Okay, there's now a song up
hank alrich
various resolutions including complete mp3 versions at 128, 192, and 320
kbps, and partial clips of wav files at 16/44.1 and 24/96:
http://www.armadillomusicproductions.com/CarryMeHome.htm
--
ha
shut up and play your guitar
Soundhaspriority
"hank alrich" <walk...@nv.net> wrote in message
news:1j9hji0.dlae5dqlki0wN%walk...@nv.net...
> We've put up a track from our project, "The Great Baltimore Fire", in
> various resolutions including complete mp3 versions at 128, 192, and 320
> kbps, and partial clips of wav files at 16/44.1 and 24/96:
>
> http://www.armadillomusicproductions.com/CarryMeHome.htm
>
Very polished.
A thought from someone not really qualified to give it: In this short clip,
your voices are in balance. I wonder if in other stanzas, one of you leads,
while the other backs. An alternation would be very interesting.
Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511
Rick Ruskin
wrote:
>We've put up a track from our project, "The Great Baltimore Fire", in
>various resolutions including complete mp3 versions at 128, 192, and 320
>kbps, and partial clips of wav files at 16/44.1 and 24/96:
>
>http://www.armadillomusicproductions.com/CarryMeHome.htm
Excellent!
Rick Ruskin
Lion Dog Music - Seattle WA
http://liondogmusic.com
http://www.myspace.com/rickruskin
hank alrich
This song is deliberately a duet. There are other songs that are my lead
and her harmony, others vice versa, and others she solo.
Don Pearce
wrote:
>Soundhaspriority <now...@nowhere.com> wrote:
Very nicely put together, but in no manner is it a duet. You are
singing lead and she is a barely audible descant. Same for your
instruments - everything is coming out of the right speaker. I'm not
saying that makes it bad, you understand, but your idea of equal
participation here is a bit skewed.
I downloaded the 24/96 version, which showed up some interference at
37kHz very well. Probably some power supply somewhere singing gently
to itself.
d
Soundhaspriority
"Don Pearce" <sp...@spam.com> wrote in message
news:4b078876...@news.eternal-september.org...
Don, I had the opposite impression, in that I found her voice very slightly
more prominent than Hank's. Given that male and female voices are distinctly
different, I don't see how it is possible to neutrally balance to all
listeners. You hear him, and I hear her.
Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511
Don Pearce
Really? That's interesting. You must agree though that certainly in
that clip she had no melody line to sing.
d
david correia
walk...@nv.net (hank alrich) wrote:
That's for letting us hear it. And congrats for doing it.
You wanna hear something wierd? I listened to it and was so impressed
that you were so cool to produce the song in mono. Then I remembered my
receiver was in mono, and switched it back to stereo, and listened
again.
And what's even wierder for me, an guy who stays away from mono mixes
for my acoustic projects, is that I liked the cut better in mono.
I must be getting old ;>
Hey, Hank, give it a listen.
David Correia
www.Celebrationsound.com
p.s. How did you and the wife come up with the name Shaidri?
And, I can't help asking, how did she end up in Juneau? I only know one
person that moved to Alaska, and that was back in the day. He was pretty
much allergic to people. And no one's heard from him since.
Arny Krueger
> Baltimore Fire", in various resolutions including
> complete mp3 versions at 128, 192, and 320 kbps, and
> partial clips of wav files at 16/44.1 and 24/96:
>
> http://www.armadillomusicproductions.com/CarryMeHome.htm
How was it miced and mixed?
Mike Rivers
> Very nicely put together, but in no manner is it a duet. You are
> singing lead and she is a barely audible descant. Same for your
> instruments - everything is coming out of the right speaker.
Oh, Don, you'd gripe about being hanged with a well broken in rope!
You might want to check your system calibration. Or maybe try a different
file. I downloaded the 44.1/16 version and the balance between left and
right channels was fine - Hank's voice on the riht, Shaidri's on the left,
with the cello just a tad left of center.
As far as the vocal parts are concerned, I know the original version of this
song from the North Carolina Ramblers. If that's the reference version (I
consider it so) then neither one is singing the melody. I could sing the
melody along with Hank's recording and, to my ear, fill it out. They're
singing two parts in harmony, but it's not the close harmony that we're
accustomed to hearing in string band music. Nothing wrong with a
different interpretation of an old song.
Don Pearce
wrote:
>Don Pearce wrote:
>
>> Very nicely put together, but in no manner is it a duet. You are
>> singing lead and she is a barely audible descant. Same for your
>> instruments - everything is coming out of the right speaker.
>
>Oh, Don, you'd gripe about being hanged with a well broken in rope!
>
No gripe, but I'm sure Hank didn't post that song just so everyone
could stand back in awed admiration. Just to be clear, I am very
impressed by the performance.
>You might want to check your system calibration. Or maybe try a different
>file. I downloaded the 44.1/16 version and the balance between left and
>right channels was fine - Hank's voice on the riht, Shaidri's on the left,
>with the cello just a tad left of center.
