical resources!
Brass sections, trumpets and trombones and French
horns are easier. Trumpet players can sit so that the
bell of the instrument is either to the left or the right of
the music stand, so two players can share a mic.
French horns are "rear draught" and so a mic
placed strategically for the 1st horn will also capture
the whole section of four (or sometimes five)
in good balance.
But back to the saxophones. Balancing such a section
is tricky to say the least, particularly when, in fve
part harmony the first alto is not always the instrument
playing the melody. And even from the session lead
sheet it is not always apparent how the section needs to
be balanced. That's when you need a good producer
reading ahead from a full score who can cue you as
required.
Quite early on, I came upon a much simpler method
when I attended the rehearsals of a very famous jazz
orchestra. The five saxes were sitting in a circle. The
baritone player, Harry Carney asked if I would be
interested to sit in the centre of the circle to listen.
The balance was pefect, like one instrument playing
five notes! I noticed also how, now and again, the
2nd tenor, for example would lean in, just slightly, to
add a little more weight to say a passing figure within
the five part harmony. The whole section has perfect
intonation, and matching vibrato. I was astounded,
and realised that if one could put a good omni in the
centre of that circle, say a Neumann M50 then one
could capture that immaculate balance on a single fader!
Iain
Iain Churches
>
> "Iain Churches" <Iai...@kolumbus.fi> wrote in message
> news:xzAdl.121714$_03....@reader1.news.saunalahti.fi...
>> Meanwhile, I have some other "thoughts" which I will put down
>> in a couple of hours.
>>
> I'm sure Bob will appreciate it.
He might not, if he appreciates the simple life:-)
> I have suggested to Bob to send you a disc to evaluate
I'm not really a critic. I have my own way of doing
things based on what I have been taught, but that
does not mean they are the only solutions. So much
depends upon the music, the location, and even the
potential listeners.
>for him and perhaps even the raw mutitrack recording to see what you can do
>with it.
I get the idea that Bob has considerable skills already
(I have not heard his work) It might be of more use to
him to talk over the options rather than someone else
do the mix for him.
You mentioned multitrack TT. For some reason I got
the idea that Bob was working muti-microphone (or
rather a pair plus spots) in straight stereo.
> Doesn't make a pleasant change to discuss this sort of thing with someone
> that actually appreciates some input?
Indeed. Bob has put this group back on track.
But at least the contention with you-know-who
was restricted to only one thread.
Iain
TT
>
> "TT" <TTence...@westnet.com.au> wrote in message
> news:AaednQOmqYm1jerU...@westnet.com.au...
>>
>> "Iain Churches" <Iai...@kolumbus.fi> wrote in message
>> news:xzAdl.121714$_03....@reader1.news.saunalahti.fi...
>
>>> Meanwhile, I have some other "thoughts" which I will put down
>>> in a couple of hours.
>>>
>> I'm sure Bob will appreciate it.
>
> He might not, if he appreciates the simple life:-)
>
I'm sure if he enjoyed the simple life he wouldn't cart all his recording
gear to cafe but merely sit there and enjoy the beer ;-)
>> I have suggested to Bob to send you a disc to evaluate
>
> I'm not really a critic.
Hence I chose the word "evaluate" and not so much to be a critic but to
critique ;-) I think he just need some pointers really or a fresh view from
someone who knows there stuff. .
> I have my own way of doing
> things based on what I have been taught, but that
> does not mean they are the only solutions. So much
> depends upon the music, the location, and even the
> potential listeners.
Yes of course.
>
>>for him and perhaps even the raw mutitrack recording to see what you can
>>do
>>with it.
>
> I get the idea that Bob has considerable skills already
Undoubtedly.
> (I have not heard his work) It might be of more use to
> him to talk over the options rather than someone else
> do the mix for him.
I have identified what I believe to be a small problem with his recording
technique. The 2ch mix as presented to me doesn't give me any clues as to
why so I have suggested looking (listening?) at the original recordings as
it may be a mixing problem and not a recording one.
When I look at one his recordings in CEP and do a phase analyses it appears
to be at times more than 90deg. out of phase and the graph shows a big hole
in the middle. This is effectively what I hear on my system but it is not
apparent on headphones
>
> You mentioned multitrack TT. For some reason I got
> the idea that Bob was working muti-microphone (or
> rather a pair plus spots) in straight stereo.
This is what I first thought but from his reply to me above:
"Elaborating a little, my setup has always consisted of 8 channels, with an
ORTF main mike pair, and six or seven spots. The recording equipment is
Sound Devices and Apogee, quite expensive. When I leave the civilized coccon
of Greenwich Village and go uptown, I want to keep the replacement value
down. That is the primary purpose of the Traveler. I can go to ten channels
with a Traveler based setup by adding the Apogee MiniMe, or I can go to
twelve with my Echo Audiofire12 converter, teamed with a pair of Focusrite
8-channel Class A preamps.
Have I misunderstood? Isn't 8ch 8 tracks? Or is he in effect feeding and
mixing 4+ feeds into each stereo channel?
Cheers Terry
Soundhaspriority
>
[snip]
>
> I get the idea that Bob has considerable skills already
> (I have not heard his work) It might be of more use to
> him to talk over the options rather than someone else
> do the mix for him.
>
oddball. It would be extremely interesting if you were to take a single
track and make it more pleasing to Terry.
As far as "skills", I give myself credit for the ability to do one-offs. In
other words, I get a kick out of executing a complex procedure that would
normally be expected to require fully professional skills. But the
techniques you mention are vastly more complicated than what have done so
far, which is:
1. Spot and ORTF the performance.
2. Pan the spots into positions that are either coincident with the
perceived ORTF placement, OR, synthetically place the instrument.
Terry doesn't have my best recording, which is of lieder, done in an empty
recital hall with professional talent. In that case, I managed to do a
couple of cute things:
1. Twist the piano 90 degrees, and place it pleasingly on the soundstage.
2. Seamlessly splice the singing in post. I kicked up quite a fuss when it
was requested, but with the performer's guidance, it was astonishingly
invisible.
> You mentioned multitrack TT. For some reason I got
> the idea that Bob was working muti-microphone (or
> rather a pair plus spots) in straight stereo.
>
That is correct. No one can call himself a professional unless he is
familiar and comfortable working in a multitrack environment, and I have no
experience with it. The thing is, this is an extension of my hi-fi hobby.
Like everybody else in this group, as I saw deeper and deeper into the
recordings, the fewer satisfied me, while the few stood out in marvelous
contrast. Everyone has different tastes, but I can count the "miracles" in
my CD collection on one hand. I have a recording of Stephan Grapelli which
has almost an Ambisonic quality. I wanted to learn how to "bring it back
alive."
My primary tutor was John Atkinson, who completely spilled his beans. He has
one technique, about which he is quite modest, but which should probably be
the subject of an AES article. It relates to the multiple use of coincident
pairs at different distances, which he time aligns in post. While
traditional techniques reward a perfect placement decision during
production, John's technique allows for recoverable error and more choices
in post. As far as I can tell, this is the only acknowledgement by a member
of the community of coincident mike users of the previously unavailable
opportunities provided by the DAW environment.
Unfortunately, none of the venues I have had the opportunity to work in,
save the recital hall, have provided the opportunity for maximal use of
"purist" techniques. One jazz group is particularly heedless of the demands
of the recording process. Both TT and Harry Lavo found my attempt to capture
their sound unsatisfying. I am wondering if sophisticated processing of spot
mikes, almost a simultaneous "tracking", might be a better way to proceed
with this group. But, is there any possibility I will satisfy myself?
Wit artificial ambience synthesis, and all these tracks, the number of
options explodes combinatorially. Eight channels, eight plugins, eight x4
equalizers, eight x ? wall parameters -- add to that effects on the output
bus itself -- it's actually a maze I would get lost in.
>> Doesn't make a pleasant change to discuss this sort of thing with someone
>> that actually appreciates some input?
>
> Indeed. Bob has put this group back on track.
> But at least the contention with you-know-who
> was restricted to only one thread.
>
> Iain
>
I have never understood why usenet should be confrontational. Either someone
is a friend, and I'm talking to them like one, or there are better things to
do.
Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511
Soundhaspriority
> Bob. Having talked briefly about mutli-mic straight stereo,
> I wonder have you ever been involved in a project with
> a complete saxophone section (five players in all) ? To
> close-mic a section like this needs five mics, or eight if
> the two altos and first tenor saxophone are doubliing
> on flutes or clarinets. This can be a considerable drain
> on your technical resources!
>
No, but your account is fascinating.
You'll laugh at the crudity. I did have a situation with two sax players
from Japan. They like to spend some of their lives playing Greenwich
Village, because of the importance of the locale in the history of jazz.
This was the setup:
One kickdrum mike, an RE27/ND
One overhead mike, a Behringer ECM-8000. Incredibly cheap, but actually
captures the sublety of highhats much better than many commercial efforts
I've heard.
A rode NT-4 stereo mike, perched on a sad, broken down upright piano that
would be kicked right out of Kansas City
One large diaphragm MXL 2003 on the bass fiddle. The MXL is an accurate
knockoff of the TLM103
The "ORTF" pair, consisting of Studio Projects C-4 small diaphragm
condensers.
So how did I capture the two saxes? They played right into the ORTF pair.
The players did move a bit, but their culture is one of precision, which
allayed things a bit.
It is immediately obvious that that the levels are not controlled. One help
is that the Sound Devices recorders are reknowned for their optical
limiters. I cannot get an audible clip out of them. Recording hot provides
something akin to post treatment with an optical compressor. But the
recording can please only in context. It does not have the precise
attributes of the kind of work you are accustomed to doing.
Now, in this particular venue, which was SOOO tiny, my welcome was strained
by the bulk of equipment. The little cafe tables were separated by about
18". I could not have used my 12 channel setup. Withe the MOTU Traveler, I
may be able run ten channels. But there are other logistical problems.
Simply preventing the equipment from vanishing is one of them ;)
Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511
Soundhaspriority
>
[snip]
>>
> Here's your chance Bob, now that you have Iain interested send him a
> couple of CDs and see if he will give you his opinion and perhaps some
> suggestions.
>
> Now to accurately express my opinion on your recordings I did like them
> but did dislike the "ambiance". Have people chatter, rustle knives and
> forks etc is a put off for me.
>
> I have discussed this with Iain and also Alan. R. who has listened to them
> as well. My criticism was that on my system the recordings had a hollow
> section in the middle of the sound where there should have been a stereo
> image. I was under the impression it was a phasing problem.
Were Alan's comments exactly the same? Did he also hear a hole, or did he
see other problems?
> I even went to the trouble to copy a track into CEP and reverse the phase
> on one channel. It did not help. What did make it better was to reverse
> the phase and then combine both tracks to mono.
>
> On headphones this phenomena is not apparent but with large, widely
> spaced, full range speakers it becomes very noticeable. At the same time
> I also had a Show Reel from Iain and it demonstrated his work very nicely
> so I had a comparison to discuss with him.
>
> Finally, since you have mixed these from a multi-track recording perhaps
> you could interest Iain into maybe doing a mix for you as well? IMHO It
> would definitely be a big help to you ;-)
>
I certainly would like Iain to take a look at the recordings. It would be
even more interesting if he looked at the actual tracks as well. My only
concern is whether he would be interested in it as a fight against
adversity, rather than an opportunity for perfection.
> Cheers Terry
>
> PS for future reference I also HATED the Jazz at the Pawn Shop SACDs as
> well. It is like putting a DVD movie on and have the rear surround
> speakers rustling with sweet wrappers or some old woman discussing her
> Hysterectomy operation. Ambiance is one thing, annoying petty noises are
> another!
> <<<<bitch mode OFF>>> :-)
>
Was her surgery traditional or noninvasive? Please indicate which recording
I should listen to :)
Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511
Soundhaspriority
>
[snip]
>
> When I look at one his recordings in CEP and do a phase analyses it
> appears to be at times more than 90deg. out of phase and the graph shows a
> big hole in the middle. This is effectively what I hear on my system but
> it is not apparent on headphones
>
room, to spots behind the microphones? I thought we covered that, though if
you have observed it in other recordings, it's worth a look.
>>
>> You mentioned multitrack TT. For some reason I got
>> the idea that Bob was working muti-microphone (or
>> rather a pair plus spots) in straight stereo.
>
> This is what I first thought but from his reply to me above:
> "Elaborating a little, my setup has always consisted of 8 channels, with
> an
> ORTF main mike pair, and six or seven spots. The recording equipment is
> Sound Devices and Apogee, quite expensive. When I leave the civilized
> coccon
> of Greenwich Village and go uptown, I want to keep the replacement value
> down. That is the primary purpose of the Traveler. I can go to ten
> channels
> with a Traveler based setup by adding the Apogee MiniMe, or I can go to
> twelve with my Echo Audiofire12 converter, teamed with a pair of Focusrite
> 8-channel Class A preamps.
>
> Have I misunderstood? Isn't 8ch 8 tracks? Or is he in effect feeding and
> mixing 4+ feeds into each stereo channel?
>
> Cheers Terry
Paul originally used it, which was to lay down tracks in separate sessions.
By using 8 tracks the way I do, it's really just deferred stereo.
Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511
Soundhaspriority
[snip]
>
> You mentioned multitrack TT. For some reason I got
> the idea that Bob was working muti-microphone (or
> rather a pair plus spots) in straight stereo.
>
This is the equipment used thus far, providing 8 channels:
Two Sound Devices 744T recorders linked in both clock and control. Each has
two mike preamps of very high quality, with the traditional long-tailed
discrete pair. I record at 24/88.
One Sound Devices 302 mixer, which provides two transformer coupled pres,
plus a 3rd, if one dared to mix on site. The pres have typical transformer
character, which makes them technically inferior, but an interesting choice
for some things.
An Apogee MiniMe, supplying two channels, as a digital pre. When used with
the recorders, it is the clock master. It is not as good as the SD
recorders, but it's good enough.
Despite the vaunted reputation of the Apogee limiters, the SD limiters are
far better. One can be a complete idiot with these, and they will always
bring home a usable result.
One aspect which has proved particularly useful is that all of it can be
battery powered, internally, in the case of the SD equipment, and with an
external lithium pack, in the case of the Apogee.
The equipment can be clock locked to additional equipment, but it is beyond
my resources to do this in a typical NYC venue.
When I say I do not do multitrack, I really should clarify by saying that I
do not have any experience in what is popularly called "tracking", ie.,
laying down tracks in separate sessions. In any case, this is not possible
with the Sound Devices equipment, which are designed purely as field
recorders.
Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511
TT
>
> "TT" <TTence...@westnet.com.au> wrote in message
> news:r6Gdnc_9xOTsrerU...@westnet.com.au...
>>
> [snip]
>>
>> When I look at one his recordings in CEP and do a phase
>> analyses it appears to be at times more than 90deg. out
>> of phase and the graph shows a big hole in the middle.
>> This is effectively what I hear on my system but it is
>> not apparent on headphones
>>
> Yes, but isn't that the recording where the saxaphonist
> walks around the room, to spots behind the microphones? I
> thought we covered that, though if you have observed it in
> other recordings, it's worth a look.
>>>
things as I did. BTW I do hope you aren't taking any of my
comments negatively as I am genuinely trying to help here?
