Mackie Claims Its XDR Beat High-End Mic Pre's
Michael Lauengco
website (www.prorec.com) claiming its XDR mic pre beat many high-end
pre's including the AMEK Neve 9098 and Telefunken V76M in several
blindfold tests. It seems too good to be true, and even though notable
engineers were claimed to have participated in the tests, I find it
hard to believe. What do you think? Here's the article:
A STRANGER RIDES INTO TOWN
Our renegade roots here at Mackie mean we like a good "A Stranger Rides
into Town" story -- where the little guy vanquishes the big guys.
And our advertising/marketing department loves a good "comparison test"-
especially when we had nothing to do with it, didn't even know about
it.
Then someone tips us off.
We have to thank Glen Pace of Starplex Music Systems in Nashville for
this one - and it's a doozy:
In the summer of '99, he corrals a group of audio professionals to
evaluate the best mic preamps in the known world. These top-gun players
are:
Well respected engineer Jamie Tate, is known for his work on the
Grammy® Award Winning Marty Stuart Project, "The Same Old Train," the
highly successful vocal event of the year featuring Clint Black, Joe
Diffie, Merle Haggard, Emmylou Harris, Alison Krauss, Patty Loveless,
Ricky Skaggs, Pam Tillis, Randy Travis, Travis Tritt, and Dwight
Yoakam.
Ric Web, Engineer/Producer, who formerly worked with Charlie Pride at
Charlie's studio complex in Dallas. Ric has been freelancing in
Nashville for eight years.
Lance Wing, Writer/Engineer/Producer.
Gregory Neil, Singer.
The Evaluation Crew: Glen Pace & Associates - from left to right:
Lance Wing, Gregory Neil, Glen Pace
(Center and seated), Jamie Tate, and Ric Web.
The star of the show, the Mackie 1402 VLZ PRO Mixing console, center,
on the counter.
The weaponry: A Rupert Neve-created 9098, Focusrite Blue ISA-215, Tube
Tec MEC-1A, Focusrite Platinum, G. Daking, Hardy M-1, D.W. Fern, Avalon
737, ART Tube Channel, Drawmer M-60, and a TLA.
The shootouts are conducted at two well-known Nashville studios, Abtrax
Recording and Appaloosa Sound. The gentlemen hoped to determine what
mic pre would offer the best overall transparency in a vocal recording
application. The monitors at Abtrax are Genelecs, model 1031A. "We took
everything out of the circuit and just had the mic into the mic-pre,
out of the mic-pre to the Tube Tech Limiter - and we ran straight into
the Radar," Glen informs us. "Essentially, we went directly to the
machine, bypassing the console entirely."
Using a Neumann M149 microphone, Gregory sings along with a pre-
recorded track for the tests. "He has a Neil Diamond type of voice and
a great range," says Glen. "Gregory's voice covers the full frequency
spectrum for good test results."
The evaluation is done double-blind. All the mic pres are hidden from
view, and evaluated in pairs. The individual doing the switching holds
up his fingers, one or two, as he toggles between the different mic
preamps in the signal chain. Even the person doing the switching is not
aware of what mic preamps are being tested.
After eight hours, the AMEK Neve 9098 module triumphs. "Hands down,
too. The Tube Tech MEC-1A was the closest, with the Daking coming in
third, the Focusright Blue fourth. The Tube Tech, Daking, and Focusrite
Blue, essentially, were all about equal, but the $1,900.00 Neve 9098
was the best stand-alone mic preamp."
A tall, dark stranger slowly rides into town, the brim of his black hat
pulled down over his brow…
"Previous to the first night of tests," Glen says, "Lance Wing had told
us about the new XDR® mic preamps on the Mackie VLZ PRO series compact
mixers. He wanted to hear the 1402-VLZ PRO because he was deciding
between either a small, good-quality mixing console or a new mic preamp
for his studio. I was interested in hearing the XDR' as well, because I
had a 1202-VLZ and I was always impressed by its sound quality. It was
never our intention to consider it as a mic preamp candidate for the
shoot-out.
"Well, it just so happened that a friend of ours had a new 1402-VLZ PRO
and I said to him, 'Hey, for the heck of it, bring your Mackie along.'