>
That wasn't what I meant - I wasn't talking about imaging, which was
fine. What I meant was that Hanks parts, both vocal and guitar, stood
well above his partner's in the mix. I mean that in terms of volume
tone and content. That makes this not a duet, but an accompanied solo.
>As far as the vocal parts are concerned, I know the original version of this
>song from the North Carolina Ramblers. If that's the reference version (I
>consider it so) then neither one is singing the melody. I could sing the
>melody along with Hank's recording and, to my ear, fill it out. They're
>singing two parts in harmony, but it's not the close harmony that we're
>accustomed to hearing in string band music. Nothing wrong with a
>different interpretation of an old song.
I can't comment on the original, because I don't know it, but the
intervals used here are definitely those of solo and descant, not a
simple two part harmony.
d
MiNe 109
sp...@spam.com (Don Pearce) wrote:
> I can't comment on the original, because I don't know it, but the
> intervals used here are definitely those of solo and descant, not a
> simple two part harmony.
I'm curious what the distinction is. Not enough 3rds and 6ths?
Stephen
Don Pearce
No, it is the fact that one is clearly the melody line, and the other
a harmony supporting it. It is a style thing.
d
MiNe 109
sp...@spam.com (Don Pearce) wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 09:36:45 -0600, MiNe 109
> <smce...@POPaustin.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <4b08f8e8...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> > sp...@spam.com (Don Pearce) wrote:
> >
> >> I can't comment on the original, because I don't know it, but the
> >> intervals used here are definitely those of solo and descant, not a
> >> simple two part harmony.
> >
> >I'm curious what the distinction is. Not enough 3rds and 6ths?
> >
>
> No, it is the fact that one is clearly the melody line, and the other
> a harmony supporting it. It is a style thing.
I guess so. I don't see any distinction from your definition. My
understanding of 'descant' includes a element of independence and
counterpoint. This is harmonized pretty much note-for-note.
The most general definition of duet is the presence of two voices and we
can agree at that level!
It was fun to spend a few minutes researching this. One version of the
original tune can be found here:
http://www.lizlyle.lofgrens.org/RmOlSngs/RTOS-BaltimoreFire.html
Stephen
Don Pearce
<smce...@POPaustin.rr.com> wrote:
>In article <4b0b09ae...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> sp...@spam.com (Don Pearce) wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 09:36:45 -0600, MiNe 109
>> <smce...@POPaustin.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <4b08f8e8...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>> > sp...@spam.com (Don Pearce) wrote:
>> >
>> >> I can't comment on the original, because I don't know it, but the
>> >> intervals used here are definitely those of solo and descant, not a
>> >> simple two part harmony.
>> >
>> >I'm curious what the distinction is. Not enough 3rds and 6ths?
>> >
>>
>> No, it is the fact that one is clearly the melody line, and the other
>> a harmony supporting it. It is a style thing.
>
>I guess so. I don't see any distinction from your definition. My
>understanding of 'descant' includes a element of independence and
>counterpoint. This is harmonized pretty much note-for-note.
>
>The most general definition of duet is the presence of two voices and we
>can agree at that level!
>
I would extend that definition to include equality of weight and
importance between the two artists, and I don't find that in this
song. That is in essence the only point I am trying to make here. Mike
thought to interpret it as criticism, which it wasn't.
>It was fun to spend a few minutes researching this. One version of the
>original tune can be found here:
>
>http://www.lizlyle.lofgrens.org/RmOlSngs/RTOS-BaltimoreFire.html
>
>Stephen
Interesting. I'll have a look at that later.
d
hank alrich
Unless something went wrong with those files when Fletcher put them up,
your comments bear no relationship to what I've heard now dozens of
times through systems ranging from cans to laptops to cars to average
home playback systems and Mr. Tubbs' Dunleavy's.
Winter storm here now, and as I'm slightly over 3 miles from the DSL
switch, I'll not be downloading to doublecheck today, but I'll contact
Fletche and get him to see what's up with that. Because on that song I'm
right, she's left, and our voices are nearly identical level throughout
but for typical minor variations in level of natural delivery.
Thanks, Don. I'll get it looked at.
hank alrich
> Don Pearce wrote:
>
> > Very nicely put together, but in no manner is it a duet. You are
> > singing lead and she is a barely audible descant. Same for your
> > instruments - everything is coming out of the right speaker.
>
> Oh, Don, you'd gripe about being hanged with a well broken in rope!
Dman, Mike, that's a good enough line it ought to wind up in a song.
> You might want to check your system calibration. Or maybe try a different
> file. I downloaded the 44.1/16 version and the balance between left and
> right channels was fine - Hank's voice on the riht, Shaidri's on the left,
> with the cello just a tad left of center.
>
> As far as the vocal parts are concerned, I know the original version of this
> song from the North Carolina Ramblers.
Yep, learned it originally in the '60's from a Charlie Poole and the
North Carolina Ramblers album. Used to do it much more like that source,
including Posey Rorrer's fiddle part.