So basically what I have observed with the recordings is a
hole in the centre of the sound stage. Hence I was looking
at phase shift. I don't know why (and hopefully Iain can
find an answer) it is that way. CEP also confirms there is
a hole in the centre as well so it is not me, my room or my
gear ;-)
Well that clears that up. In that case can some of the mike
feeds have reversed polarity then?
Cheers Terry
TT
>
> "TT" <TTence...@westnet.com.au> wrote in message
> news:Fe2dnfs7iOERkOrU...@westnet.com.au...
>>
> [snip]
>>>
>> Here's your chance Bob, now that you have Iain interested
>> send him a couple of CDs and see if he will give you his
>> opinion and perhaps some suggestions.
>>
>> Now to accurately express my opinion on your recordings I
>> did like them but did dislike the "ambiance". Have
>> people chatter, rustle knives and forks etc is a put off
>> for me.
>>
>> I have discussed this with Iain and also Alan. R. who has
>> listened to them as well. My criticism was that on my
>> system the recordings had a hollow section in the middle
>> of the sound where there should have been a stereo image.
>> I was under the impression it was a phasing problem.
>
> Were Alan's comments exactly the same? Did he also hear a
> hole, or did he see other problems?
>
I'm pleased you took that with the humour I intended.
Cheers Terry
Soundhaspriority
>
> "Soundhaspriority" <now...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:Wd-dnfkhNtnswurU...@giganews.com...
>>
>> "TT" <TTence...@westnet.com.au> wrote in message
>> news:r6Gdnc_9xOTsrerU...@westnet.com.au...
>>>
>> [snip]
>>>
>>> When I look at one his recordings in CEP and do a phase analyses it
>>> appears to be at times more than 90deg. out of phase and the graph shows
>>> a big hole in the middle. This is effectively what I hear on my system
>>> but it is not apparent on headphones
>>>
>> Yes, but isn't that the recording where the saxaphonist walks around the
>> room, to spots behind the microphones? I thought we covered that, though
>> if you have observed it in other recordings, it's worth a look.
>>>>
> They are all similarly affected and Alan R. heard the same things as I
> did. BTW I do hope you aren't taking any of my comments negatively as I
> am genuinely trying to help here?
>
should hear them.
> So basically what I have observed with the recordings is a hole in the
> centre of the sound stage. Hence I was looking at phase shift. I don't
> know why (and hopefully Iain can find an answer) it is that way. CEP also
> confirms there is a hole in the centre as well so it is not me, my room or
> my gear ;-)
>
Now that I understand that they are all similarly affected, a possible
reason comes to mind. My version of ORTF is not the pure form. The
definition of ORTF given by the inventors is described here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ORTF_stereo_technique
I asked a knowledgeable person, who I will not name here, as to his
practical version of the technique. His instruction was to always point each
microphone at the corresponding soundstage boundary, in other words, at the
most distant instrument on the left or right. He might have had a different
view if he had actually seen the setup.
The angle between the microphones is crucial to preventing an intensity
hole. You may recall that a centered phantom image created by panning cause
a drop of about 3dB. The same problem afflicts microphone techniques, except
for the Blumlein crossed-figure 8. The correct angle should prevent that.
Nevertheless, I heard no hole, which only means that my ears different from
yours ;)
[snip]
>>
> Well that clears that up. In that case can some of the mike feeds have
> reversed polarity then?
>
> Cheers Terry
I recall a single session where in the dark, the MXL mike, which looks
symmetrical from front to back, was turned around. As far as reversed
polarity, it's hard for me to understand how it would occur. None of the
equipment used has a phase reversal switch, and the cables are all
commercial.
Let's review the observations. I haven't used CEP in ages. I would like to
know what "view" it was providing, so that I can find something similar to
analyze with.
1. Hole in center, explainable by too wide an angle between the ORTF pair.
2. Phase anomalies -- I thought these were restricted to the sax player who
had the habit of walking around the restaraunt, behind the ORTF pair. Since
you have found it to be all over, I need to find a similar analysis tool --
which Steinberg Cubase probably has. What tool did you use?
These anomalies could be due to the close proximity of the spot mikes and
the ORTF pair. They were on top of each other, and the spot intensities did
not obey the -10dB rule, so there inevitably was comb filtering, which could
resemble phase reversal.
Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511
Soundhaspriority
>
[snip]
>>>>
> They are all similarly affected and Alan R. heard the same things as I
> did. BTW I do hope you aren't taking any of my comments negatively as I
> am genuinely trying to help here?
>
like yourself, with the desire to help? How many people would simply respond
with something like, "I enjoyed the disk,, thank you very much." How many
people seek to foster a community spirit on usenet, as opposed to the
useless "cocksmanship" of r.a.o."
Not very many. You're gold, man.
In March, I'll be recording in a concert hall once again. I'll be sure to
send you a copy.
Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511
TT
>
> "TT" <TTence...@westnet.com.au> wrote in message
> news:me-dnXithK5rIOrU...@westnet.com.au...
>>
>> "Soundhaspriority" <now...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>> news:Wd-dnfkhNtnswurU...@giganews.com...
>>>
>>> "TT" <TTence...@westnet.com.au> wrote in message
>>> news:r6Gdnc_9xOTsrerU...@westnet.com.au...
>>>>
>>> [snip]
>>>>
>>>> When I look at one his recordings in CEP and do a phase
>>>> analyses it appears to be at times more than 90deg. out
>>>> of phase and the graph shows a big hole in the middle.
>>>> This is effectively what I hear on my system but it is
>>>> not apparent on headphones
>>>>
>>> Yes, but isn't that the recording where the saxaphonist
>>> walks around the room, to spots behind the microphones?
>>> I thought we covered that, though if you have observed
>>> it in other recordings, it's worth a look.
>>>>>
>> They are all similarly affected and Alan R. heard the
>> same things as I did. BTW I do hope you aren't taking
>> any of my comments negatively as I am genuinely trying to
>> help here?
>>
> Oh, no! TT, never let it cross your mind. This simply
> clarifies that Iain should hear them.
Whew! You can never be too careful on these groups/forums
;-) I do try hard to let people know when I'm *trying* to
upset them :-))
It was the Phase graph. It shows the signal strength L-R
(diagonal) and Phase (also diagonal) so if something is out
of phase it pretty well draws a circle with a hole in the
centre. On commercial recordings it is a tight ellipse with
no or little phase anomalies as the signal varies L-R.
>
> 1. Hole in centre, explainable by too wide an angle
> between the ORTF pair.
>
Yes but can be surely cured by placing a third mike in the
middle?
> 2. Phase anomalies -- I thought these were restricted to
> the sax player who had the habit of walking around the
> restaraunt, behind the ORTF pair. Since you have found it
> to be all over, I need to find a similar analysis tool --
> which Steinberg Cubase probably has. What tool did you
> use?
>
The phase graph in Cool Edit Pro.
> These anomalies could be due to the close proximity of the
> spot mikes and the ORTF pair. They were on top of each
> other, and the spot intensities did not obey the -10dB
> rule, so there inevitably was comb filtering, which could
> resemble phase reversal.
Lost me after "These..." :-)) The only mikes I have had
experience with is the cheap nasty ones that someone shoves
in your hand during a drunken Karaoke night or the condenser
type I use for calibrating equipment or doing room analyses.
As I have said I know very little about recording and so
have no claim to any expertise at all. As a suggestion,
your set up sounds very complicated, perhaps you would be
better off going back to basics and using two
omnidirectional mikes? And then slowly build up to these
arrays that you are using? IMHO you have nearly hit the
nail on the head above talking about "spot intensities"
because you have the reverse problem - a suck out or hole in
the centre. Can you get some of these musos to allow you to
have a practice while they are rehearsing? And then have
some monitor speakers to place on the stage and replay what
you have recorded and compare the two sounds?
Cheers Terry
Soundhaspriority
>
> "Soundhaspriority" <now...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:EdqdnQTFhaRQR-rU...@giganews.com...
>>
>>
>> Let's review the observations. I haven't used CEP in ages. I would like
>> to know what "view" it was providing, so that I can find something
>> similar to analyze with.
>
> It was the Phase graph. It shows the signal strength L-R (diagonal) and
> Phase (also diagonal) so if something is out of phase it pretty well draws
> a circle with a hole in the centre. On commercial recordings it is a
> tight ellipse with no or little phase anomalies as the signal varies L-R.
>
work, it's referred to as a Lissajous scope. These devices work this way:
1. One signal is applied to the horizontal deflection of the "scope"
2. The other signal is applied to the vertical deflection.
3. If the signals are identical, the scope will exhibit a diagonal line at
exactly 45 degrees.
4. If the signals are identical but phase shifted, it will open up. A 90
degree phase shift results in a perfect circle.
I would want to investigate whether "commercial" might be too broad. It
could come down to a matter of differing technique, some of which might be
visible in a variety of commercial recordings. Let's consider the case of
panpot stereo, a single feed panned to be a phantom image. Since panning
produces no change in phase, only amplitude, when this is displayed on a
phase meter, the result will be an angled line, ie., a collapsed ellipse.
Yet a panpotted phantom is the least interesting form of stereo!
Now consider a "wall of sound" approach, with spaced mikes. This technique
is still widely used, yet it produces a very messy phase display. In fact,
there is one respected technique of miking which relies on nothing but
phase. With Tony Faulkner's phased array, there is no amplitude information
at all:
http://www.sengpielaudio.com/TonyFaulknerPhasedArray02.pdf
http://www.sengpielaudio.com/TonyFaulknerPhasedArray03.pdf
http://www.sengpielaudio.com/TonyFaulknerPhasedArray04.pdf
None of this absolves the recording. I just don't know how to interpret it.
It would be interesting for Iain to comment on what exactly in a phase
display signals trouble. I think (Iain comment?) that in the case of modern
studio recordings laid down via tracking, engineers are much more
conservative about phase than in the less common situation of live
recordings that are issued as CD's.
>>
>> 1. Hole in centre, explainable by too wide an angle between the ORTF
>> pair.
>>
> Yes but can be surely cured by placing a third mike in the middle?
>
One would think. As a novice, I center my efforts around known techniques.
There is a famous book, by Streicher & Everett, which proclaims to the true
believers a certain few techniques, known as "coincident", that rely on
exactly two mikes being close to each other. They do cover one technique
using a third mike, the so called "Decca Tree", but nowhere do they mention
a hybridization of ORTF. The basic problem with the third mike is similar to
early attempts to augment stereo with a third speaker -- all techniques
known up until recently resulted in a loss of separation with no
corresponding benefit. The current ability of HT theater systems to use a
center channel derives from all that brand new synthetic stuff, which
doesn't seem to offer the seamless soundstaging the audiophile desires.
>> 2. Phase anomalies -- I thought these were restricted to the sax player
>> who had the habit of walking around the restaraunt, behind the ORTF pair.
>> Since you have found it to be all over, I need to find a similar analysis
>> tool -- which Steinberg Cubase probably has. What tool did you use?
>>
> The phase graph in Cool Edit Pro.
>
>> These anomalies could be due to the close proximity of the spot mikes and
>> the ORTF pair. They were on top of each other, and the spot intensities
>> did not obey the -10dB rule, so there inevitably was comb filtering,
>> which could resemble phase reversal.
>
> Lost me after "These..." :-)) The only mikes I have had experience with
> is the cheap nasty ones that someone shoves in your hand during a drunken
> Karaoke night or the condenser type I use for calibrating equipment or
> doing room analyses.
>
OK. There is the famous 3:1 rule, which states that microphones must be 3X
more distant from each other than they are from the sources. If two spot
mikes are each situated one foot from say, a drum, and a guitar, then they
must be separated by three feet. By the inverse square law, this means that
each mike will pick up the other source 1/9 as loudly as the one it's
intended to, which is about 10dB. This is desired because when the two
mikes are summed, they create destructive interference, known as comb
filtering. If the two mikes pick up the same signal at the same amplitude,
and the mikes are summed, the result is complete cancellation -- black holes
in the sum, where there is no signal at all. And in between the cancellation
frequencies, the phases go crazy.
I think every recordist knows this rule, and get stuck with violations --
except for "tracking". If you're recording one source at at time, in a dead
studio, building the tracks one-by-one, there is no comb filtering, and it's
perfectly clean. But the paradox is, some of us hate multitrack the way you
hate noisy clubs. Multitrack recording sound so dead to me. For some of us,
the magic is found in recordings that have complex phase relationships. That
doesn't mean I know how to work the magic :)
> As I have said I know very little about recording and so have no claim to
> any expertise at all. As a suggestion, your set up sounds very
> complicated, perhaps you would be better off going back to basics and
> using two omnidirectional mikes?
I made an experiment out of a session that was short on time. I used two
omnis with what is known as a Schneider disk, a sort of artificial head. It
wasn't good. To conquer ambience, one must have spots.
Just as an aside, "spaced omnis" are not currently regarded as a good
technique. They result in -- Iain will confirm -- a "hole in the center." :)
Back to basics doesn't work here. It requires professional skill, which I do
not have, with all the tools. I enjoy trying with these tools. One can't
learn how to solve the problem unless one works with the tools.
> And then slowly build up to these arrays that you are using?
The mere presence of a mike does not affect the working of the other. For
example, you might be more pleased if the ORTF pair were dropped from the
mix, and only the spots were used. It is almost practical, except that the
ORTF pair also served as the spots for the sax.
> IMHO you have nearly hit the nail on the head above talking about "spot
> intensities" because you have the reverse problem - a suck out or hole in
> the centre.
It suddenly occurs to me there might be a very simple fix. I am wondering if
panning the ORTF mikes toward the center a bit might get rid of that hole
for you. Or perhaps I could move the piano to the center for you? I'm
serious :) I could pan the stereo piano feed toward the center. That would,
however, violate another rule, which is that the spot pans must be to the
same location as in the ORTF image.
> Can you get some of these musos to allow you to have a practice while they
> are rehearsing? And then have some monitor speakers to place on the stage
> and replay what you have recorded and compare the two sounds?
>
>
> Cheers Terry
>
Terry, the hardest part of it is logistics and human relationships. I don't
think these guys rehearse anyway. Some are such amazing improv artists, they
don't need to. For them, it's getting out and playing. Others are not as
good, but they've all learned the standards, and they have a way of just
getting together and doing it. One practical consideration would be that, in
Brooklyn, where many of them live, there is no on-street parking (because
it's all taken), AND, there are no parking garages. I'm sure it sounds
rather incomprehensible to say, "I can't go to Brooklyn because there is no
parking", but it's true!
And many of them live in dangerous places. I can't go there.
When I go to NYC, it's a bit like a trip to the Moon. It's an all day
adventure, lots of packing, lots of expense. When I get my lunar lander down
to the surface (ie., parked!), and step out into the sweet twilight of
Greenwich Village, it's like I've managed to briefly visit an enchanted
celestial body. I have no roots there, but I can briefly participate. Then I
go into overdrive! I work my ass off to get all the data (music) I possibly
can. It is a very intense experience. I throw everything I can at it.
Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511
Soundhaspriority
Some additional notes about phase with microphone techniques. They can
actually be ordered in terms of phase coherence:
1. Blumlein, crossed figure-of-8 mikes, positioned at the same point in
space (impossible in practice, of course), have zero phase error. Alone
among all miking techniques, Blumlein produces the proper amplitude phantom
image when reproduced by a two-speaker array. Unfortunately, figure-8 mikes
receive equally well from the rear as the front, limiting practical use to
specific situations. I tried them once, but not in NYC. Interesting effect:
it took the air out of the room!