We didn't think that the Mackie would stack up against any top-of-the-
line mic pres."
The Mackie 1402-VLZ PRO is thrown into the first evening of tests as a
lark. As an afterthought.
"We had the other mic pres set up, so we started to compare the Mackie
to all of them - and we just kept coming up with the same result, again
and again. The 1402-VLZ PRO continually won regardless of everything we
threw up against it. At the end of our first day tests, you could
barely tell the difference between the Mackie 1402-VLZ PRO and one of
the best mic pres on the planet, The AMEK Neve 9098. Although," Glen
whispers, "I probably would've chosen the Mackie over the Neve."
Two days later the test is moved to Appaloosa Sound. Ric Web enters
into competition one of the best mic preamps ever made: A Telefunken
V76M. It went out of production in the 1960s, and if you can find one
you're going to pay between $1,500.00 and $3,000.00 for it. In Glen's
last mic pre test, two years ago, "The V76M had beat the 9098, but just
slightly."
The monitors are the Dynaudio, Model M1.5.
The battle quickly turns into not so much a mic preamp shoot-out as a
test to hear how much better the Mackie 1402-VLZ PRO sounds compared to
the remaining preamps. "We decided to bring in some other people - to
make sure we weren't cracking up," Glen chuckles. Donnie Elam from
Airflight Recording and Mario Delazar, another well-known engineer,
join the evaluation team.
"We ran through the Calrac PQ1061, the Fred Camron Custom Tube Mic Pre,
the Millenia Media HV-3, and the G. Daking. The Mackie 1402-VLZ PRO
just took them all to task. None of them stood up. Then came the moment
of truth. We tested the Mackie against the V76M. We all chose the
Mackie over the V76M. That just blew Ric Web away, because he has two
V76Ms, and paid $1,500 apiece for them."
After we concluded the test," Glen reports, "We took one vocal section
from a verse and recycled it on the Radar system. We used no EQ on any
of the tests, and utilized a Tube Tech limiter, with all of the levels
exactly the same. Then we tested the quality of the mic pres on each
section of the song, quickly switching between different sections–a
powerful chorus, mellow, ballady verse, and so on. We did this for at
least a half hour, comparing the different sections of the song–and no
matter what we played, the Mackie had just a slightly cleaner, more
natural, up-front sound than the Telefunken V76M."
Donnie Elam, the owner of the 1402-VLZ PRO used in the test, primarily
employs it on drum mixes. "So many other mic pres just 'fold-up' on my
kick drum. It's really hard to find one that has the punch or the bite.
Usually, mic pres will soften or distort the sound of the drum." After
the test, Donnie comments, "Mackie ought to get the engineering award
of the century for this mic pre."
"It's a hell of a mic preamp," Glen concludes. "I'm still totally blown
away. And I did the math. Mackie comes up with six on-board mic pres in
a 14-channel compact mixer. The Neve SYSTEM 9098 is a stereo mic pre,
doesn't have any EQ, and it sells for $1,710.00. That's $855 per mic
pre. If you compare the SYSTEM 9098 against the six mic pres on a 1402-
VLZ PRO, you get six better sounding mic pres on the Mackie for a
little over $100 per mic pre."
"Sound is subjective. You can play the same thing for 10 different
people and get 10 different opinions. But I don't believe you could do
this test for 10 producers or engineers and not get the same result
from all 10 people."
"If you want to color your sound, make it warmer, perhaps not as much
air on the top end or not as natural-sounding, then somebody might want
to use any of the other mic pres we tested. But if you want a mic pre
that gives you the best overall vocal sound, as far as a natural, up
front, right-in-your-face type of sound, then the Mackie XDR® mic pre
is the hands down winner."
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Dave Martin
At least, I think we discussed it here... If not, remember that it's a press
release, not a controlled experiment.
--
Dave Martin
Digital Media Associates, Inc.