What always happens with me, unless I consicously restrain myself to
mimicing, is that I start to alter melodies and lyrics, and eventually
the song becomes something different while still pointing honestly at
the source.
Songs take me over and I return the favor. That used to drive Shaidri
nuts, as she could perfectly duplicate her performance for years. During
one of our tracking sessions, listening to playback, she said she'd
become the kind of singer she used to hate, singing it a little
differently every time.
> If that's the reference version (I
> consider it so) then neither one is singing the melody. I could sing the
> melody along with Hank's recording and, to my ear, fill it out. They're
> singing two parts in harmony, but it's not the close harmony that we're
> accustomed to hearing in string band music. Nothing wrong with a
> different interpretation of an old song.
Agreed, obviously. And if everything seems to be coming out one side of
Don's system something is amiss somewhere down the line from the
integrity of the tracks as mixed and mastered. I don't doubt what he
syas he's hearing, but nobody on earth has heard these tracks as often
as I have now, and with Rick Ruskin in the listening loop, given his
ears and his system, research is necessary to locate the cause of the
perceived imbalance.
hank alrich
> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 09:25:16 -0500, Mike Rivers <mri...@d-and-d.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Don Pearce wrote:
> >
> >> Very nicely put together, but in no manner is it a duet. You are
> >> singing lead and she is a barely audible descant. Same for your
> >> instruments - everything is coming out of the right speaker.
> >
> >Oh, Don, you'd gripe about being hanged with a well broken in rope!
> >
>
> No gripe, but I'm sure Hank didn't post that song just so everyone
> could stand back in awed admiration.
Correct, Don. And I do appreciate your comments. I will say that I can
hear it over the speakers in this 17" Macbook Pro, over the Geneled
8040A's in my mixing room, over the 40 yr. old Jensen 3-ways in the
living room, over the system in the Toyota van, in Senn HD280's, etc.,
without perceiving that it's all in one channel or that my voice heavily
overrides hers. The relative level of the voices does shift a bit
depending on the system, much less so among the variety of pro
monitoring systems via which I've heard it.
My main reason for pointing to it is that I have been participating here
for years, and I think the only music I've offered has been a live track
of my "Austin City Limits" song last year, and a quick demo of a simple
swing tune very casually cut at a friend's house in the country outside
of Austin, with an beginning recordist, also last year.
Since my main focus is now, and hopefully will remain on the input side
of the mics, I figured I'd share what I'm up to. Certainly we all have
preferences and I never figured that what I do will appeal to everyone.
I wondered if the CD ought to bear a warning label like "This music has
not been artificially perfected".
I've been thinking for the last few years that lots of folks might enjoy
music that fit that description, that was played live and honestly. Now
we'll see about that. I've never thought we were going to be gold
wreckered material. However, we might find our niche within the
folk/Americana sector and given what it cost to do this we don't need to
sell many, compared to the big stuff, in order for the executive
producer to get his money back and maybe see some return for the
performers, too.
There are many aspects of this effort that are different from the
mainstream, some having to do with who owns the SR copyright and how the
money is to be divided if we recoup. All in all it's both exciting and
fun. I think the most favorable thing we'd hope to get from it is more
and better bookings for live performances, because as Scott says, that's
where "real" music happens.
> Just to be clear, I am very impressed by the performance.
Thank you. Everything done for this project has been quite immediate. We
didn't have the resources to get too picky. We hope this succeeds well
enough that we get to do another one, and we would like to have five
days for tracking instead of three, and three days for mixing instead of
two. We also know that if we do get bookings that allow us to spend time
ahead of a recording project getting up to speed with the material we'll
feel less pressured and do a better job. None of this was at the "second
nature" level of familiarity. That said, I do realize that there is
excitement in a seat-of-the-pants approach, and that gets reflected in
the final result.
> >You might want to check your system calibration. Or maybe try a different
> >file. I downloaded the 44.1/16 version and the balance between left and
> >right channels was fine - Hank's voice on the riht, Shaidri's on the left,
> >with the cello just a tad left of center.
> >
>
> That wasn't what I meant - I wasn't talking about imaging, which was
> fine. What I meant was that Hanks parts, both vocal and guitar, stood
> well above his partner's in the mix. I mean that in terms of volume
> tone and content. That makes this not a duet, but an accompanied solo.
My guitar is supposed to be louder, and it is. Live, Doug sits stage
right, Shaidri is in the middle, and I'm stage left. For the recordings
we put the cello pretty much in the middle, and varied the right/left
balance of Shaidri and me slightly, moving her more to the middle, but
not fully, when her's is the only vocal. There is one instrumental
medley, our arrangement of three fiddle tunes, where we put my guitar
down the middle with fiddle left and cello right.
> >As far as the vocal parts are concerned, I know the original version of this
> >song from the North Carolina Ramblers. If that's the reference version (I
> >consider it so) then neither one is singing the melody. I could sing the
> >melody along with Hank's recording and, to my ear, fill it out. They're
> >singing two parts in harmony, but it's not the close harmony that we're
> >accustomed to hearing in string band music. Nothing wrong with a
> >different interpretation of an old song.