2. Crossed cardioids at 90 degrees, positioned at the same point in space,
have no phase error, but do not have enough separation to produce the
correct phantom image. They are a popular form of the "stereo mike."
3. M-S, mid-side, is another coincident technique with zero phase anomalies,
collapsing to a perfect mono signal. It is related by a matrix
transformation to XY, but practically, sounds different.
3. ORTF and several related techniques separate the mikes by a short
distance, typically less than a foot. The idea behind the separation is
deliberate introduction of phase anomalies into the signal. This is perhaps
the most popular stereo miking technique in the world. The distance of
separation is something like the width of the a human head.
4. Decca Tree, three spaced omnis several feet away from each other. It
violates every phase and mathematical principle, so I leave it to Iain to
defend it :)
5. Spaced omnis is the most intuitive idea. When I began reading, it took
quite a while for me to mentally dispose of it, because it is so appealing.
The idea is, a bunch of omnis on stands, separated by several or more feet.
Some people use it; they must go by their ears, because a phase meter would
say, "yeccch." This is why:
Suppose two omnis are five feet apart. One mike is 3 feet from the
instrument, while the other mike is 2 feet from the instrument.
For a 1kHz note, the wavelength is 1 foot.
One mike is 2 wavelengths from the sound.
One mike is 3 wavelengths from the sound
Because they are whole wavelengths distant, the sound has the same phase at
each mike. The mikes pick the tone with identical phase, so when the mikes
are summed, they add.
For a 500Hz note, the wavelength is 2 feet.
One mike is 1 wavelength from the sound
One mike is 1.5 wavelengths from the sound.
The extra half-wavelength inverts the phase at one mike. Because the two
mikes are different distances, they do not cancel, though playing with the
DAW sliders can make this happen.
The pattern of reinforcement/cancellation continues at regular intervals up
the audio spectrum. A phase meter display would show a line, or ellipsoid,
that rotates rapidly as the frequency is changed. Since most people do not
like this sound, it would be called "phasey", or something negative.
The Decca Tree creates phase anomalies, but it is frequently used for
classical recording, but never for jazz!
In the opposite corner, the ORTF, or other closely spaced but not coincident
pairs also create phase anomalies, but these are widely thought to be
pleasant.
As you well know from your technical background, the first step is always
RTFM (read the f* manual!) The next, harder step is to develop professional
judgement. I know I don't have that, but I take RTFM very seriously, the
results of which I'm sharing here.
Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511
Iain Churches
>
> "Iain Churches" <Iai...@kolumbus.fi> wrote in message
> news:FZEdl.121815$_03....@reader1.news.saunalahti.fi...
>>
> [snip]
>>
>> I get the idea that Bob has considerable skills already
>> (I have not heard his work) It might be of more use to
>> him to talk over the options rather than someone else
>> do the mix for him.
>>
> There is also the question of taste. As far as I can tell, mine is a
> little oddball. It would be extremely interesting if you were to take a
> single track and make it more pleasing to Terry.
If there is a phase problem caused by a single spot
microphone, then there is nothing to be done to the
stereo master to improve it. The problem is embedded.
Do I understand correctly Bob that you let a saxophone
player wander between the ORTF pair?
As regards taste. I think it is interesting to take a fresh
look and perhaps a difference approach, but one needs to
know the rules before breaking them.
I am a keen tube amp builder. Every now and again, what
seems like a brilliant idea strikes me, and I think to myself,
"Why has no-one else thought of this?" I build it, and find
that it doesn't work as expected. Clearly other people
*have* thought of it,. and realised the shortcomings.
>
> As far as "skills", I give myself credit for the ability to do one-offs.
> In other words, I get a kick out of executing a complex procedure that
> would normally be expected to require fully professional skills. But the
> techniques you mention are vastly more complicated than what have done so
> far, which is:
>
> 1. Spot and ORTF the performance.
> 2. Pan the spots into positions that are either coincident with the
> perceived ORTF placement, OR, synthetically place the instrument.
I wonder whether ORTF and spots make a gtoods combination?
> Terry doesn't have my best recording, which is of lieder, done in an empty
> recital hall with professional talent. In that case, I managed to do a
> couple of cute things:
>
> 1. Twist the piano 90 degrees, and place it pleasingly on the soundstage.
That was the sort of thing I had in mind when talking about stage
set-ups. A small change, like the one you describe, can make
a considerable difference to the overall result.
> 2. Seamlessly splice the singing in post. I kicked up quite a fuss when it
> was requested, but with the performer's guidance, it was astonishingly
> invisible.
It depends very much on the material, but few performers,
especially in "serious" music, can provide a faultless
performance, particularly of along and difficult work
in a single take.
At concerts, with the excitement of the visual reference, one
easily gets the impression that the performance was perfect.
But a playback of the sound recording, without VTR seems
to accentuate the blemishes which at the concert may well
have gone un-noticed.
Editing is a part oft he skill set. The more you do it
the easier it gets. Editing on a DAW (with 99 levels
of undo) is a lot easier than physically cutting a tape.
To take a razor blade to a 2" analogue master needs
a stout heart and a steady hand. I keep a 2" editing
block on my desk as a reminder of those halcyon days:-)
On live recordings, one can get a second take in
an encore. It is not unknown for the producer to
come on stage, and ask the audience to stay for
another ten minutes or so, for a retake (which might
be used for inserts into the original take)
Sound recordings have a strange phenomena in which
tiny tiny flaws, which some people do not even notice
until they are pointed out to them, grow and grow and
grow every time one listens to the recording. They can
become so important that, when you know where they
are, you spend your time waiting for them! That's why
the production and egineering objectives must be to
reach as high a standard as possible.
I worked on a baroque keyboard recording
(a four CD set), which is made up of many hundreds
of takes.The procedure is to record each piece once,
and if the overall performance can be bettered, a
second or third time. Then it must be critically appraised
and patches made which can be cut into the chosen take.
Such edits are not normally done during the session,.
so the artist, producer and engineer must be satisfied
that they will work, and ensure that the score has
been carefully and accurately marked up. The recording
when released was praised for the incredibly accurate
and flowing performance.
>> You mentioned multitrack TT. For some reason I got
>> the idea that Bob was working muti-microphone (or
>> rather a pair plus spots) in straight stereo.
>>
> That is correct. No one can call himself a professional unless he is
> familiar and comfortable working in a multitrack environment, and I have
> no experience with it
There are a huge number of very professional people,
particularly working on classical recordings, and also
in broadcast, who work straight stereo.
> The thing is, this is an extension of my hi-fi
> hobby. Like everybody else in this group, as I saw deeper and deeper into
> the recordings, the fewer satisfied me, while the few stood out in
> marvelous contrast. Everyone has different tastes, but I can count the
> "miracles" in my CD collection on one hand. I have a recording of Stephan
> Grapelli which has almost an Ambisonic quality. I wanted to learn how to
> "bring it back alive."
I think it's commendable, Bob that you try to
find the answers rather than just moaning about
poor results. As you are already finding out,
it is impossible to please all the people all the time:-)
> Unfortunately, none of the venues I have had the opportunity to work in,
> save the recital hall, have provided the opportunity for maximal use of
> "purist" techniques.
That's probably why most people do it a different way:)
The percentage of recording projects where the music and
also the location suit your purist techniques is probably rather
small. They sound wonderful when they work. Rather like
the SET (single ended triode) amplifier - it can sound either
marvellous or horrible, depending on the material.
One jazz group is particularly heedless of the
> demands of the recording process. Both TT and Harry Lavo found my attempt
> to capture their sound unsatisfying. I am wondering if sophisticated
> processing of spot mikes, almost a simultaneous "tracking", might be a
> better way to proceed with this group. But, is there any possibility I
> will satisfy myself?
No tracking (aka overdubs) normally required for jazz.
Personally I would not even consider ORTF either. I
think that jazz, particularly big band jazz needs to be
immediate and hard-hitting and sometime intriguingly
subtle also. You need careful section control.
> I have never understood why usenet should be confrontational.
It doesn't have to be, and a great deal of the time it is not.
But in requires only one or two "belligerents" to upset the
equilibrium.
Cheers
Iain
Iain Churches
One of the problems with multi-microphone recordings,
is that you might have to ask the players to perform in
un-natural positions:-)))
Let me explain.
We are all familiar with the standard stage layouts for
orchestras, jazz ensembles,etc.
If you are recording a live gig, you are pretty much
stuck with the standard set up, but if you are making
a recording with no audience, there is a great deal
you can do with physical layout to greatly increase
your chances of success.
Players, sit in a certain pattern, because they have
always done so. It does not mean there are no
other (and better) options.
It is standard practice at a concert or stage
performance to put the quieter instruments at
the front (where they can be better heard) and
the loud 'uns at the back.
For a recording, this may prove to be the worst
option possible, with for example the brass section
at the back blowing onto the mics of the string
section at the front resulting in terrible leakage.
A much better solution, if it can be arranged
is to have sections in clusters or arranged at
90 degrees to one another, with or without
acoustic screens. This applies also to brass
and saxophones. If you must have them sitting
in straight lines, then put the saxes at the back.
This kind of layout can greatly improve a
recording, But, of course there is a
complication.............!
More to follow.
Iain
Iain Churches
>
> "Iain Churches" <Iai...@kolumbus.fi> wrote in message
> news:FZEdl.121815$_03....@reader1.news.saunalahti.fi...
>>
>> "TT" <TTence...@westnet.com.au> wrote in message
> I have identified what I believe to be a small problem with his recording
> technique. The 2ch mix as presented to me doesn't give me any clues as to
> why so I have suggested looking (listening?) at the original recordings as
> it may be a mixing problem and not a recording one.
It may be that the answer lies in the basic recording,
and the combination of two separate and very different
techniques.
> Have I misunderstood? Isn't 8ch 8 tracks?
There may be some differece in interpretation, but I
regard channels as "the number of fader inputs" and
tracks as the "number of group outputs" which may
commonly be anything from 2 to 24.
So a typical specification for a console might
be 48 /16 (i.e 48 channels into 16 tracks)
All multitrack consoles can be used for stereo
mixdown also, there is a large variety of topologies
with separate groups or inline. One can also of
course record muntitrack and straight stereo
simultaneously.
Hence a large format console might be specified
as 48/24/2
Cheers
Iain
Soundhaspriority
>
[snip]
>
> If there is a phase problem caused by a single spot
> microphone, then there is nothing to be done to the
> stereo master to improve it. The problem is embedded.
>
agonize about mike techniques, is it possible that Terry could be pleased
by something as easy as a remix?
> Do I understand correctly Bob that you let a saxophone
> player wander between the ORTF pair?
>
Your Honor, it was an accident...I swear, I would never allow a sax player
to wander. I promise I will always keep my sax player on a leash if you'll
let me off :)
Iain, the sax player's ability to relate to modern technology was inversely
proportional to what I consider his savantic musical talent. When he
played, he engaged totally with his audience, and failed to respond to pleas
by me, which included flailing arms and other dramatic gestures. His purpose
in life, as opposed to mine, was to serenade every customer until they
connected personally with him. In order to reach every customer, he simply
abandoned his position in front of the ORTF pair, and walked around the
restaraunt. But the mike was a person to him as well, and he would reward it
by placing his bell right at the ORTF pair and blowing loud. This is how I
know those SD limiters really work; everything went in the red, yet there
was no audible clipping. It is alsow why TT felt the sound was fading in and
out ;)
And personally, he is a delightful character. It is very frustrating, but I
still want to help him. It's a little mission I've given myself.
[snip good stuff]
>
> I wonder whether ORTF and spots make a gtoods combination?
>
Ii don't know, but there was something that came to light in the r.a.o.
discussions. Alot of suggestions come naturally to these folks, but as I
provided the answers as to why this suggestion or that wouldn't work, and it
always came down to noise, or space, or the comprehension of the performers
of what was required for a good recording, that the threads frequently had
closing responses such as:
"Some places were never designed for recording."
"I would never record in a place like that."
"Find a better place. Truck them out to New Jersey..."
"If he won't follow your directions..."
etc., etc., etc.
As I was saying to Terry, the first step in learning a technical process is
"RTFM", read the f* manual. The second step, which is much harder, is to
acquire professional judgement. Without that, I can only wonder if there is
a better way to do it. I tried an MBHO Schneider disk with omnis, and that
was worse than the ORTF pair. A professional might go very close with
individual mikes, skip the room mikes, and synthesize the ambience.
[snip]
>
> I think it's commendable, Bob that you try to
> find the answers rather than just moaning about
> poor results. As you are already finding out,
> it is impossible to please all the people all the time:-)
>
The thing which keeps me going is that I personally like the recordings.
Flawed as they are, they are like personal photos. They put me in a happy
place.
[snip]
>
> No tracking (aka overdubs) normally required for jazz.
> Personally I would not even consider ORTF either. I
> think that jazz, particularly big band jazz needs to be
> immediate and hard-hitting and sometime intriguingly
> subtle also. You need careful section control.
>
I know the big band sound, and something about the recordings tells me they
don't use ORTF. It seems that many of the techniques in practical use are
not written about. I haven't done a big band. There was a guy in Manhattan
who wanted a recording, but I could not figure out how to manage the
logistics. So I stick with five or six players.
What would you do instead of ORTF? I'd like to take your suggestion and keep
it in my book. The space I most recently worked in was too small for
sectioning, but there might come a time...
>
>> I have never understood why usenet should be confrontational.
>
> It doesn't have to be, and a great deal of the time it is not.
> But in requires only one or two "belligerents" to upset the
> equilibrium.
>
> Cheers
> Iain
>
How true. Let's drown them out with good vibes.
Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511
Arny Krueger
> 2. Crossed cardioids at 90 degrees, positioned at the
> same point in space, have no phase error, but do not have
> enough separation to produce the correct phantom image.
Very strange. I use this form of micing all the time, often with
hypercardioids, sometimes with a somewhat different included angle.
Not only is the phase error at lower frequencies very small (it increases at
higher frequencies because the mics aren't truly coincident ), but it is
capable of producing separation that is so great that it can even be
excessive.
Arny Krueger
> I get the idea that Bob has considerable skills already
He's well known on RAP for being able to talk the talk.
Unfortunately, Bob lets way too much golden ear audiophile weirdness inform
his approach to things. Reading about his capacitor paranoia is actually
pretty distressing.
> (I have not heard his work)
IOW, Iain likes the guy and feels like he is a kindred spirit. Typical of
Iain to shower approval based on no actual relevant evidence of real-world
performance.
> It might be of more use to
> him to talk over the options rather than someone else
> do the mix for him.
Not that Iain has not blathered that Bob is an idiot and doesn't know what
he is doing.
> You mentioned multitrack TT. For some reason I got
> the idea that Bob was working multi-microphone (or
> rather a pair plus spots) in straight stereo.
I can't imagine where Iain picked this up - speaks to Iain's problems with
perceiving rather obvious things correctly.
>> Doesn't make a pleasant change to discuss this sort of
>> thing with someone that actually appreciates some input?
Input from people with no hands-on experience is often at the best
distracting and misleading. For example Terry who loves to puff himself up
by berating people who actually have real world experience, has admitted
here that his only experience with a vocal mic is singing karaoke.
> Indeed. Bob has put this group back on track.
He's distracted the village idiots from their attempts at psychological gang
rape. I guess that is an improvement.
> But at least the contention with you-know-who
> was restricted to only one thread.