Nashville, Tennessee
dave....@nashville.com
Michael Lauengco <mtl...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:87tmt8$o3b$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
BGrobman2
news:87tmt8$o3b$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> Hey guys, I just came across a press release from Mackie at the ProRec
> website (www.prorec.com) claiming its XDR mic pre beat many high-end
> pre's including the AMEK Neve 9098 and Telefunken V76M in several
> blindfold tests. It seems too good to be true, and even though notable
> engineers were claimed to have participated in the tests, I find it
> hard to believe. What do you think? Here's the article:
> >>
I knew it!!!! I'm gonna seel everything and buy a Mackie 1402 and a couple of
RNC's. Enough of all this high-falootin stuff here, I'm gonna take the rest of
the money and buy some internet stock and get outta the music biz and move ta
tahiti and make records on a 1402 an RNC and a laptop, see you guys. <g>
The Bernard Grobman Homepage
http://hometown.aol.com/BGrobman2/index.html
"It ain't got that swing if it's played by a thing."
BGrobman2
news:87tmt8$o3b$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> Hey guys, I just came across a press release from Mackie at the ProRec
> website (www.prorec.com) claiming its XDR mic pre beat many high-end
> pre's including the AMEK Neve 9098 and Telefunken V76M in several
> blindfold tests. It seems too good to be true, and even though notable
> engineers were claimed to have participated in the tests, I find it
> hard to believe. What do you think? Here's the article:
> >>
By the way , check the picture with that release. Those guys lok like they've
had a few beers ya know?
Steven Sena
Mackie stuff, WOW it sounds like GOD or better! In fact everybody send me
all your old shity neve junk and I'll sell it for you. I Just want to
help..
--
Steven Sena
XS Sound
http://home.att.net/~xssound/
"But life as it touches perfection appears just like anything else"
(Joy Division)
"Michael Lauengco" <mtl...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:87tmt8$o3b$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Erwin Timmerman
>
>
> I knew it!!!! I'm gonna sell everything and buy a Mackie 1402 and a couple of
> RNC's. Enough of all this high-falootin stuff here, I'm gonna take the rest of
> the money and buy some internet stock and get outta the music biz and move ta
> tahiti and make records on a 1402 an RNC and a laptop, see you guys. <g>
They would probably sell quite OK, and it'd probably make you more money
than staying in the music biz as an engineer :-)
Ain't it sad?
Erwin Timmerman
Erwin Timmerman
Steven Sena wrote:
>
> Oh yea! I sold all my Neve shit as fast as I could when I heard the new
> Mackie stuff, WOW it sounds like GOD or better! In fact everybody send me
> all your old shity neve junk and I'll sell it for you. I Just want to
> help..
Yeah, that Neve shit ain't worth a penny anymore. I'll pay $100 plus
shipping for these pre's, call now! It's a real bargain. You won't get
that from anybody anymore. Not with these Mackie pre's available. I
guess the only way to keep your Neve's value high is to burn Mackie down
and destroy all their designs...
Erwin Timmerman
SonusRex
in the past, who's to say they haven't
done it again. I hope that these results
are at least a little bit true, for the sake of
those of us who don't have the kind of budget required to spend as much on a
few mic pres as we did our last car.
My $.02
ZSon...@Zaol.comZ
"Tone is the only consideration"
Remove "Z" anti-spam to reply.
The6andVio
33114, Amek 9098, Neve 1272, and others... and also the pres on an older but
mint Mackie 8-bus for kicks. After recording various tracks of electric guitar
and other things through all the pres using the same mic, cable, etc direct to
tape, we did a true blindfold listening test. Though most of the tracks had
their own unique "color", they were all very present, bright, wide, etc....
except for one which was noticeably dark, muddy, and thin by comparison... and
yes, just as we guessed, that was the Mackie. It sounded "stuffy", as if there
were a blanket over the sound source... at least in comparison to the others.
The others, though different from each other, all sounded very "alive".
I still feel that for the money, Mackie makes a great product, and the pres
work fine for most general purpose project applications. We've made some very
good recordings using all Mackie pres. Hey, you can't argue with an entire
console full of 24 decent pres that sells for nearly the same price as only one
pair of high-end pres. But, regardless of what any press release says, I and a
few other people heard the difference with our own ears. I doubt the newer
Mackie pres are SO much better than the older ones.