>
> I can't comment on the original, because I don't know it, but the
> intervals used here are definitely those of solo and descant, not a
> simple two part harmony.
That's how we do it, and when we sing the whole song together we call it
a duet. Shaidri can deliver at least half a dozen harmonies to anything
that comes her way, and she is liable to alter what she sings on a
per-delivery basis. Not only am I fine with that, I prefer it.
As for the technical accuracy of my terminology, I do believe I have
stated here before that I am but a dumbass guitar player. Now, the
executive producer is well educated musically, with deep knowledge of
all Western music, and the ability to compose in that of any era of
formal or popular music. He didn't beat on us when we referred to this
song as the duet on this album. <g>
BTW, you might enjoy the original. And here's alink to the history
around this song:
http://www.lizlyle.lofgrens.org/RmOlSngs/RTOS-BaltimoreFire.html
One more comment: while all tracks on the CD are only the three of us,
and there are no embellishments via overdubs, there is variety of
instrumentation, and presentation, with no two alike. Some is slightly
more country, some toward bluegrass, a little Celtic, folk, and I don't
know how to classify the title cut.
hank alrich
Me: vocal into a Klaus Heyne mod'd U67; guitar into a KM56 above the
neck/body joint, aimed more at the fingerboard, and a Jim Williams'
mod'd C460 with cardioid cap off the lower bout, aimed about 45 degress
into the top and same toward the saddle; mandolin using that same combo
of mics slightly repositioned.
Shaidri: vocal into a U87; guitar into a KM54, closer to the neck/body
junction, repositioned for fiddle.
Doug: cello into a TLM192 at first, then into a U47FET.
Room pair of Schoeps CMC6 amps with Mk4 caps in X/Y into a Millennia
HV3-D. All other mics into a lovely old Neve console.
All mics were closer than I like them for best capture, but that is the
price to be paid when people want to be physically closer together while
playing, as if they were playing in a living room, yet separation
adequate for some control of individual tracks is desired at mixdown.
If the three of us get to spend a bunch of time playing together before
the next shot at this we might well track it all with a stereo pair at a
nice distance. Fred felt like he wanted to do that this time, once he
understood how we wanted to go about it. At first he assumed we'd put
the cello in a separate room, we'd put Shaidri and I apart some distance
in the main room, and that we'd all be wearing cans. That's not how I
wanted to do it, and all three of us, especially Doug who has spent much
of his life for the last thirty years wearing headphones in the studio,
really enjoyed taking it as naturally as possible in that regard..
Tracked into Nuendo via the Steinberg (OEM'd be RME, I think)
converters, and mixed int the box, all at 24/96.
Given my musical responsibilities I was glad to pay far less attention
to to the technical side unless I noticed something specific that I
wanted chagned. That allowed me to focus on performance and the
development of the material, which was important given that we'd had
very little time to prepare. Shaidri and I have been playing together a
lot anytime I'm in Austin, but we had only two days seven weeks ahead of
the tracking dates to work it all out with Doug, and he'd never heard
most of what we were going to record.
I picked a facility run by an engineer I like and we ran with it. Fred
Remmert has decades of experience with all kinds of music, and I very
much look forward to working with him again.
The site isn't fully up to date, but here's where we worked:
http://www.cedarcreekrecording.com/
hank alrich
> In article <1j9hji0.dlae5dqlki0wN%walk...@nv.net>,
> walk...@nv.net (hank alrich) wrote:
>
> > We've put up a track from our project, "The Great Baltimore Fire", in
> > various resolutions including complete mp3 versions at 128, 192, and 320
> > kbps, and partial clips of wav files at 16/44.1 and 24/96:
> >
> > http://www.armadillomusicproductions.com/CarryMeHome.htm
> >
> >
> > --
> > ha
> > shut up and play your guitar
>
>
>
> That's for letting us hear it. And congrats for doing it.
>
> You wanna hear something wierd? I listened to it and was so impressed
> that you were so cool to produce the song in mono. Then I remembered my
> receiver was in mono, and switched it back to stereo, and listened
> again.
>
> And what's even wierder for me, an guy who stays away from mono mixes
> for my acoustic projects, is that I liked the cut better in mono.
>
> I must be getting old ;>
Congartulations! <g>
> Hey, Hank, give it a listen.
Heh. Every single mix was checked multiple times in mono while mixing,
and rechecked in mono in mastering. I don't have to tell you I am aware
of some old school demands for how music is mixed. You knew that
already. Same for Fred Remmert - electrical polarity of every channel
verified before starting to track, good mono plaback ensured at mixdown.
> David Correia
> www.Celebrationsound.com
>
>
> p.s. How did you and the wife come up with the name Shaidri?
We have no idea. Where does a sound come from in one's mind?
> And, I can't help asking, how did she end up in Juneau? I only know one
> person that moved to Alaska, and that was back in the day. He was pretty
> much allergic to people. And no one's heard from him since.