It's too much fun watching the idiocy flow. I shouldn't mess with it.
TT
"Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:Ze-dnZ_NX64x8-XU...@giganews.com...
>>
>> (I have not heard his work)
>
> IOW, Iain likes the guy and feels like he is a kindred spirit. Typical of
> Iain to shower approval based on no actual relevant evidence of real-world
> performance.
You're forgetting that *NO ONE* has heard your work! And you are only a
"hobbyist" with "<1,000s of recordings" that aren't up to standard. So
where does that leave you?
For the record, I have heard several recordings done by both Iain and Bob,
not to mention from the other group JA and Jenn. You are still
(technically) an unknown whereby no one has anything to judge you by.
So Arny where's your demo CD so we can judge your abilities? Or are going
to be the consummate hypocrite - still!?
TT
Iain Churches
>
> "TT" <TTence...@westnet.com.au> wrote in message
> news:oIydnUvfhYF9ZerU...@westnet.com.au...
>>
>> "Soundhaspriority" <now...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>> news:EdqdnQTFhaRQR-rU...@giganews.com...
>>>
> [snip]
>>>
>>> Let's review the observations. I haven't used CEP in ages. I would like
>>> to know what "view" it was providing, so that I can find something
>>> similar to analyze with.
>>
>> It was the Phase graph. It shows the signal strength L-R (diagonal) and
>> Phase (also diagonal) so if something is out of phase it pretty well
>> draws a circle with a hole in the centre. On commercial recordings it is
>> a tight ellipse with no or little phase anomalies as the signal varies
>> L-R.
>>
> I think this is what Iain refers to as a goniometer display. In electrical
> work, it's referred to as a Lissajous scope. These devices work this way:
> 1. One signal is applied to the horizontal deflection of the "scope"
> 2. The other signal is applied to the vertical deflection.
> 3. If the signals are identical, the scope will exhibit a diagonal line at
> exactly 45 degrees.
> 4. If the signals are identical but phase shifted, it will open up. A 90
> degree phase shift results in a perfect circle.
>
It makes an extremely useful tool.
We used to rotate the tube clockwise by 45 degrees so that
the display could be more easily associated with the signal's
effect on the disc cutting stylus..
A mono signal was then horizontal on the CRT, to represent
a lateral excursion on the disc, and anti-phase material was
shown in the vertical plane,. just as it woulde be cut on the
disc.
I also have an analogue phase meter from an SSL console.
whith a -/+ graduated scale and 0 at the centre point. It is
useful, but not as useful as the CRT. It's an application
for which a digital meter is useless:-))
Cheers
Iain
Iain Churches
Hi Terry We are playing straight into Arny's
hands if we allow him to drag the slanging match over to
this thread. His intentions to disrupt rational discussion
are clear.
There are very few threads in which the Belligerent
Baptist posts that do not quickly tuirn into a
chimp fight.
It is to be hoped that as Arny has nothing to contribute,
he will refrain from participation in this thread.
Iain
Iain Churches
Arny.
It is the intention on this thread to discuss various recording
methods, and for those actively engaged in music recording
to post (both on and off list - to an e-mail circle) practical
examples of the techniques discussed for the edification
of all. This exchange of material, opinions and ideas has
already begun.
As you both unable and unwilling to provide such
material, it might be in the interest of the rest of
us here if you do not participate in this discussion.
Thanks in advance
Iain
Iain Churches
>
> "Iain Churches" <Iai...@kolumbus.fi> wrote in message
> news:npXdl.122265$_03....@reader1.news.saunalahti.fi...
>>
> [snip]
>>
>> If there is a phase problem caused by a single spot
>> microphone, then there is nothing to be done to the
>> stereo master to improve it. The problem is embedded.
>>
> Yes, but the master is not stereo, it's seven discrete tracks.
Understood. You system is not familiar to me.
> While I agonize about mike techniques, is it possible that Terry could be
> pleased by something as easy as a remix?
Yes. Quite possible.
>
>> Do I understand correctly Bob that you let a saxophone
>> player wander between the ORTF pair?
>>
> Your Honor, it was an accident...I swear, I would never allow a sax player
> to wander. I promise I will always keep my sax player on a leash if you'll
> let me off :)
OK. In this case, as you seem to have been of previous
impeccable behaviour, you are let off with a caution, and
will not be sentenced to three months hard labour as an
assistant to a certain Baptist church "recordist" :-))))
>
> Iain, the sax player's ability to relate to modern technology was
> inversely proportional to what I consider his savantic musical talent.
> When he played, he engaged totally with his audience, and failed to
> respond to pleas by me, which included flailing arms and other dramatic
> gestures. His purpose in life, as opposed to mine, was to serenade every
> customer until they connected personally with him. In order to reach every
> customer, he simply abandoned his position in front of the ORTF pair, and
> walked around the restaraunt. But the mike was a person to him as well,
> and he would reward it by placing his bell right at the ORTF pair and
> blowing loud. This is how I know those SD limiters really work; everything
> went in the red, yet there was no audible clipping. It is alsow why TT
> felt the sound was fading in and out ;)
Yes. That's the joy of working with artists. You can put crosses
on the floor with duct tape, and ask/tell (on pain of death) each player
not too move from the spot. They will always agree, but forget all
about it within a second:-)
>
> And personally, he is a delightful character. It is very frustrating, but
> I still want to help him. It's a little mission I've given myself.
>
Noble in the extreme!
>> I wonder whether ORTF and spots make a gtoods combination?
>>
> Ii don't know, but there was something that came to light in the r.a.o.
> discussions. Alot of suggestions come naturally to these folks, but as I
> provided the answers as to why this suggestion or that wouldn't work, and
> it always came down to noise, or space, or the comprehension of the
> performers of what was required for a good recording, that the threads
> frequently had closing responses such as:
>
> "Some places were never designed for recording."
> "I would never record in a place like that."
> "Find a better place. Truck them out to New Jersey..."
> "If he won't follow your directions..."
> etc., etc., etc.
Hmm. None of those are very helpful are they?
All too often you get little or no say in the location.
A concert is a typical example.
> As I was saying to Terry, the first step in learning a technical process
> is "RTFM", read the f* manual.
But the second step, of implementing what you have read,
preferably under the beady eye of a tutor, can save you
from failing to reach your goal.
>The second step, which is much harder, is to acquire professional
>judgement. Without that, I can only wonder if there is a better way to do
>it.
By this, do you mean "an inbuilt reference"? This is
something that students need to develope very early
in their studies. It is also the reason why new trainees
in the traditional apprenticeship with major companies
were first assigned to copying suites, so that they would
hear high-quality recordings on good equipment to
build up the "inner reference" which would later help
them to evaluate their own work.
As a 2E, I used to spend a lot of time sitting in the
studio, close to the conductor's rostrum, just
listening.
>I tried an MBHO Schneider disk with omnis, and that was worse than the ORTF
>pair. A professional might go very close with individual mikes, skip the
>room mikes, and synthesize the ambience.
I have a feeling that is what I would do if
I were in your shoes.
>
> The thing which keeps me going is that I personally like the recordings.
> Flawed as they are, they are like personal photos. They put me in a happy
> place.
Excellent.
> I know the big band sound, and something about the recordings tells me
> they don't use ORTF. It seems that many of the techniques in practical use
> are not written about. I haven't done a big band. There was a guy in
> Manhattan who wanted a recording, but I could not figure out how to manage
> the logistics. So I stick with five or six players.
You could probably make a very presentable big band recording with
your 9 mic set-up, by doing what I described in an earlier posts and
having the sections sit in semi-circles opposite (and not behind) each
other. Put the leader of each section in the centre chair, closest to
that particular section mic Use cardiods, or if visual contact is not
critical sit theplayers opposite each other and switch the mic to Fo8.
Do that for trumpets, trombones and saxophones. That will leave
you two mics for drums, one for gtr, one for string bass plus two
for stereo piano.
I will dig out an example and post you the link, if you will contact
me via TT.
>
> What would you do instead of ORTF?
See above, or the methods I metioned in an earlier post.
>I'd like to take your suggestion and keep it in my book. The space I most
>recently worked in was too small for sectioning, but there might come a
>time..
>>> I have never understood why usenet should be confrontational.
>>
>> It doesn't have to be, and a great deal of the time it is not.
>> But in requires only one or two "belligerents" to upset the
>> equilibrium.
>>
> How true. Let's drown them out with good vibes.
Lionel Hamilton or Victor Feldman? :-)))
Iain
Arny Krueger
> "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote in message
> news:APadnRhjW58X8eXU...@giganews.com...
>> "Soundhaspriority" <now...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>> news:msWdnd-pP826vOXU...@giganews.com
>>
>>> 2. Crossed cardioids at 90 degrees, positioned at the
>>> same point in space, have no phase error, but do not
>>> have enough separation to produce the correct phantom
>>> image.
>>
>> Very strange. I use this form of micing all the time,
>> often with hypercardioids, sometimes with a somewhat
>> different included angle.
>> Not only is the phase error at lower frequencies very
>> small (it increases at higher frequencies because the
>> mics aren't truly coincident ), but it is capable of
>> producing separation that is so great that it can even
>> be excessive.
Iain blusters:
> It is the intention on this thread to discuss various
> recording methods, and for those actively engaged in
> music recording to post (both on and off list - to an e-mail circle)
"actively engaged in recording"? That leaves you out, doesn't it Iain.
What's your point?
> practical examples of the techniques discussed for the
> edification of all. This exchange of material, opinions and ideas has
> already begun.
Such as it is.
> As you both unable and unwilling to provide such
> material, it might be in the interest of the rest of
> us here if you do not participate in this discussion.
Iain, are you saying that you've posted a link to a recording that you made
all by yourself?
Otherwise, I would be happy follow your lead and post some links to some
recordings made by someone else. ;-)
Arny Krueger
> news:Ze-dnZ_NX64x8-XU...@giganews.com...
>>>
>>> (I have not heard his work)
>>
>> IOW, Iain likes the guy and feels like he is a kindred
>> spirit. Typical of Iain to shower approval based on no
>> actual relevant evidence of real-world performance.
> You're forgetting that *NO ONE* has heard your work!
Has anybody heard your work, Terry?
> And you are only a "hobbyist" with "<1,000s of recordings"
> that aren't up to standard.
Interesting. The recordings that you've never heard are somehow known by you
to not be up to your standards?
> So where does that leave you?
Smiling all the way to the bank.
> For the record, I have heard several recordings done by
> both Iain and Bob, not to mention from the other group JA
> and Jenn. You are still (technically) an unknown whereby
> no one has anything to judge you by.
Isn't that true of you, Terry?
> So Arny where's your demo CD so we can judge your
> abilities? Or are going to be the consummate hypocrite -
> still!?
I'm no more hypocritical than you, Terry.
Arny Krueger
> Hi Terry We are playing straight into Arny's
> hands if we allow him to drag the slanging match over to
> this thread.
The horse is out of the barn Iain, and the ones who let him out are you and
Terry.
> His intentions to disrupt rational
> discussion are clear.
Where's this rational discussion?
> There are very few threads in which the Belligerent
> Baptist posts that do not quickly tuirn into a
> chimp fight.
When you're working with chimps like Iain and Terry, what's a boy to do?
> It is to be hoped that as Arny has nothing to contribute,
> he will refrain from participation in this thread.
It is quite clear that some misapprehensions about coincident micing need to
be cleared up.
Soundhaspriority
>
[snip]
>
> By this, do you mean "an inbuilt reference"? This is
> something that students need to develope very early
> in their studies. It is also the reason why new trainees
> in the traditional apprenticeship with major companies
> were first assigned to copying suites, so that they would
> hear high-quality recordings on good equipment to
> build up the "inner reference" which would later help
> them to evaluate their own work.
>
improved with temporary removal of my idiosyncratic preferences for the
purpose of making other people happy. At the same time, I am not eager to
acquire the whole sphere of professional judgement, as it is thought of
today, because that encompasses many uses of music, and types of music, that
are of no interest to me. I consider myself a preservationist.
> As a 2E, I used to spend a lot of time sitting in the
> studio, close to the conductor's rostrum, just
> listening.
>
It must have been a great thing. You did your work when the profession was
in full flower.
>
>>I tried an MBHO Schneider disk with omnis, and that was worse than the
>>ORTF
>>pair. A professional might go very close with individual mikes, skip the
>>room mikes, and synthesize the ambience.
>
> I have a feeling that is what I would do if
> I were in your shoes.
>>
One of these days. I'll have to get clip-on mikes for the brass.
>
>> The thing which keeps me going is that I personally like the recordings.
>> Flawed as they are, they are like personal photos. They put me in a happy
>> place.
>
> Excellent.
>
>> I know the big band sound, and something about the recordings tells me
>> they don't use ORTF. It seems that many of the techniques in practical
>> use
>> are not written about. I haven't done a big band. There was a guy in
>> Manhattan who wanted a recording, but I could not figure out how to
>> manage
>> the logistics. So I stick with five or six players.
>
>
> You could probably make a very presentable big band recording with
> your 9 mic set-up, by doing what I described in an earlier posts and
> having the sections sit in semi-circles opposite (and not behind) each
> other. Put the leader of each section in the centre chair, closest to
> that particular section mic Use cardiods, or if visual contact is not
> critical sit theplayers opposite each other and switch the mic to Fo8.
> Do that for trumpets, trombones and saxophones. That will leave
> you two mics for drums, one for gtr, one for string bass plus two
> for stereo piano.
>
I will keep this in mind. It is not easy to find a place to put a big band
in NYC. I am in regular contact with TT
[snip]
Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511
APR
"Iain Churches" <Iai...@kolumbus.fi> wrote in message
news:Vq0el.122394$_03....@reader1.news.saunalahti.fi...
Soundhaspriority
Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511
From: "APR" <I_don't_Want_Spam@No_Spam>
Newsgroups: aus.hi-fi
References: <F6adnYm2xpDP_ejU...@giganews.com>
<C4mdnW-Am9o-JOjU...@westnet.com.au>
<DNadnbCTBMa4i-vU...@giganews.com>
<Byzdl.121692$_03.6...@reader1.news.saunalahti.fi>
<itudnaLCwO5-UuvU...@giganews.com>
<xzAdl.121714$_03.6...@reader1.news.saunalahti.fi>
<AaednQOmqYm1jerU...@westnet.com.au>
<FZEdl.121815$_03.3...@reader1.news.saunalahti.fi>
<r6Gdnc_9xOTsrerU...@westnet.com.au>
<Wd-dnfkhNtnswurU...@giganews.com>
<me-dnXithK5rIOrU...@westnet.com.au>
<EdqdnQTFhaRQR-rU...@giganews.com>
<oIydnUvfhYF9ZerU...@westnet.com.au>
<msWdnd-pP826vOXU...@giganews.com>
<APadnRhjW58X8eXU...@giganews.com>
<Vq0el.122394$_03.7...@reader1.news.saunalahti.fi>
Subject: Re: Pan Pot stereo
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2009 07:27:33 +1100
Lines: 46
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5512
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5579
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Response
NNTP-Posting-Host: 60.242.222.176
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 60.242.222.176
Message-ID: <4978d6b7$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>
X-Trace: dnews.tpgi.com.au!tpg.com.au 1232656055 60.242.222.176 (23 Jan 2009
07:27:35 +1100)
Path:
border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!postnews.google.com!news4.google.com!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!212.101.4.254.MISMATCH!solnet.ch!solnet.ch!nntp.gblx.net!nntp3.phx1!dnews.tpgi.com.au!tpg.com.au!not-for-mail
Bytes: 3183
Xref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com aus.hi-fi:142868
Soundhaspriority
>
[snip]
> This kind of layout can greatly improve a
> recording, But, of course there is a
> complication.............!