Though cost does not specifically determine audio quality, it seems to me that
in 95% of the cases, you do get what you pay for. If it sounds too good to be
true, it is. -dave
Ty Ford
the6a...@aol.com (The6andVio) wrote:
>Well, not too long ago I conducted a blindfold mic pre test comparing API, Neve
>33114, Amek 9098, Neve 1272, and others... and also the pres on an older but
>mint Mackie 8-bus for kicks. After recording various tracks of electric guitar
>and other things through all the pres using the same mic, cable, etc direct to
>tape, we did a true blindfold listening test. Though most of the tracks had
>their own unique "color", they were all very present, bright, wide, etc....
>except for one which was noticeably dark, muddy, and thin by comparison... and
>yes, just as we guessed, that was the Mackie. It sounded "stuffy", as if there
>were a blanket over the sound source... at least in comparison to the others.
>The others, though different from each other, all sounded very "alive".
There is a very notable difference between "vintage" mackie pres and the
VLZ/XDR preamps... and the mixer itself for that matter. I reviewd the 1604
VLZ/XRD. I think it's in my archive.
Regards,
Ty Ford
Ty Ford's equipment reviews and V/O files can be found at
http://www.jagunet.com/~tford
Scott Dorsey
Michael Lauengco <mtl...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>Hey guys, I just came across a press release from Mackie at the ProRec
>website (www.prorec.com) claiming its XDR mic pre beat many high-end
>pre's including the AMEK Neve 9098 and Telefunken V76M in several
>blindfold tests. It seems too good to be true, and even though notable
>engineers were claimed to have participated in the tests, I find it
>hard to believe. What do you think? Here's the article:
1. It's one of the worst conducted tests I ever heard of.
2. Many of the people involved were badly misquoted and one of them is
currently threatening to sue Mackie over the issue.
3. I thoroughly expect the Mackie marketing department to be one person short
by the time this blows over.
4. The Mackie preamps actually aren't bad, but this is not to be taken
seriously.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Rob Reedijk
Rob R.
Ici Radio Canada.
BGrobman2
franks are better than fillet minion," well don't forget a good PR firm costs
mackie like I don't know $5,000 a month? The ad agency is charging millions.
And as I understand the definition of a PR person is "one who makes shit up,"
correct me if I'm wrong.
David Satz
> The previous Mackies had mic preamps that were close
> to being completely transparent. I ran bypass tests, and
> was surprised at how little they colored the sound. I
> wouldn't be surprised if the XDR preamps came even
> closer to absolute neutrality.
I have never heard a problem with the Mackie preamps,
and I've used them in extremely demanding situations with
classical pianists and vocalists. My opinions are subject to
being revised the instant I hear something go wrong, but
until then I simply don't get the reason for the "piling on" here.
Sometimes I get the feeling that egos may be involved (?).
With most folks who post opinions here, I get the impression
that their standard is not neutrality--it's whatever their idea
of a good or desirable sound might be at the time. For them,
the preamp with the most pleasing sound is their current
standard. A "straight wire with gain" (if such a thing could
exist) would not meet with their approval, since they have
some other piece of gear which sounds better.
I don't mean to attack that point of view. But if that is a
person's point of view, and if that person's current favorite
preamp is particularly designed to be "warm" and "full"
and "round" and "detailed" sounding, then a Mackie
would probably sound the opposite of all those things to
that person since his point of reference is not a neutral one
to begin with. It's a question of what you expect. The
actual sound of even the greatest microphones can be
rather odd and ugly at times.
Just in case there's any confusion, I'm sure neither you nor
I would pass up the chance to use a piece of gear that gave
us guaranteed beauty of sound as opposed to clinical, dull,
inexpressive results. Sometimes you want to present a
straightforward picture of the way things are, but more
often in this business you want to present things in the
most favorable light that would be credible. Even then,
however, we ought to be conscientious about the degree
to which we are stretching the truth. As with politicians,
it can be dangerous if we start to believe our own lies.
--best regards
Panoman111
its smaller boards 1604VLZpro etc. So, this comparison with an older 8 buss
has no relevence to this subject. I know nothing about the pres on the new
mackie board, haven't heard them. And everyone knows the pres on the older
boards (and current 8 buss and bigger) rot.
j
Panoman111
to which was a guy who compared a Mackie 8 buss to a bunch of high end mic
pres.