Her next-younger sister, Maressa, had an interest in Cetaceans from the
gitgo, as in when she started drawing as a very young child, whales and
dolphins were the subjects. My old friend, Molly Brooks, whom back in
the '60's I'd made the first female soundman that I knew of in Texas,
had broken new ground in AK, becoming the first female deckhand and then
the first female captain ever for Allen Marine, which runs
wildlife-watching tours out of Juneau, Ketchikan, and a couple of other
places. Bob Allen designed and built the first catamarans for such use,
and the company has been quite successful.
Maressa wanted to see some whales up close, and Molly invited her to
come up for a visit. She fit right into the passenger service crew as a
volunteer, and the next summer she sought and found employment there.
Shaidri went with her, and with another lovely young gal of relatively
small stature, the three of them set a new standard for passenger
service. Example: when they were all being trained how to recover an
overboard passenger, the instructor explained that people their size
could never pull a two-hundred pound human out of the drink. The three
gals looked at each other with an unspoken "Bullshit!" firing from their
eyes, and within minutes showed the instructor how that could be
handled: one little woman at each end of the person to be rescued, with
the third holding onto the other two from a position slightly back on
the deck where good leverage was available. Sure enough, big dude out of
the water and on deck.
Pay and tips were really good, especially since their service was so
much better than on the other Allen Marine boats. They had to keep quiet
that their tips were running better than 200% that of any other boat in
the fleet.
They did that for a few summers. Maressa wound up living there for
several years, and graduated from UAS with a degree in social sciences.
She and her husband and my second granddaughter moved down to Plumas
County last year, where they hope to be able to establish permanaent
residence, in sufficient steady employment can be found.
Peter Larsen
> All mics were closer than I like them for best capture
The cello sounds like arriving too early, try delaying it say 3 to 8
milliseconds, it appears to be miked closer than the vox. Some of the time
something that sounds as "too loud" isn't, it is too early, and to me this
sounds like one of those times, also perhaps give it a bit of old fashioned
plate with stereo output on the track pre compression if any, just a
bit, -14 to -17 dB or so.
> I picked a facility run by an engineer I like and we ran with it. Fred
> Remmert has decades of experience with all kinds of music, and I very
> much look forward to working with him again.
I'd prolly do some things differently, that's what you have different folks
for, but I can't find anything else to whine about.
> The site isn't fully up to date, but here's where we worked:
> http://www.cedarcreekrecording.com/
Kind regards
Peter Larsen
hank alrich
> In article <4b0b09ae...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> sp...@spam.com (Don Pearce) wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 09:36:45 -0600, MiNe 109
> > <smce...@POPaustin.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> > >In article <4b08f8e8...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> > > sp...@spam.com (Don Pearce) wrote:
> > >
> > >> I can't comment on the original, because I don't know it, but the
> > >> intervals used here are definitely those of solo and descant, not a
> > >> simple two part harmony.
> > >
> > >I'm curious what the distinction is. Not enough 3rds and 6ths?
> > >
> >
> > No, it is the fact that one is clearly the melody line, and the other
> > a harmony supporting it. It is a style thing.
>
> I guess so. I don't see any distinction from your definition. My
> understanding of 'descant' includes a element of independence and
> counterpoint. This is harmonized pretty much note-for-note.
Yes, it is. Perhaps the distinction could be that her interval is not
strictly parallel, but varies.
> The most general definition of duet is the presence of two voices and we
> can agree at that level!
Well, that is how a dumbass gutiar player like me gets it. <g>
> It was fun to spend a few minutes researching this. One version of the
> original tune can be found here:
>
> http://www.lizlyle.lofgrens.org/RmOlSngs/RTOS-BaltimoreFire.html
>
> Stephen
Yep, that is the source, learned decades ago from the recording
discussed.
BTW, to all, I am enjoying this discussion. If I'm not careful, I'll
learn something.
polymod
> We've put up a track from our project, "The Great Baltimore Fire", in
> various resolutions including complete mp3 versions at 128, 192, and 320
> kbps, and partial clips of wav files at 16/44.1 and 24/96:
>
> http://www.armadillomusicproductions.com/CarryMeHome.htm
I'm nowhere in the league of these other posters, but I have to say on my
system it sounds great!
But I'm going to nitpick and say it sounds like she was a tad late on that
first note ;)
Poly
Don Pearce
wrote:
>Don Pearce <sp...@spam.com> wrote:
Ok, I get where all of this is coming from. I didn't pick up on the
fact that there were three of you playing there (my bad).
d
hank alrich
> hank alrich wrote:
>
> > All mics were closer than I like them for best capture
>
> The cello sounds like arriving too early, try delaying it say 3 to 8
> milliseconds, it appears to be miked closer than the vox. Some of the time
> something that sounds as "too loud" isn't, it is too early, and to me this
> sounds like one of those times, also perhaps give it a bit of old fashioned
> plate with stereo output on the track pre compression if any, just a
> bit, -14 to -17 dB or so.
Nope, cello mic was further from its source than either the vocal or
guitar mics in that track.