>
> More to follow.
>
> Iain
>
Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511
Soundhaspriority
>
[snip]
>
> Understood. You system is not familiar to me.
>
2x http://www.sounddevices.com/products/744t.htm
1x http://www.sounddevices.com/products/302master.htm
1x http://www.apogeedigital.com/pdf/minime_ds.pdf
My go-to mikes: http://studioprojects.com/c4.html Designed for distance
miking. Although I've never had a Schoeps to compare, the designer is a
Schoeps fan, and the verbal descriptions of the Schoeps sound remind me of
what I hear.
http://aus.rodemic.com/microphone.php?product=NT2000 . Very fine, very
quiet. Unfortunately, Rode chose to case it with a really excessive amount
of material, which creates support problems.
The 302 does provide a 9th channel, so to speak, if one is willing to mix on
site. Do you have a suggestion for use of a nondiscrete channel? I am
thinking it could go on the kickdrum, since a level could be corrected with
a low frequency shelf filter without too much effect on higher pitched
content.
Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511
TT
> "TT" <TTence...@westnet.com.au> wrote in message
> news:1oOdnVfWArCfE-XU...@westnet.com.au
>> "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote in message
>> news:Ze-dnZ_NX64x8-XU...@giganews.com...
>>>>
>>>> (I have not heard his work)
>>>
>>> IOW, Iain likes the guy and feels like he is a kindred
>>> spirit. Typical of Iain to shower approval based on no
>>> actual relevant evidence of real-world performance.
>
>> You're forgetting that *NO ONE* has heard your work!
>
> Has anybody heard your work, Terry?
As a matter of fact yes they have. I have recorded several
live Jazz/Blues festivals on my trusty Sony Handycam in
DD5.1.
So there! <thumb on nose twiddling fingers in AK's
direction>
>
>> And you are only a "hobbyist" with "<1,000s of
>> recordings"
>> that aren't up to standard.
>
> Interesting. The recordings that you've never heard are
> somehow known by you to not be up to your standards?
Do you want me to produce the post from RAO where you,
yourself said this! You are just being obtuse and
argumentative Arny!
>
>> So where does that leave you?
>
> Smiling all the way to the bank.
You have stated that you were unpaid for your work! So are
you telling little white lies now?
>
>> For the record, I have heard several recordings done by
>> both Iain and Bob, not to mention from the other group JA
>> and Jenn. You are still (technically) an unknown whereby
>> no one has anything to judge you by.
>
> Isn't that true of you, Terry?
No because I don't misrepresent what I am or what my
abilities are.
>
>> So Arny where's your demo CD so we can judge your
>> abilities? Or are going to be the consummate hypocrite -
>> still!?
>
> I'm no more hypocritical than you, Terry.
>
Arny you are clutching at straws here. I may be many things
but "hypocrite" is not one of them.
So put up or shut up!
TT
TT
continues to pester me I will move the thread to RAO so the
rest of his playmates can join in ;-)
Unless of course if you or Bob can have a meaningful
discussion with him here. Nah! Won't happen. He's just
troll after all ;-)
Cheers Terry
Soundhaspriority
>
I was wondering when our nice little audio thread would be busted up ;)
You may wish to visit this website: http://www.hare.org/,
Robert Hare is the leading authority on the "workplace psychopath." I had
thought that psychopaths are mostly locked up. Actually, they walk among us.
According to Hare, about 2.5% of men, and 1% of women, are psychopaths. We
don't recognize these people as physically dangerous. We know them as "toxic
individuals."
Hare provides a list of characteristics, of which the identification of a
minimum of three determines a person to be a psychopath.
Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511
Soundhaspriority
I was wondering when our nice little audio thread would be busted up ;)
You may wish to visit this website: http://www.hare.org/,
Robert Hare is the leading authority on the "workplace psychopath." I had
thought that psychopaths are mostly locked up. Actually, they walk among us.
According to Hare, about 2.5% of men, and 1% of women, are psychopaths. We
don't recognize these people as physically dangerous. We know them as "toxic
Individuals".
Hare provides a list of characteristics, of which the identification of a
minimum of three determines a person to be a psychopath. I've had seven of
these characteristics identified in me, which just goes to show that
psychiatry ain't all it's cracked up to be.
Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511
Arny Krueger
>
> You have stated that you were unpaid for your work!
You're lying again Terry. I said that I was unpaid for some of my work,
namely the work I do for a charitable organization.
As they say, no good deed goes unpunished. Here you are Terry, trying to
punish me for my acts of charity.
Arny Krueger
> "TT" <TTence...@westnet.com.au> wrote in message
> news:M-GdnaY7JcWf2-TU...@westnet.com.au...
>>
> I was wondering when our nice little audio thread would
> be busted up ;)
> You may wish to visit this website: http://www.hare.org/,
It doesn't take long when Iain Churches is around pressing his little
vendetta against me.
Don't knock Robert, he was trying to play nice.
I was trying to play nice.
Iain had to take a squat on the thread because the sight of me makes him
want to fill his Depends.
sucke...@gmx.us
> "TT" <TTencerNoS...@westnet.com.au> wrote in message
A minority of psychopaths are physically dangerous. Many are only
emotionally and mentally distressing. And most violent episodes are
not committed by psychopaths.
True psychopathy is more common in males but females constitute the
greater portion of sociopaths.
Alan Rutlidge
OMG, where's the Kleenex?
APR
"Soundhaspriority" <now...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:edSdnRIyu_uSROXU...@giganews.com...
TT
"Alan Rutlidge" <don't_spam_me...@iinet.net.au> wrote in message
news:4979fa4f$0$9517$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
Cheers Terry
George M. Middius
ParanoaBorg™ has uncovered yet ANOTHER dastardly plot against his shitful
self. A rational mind would reject the multitude of conspiracies that haunt
Mr. Shit on the grounds that it defies belief. Krooger, however, is
blessedly free of the constraints that rationality imposes on mere human
beings.
> It doesn't take long when Iain Churches is around pressing his little
> vendetta against me.
Oh come now, TurdBorg. You know the "vendetta" is not cradled in Iain's
hands alone. You're equally haunted by my "posse", and by Mistress Jenn's
sockpuppets, and by Lord Atkinson's murderous army of paid mercenaries. Give
credit where it's due.
> I was trying to play nice.
Hey, cut that out! You've been told many times that you're supposed to set
off a siren when you're about to emit a burst of Krooglish. Now the
Resistance is required to remediate your shitfulness.
From "The Krooglish Dickshunnary and Big Book of aBxism
Dogma, Tripe, and Other Silliness":
nice (adj): as nasty as possible; redolent of an overflowing toilet;
intended to incite annoyance and vitriol
play nice (v.i.; colloq.): act like a total shit
No matter how vigilant we are, it seems impossible to Krooglish-proof all of
Usenet. Oh well.
--
Just goes to show how much you know Midduis.
If I were a "sack of shit", how am I able to post to Usenet?
-- A. Krooger, June 1999
George M. Middius
Arnii Krooger is nothing if not farsighted. Every time he gazes off into the
distance, he sees an infinitely long line of liars stretching well past the
horizon. By Mr. Shit's own count, he has identified "several thousand" liars
during his time of confinement on Earth.
> > You have stated that you were unpaid for your work!
> You're lying again Terry.
Arnii, serious question: Are you ever amazed by the sheer volume of 'liars'
you find in your path? We Normals run across liars (not 'liars') only
rarely, and we have the sense to avoid them.
The greater mystery is that among all those humans whom you label "liar",
every last one of them knows that you're the biggest liar. Terry is not a
liar, and neither is Mar, nor John, nor Jenn, nor Iain. None of them are
liars in the human sense, unlike you, who are such a prolific liar that
you've earned 100's of one-way tickets to Hell.
I wonder what you believe you're accomplishing on Usenet. Before you chased
away several Real Audio Guys, you used to klaim that your "contribution" was
to distract your "enemies" so folks like Phoebe and Nousiane could pollute
discussions with aBxism propaganda. But all your allies got sick of you and
your kraziness, so you don't have that excuse any more. Isn't it time you
came up with a new (and equally ludicrous) story?
--
"Who is Arnii Krooger?" -- Arnii Krooger (2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008)
Arny Krueger
me.
Fact is that you are such a big liar that your have to lie about who you
are.
You've invented this imaginary "Krooger" fiction to further avoid taking
responsibility for your lies.
I can't imagine why even your own posse has not seen through your lies.
George M. Middius
It's that time of the week again, folks & guys. The Krooborg's exterior
dermal integument is starting to crawl over its osteal implants. The Beast's
shittified nanites are crackling with static and high-voltage feedback is
coursing through Mr. Shit's few remaining synapses. The resulting spew of
paranoid Kroopaganda comes as no surprise to veteran Kroo-watchers.
> [My supreme master], there is rather[sic] extreme[sic] irony[sic]
> in watching you fill your Depends[sic] over me.
Poor Arnii -- reduced to fantasizing about various Normals filling diapers
for him. Do you find baby poop especially tasty, TurdBorg?
Now on to concrete ;-) matters: What does "rather extreme" mean? Is it in
the same vein as when you post a "big large" batch of lies? Or is it more
like when emit a "stupid dumb" konspiracy theory?
BTW, have you had any flashbacks about the "infant porn" pix you dreamed up
way back when? Does that fantasy seem "rather extreme" for somebody who
klaims he is not insane? ;-)
> Fact is
;-)
Did you trade in your "Given..." generator for a "Fact is..." model,
Turdbucket?
> that you are such a big liar that your have to lie about who you are.
Not at all, Mr. Shit. I've told the world my opinion of you many thousands
of times. As far as you're concerned, that's who I am -- your No. 1
detractor. (I won't speculate on who the No. 2 might be because, well, you
know....)
> You've invented this imaginary "Krooger" fiction to further avoid taking
> responsibility for your lies.
Sollly Charlie, you were invented by Dr. Kroomacher. I can only take
pleasure in watching your loopy wetware cause periodic meltdowns.
> I can't imagine why even your own posse has not seen through your lies.
<snicker>
Are you going to invite Bratzi to come on your next "camping" trip? He can
teach you all about dealing death to bleached blondes. ;-)
Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!
> Middot, there is rather extreme irony in watching you fill your Depends over
> me.
LOL! GOIA admits that he's a piece of shit. Why else would there be an
"extreme irony" if George "fill[ed] his Depends"?
> Fact is that you are such a big liar that your have to lie about who you
> are.
Ah, the "if I don't know who you are, that 'proves' that everything
you say is a 'lie'" defense.
Weak. Very weak. Especially since you just admitted that George tells
the truth about you. You are a piece of shit, just as he's said. And
you know it.
> You've invented this imaginary "Krooger" fiction to further avoid taking
> responsibility for your lies.
"Fiction"? You just admitted that it's a "documentary". LOL!
> I can't imagine why even your own posse has not seen through your lies.
Yes, GOIA, everybody secretly sees what a good guy you are. That's why
so many come to your defense.
APR
have better to do then your childish slander and hypocritical egotistical
grandstanding. There are people frequenting this group who I used to think
had some merit, however, the interaction I see demonstrates a mental age
sugnificantly below what should be expected from these people. What a pack
of wankers and upstarts you are presenting as to those who have followed or
do follow the group. No wonder there are no new takers, and lurkers who
don't post. Who would want to be associated with wankers and upstarts who
think they are the greatest and are willing to ridicule anyone who doesn't
fit their requirements.
"Soundhaspriority" <now...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:edSdnRIyu_uSROXU...@giganews.com...
APR
boost themselves up at the expense of others. Those who exhude ridicule and
have no compassion for the feelings of others. While we might see ourselves
as the worlds greatest, please get this in perspective as it is only
ourselves and our deluded and self serving wanker associates of this
newsgroup who might (note, MIGHT) seek curry through supporting our own
overinflated opinion of ourselves. Where is humility these days?
"APR" <I_don't_Want_Spam@No_Spam> wrote in message
news:497cc6c9$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
Iain Churches
>
> "Iain Churches" <Iai...@kolumbus.fi> wrote in message
> news:mv0el.122397$_03....@reader1.news.saunalahti.fi...
>>
> [snip]
>>
>> By this, do you mean "an inbuilt reference"? This is
>> something that students need to develope very early
>> in their studies. It is also the reason why new trainees
>> in the traditional apprenticeship with major companies
>> were first assigned to copying suites, so that they would
>> hear high-quality recordings on good equipment to
>> build up the "inner reference" which would later help
>> them to evaluate their own work.
>>
> No, because, as an audiophile, I do have an inbuilt reference. It could be
> improved with temporary removal of my idiosyncratic preferences for the
> purpose of making other people happy.
You might wish to shape your objectives a little,
and realise that you should try not just to produce work that
pleases your ear, but work which pleases others (who may or
may not be even more fussy/perceptive that you are)
One of my pet subjects is aural perception - finding
what people can and cannot hear, and what people do
and do not notice. I have been involved in some amazingly
revealing experiments over the years.
But, you were talking about the ORTF pair picking extraneous
noises. Not so long ago, I was in discussion with a chap who
complained that "clattering within the band" ruined for him a
particular jazz recording. I listened to the passage he mentioned
over and over again, and could find nothing. I tried to pin
him down to be more specific, and as he could not read music
to time from the start of the piece ande give me the time at
which this anomaly occurred. He did, I listen and still could
hear no clatter. The he said, "I can hear it, it gets worse
and worse every time (just as I mentioned in an earlier post!)
He said, "Put your ear to the speaker" I did, and heard a
trombone harmon mute beng taken out of the bell and
replaced onto the mute stand.
Strangely, he did not pick up on the two edits in
quick succession just a few bars later. Even though
we are all presented with the same information we
all seem to process it in a different way, in judging
what is, and what is not, important.
>At the same time, I am not eager to acquire the whole sphere of
>professional judgement, as it is thought of today, because that encompasses
>many uses of music, and types of music, that are of no interest to me.
That should be the subject of a different thread. Surely
it is of value to listen to all kinds of material, even thoigh it
may not be the music of your choice, just to think about
how is it made and recorded. I sent such a piece to
TT a couple of days ago.
> I
>consider myself a preservationist.
Hmm. A preservationist? I think that title is more suited
to someone who transcribes shellac pressings,phonograph
cylinders or optical filmn tracks:-)
>
>> As a 2E, I used to spend a lot of time sitting in the
>> studio, close to the conductor's rostrum, just
>> listening.
>>
> It must have been a great thing. You did your work when the profession was
> in full flower.
It still is in full flower, but times have changed and tastes have changed
with it. Few people want to listen to light music (MOR) any more. One
has a much better chance of survival as a specialist. Baroque ensembles
and big band jazz are my passion:-)
> One of these days. I'll have to get clip-on mikes for the brass.
Then you will break the terms of your your parole,
and have to serve the three months hard labour recording
the Baptists:-)))
Mics on flloor stands give you the possibility to carefully set the
ratio of instrument to room. If distance is restricted, switching
between hyper-cardioid to cardiod, to even to Fo8 may
give you what you want. As well as your apraisal of the mic
with the solo button pressed in the console, listen also to the
group solo, and then the sound within the total, because the
leakage has a marked effect.