Anonymous
SonusRex wrote:
>
> I feel that Mackie has done some very impressive price vs. performance work
> in the past, who's to say they haven't
> done it again. I hope that these results
> are at least a little bit true, for the sake of
> those of us who don't have the kind of budget required to spend as much on a
> few mic pres as we did our last car.
They are not true. I own both a 1604 VLZ Pro and better
preamps, and the Mackie is a great cheap preamp, but just
is not in the same league as a $1000/channel preamp.
Maybe it is if you run it through a Tube Tech limiter
with massive gain reduction with no close control over
gain of the individual preamps you are testing, AND
you are soused out of your mind...
--
the artist formerly known as Bill
--------== Posted Anonymously via Newsfeeds.Com ==-------
Featuring the worlds only Anonymous Usenet Server
-----------== http://www.newsfeeds.com ==----------
Anonymous
The Millenia Media M2-b is far more neutral and accurate
than the Mackie.
In the cheaper price range, an Audio Upgrades-modified
dbx preamp (total cost still only a few hundred dollars
for two channels) is more neutral and accurate than
the Mackie.
This is not ego. This is reality. I would have loved
it if my Mackie were as neutral and accurate as the
Millenia: it would have saved me $2600 and I'd have
16 channels like that instead of just two.
Do the Mackies "stink"? No. But put them up against,
say, a Millenia, and no one would find them in the
same league.
Lyle Caldwell
A lot of us dig "straight wire with gain." But if you use a Great River or
Millennia (or others of that class) then the Mackie doesn't sound neutral at
all. They don't sound terrible, by and large (depending on the source- they
don't like big transients that well for example), but they don't sound great
and they don't sound accurate.
That said, the VLZ Pro pres are easily their best offering yet and a great
boon to those of us on a budget.
--
Lyle Caldwell
Psionic Media, Inc
"David Satz" <DS...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:#3eR$T9c$GA.134@cpmsnbbsa03...
Anonymous
The6andVio wrote:
> I still feel that for the money, Mackie makes a great product, and the pres
> work fine for most general purpose project applications. We've made some very
> good recordings using all Mackie pres. Hey, you can't argue with an entire
> console full of 24 decent pres that sells for nearly the same price as only one
> pair of high-end pres. But, regardless of what any press release says, I and a
> few other people heard the difference with our own ears. I doubt the newer
> Mackie pres are SO much better than the older ones.
Actually it is a very substantial jump.
On a scale of 0-100, if you put the best pre's at 100 and a typical
bar-band mixer pre from the 1980s at 0, and assign numbers according to
how the difference was split between those two extremes, I'd say the
Mackie VLZ was a 40 and the new VLZ Pro is a 65. That still leaves
a lot of room for improvement, and those last 35 points apparently
aren't so easy or cheap to achieve. Sort of like the difference when
your windshield is REALLY clean (good preamp) and when it hasn't been
washed for a few weeks (current Mackie) vs. some nasty Plexiglass
that's been out in the weather awhile (bar band preamp.)
Obviously, those numbers are rough and subjectively derived.
> Though cost does not specifically determine audio quality, it seems to me that
> in 95% of the cases, you do get what you pay for. If it sounds too good to be
> true, it is. -dave
Indeed, though I'd probably say 98% of cases.
Mark Plancke
Could you *please* turn off the HTML option on your
newgroup posting program.
Mark Plancke
William Sommerwerck <will...@nwlink.com> wrote:
><!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
><html>
>Dave Martin wrote:
><blockquote TYPE=CITE></html>
At A&M (RIP) and many other studios we attempted to work around the
onboard SSL eqs by adding stacks of Pultecs to the room. That's the
main reason why Pultecs cost $3000 today. - Stephen Barncard
SOUNDTECH RECORDING STUDIOS
Windsor, Ontario, Canada
http://SoundTechRecording.com
Fletcher
>
>
> I have never heard a problem with the Mackie preamps,
> and I've used them in extremely demanding situations with
> classical pianists and vocalists. My opinions are subject to
> being revised the instant I hear something go wrong, but
> until then I simply don't get the reason for the "piling on" here.