We will eventually get details of what was used where up on the web, but
this will take time. The late Bill Narum* was our ally in this for that
sort of thing, and Fletcher Clark is taking it step by step, having to
gather the materials for the site. He does have complete notes about
what tunes have what mic, but IIRC, the only change that made it to the
final result was swapping the TLM192 for the U47FET on the cello, and
perhaps the addition of the C460 to my guitar mics.
And "this music has not been artificially perfected". A touch of reverb
here and there, nothing severe, though a special reverb effect for the
fiddle's entrance in the second section of the Blarney's Ghost Medley.
We really did not go apeshit fixing stuff. Differences in timing arrival
are no greater in the recording than they would be for a listener
sitting one place or another in the room with the music. This was most
definitely not a "sit in the bedroom and screw with it for next to
forever to get it to sound like something we never played" effort.
No headphones; no overdubs. Several of my engineer/producer pals said,
laughingly and in appreciation, something like "What?? Hank, that's just
not how we make records nowadays!"
I do realize that I'm not the only one to take this direction. Think
Norman Blake, whose work I greatly appreciate.
> > I picked a facility run by an engineer I like and we ran with it. Fred
> > Remmert has decades of experience with all kinds of music, and I very
> > much look forward to working with him again.
>
> I'd prolly do some things differently, that's what you have different folks
> for, but I can't find anything else to whine about.
I might, too, but as producer and performer and sometimes composer, too,
I had to set boundaries as to what we could get done in the time we had
for the money available, with severely constrained preproduction time to
approach getting the material together.
IOW, this was done in the real world, with someone else's money at
stake, and absolute limits to our windows of opportunity.
> > The site isn't fully up to date, but here's where we worked:
>
> > http://www.cedarcreekrecording.com/
>
> Kind regards
>
> Peter Larsen
* Re: Bill Narum, RIP
http://www.billnarum.com/opening.htm
http://www.billnarum.com/tempintr.htm
http://www.samopc.org/narum/index.html
hank alrich
You're quite right, and there is plenty of that kind of thing throughout
the music. There are lots of very obvious timing differences. With
little prep time and a desire to keep it on the real side, we accepted
lots of imperfections. Depending on one's point of listening those might
be warts, or they might be beauty marks. <g>
Ty Ford
(in article <4b078876...@news.eternal-september.org>):
> Very nicely put together, but in no manner is it a duet. You are
> singing lead and she is a barely audible descant. Same for your
> instruments - everything is coming out of the right speaker. I'm not
> saying that makes it bad, you understand, but your idea of equal
> participation here is a bit skewed.
>
> I downloaded the 24/96 version, which showed up some interference at
> 37kHz very well. Probably some power supply somewhere singing gently
> to itself.
>
> d
move your chair to the left.
Ty Ford
--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWaPRHMGhGA
polymod
In a sequenced and overly quantized world, they're definitely beauty marks!
It's the feel and vibe that counts and you've captured it.
Poly
hank alrich
> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 01:33:26 -0500, Don Pearce wrote
> (in article <4b078876...@news.eternal-september.org>):
>
>
> > Very nicely put together, but in no manner is it a duet. You are
> > singing lead and she is a barely audible descant. Same for your
> > instruments - everything is coming out of the right speaker. I'm not
> > saying that makes it bad, you understand, but your idea of equal
> > participation here is a bit skewed.
> >
> > I downloaded the 24/96 version, which showed up some interference at
> > 37kHz very well. Probably some power supply somewhere singing gently
> > to itself.
> >
> > d
>
> move your chair to the left.
>
> Ty Ford
New product: The Panable Chair
Options: The Sweet Spot Cushion
hank alrich
Thanks, and I can honestly say I think we managed to get that for every
single cut. The man who paid for it felt we did, and when we started to
get apoplectic over the small stuff, he'd remind us that as far as he
was concerned the bigger picture was in good focus.
Rick Ruskin
wrote:
>Peter Larsen <dig...@hotmail.com> wrote:
I've had folks comment on more then one occassion how much better they
would like a recording had I only had more or less of a particular
part or changed certain aspects of the arrangement. I always tell
them that if they want to pay for the studio time and whatever other
equipment or talent is needed, I'd be happy to record. arrange, and or
mix it all over again just for them. That usually shuts them up.
>
Rick Ruskin
Lion Dog Music - Seattle WA
http://liondogmusic.com
http://www.myspace.com/rickruskin
Peter Larsen
>> Peter Larsen <dig...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> hank alrich wrote:
> I've had folks comment on more then one occassion how much better they
> would like a recording had I only had more or less of a particular
> part or changed certain aspects of the arrangement.
I'm one of the guys here that tend to comment on the material at posted
links. By doing that I usually end up learning more than I had learned only
by listening. On listening to the 24 bit song rather than the 192 kbit mp3
the cello doesn't "stick to the front of the perspective" the same way.
Perhaps too much listening to string quartets recorded with a pair on my
part ....
> I always tell
> them that if they want to pay for the studio time and whatever other
> equipment or talent is needed, I'd be happy to record. arrange, and or
> mix it all over again just for them. That usually shuts them up.