Think about the type of mic and its position before you
reach for the EQ :-)
When I was a trainee, I used to book a mixing
room for a study evening and go down to the tape store
and sign out the multitracks of Tom Jones and similar albums.
I used to carefully solo each track to hear its contents, to
try to learn how and why certain instruments had been grouped
together and what that track sounded like as the result. In my
ignorance, I was not impressed. Nothing sounded as I
thought it should/would but when one released the solo
button, and brought all tracks up the sound was amazing.
The engineer had used the acoustic of the studio and the
track leakage to establish the most brilliant ambience.
Best regards
Iain
Arny Krueger
> "Iain Churches" <Iai...@kolumbus.fi> wrote in message
> Iain, the sax player's ability to relate to modern
> technology was inversely proportional to what I consider
> his savantic musical talent. When he played, he engaged
> totally with his audience, and failed to respond to pleas
> by me, which included flailing arms and other dramatic
> gestures. His purpose in life, as opposed to mine, was to
> serenade every customer until they connected personally
> with him.
So, who was paying him to play - the restaurant manager, the diners, or you?
Money won't buy you love, but it can get you some temporary influence.
> In order to reach every customer, he simply
> abandoned his position in front of the ORTF pair, and
> walked around the restaurant.
Times like these are the reason why there is wireless microphone technology.
BTW if you want to mic a roving performer without going wireless, your best
bet is probably widely separated omnis placed strategically in the area
where he is going to walk around. Put each one on its own track. When you
mix down pick the track with the best sound and manually splice the tracks
and match the levels.
Arny Krueger
> Not so long ago, I was in discussion with a chap who complained that
> "clattering within the band" ruined for
> him a particular jazz recording. I listened to the passage he
> mentioned over and over again, and could find nothing. I tried to
> pin him down to be more specific, and as he could not read
> music to time from the start of the piece ande give me the time
> at which this anomaly occurred. He did, I listen and still
> could hear no clatter. The he said, "I can hear it, it gets
> worse> and worse every time (just as I mentioned in an earlier
> post!)
This would be a classic example of listener training.
> He said, "Put your ear to the speaker" I did, and heard a
> trombone harmon mute beng taken out of the bell and
> replaced onto the mute stand.
Anybody who would let such a minor thing ruin his enjoyment of the music has
probably got other problems. Does he whip out a Kleenix everytime he has to
touch a doorknob?
> Strangely, he did not pick up on the two edits in
> quick succession just a few bars later. Even though
> we are all presented with the same information we
> all seem to process it in a different way, in judging
> what is, and what is not, important.
More good examples of listener training.
Here are some good fairly recent books that discuss enjoying music in detail
from end-to-end:
Music, The Brain, And Ecstasy:How Music Captures Our Imagination
Musicophilia: Tales of Music and the Brain
This Is Your Brain on Music: The Science of a Human Obsession
Iain Churches
...
> Iain, the sax player's ability to relate to modern
> technology was inversely proportional to what I consider
> his savantic musical talent.
:-))
>When he played, he engaged
> totally with his audience, and failed to respond to pleas
> by me, which included flailing arms and other dramatic
> gestures. His purpose in life, as opposed to mine, was to
> serenade every customer until they connected personally
> with him.
Understood. I have recorded a Hungarian gipsy ensemble
with a similar modus operandae:-)
I understood from the previous posts about the saxophone
player that he "just" wandered either side of the ORTFD pair.
In your case a wireless mic clipped to the bell would have
been a good choice.
If you had not been recording, but mixing SR, you would have
been faced with the same problem.
And of course, in this instance, the show, and the interraction
of the players with the customers was more important than
the recording.
Iain
...... You know it ain't easy (John Lennon)
Soundhaspriority
afford, but I have put together a mental image of how to proceed, based upon
my discussions with you and JA, that will probably omit the ORTF pair. I
assume you saw our discussion about his CD, "Rendevous."
A "purist" session, in a genuine concert hall, is coming up shortly.
Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511
Iain Churches
>
>> ...... You know it ain't easy (John Lennon)
>>
> Of course. BTW, I am not sympathetic to the quality of wireless that I can
> afford,
Hello Bob,
You don't need to own the wireless system- they can be rented
as and when required.
>but I have put together a mental image of how to proceed, based upon my
>discussions with you and JA, that will probably omit the ORTF pair. I
>assume you saw our discussion about his CD, "Rendevous."
Yes. I think your plan is a good one.
I am putting together some material to demonstrate various
recording topologies that I have used. I will send you the link
as soon as the tracks are uploaded.
>
> A "purist" session, in a genuine concert hall, is coming up shortly.
Excellent. What kind of esemble/locartion?
Cheers
Iain
Soundhaspriority
>
> "Soundhaspriority" <now...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:lq2dnTAyGeRhJuXU...@giganews.com...
>>
>> "Iain Churches" <Iai...@kolumbus.fi> wrote in message
>> news:mv0el.122397$_03....@reader1.news.saunalahti.fi...
>>>
>> [snip]
>>>
>>> By this, do you mean "an inbuilt reference"? This is
>>> something that students need to develope very early
>>> in their studies. It is also the reason why new trainees
>>> in the traditional apprenticeship with major companies
>>> were first assigned to copying suites, so that they would
>>> hear high-quality recordings on good equipment to
>>> build up the "inner reference" which would later help
>>> them to evaluate their own work.
>>>
>> No, because, as an audiophile, I do have an inbuilt reference. It could
>> be
>> improved with temporary removal of my idiosyncratic preferences for the
>> purpose of making other people happy.
>
> You might wish to shape your objectives a little,
> and realise that you should try not just to produce work that
> pleases your ear, but work which pleases others (who may or
> may not be even more fussy/perceptive that you are)
>
This is one of the advantages of being a hobbyist. One important step I
have taken is the physical rearrangement of my mixing station to take
advantage of the excellent planars I already have.
> One of my pet subjects is aural perception - finding
> what people can and cannot hear, and what people do
> and do not notice. I have been involved in some amazingly
> revealing experiments over the years.
>
> But, you were talking about the ORTF pair picking extraneous
> noises. Not so long ago, I was in discussion with a chap who
> complained that "clattering within the band" ruined for him a
> particular jazz recording. I listened to the passage he mentioned
> over and over again, and could find nothing. I tried to pin
> him down to be more specific, and as he could not read music
> to time from the start of the piece ande give me the time at
> which this anomaly occurred. He did, I listen and still could
> hear no clatter. The he said, "I can hear it, it gets worse
> and worse every time (just as I mentioned in an earlier post!)
> He said, "Put your ear to the speaker" I did, and heard a
> trombone harmon mute beng taken out of the bell and
> replaced onto the mute stand.
>
That is extreme. My preferences run entirely in the opposite direction.
> Strangely, he did not pick up on the two edits in
> quick succession just a few bars later. Even though
> we are all presented with the same information we
> all seem to process it in a different way, in judging
> what is, and what is not, important.
>
For many, music is a form of medication. I would guess that the gentleman
uses music for a kind of introverted retreat. For me, it's the exact
opposite. I want to be there, in the concert hall, or noisy restaraunt,
awash in the waves of humanity.
>
>>At the same time, I am not eager to acquire the whole sphere of
>>professional judgement, as it is thought of today, because that
>>encompasses
>>many uses of music, and types of music, that are of no interest to me.
>
> That should be the subject of a different thread. Surely
> it is of value to listen to all kinds of material, even thoigh it
> may not be the music of your choice, just to think about
> how is it made and recorded. I sent such a piece to
> TT a couple of days ago.
>
Well, my musical tastes are pretty broad. Perhaps I should define them by
exclusion. Things I don't like:
1. Background music, ie., Muzak, but very possibly, background music of any
kind
2. The modern confusion of poetry with music, ie., rap
3. Rock later than the 60's, metal. There are exceptions. For example, I
love one work by Santana, and practically nothing else.
4. Mixes processed with consideration for FM, monaural, or background use.
5. That which completely eschews the tradition of harmony.
6. Modern music which relies on recycling of modern cultural components. For
example, the modern love ballad seems to rely on a wholely synthetic dialect
of modern American English. Since the arrival of the dialect, which I shall
christen "rockabilly commercial", it has become mandatory for any mediocre
balladier to copy this accent precisely.
>
>> I
>>consider myself a preservationist.
>
> Hmm. A preservationist? I think that title is more suited
> to someone who transcribes shellac pressings,phonograph
> cylinders or optical filmn tracks:-)
>>
One of my nonpaying "clients" is an acolyte of a famous blues harp player.
The man is quite aged. Every Saturday, aspiring devotees gather at his
house. He does not give lessons. The players try to copy what he does. So,
they are all presevationists, of a technique that flowered in Chicago in the
early 50's. The "client" has used a number of tracks I've recorded in CDs
that he sells on the street. This is what I mean by preservationist. In
this case, I am not preserving physical materials, but helping someone else
preserve a tradition.
>>> As a 2E, I used to spend a lot of time sitting in the
>>> studio, close to the conductor's rostrum, just
>>> listening.
>>>
>> It must have been a great thing. You did your work when the profession
>> was
>> in full flower.
>
> It still is in full flower, but times have changed and tastes have changed
> with it. Few people want to listen to light music (MOR) any more. One
> has a much better chance of survival as a specialist. Baroque ensembles
> and big band jazz are my passion:-)
>
I definitely share your enthusiasm for baroque ensembles. I prefer small
band jazz to big, though.
>
>> One of these days. I'll have to get clip-on mikes for the brass.
>
> Then you will break the terms of your your parole,
> and have to serve the three months hard labour recording
> the Baptists:-)))
>
> Mics on flloor stands give you the possibility to carefully set the
> ratio of instrument to room. If distance is restricted, switching
> between hyper-cardioid to cardiod, to even to Fo8 may
> give you what you want. As well as your apraisal of the mic
> with the solo button pressed in the console, listen also to the
> group solo, and then the sound within the total, because the
> leakage has a marked effect.
>
This I understand. This activity is somewhat limited by the fact that I have
never been in a situation where the performances were coordinated for my
benefit. I am more in the position of being an enhanced spectator. I would
liken it to an exotic expedition where the object is to record as much as
possible, using predetermined techniques, for later analysis and
enhancement. In one of the better situations coming up, I have two hours of
setup time, but only three hours for the actual performance, while the
actual time desired for said session is more like 4. The last time, they
actually asked me if I could roll continuously, which created major problems
in archiving.
> Think about the type of mic and its position before you
> reach for the EQ :-)
>
I will, though, because of the circumstances mentioned above, my techniques
are careful copies of method described by authorities. For example, I
recently used a DPA method for piano. I followed the prescription precisely,
and thankfully, it worked.
> When I was a trainee, I used to book a mixing
> room for a study evening and go down to the tape store
> and sign out the multitracks of Tom Jones and similar albums.
> I used to carefully solo each track to hear its contents, to
> try to learn how and why certain instruments had been grouped
> together and what that track sounded like as the result. In my
> ignorance, I was not impressed. Nothing sounded as I
> thought it should/would but when one released the solo
> button, and brought all tracks up the sound was amazing.
> The engineer had used the acoustic of the studio and the
> track leakage to establish the most brilliant ambience.
>
That is what I mean by professional judgement; not so much what sounds good
as a final product, but how to get there with an economy of effort.
>
> Best regards
> Iain
>
Mutually. I will respond to your email in a bit, thanks.
Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511
Soundhaspriority
Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511
TT
in. I am sooooooo disappointed - NOT! ;-)
Cheers TT
Soundhaspriority
AEHfl.124936$_03.9...@reader1.news.saunalahti.fi
My sister is a successful opera singer - if you consider success singing
third-rate operas in an industrial city in East Germany. Guess failure
doesn't fall far from the tree! She's scammed her way into a program with a
bunch of skilled classical musicians. She's got a great agent.
The locartion (sic) is at a church in Philly. I'm busy trying to convince
the staff to allow me to utilize my extensive recording skill at this gig -
clearly she's got no hope of any real recording career.
http://robertmorein.blogspot.com/
"I don't really have a replacement career, it's a very gnawing thing."
Robert Morein
Dresher, PA
(310) 237-6511
(215) 646-4894
thoren...@yahoo.com
be approached only by QUALIFIED medical or law enforcement personnel."
hank alrich
--
ha
shut up and play your guitar
Iain Churches
> 4. Decca Tree, three spaced omnis several feet away from each other. It
> violates every phase and mathematical principle, so I leave it to Iain to
> defend it :)
Good morning Bob,
The fascinating thing about the Decca tree is its adaptability.
The two tree frames that I recall at Decca in London
(there were probably others in Vienna and elsewhere) where bolted
together from Dexion to form a t-piece. It had bits of paper tape
stuck on them with arrows and initials to show who preferred which
spacing.
The mics don't have to be omnis. A pair of omnis (M50) with a
cardioid (M49) in the centre is a workable alternative. I have
also seen (but never used) a centre omni with two cardioids,
and a pair of omnis set as outriggers. This whole combination
either needs to be hawser rigged, or set on high studio booms.
A floor stand is insufficient.
>
> 5. Spaced omnis is the most intuitive idea. When I began reading, it took
> quite a while for me to mentally dispose of it, because it is so
> appealing. The idea is, a bunch of omnis on stands, separated by several
> or more feet. Some people use it; they must go by their ears, because a
> phase meter would say, "yeccch." .
Spaced omnis seem on examination to be unworkable.
Despite this, many people use them with success.
Regards
Iain
Iain Churches
>>
> [snip]
>> This kind of layout can greatly improve a
>> recording, But, of course there is a
>> complication.............!
>>
>> More to follow.
> All ears :)
>
I was referring to foldback.
Once you start arranging the musicians in
a layout to which they are not accustomed
or use acoustic screens, they start immediately
to complain they cannot hear themselves or
one another. And of course if you are
overdubbing (tracking) then no player can
hear another who is not there.-)
So you need to be able to send each player
a separate mix of what he/she (thinks he/she)
requires. These requirements differ enormously
so on a complex recording you might require
three or four different foldback mixes just
for cans.
The elements contained in the foldback mix,
and also the levels, greatly affect the performance,
so it's something that needs attention.
Most players, especially professionals are
not too hard to please, they need to hear
the rhythm section (both for rhythm and
pitch) and themselves.
Sending a vocalist's own voice back at too
high a level makes adversely affects their
intonation, so care must be take to let them
only have what they need (and then back off
a little, once they give you the thumbs up)
Many singers and players also perform
better in tune if they can hear their own
sound naturally (and not just through the
headphones) so they can be advised to slip
one side of the phones back behid the ear.
Make sure that the unused ear-piece is not
turned inside out, as this can result in
considerable leakage onto the track
which cannot be removed afterwards. It
is a wise precaution never to play overdubbed
solos into the cans either, as the may leak on
to other tracks, and so cannot be replaced
afterwards.
String players prefer to wear headphones
on one side only, so that they can hear
their own intonation better from the open
ear. AKG make headphones with
only one transdcuer specifically for this
purpose.
Walk around in the studio, during a rehearsal.
Switch off or unplug and unused cans. If you
can hear the foldback while standing close to
any mic, the cans are too loud.
Iain
Arny Krueger
> I was referring to foldback.
> Once you start arranging the musicians in
> a layout to which they are not accustomed
> or use acoustic screens, they start immediately
> to complain they cannot hear themselves or
> one another.
Also true of live events, and especially true when there is a SR system.
Live performers singing in front of a live orchestra or an organ will not be
able to hear each other very well.
> And of course if you are overdubbing (tracking) then no player can
> hear another who is not there.-)
Agreed.
> So you need to be able to send each player
> a separate mix of what he/she (thinks he/she)
> requires. These requirements differ enormously
> so on a complex recording you might require
> three or four different foldback mixes just
> for cans.
3 or 4 mixes for monitoring (as it is usually called today) would be a
relatively small number. SOTA monitoring gives each performer his own
monitoring listening device (loudspeaker, headphones, or earphones) *and*
his own 16 channel mixer. Depending on the size and needs of the group there
can easily be 6 to 12 or more separate monitor mixes. We are currently
using 6 monitor mixes at church, which are controlled from the FOH mixer.
> The elements contained in the foldback mix,
Foldback is an old school term, and rarely used today. We have a 25 year old
Yamaha mixer that we rarely use that actually has the word Foldback on its
front. Most modern mixers provide "Auxiliary" busses, mixes and outputs.
It's up to the people designing the gig to figure out how to assign the Aux
mixes. Some may be used for multichannel recording or SR, while others may
be used for monitoring. Some mixes support up to 16 or more auxiliary mixes,
but 8 is more typical for a mid-sized mixer (24-48 channels). The Auxiliary
mix is usually controlled by small potentiometers that are designed for
infrequent use, although some digital mixers allow assigning fader controls
to aux mixes.
> and also the levels, greatly affect the performance,
> so it's something that needs attention.
One sincerely hopes that the monitors affect only the performers, and not
what the audience hears directly. However spill from monitor mixes is a real
world problem at live performances, both for the audience and the other
performers.
> Most players, especially professionals are
> not too hard to please, they need to hear
> the rhythm section (both for rhythm and
> pitch) and themselves.
Obviously, the people who are mixing 15 other performers into their mix
frequently go outside that short list.
> Sending a vocalist's own voice back at too
> high a level makes adversely affects their
> intonation, so care must be take to let them
> only have what they need (and then back off
> a little, once they give you the thumbs up)
It's a negotiation. Hearing damage is endemic among performers, whether they
have been playing live and acoustic or with electronic instruments and SR.
Hearing damage can make musician's ears insensitive or hyper sensitive. This
plus spill from speakers often requires some compromises. As a rule
musicians in larger groups shouldn't be allowed to directly their own mixes
if they listen through speakers. Some of them may blast the others off the
stage. Therefore, individual mixing is usually only for performers with
headphones or earphones.
Earphones or In-Ear-Monitors are a modern trend. They provide both loud,
clean sound and lots of acoustic isolation.
It's not uncommon to have a couple of omni mics hanging over the stage and
providing their outputs to musicians so that they can hear as much of what's
happening on stage as they want.
Soundhaspriority
>
> "Soundhaspriority" <now...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:msWdnd-pP826vOXU...@giganews.com...
>
>
>> 4. Decca Tree, three spaced omnis several feet away from each other. It
>> violates every phase and mathematical principle, so I leave it to Iain to
>> defend it :)
>
> Good morning Bob,
Good morning, Iain. I regret I was pleasantly busy with a recording project,
but that is now done. A replacement DAW was found in the basement. The
tracks have beene examined, and they look good, except for the piano omnis,
which must have been impacted by a sinking column of air from an HVAC vent
somewhere above the stage.
>
> The fascinating thing about the Decca tree is its adaptability.
> The two tree frames that I recall at Decca in London
> (there were probably others in Vienna and elsewhere) where bolted
> together from Dexion to form a t-piece. It had bits of paper tape
> stuck on them with arrows and initials to show who preferred which
> spacing.
>
But the primary use is for larger performances, symphonies and chorals?
What is Dexion? A structural plastic?
> The mics don't have to be omnis. A pair of omnis (M50) with a
> cardioid (M49) in the centre is a workable alternative. I have
> also seen (but never used) a centre omni with two cardioids,
> and a pair of omnis set as outriggers. This whole combination
> either needs to be hawser rigged, or set on high studio booms.
> A floor stand is insufficient.
>>
How about a heavy duty light stand? Some of these can support 2K's weighing
30 lbs.
>> 5. Spaced omnis is the most intuitive idea. When I began reading, it took
>> quite a while for me to mentally dispose of it, because it is so
>> appealing. The idea is, a bunch of omnis on stands, separated by several
>> or more feet. Some people use it; they must go by their ears, because a
>> phase meter would say, "yeccch." .
>
> Spaced omnis seem on examination to be unworkable.
> Despite this, many people use them with success.
>
> Regards
> Iain
>
I would like to hear about some recipes, to be used as starting points, for
either the Decca Tree, or spaced omnis. I was telling TT that omnis are
actually prone to create the holes he abhores.
Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511
TT
>
>>
> I would like to hear about some recipes, to be used as starting points,
> for either the Decca Tree, or spaced omnis. I was telling TT that omnis
> are actually prone to create the holes he abhores.
>
> Bob Morein
> (310) 237-6511
"Abhor" is such a strong word. Dislike is quite sufficient ;-) Only
because it is unrepresentative of what I hear naturally. Take for instance
the piece Iain sent us, there are very few pianos that stretch from one side
of a stage to the other with no sound coming from it in the middle.
IMHO the goal for the recording engineer is to reproduce (accurately) what
can be heard at any venue in the optimum listening position. BTW this is
where many 5.1ch mixes get it so wrong :-(
Cheers TT
Soundhaspriority
Bob Morein
(3130) 237-6511
TT
comment more later.
Cheers Terry
Iain Churches
> news:IcCdnaGRupmjYxvU...@giganews.com...
>>
>
>>>
>> I would like to hear about some recipes, to be used as starting points,
>> for either the Decca Tree, or spaced omnis. I was telling TT that omnis
>> are actually prone to create the holes he abhores.
> "Abhor" is such a strong word. Dislike is quite sufficient ;-) Only
> because it is unrepresentative of what I hear naturally. Take for
> instance the piece Iain sent us, there are very few pianos that stretch
> from one side of a stage to the other with no sound coming from it in the
> middle.
Morning TT.
Errm.- Actually, during the piano intro, the string bass, acoustic gtr,
plus ride cymbal are *all* in the centre. That's why the piano is
spread. It would have been odd to start a stereo demonstration
track with the whole ryhthm section in mono.
The alternatives are not workable either, if you think about
them. You could put the bass and drums in the centre, and place
the piano on the left and the gtr on the right, but these would later
be masked by the brass and saxophones. So there is a reason:-)
But, as we have said before, it's a case of not being able to
please all the people all the time. In addition to stereo piano,
drum kits can be panned wide, and recorded from the
drummer's perspective so that the floor tom is on the left,
and hi-hat on the right, as that is what most expect to hear.
Similarly, the piano is usually presented from the player's
perspective, with the top of the keyboard on the right.
This works particularly well with strings, when the violins
are on the left.
There are many approaches..
One you mention above is to try to create what you might
hear naturally (and that must always be the objective in
classical recording) or another is, by building track by track,
to create something larger than life, which no-one could have
possibly heard before:-)
Putting a co-incidental pair in the centre seat row five for this
particular recording would not work at all. Then again, track
laying would not work either. Whatever the method chosen,
people usually erxpect a big band to be "up front and hard
hitting" I think we achieved the objective.
Your comments are always of interest:-)
Cheers
Iain
Iain Churches
>
> "Iain Churches" <Iai...@kolumbus.fi> wrote in message
> news:fLcgl.125595$_03....@reader1.news.saunalahti.fi...
>>
>> "Soundhaspriority" <now...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>> news:msWdnd-pP826vOXU...@giganews.com...
>>
>>
>>> 4. Decca Tree, three spaced omnis several feet away from each other. It
>>> violates every phase and mathematical principle, so I leave it to Iain
>>> to
>>> defend it :)
>>
> Good morning, Iain. I regret I was pleasantly busy with a recording
> project, but that is now done. A replacement DAW was found in the
> basement. The tracks have beene examined, and they look good, except for
> the piano omnis, which must have been impacted by a sinking column of air
> from an HVAC vent somewhere above the stage.
Good Morning Bob,
Hopefully you keep a careful log of the set up of each job,
microphone types and physical distances etc.
>> The fascinating thing about the Decca tree is its adaptability.
>> The two tree frames that I recall at Decca in London
>> (there were probably others in Vienna and elsewhere) where bolted
>> together from Dexion to form a t-piece. It had bits of paper tape
>> stuck on them with arrows and initials to show who preferred which
>> spacing.
>>
> But the primary use is for larger performances, symphonies and chorals?
I have used such a set up with two outriggers for a baroque vocal
ensemble with lute. I worked well, I will post you a link.
>
> What is Dexion? A structural plastic?
No its a slotted angled strip made of steel, used to make stock room
shelves etc. The Roy Wallace prototype was made of this, and
subsequent trees used the same material.
>
>
>> The mics don't have to be omnis. A pair of omnis (M50) with a
>> cardioid (M49) in the centre is a workable alternative. I have
>> also seen (but never used) a centre omni with two cardioids,
>> and a pair of omnis set as outriggers. This whole combination
>> either needs to be hawser rigged, or set on high studio booms.
>> A floor stand is insufficient.
>>>
> How about a heavy duty light stand? Some of these can support 2K's
> weighing 30 lbs.
Well, it is normally used only on a full sized studio boom, or slung
on a hawser. The physical placement of the boom requires considerable
overhang, so the arm of the boom needs to be a long one with a heavy
counterweight.
>
> I would like to hear about some recipes, to be used as starting points,
> for either the Decca Tree, or spaced omnis. I was telling TT that omnis
> are actually prone to create the holes he abhores.
Yes. The spacing is crtitical. I think a much safer approach in additon
to a co-incidental pair might be a pair and some spot mics (especially in
a noisier location)
Best regards
Iain
TT
must bear in mind my comments are being very critical form a technical
perspective only, relative to how I perceive the recorded sound, as I have
enjoyed all your music immensely. I do have a lot of piano albums Diana
Krall, Yamamoto Tsyuoshi Trio, Elton John etc and it is unusual to record
them like this. Although some Diana Krall stuff can push the believability
limits IMHO ;-)
I would have to say IME a lot of drums are recorded wide but as with real
life (to me anyway) it is an instrument that has that wide, spaced apart
sound, especially in cosy little environments.
BTW Regarding the Yamamoto Tsyuoshi Trio SACDs I have the sleeve notes
actually give a diagram of the recording studio and all the gear used so it
is easier to understand why it sounds the way it does. And yes, they place
the bass player out in the car park near the trash bins ;-) Well that's
what it sounds like anyway. The recording engineer must have turned the
mikes right down :-(
I also should mention that when I listened to Jenn's guitar recording it was
also miked (sorry miced) so it was overly wide as well. A piano that wide,
well maybe but definitely not a guitar ;-)
Cheers Terry
Iain Churches
"Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:p4GdnSjfztxUPxzU...@giganews.com...
> 3 or 4 mixes for monitoring (as it is usually called today) would be a
> relatively small number. (snip) Foldback is an old school term, and rarely
> used today. ....
In professional recording and broadcast in particular, it is
important to differentiate carefully between foldback and
monitor mixes. They are not one and the same thing.
Probably the Baptists neither know nor care.
Iain
Soundhaspriority
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iain,
Having installed an old computer as a temporary DAW, I've had a chance
to listen to it on my Acoustats. There is no question in my mind that this
recording defines the big band sound. I grew up with this on the radio. With
respect to TT's note about the piano width, I have a small jazz ensemble CD
of JA's in which the drums are spread across the stage. There seems to be a
tendency amongst professionals, when using synthetic techniques, to use one
instrument set to create a background canvas. I speculated to JA that his
choice was to avoid the perception of holes, but he wouldn't sign to that.
Your recording does remind me that there really is a clique of
"purists" who eschew synthetic techniques. I am one such self-confessed
oddball, and I speculate that it interferes with production of recordings
that appeal to a wider class of listeners. Your recording can be appreciated
by an individual sitting anywhere in the room. The characteristic I seek
almost requires that the listener sit in the sweet spot, else the
specialness of the imaging cannot be heard, leaving the listener only with
inferior characteristics of balance, tonality, and impact.
The sheer size of a big band interferes with purist techniques. The
"wide angle lens" effect comes into play. I speculate that expected sound of
the big band comes from the fact that, in live dance situations, the big
band is not heard from a single point, but rather, from everywhere in the
room, as the dancers move. Another reason might be the early popularity of
big band on TV, for which purist recording techniques are totally
unsuitable.
Do you recall details of the equipment? Track count, mike choices?
Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511
Arny Krueger
> "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote in message
> news:p4GdnSjfztxUPxzU...@giganews.com...
>
>> 3 or 4 mixes for monitoring (as it is usually called
>> today) would be a relatively small number. (snip)
>> Foldback is an old school term, and rarely used today.
>> ....
>
> In professional recording and broadcast in particular, it
> is important to differentiate carefully between foldback
> and monitor mixes. They are not one and the same thing.
Differentiate foldback and monitor? In your dreams, Iain:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foldback_(sound_engineering)
"Foldback is the use of rear-facing, heavy-duty loudspeakers known as
monitor speakers on stage during live music performances. The sound is
amplified with power amplifiers or a public address system and the speakers
are aimed at the on-stage performers rather than the audience. This sound
signal may be produced on the same mixing console as The main mix for the
audience (called the 'front of house' mix), or there may be a separate sound
engineer and mixing console on or beside the stage creating a separate mix
for the monitor system."
In short, foldback = monitor. If you don't like it Iain, go argue with the
Wikipedia authors.
Iain Churches
> Differentiate foldback and monitor? In your dreams, Iain:
Study the EBU training manuals.
A formal education is a wonderful thing:-)
Arny Krueger
> "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote in message
> news:v4udnWascYO-GRXU...@giganews.com...
>
>> Differentiate foldback and monitor? In your dreams,
>> Iain:
<Iain snipped a Wikipedia article that shows him up for the ignorant bozo
that he is>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foldback_(sound_engineering)
> Study the EBU training manuals.
Which of the several thousand EBU documents do you mean? You know, they do
have unique names. LOL!
> A formal education is a wonderful thing:-)
Iani, it is obvious that you have far more lip service to school learning
about live sound than practical smarts.
Iain Churches
> "Iain Churches" <Iai...@kolumbus.fi> wrote in message
> news:RH%hl.128138$_03.3...@reader1.news.saunalahti.fi
>> "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote in message
>> news:v4udnWascYO-GRXU...@giganews.com...
>>
>>> Differentiate foldback and monitor? In your dreams,
>>> Iain:
>
> <Iain snipped a Wikipedia article that shows him up for the ignorant bozo
> that he is>
Any fool can write on Wiki. There are frequently blatant errors.
A proper set or BBC or EBU training manuals is a much more
reliable source of accurate and complete information.
>> Study the EBU training manuals.
>
> Which of the several thousand EBU documents do you mean?
> You know, they do have unique names. LOL!
Find them. There is a complete set dedicated to broadcast
procedures and terminology. At the same time, look up
"recordist" and "condenser" :-)))
>
>> A formal education is a wonderful thing:-)
>
> Iani, it is obvious that you have far more lip service to school learning
> about live sound than practical smarts.
Any real professional can run rings round you in either
as has been clearly shown. You flout your so-called
expertise, but dare not let anyone else here audition one
of your recordings. That tells most what they need to
know.