I think I like Hanks "it is like it is" better.
> Rick Ruskin
Kind regards
Peter Larsen
hank alrich
> Rick Ruskin wrote:
>
> >> Peter Larsen <dig...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> hank alrich wrote:
>
> > I've had folks comment on more then one occassion how much better they
> > would like a recording had I only had more or less of a particular
> > part or changed certain aspects of the arrangement.
>
> I'm one of the guys here that tend to comment on the material at posted
> links. By doing that I usually end up learning more than I had learned only
> by listening. On listening to the 24 bit song rather than the 192 kbit mp3
> the cello doesn't "stick to the front of the perspective" the same way.
This is the first time I've met mp3's of my personal music that are
derived from in-studio recordings. Previously the racket surrounding a
live performance was sufiicient to mask detail in the source files to
the point that the effect of conversion wasn't obvious.
Lossy formats do weird things to their sources. (Scott nods... <g>) We
had the conversions done in the mastering facility, but we hadn't the
time/money to do a detailed revision of the music in order to minimize
the loss and effects thereof. It was more "has anything fallen
completely out of the pciture?"
I hope to learn more about this, and understand what we might do next
time to improve results.
This forum is a great resource for me, and has been since I first showed
up wondering what had gone awry with my Studer!
> Perhaps too much listening to string quartets recorded with a pair on my
> part ....
Understood, Peter, and appreciated. As Shaidri, Doug and I gather to
develop material I will have ample opportunity to track us with a pair,
probably the Schoeps. I feel we are capable of achieving very good
balance but it will take us lots more practice together to find out if
I'm being realistic.
> > I always tell them that if they want to pay for the studio time and
> > whatever other equipment or talent is needed, I'd be happy to record.
> > arrange, and or mix it all over again just for them. That usually shuts
> > them up.
>
> I think I like Hanks "it is like it is" better.
How could it be otherwise? <g>
> > Rick Ruskin
>
> Kind regards
>
> Peter Larsen
Laurence Payne
>No, it is the fact that one is clearly the melody line, and the other
>a harmony supporting it. It is a style thing.
I felt that at the beginning. Later on I wasn't so sure.
Mike Rivers
> move your chair to the left.
No, the chair is in the right place. It's the control room that has to
move.
hank alrich
Sean Conolly
> Peter Larsen <dig...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> I think I like Hanks "it is like it is" better.
>
> How could it be otherwise? <g>
It's lovely, Hank. What I really I really like is that I quickly went from
'listen to the production' to 'listen to the music' mode. To me that's the
ultimate goal of recording or even performing music - you want the audience
to forget about how or where it comes from and just be imersed in the music.
Sean
Eric B
Very nice. Respectfully recorded. Wide stereo, no problem. Your
guitar has more body than hers but probably it does. Same with the
voice. The cello is cleanly recorded. It sounds like you didn't modify
it much. What mics on the cello? It sound like most of the tracks are
only slightly adjusted.
Best of luck with the project. Congratulations for the father-
daughter musical hook up. I keep wanting to do that with no success as
yet.
Best,
Eric B
Eric B
hers, but I suspect this is the case in reality. Cello early? I'll
listen again. I didn't hear that.
Eric B
rochrist
> Don Pearce wrote:
>
>> Very nicely put together, but in no manner is it a duet. You are
>> singing lead and she is a barely audible descant. Same for your
>> instruments - everything is coming out of the right speaker.
>
>
> file. I downloaded the 44.1/16 version and the balance between left and
> right channels was fine - Hank's voice on the riht, Shaidri's on the left,
> with the cello just a tad left of center.
>
> this
> song from the North Carolina Ramblers. If that's the reference version (I
> consider it so) then neither one is singing the melody. I could sing the
> melody along with Hank's recording and, to my ear, fill it out. They're
> singing two parts in harmony, but it's not the close harmony that we're
> accustomed to hearing in string band music. Nothing wrong with a
> different interpretation of an old song.
>
It actually felt right heavy to me as well. Not necessary levels, but
the space the male vocal was taking up.
hank alrich
Absolutely. She is playing, in general throughout the project, a lighter
and overall more consistent guitar part, on a 1957 000-28 strung with
John Pearse PB lights. I contribute parts that move between rhythm, that
with some movement of lines, fills, and leads, on a McCollum GA of
Brazilian rosewood and Italian spruce that was purpose-built for me. It
is a much more powerful guitar than her Martin.
That said, the sound achieved on all the tracks with both guitars is
built on the way the instruments combine tonally and by way of the
actual parts played. The result is a sound somewhat bigger than I
expected, though I shouldn't have been surprised because, as you've
said, yeah, we sound very much like this live right in front of you. And
I think that's a fine thing to offer.
Moreover, the whole album has turned out to flow wonderfully well, as
regards both the sequence of pieces and also the way voices, including
instrumental voices, are introduced over the space of the ten songs. For
instance, the next track, "The Death of Ellenton", Shaidri sings the
lead, with my own voice placed well behind and under hers. There are two
songs, "Davis Brown" and the title track, which she sings solo.
--
ha
shut up and play your guitar
http://www.armadillomusicproductions.com/CarryMeHome.htm
http://hankalrich.com/
hank alrich
> Hank,
> Very nice. Respectfully recorded. Wide stereo, no problem. Your
> guitar has more body than hers but probably it does. Same with the
> voice. The cello is cleanly recorded. It sounds like you didn't modify
> it much. What mics on the cello?
Either a TLM 193 or later, a U47FET. We did prefer the latter when we
put it up. I'll have to consult Fletcher's notes to find out which is on
this track.
> It sound like most of the tracks are
> only slightly adjusted.
Yes, there is not a lot of tweaking, no major alterations. This isn't
pop music with large contributions arriving and leaving en route. There
are only three of us playing. So fairly gentle adjustments of relative
levels beget all the control we really need to apply.
> Best of luck with the project. Congratulations for the father-
> daughter musical hook up. I keep wanting to do that with no success as
> yet.
> Best,
> Eric B
It's blast. Were she not even my daughter, she'd still be the most
talented young person I've worked with.
Arny Krueger
news:4b078876...@news.eternal-september.org
> I downloaded the 24/96 version, which showed up some
> interference at 37kHz very well. Probably some power
> supply somewhere singing gently to itself.
It's about -85 dB down, and clearly nothing to worry about. IME such
artefacts are pretty common. Often if they aren't there, its because someone
made them go away in the digital domain.
BTW no matter what the OP says:
"complete mp3 versions at 128, 192, and 320"
The 320k sample is just an excerpt. No biggie.
david correia
walk...@nv.net (hank alrich) wrote:
> > p.s. How did you and the wife come up with the name Shaidri?
>
> We have no idea. Where does a sound come from in one's mind?
Damn fine question ... perhaps a lively kitchen-like area in our
consciousness? ;>
Thanks for filling me in on Alaska. I'd said that I only knew 1 person
who'd moved there. Believe it or not, the guy I was working with today
said he spent his early teens there, as his dad was military. I have no
idea how the subject came up, but that's what happens spending spending
lotsa time together working in a control room. Doing this important work
;>
He described walking to school at 50 degrees below 0. Said school wasn't
cancelled unless it hit -55.
And congrats on being a grand dad twice. How the hell is that??
David Correia
www.Celebrationsound.com
Arny Krueger
> We have no idea. Where does a sound come from in one's
> mind?
http://www.amazon.com/This-Your-Brain-Music-Obsession/dp/0525949690
hank alrich
Yep, that one's looking at me, next in line after
http://www.brucelipton.com/biology-of-belief-overview
The writing style is a little too pop-esque for me, though I understand
why they do that: they want to sell books, and focus groups say...
Interesting to me, though, a look at the implications the
interrelationship of new findings about cell biology and about quantum
physics.
hank alrich
Arny, it should be the whole 2:33 song. I downloaded it to check after
reading your comment, and played it all the way through in iTunes.
Fletcher hasn't made any changes to those files since the links went up.
So here's a curiousity or two in one: how did a partial download of a
complete audio file wind up playable?
If you get time, please try another download to review what's up with
this. I appreciate the help. Thanks for letting me know of this anomaly.
Predrag Trpkov
"Eric B" <ericbl...@myfairpoint.net> wrote in message
news:b9242e00-52f0-4a94...@j24g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
> It sounds to my ear like your guitar and voice have more body than
> hers, but I suspect this is the case in reality.
At least that's what the session photo suggests. Knowing how it was recorded
and seeing what it looked like, the final product sounds perfectly natural.
I too was obsessed with symmetry, until Mixerman opened my ears.
Predrag
Arny Krueger
> Arny Krueger <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
>
>> "Don Pearce" <sp...@spam.com> wrote in message
>> news:4b078876...@news.eternal-september.org
>>
>>> I downloaded the 24/96 version, which showed up some
>>> interference at 37kHz very well. Probably some power
>>> supply somewhere singing gently to itself.
>>
>> It's about -85 dB down, and clearly nothing to worry
>> about. IME such artefacts are pretty common. Often if
>> they aren't there, its because someone made them go away
>> in the digital domain.
>>
>> BTW no matter what the OP says:
>>
>> "complete mp3 versions at 128, 192, and 320"
>>
>> The 320k sample is just an excerpt. No biggie.
>
> Arny, it should be the whole 2:33 song. I downloaded it
> to check after reading your comment, and played it all
> the way through in iTunes. Fletcher hasn't made any
> changes to those files since the links went up.
> So here's a curiousity or two in one: how did a partial
> download of a complete audio file wind up playable?
IME, it is not the least bit unusual for a partial file to be partially
playable over its partial length.
> If you get time, please try another download to review
> what's up with this.
The second try yielded the full file. The first download attempt some days
back appeared to end normally.
> I appreciate the help. Thanks for letting me know of this anomaly.
It is now all good!