Many of us still remember, and smile about the
way you tried to "correct the audiophool misconceptions"
of two very erudite gentlemen from the BBC:-)
Arny. You turn every thread in which you participate
into a shambles.
I do not wish to discuss with you. There
are several people exchanging excellent recordings
and ideas, off list. I am hoping they will join this
thread and participate openly. They will not do so
if you are involved.
Iain
Iain Churches
> Having installed an old computer as a temporary DAW, I've had a chance to
> listen to it on my Acoustats. There is no question in my mind that this
> recording defines the big band sound. I grew up with this on the radio.
Indeed. Just as with classical recording, there are long
established traditional methods in jazz to which it is wise
to adhere.
On the subject of balance: In a concert situation if say
the 2nd trumpet is playing too quietly one can use the
visual reference to help correct what you hear
(the brain has wonderful powers of compensation:-)
When just listening to a recording, one cannot make
corrections in the same way.
>With respect to TT's note about the piano width, I have a small jazz
>ensemble CD of JA's in which the drums are spread across the stage. There
>seems to be a tendency amongst professionals, when using synthetic
>techniques, to use one instrument set to create a background canvas. I
>speculated to JA that his choice was to avoid the perception of holes, but
>he wouldn't sign to that.
One of of the important things to think about is the
placement within the stereo image (with respect to
the studio/concert layout) so that instruments and
sections are not superimposed to too great a degree.
For example in our big band, example one could
place the trombones left and trumpets right, so that
they "play off" against eachother, and in a brass tutti
section this sounds good, but then what about the
saxophones/woodwinds? The only place left for them
is a centre spread. This may work with some titles
but there again it probably will not.
> Your recording does remind me that there really is a clique of "purists"
> who eschew synthetic techniques. I am one such self-confessed oddball, and
> I speculate that it interferes with production of recordings that appeal
> to a wider class of listeners.
One has to be able to record in a style that will please
the majority of listeners, and your client in particular.
> Your recording can be appreciated by an individual sitting anywhere in the
> room. The characteristic I seek almost requires that the listener sit in
> the sweet spot, else the specialness of the imaging cannot be heard,
> leaving the listener only with inferior characteristics of balance,
> tonality, and impact.
Then you can only play your material to one, or at best
two people at a time:-)
> The sheer size of a big band interferes with purist techniques. The "wide
> angle lens" effect comes into play. I speculate that expected sound of the
> big band comes from the fact that, in live dance situations, the big band
> is not heard from a single point, but rather, from everywhere in the room,
> as the dancers move. Another reason might be the early popularity of big
> band on TV, for which purist recording techniques are totally unsuitable.
Interesting comment of yours "interferes with purist
techniques" It also interferes with the workings of
a purist audio system a tube SET amp and horns!
Just an awful combination for this kind of material.
> Do you recall details of the equipment?
Yes indeed. I will send you a sketch and all details
by e-mail I have some other excellent material by
the same band that will really get your little grey
cells working:-).
>Track count, mike choices?
Straight stereo. Twenty channels. Neumann 87s, 84s,
49s plus an AKG dynamic for Bass Drum (kick drum
as you call it:-)
I have listened briefly to the track you so kindly sent me.
First impressions are favourable. You must be pleased:-)
More comments later.
Best regards
Iain
Iain Churches
> Hi Iain, yes I do understand why you (and others) do it this way and you
> must bear in mind my comments are being very critical form a technical
> perspective only, relative to how I perceive the recorded sound, as I have
> enjoyed all your music immensely. I do have a lot of piano albums Diana
> Krall, Yamamoto Tsyuoshi Trio, Elton John etc and it is unusual to record
> them like this. Although some Diana Krall stuff can push the
> believability limits IMHO ;-)
I think the Diana Krall piano sound is generally amazing - the track
Bigfoot is especially good.
>
> I would have to say IME a lot of drums are recorded wide but as with real
> life (to me anyway) it is an instrument that has that wide, spaced apart
> sound, especially in cosy little environments.
But maybe physically less width than a piano keyboard
Sorry, just teasing. I take your point:-.)
>
> BTW Regarding the Yamamoto Tsyuoshi Trio SACDs I have the sleeve notes
> actually give a diagram of the recording studio and all the gear used so
> it is easier to understand why it sounds the way it does. And yes, they
> place the bass player out in the car park near the trash bins ;-) Well
> that's what it sounds like anyway. The recording engineer must have
> turned the mikes right down :-(
But the egineer would not decide this alone. The producer too
wold be involved as this is an artistic not just a technical decision.
One would have thought the bass player would have had something
to say about it too! A good bass sound is the nucleus of the trio.
My favourite jazz trio is probably still Oscar Peterson (or Peter
Oscarson, as my wife calls him:-) with Ray Brown on bass. I
went to most of his concerts in Europe that were within reach.
The tour with Joe Pass, was exceptionaly good.
> I also should mention that when I listened to Jenn's guitar recording it
> was also miked (sorry miced) so it was overly wide as well. A piano that
> wide, well maybe but definitely not a guitar ;-)
Hmm. Most people seem to be pleased by a slightly exaggerated
stereo soundscape. Perhaps you are the exception. I am going to
take another look at "Steppin' Out" when time permits, and will
remix the intro, just for you:-)
Best Regards
Iain
bassett
Christ here we go again,, Churches arguing with a septic, does he never
learn, Apparently not.
Quite sad really for someone who professes to have an education, and he
can't stick a septic in the kill-bin. He must have masochistic
tendances, ether that or he simply enjoys making a cunt of himself.
Arny Krueger
> "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote in message
> news:cfednShyM_LpJRXU...@giganews.com...
>> "Iain Churches" <Iai...@kolumbus.fi> wrote in message
>> news:RH%hl.128138$_03.3...@reader1.news.saunalahti.fi
>>> "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote in message
>>> news:v4udnWascYO-GRXU...@giganews.com...
>>>
>>>> Differentiate foldback and monitor? In your dreams,
>>>> Iain:
>>
>> <Iain snipped a Wikipedia article that shows him up for
>> the ignorant bozo that he is>
>
> Any fool can write on Wiki. There are frequently blatant
> errors. A proper set or BBC or EBU training manuals is a
> much more reliable source of accurate and complete
> information.
>>> Study the EBU training manuals.
>>
>> Which of the several thousand EBU documents do you mean?
>> You know, they do have unique names. LOL!
>
> Find them. There is a complete set dedicated to broadcast
> procedures and terminology. At the same time, look up
> "recordist" and "condenser" :-)))
IOW Iain, you were just throwing the good name of the EBU about. You have no
clue.
>>> A formal education is a wonderful thing:-)
>>
>> Iani, it is obvious that you have far more lip service
>> to school learning about live sound than practical
>> smarts.
> Any real professional can run rings round you in either
> as has been clearly shown.
Oh really?
>You flout your so-called
> expertise, but dare not let anyone else here audition one
> of your recordings. That tells most what they need to
> know.
Iain, if I thought that my recordings would get a fair appraisal from
someone who mattered, things would be different.
> Many of us still remember, and smile about the
> way you tried to "correct the audiophool misconceptions"
> of two very erudite gentlemen from the BBC:-)
You have no evidence of that to show, either.
> Arny. You turn every thread in which you participate
> into a shambles.
That happens Iain when you see me coming and start wetting and soiling
yourself in public.
> I do not wish to discuss with you.
Then don't respond to my posts and troll me.
> There are several people exchanging excellent recordings
> and ideas, off list. I am hoping they will join this
> thread and participate openly. They will not do so
> if you are involved.
Ignorant Iain - 100% bluster, 0% proof.
Soundhaspriority
>
[snip good stuff]
>
> I have listened briefly to the track you so kindly sent me.
> First impressions are favourable. You must be pleased:-)
> More comments later.
>
> Best regards
> Iain
>
the evaluation, but the ORTF tracks are much closer to what one "expects" to
hear.
Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511
Iain Churches
Yes of course. E-mail please.
Iain
Soundhaspriority
Symphony orchestras have a traditional layout, occasionally varied. Is there
anything like this with big band, or is it so up to the personality that
runs it that there really is no sacrifice in moving it around?
On the subject of holes, and what I could do to fix a particular track for
TT so that it has no holes, I may not have the methodology to do it without
sacrifice in another area. Take the case of the guitarist and harp player. I
have two spots and the ORTF pair to play with. I could fix the hole with the
panpots. But is it really the way to do it? Simplying even further, suppose
I have just the ORTF pair. I could pan them together, but this is a simple
linear combination, losing the channel information to the extent that I pan
toward the center.
Are there any plugins that work on this problem, preserving "space" while
narrowing the spread between the sources?
The dummy head recording could present a similar problem for those listeners
who desire a sound stage with a center presence. It was recorded with a
"head", and is listened to with a "head." It sounds wide because the dummy
head was placed close, a necessity due to high ambient noise. It would be
nice if there were plugins that could change the width in a way cognizant of
the HRTF, rather than simply collapsing towards mono.
Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511
Soundhaspriority
>
> Iain
Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511
Soundhaspriority
<Iai...@kolumbus.fi> wrote in message
YZcil.128419$_03.7...@reader1.news.saunalahti.fi
> "Soundhaspriority" <now...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:3JKdnc7wKbK-6hXU...@giganews.com...
>
>> Having installed an old computer as a temporary DAW, I've had a chance to
>> listen to it on my Acoustats. There is no question in my mind that this
>> recording defines the big band sound. I grew up with this on the radio.
>
> Indeed. Just as with classical recording, there are long
> established traditional methods in jazz to which it is wise
> to adhere.
>
> On the subject of balance: In a concert situation if say
> the 2nd trumpet is playing too quietly one can use the
> visual reference to help correct what you hear
> (the brain has wonderful powers of compensation:-)
> When just listening to a recording, one cannot make
> corrections in the same way.
This is nonsense. To have 'grown up' with big band sound on the radio, you'd
have to be 70 years old. A baby boomer had Elvis and the Beatles, not Harry
James and Duke Ellington.
Pol Pot stereo recordings are the shit. Pol Pot recorded some bitchin'
Cambodian Jazz, and then whacked the musicians so that they couldn't ever
record again. This has made these recordings among the most valuable jazz
recordings available.
"I don't really have a career, it's a very gnawing thing"
Robert Morein
(310) 237-6511
(215) 646-4894
Iain Churches
>
> "Iain Churches" <Iai...@kolumbus.fi> wrote in message
> news:Rohil.128532$_03....@reader1.news.saunalahti.fi...
>>
>> "Soundhaspriority" <now...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>> news:24-dnc8Gn_IOPBTU...@giganews.com...
>>>
>>> "Iain Churches" <Iai...@kolumbus.fi> wrote in message
>>> news:YZcil.128419$_03....@reader1.news.saunalahti.fi...
>>>>
>>> [snip good stuff]
>>>>
>>>> I have listened briefly to the track you so kindly sent me.
>>>> First impressions are favourable. You must be pleased:-)
>>>> More comments later.
>>>>
>>> prejudice the evaluation, but the ORTF tracks are much closer to what
>>> one "expects" to hear.
>>
>> Yes of course. E-mail please.
> When I get back from errands, I will encode.
>
Hi Bob.- Many thanks indeed for the two versions
of your Bernstein recording.
I have listened to the Jecklin disc version several times, and find
it extremely interesting (more comments to come in e-mail) It's
a very long time since I did any Jecklin experiments.
For those not familiar with the system, there is a reprint of a
an original article by Jecklin himself, describing the topology.
http://www.josephson.com/tn5.html
I hope to have more time at the weekend to stoke up the
tube amp and do some serious listening.
Cheers
Iain
Iain Churches
>
> "Iain Churches" <Iai...@kolumbus.fi> wrote in message
> news:M4dil.128422$_03....@reader1.news.saunalahti.fi...
>>
>> "TT" <TTence...@westnet.com.au> wrote in message
>>> I also should mention that when I listened to Jenn's guitar recording it
>>> was also miked (sorry miced) so it was overly wide as well. A piano
>>> that
>>> wide, well maybe but definitely not a guitar ;-)
>>
>> Hmm. Most people seem to be pleased by a slightly exaggerated
>> stereo soundscape. Perhaps you are the exception. I am going to
>> take another look at "Steppin' Out" when time permits, and will
>> remix the intro, just for you:-)
>>
> I would like to hear the remix.
And so you shall, dear Sir, so you shall:-)
Nothing drastic. I shall just pull the piano in from
the edges towards the centre. There will then be
a rather startling "opening out" as the band come in
after the piano and rhythm section intro. There is
a fairly good chance that, having heard the alternative,
Terry will decide he likes the original better after all:-)
This is a straioght stereo recording - two tracks .
multi microphone, so I have no outrigger tracks to
fall back upon to put some air around the narrowed
piano.
>
> Symphony orchestras have a traditional layout, occasionally varied. Is
> there anything like this with big band, or is it so up to the personality
> that runs it that there really is no sacrifice in moving it around?
We covered this in an earlier post. In a big band, the saxophones
are regarded as the kindergarten section, and the conductor likes
to keep them at the front, where he can keep an eye on them:-)
For recording that's probably the worst possible place, Bob.
One gets much better control and far less leakage with sections
arranged at 90 degrees to each other. They can still see each
other and the conductor well.
> On the subject of holes, and what I could do to fix a particular track for
> TT so that it has no holes, I may not have the methodology to do it
> without sacrifice in another area.
The whole concept is a compromise from start to finish:-)
>Take the case of the guitarist and harp player. I have two spots and the
>ORTF pair to play with. I could fix the hole with the panpots. But is it
>really the way to do it?
Probably not. This may smear their positions into something
poorly-defined. You stated that you had DI feeds, and yet there
was more amp noise than I expected.
>Simplying even further, suppose I have just the ORTF pair. I could pan them
>together, but this is a simple linear combination, losing the channel
>information to the extent that I pan toward the center.
This might be a better solution. I would be interested to hear some
variations on this idea. Get cracking:-)
Best regards
Iain
Soundhaspriority
>>
>> "Iain Churches" <Iai...@kolumbus.fi> wrote in message
>> news:Rohil.128532$_03....@reader1.news.saunalahti.fi...
>>>
>>> "Soundhaspriority" <now...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>>> news:24-dnc8Gn_IOPBTU...@giganews.com...
>>>>
>>>> "Iain Churches" <Iai...@kolumbus.fi> wrote in message
>>>> news:YZcil.128419$_03....@reader1.news.saunalahti.fi...
>>>>>
>>>> [snip good stuff]
>>>>>
>>>>> I have listened briefly to the track you so kindly sent me.
>>>>> First impressions are favourable. You must be pleased:-)
>>>>> More comments later.
>>>>>
>>>> prejudice the evaluation, but the ORTF tracks are much closer to what
>>>> one "expects" to hear.
>>>
>>> Yes of course. E-mail please.
>
>>
>
> of your Bernstein recording.
>
> I have listened to the Jecklin disc version several times, and find
> it extremely interesting (more comments to come in e-mail) It's
> a very long time since I did any Jecklin experiments.
>
> For those not familiar with the system, there is a reprint of a
> an original article by Jecklin himself, describing the topology.
>
> http://www.josephson.com/tn5.html
>
> I hope to have more time at the weekend to stoke up the
> tube amp and do some serious listening.
>
> Cheers
> Iain
>
on the Jecklin with two hemispheres of foam.
Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511