> Sometimes I get the feeling that egos may be involved (?).
There is no "ego" involved on my part, though my demands for a desk are
far more involved than a piano and vocal. In the work that I do, there
is a great chance that I will be using every channel on the desk, even
if I'm only using one or two mic amps, it is entirely plausable that
there will be 20+ line amplifiers chugging away, and as long as it's not
product, there may even be a few equalizers in the path. There may be a
couple of Aux sends in use, possibly even an effect send.
Now...get all that going and listen to the pre-amp. Neutral...not on
your life. Close to neutral, not without serious drugs involved. Thin
and grainy...you betcha.
>
> With most folks who post opinions here, I get the impression
> that their standard is not neutrality--it's whatever their idea
> of a good or desirable sound might be at the time. For them,
> the preamp with the most pleasing sound is their current
> standard.
Gee...what an earthshakingly horrible thought...pleasing sound. Perish
the thought.
A "straight wire with gain" (if such a thing could
> exist) would not meet with their approval, since they have
> some other piece of gear which sounds better.
>
A "straight wire with gain" can not exist. First of all, principles of
acoustics, namely the Haas effect and how the ear percieves closely
reflected signals v. how a microphone percieves closely reflected
signals prevents anything close to this from occuring. That's medicine
and physics, not something I made up to piss you off...that's just a
plain old unavoidable fact at this time in our existance. Perhaps in
some far off century some Massenburgian genius of the future may figure
out how to overcome this...but right here, right now, fuggedaboudit.
> I don't mean to attack that point of view. But if that is a
> person's point of view, and if that person's current favorite
> preamp is particularly designed to be "warm" and "full"
> and "round" and "detailed" sounding, then a Mackie
> would probably sound the opposite of all those things to
> that person since his point of reference is not a neutral one
> to begin with.
Urrrrgggghhhh...so what is "natural"? Natural, my friend, is in the ear
of the beholder. If you tell me that a Mackie mic pre is as "natural"
as a Millennia HV-3, or an Avalon, or a [your favorite
"natural/neutral/transparent" mic-pre's name here]...you sir, are either
deafer than a fence post, or on some medication I would really
appreciate you sharing with me.
It's a question of what you expect. The
> actual sound of even the greatest microphones can be
> rather odd and ugly at times.
>
Yes, it certainly can be, no argument there...they can sound really
terrible if positioned in the wrong spot as well. My dad always used to
say "right tool for the job"...I guess I don't do enough 'classical'
work, I don't find those particular tools the right tools for most of
the jobs I get.
> Just in case there's any confusion, I'm sure neither you nor
> I would pass up the chance to use a piece of gear that gave
> us guaranteed beauty of sound as opposed to clinical, dull,
> inexpressive results.
Guaranteed beauty of sound is also in the ear of the beholder. I often
find things like the HV-3 "clinical, and inexpressive"...[I'm going to
assume you meant 'dull' as lack of excitement, not treble...but I left
it out due to the various conclusions possible]...but with a little
'futzing' they can and have sounded spectacular...even on that mundane
rock and roll crap that I waste a good amount of time recording.
Sometimes you want to present a
> straightforward picture of the way things are, but more
> often in this business you want to present things in the
> most favorable light that would be credible.
Hethens. I often get an accurate "straightforward" picture of the way
things are...but that "favorable light" thing doesn't suck either. What
does that have to do with credibility? Pal, I've read a bunch of your
posts, you're not an ignorant man, yet this is an extremely narrow
minded post. Credible? Exsqueeze me? Are you trying to say that
something sounds more 'credible' if it sounds small and grainy as
opposed to large and open? What exactly do you mean with that
'credibility' bullshit? I can no more fathom your statement concerning
'credible', than I find this years Grammy "Record of the Year" nominee's
"credible".
Even then,
> however, we ought to be conscientious about the degree
> to which we are stretching the truth. As with politicians,
> it can be dangerous if we start to believe our own lies.
>
No shit...the above is the most intelligent thing you said in the whole
post...pity I had to wade through the prior manure to get to it...
--
Fletcher
Mercenary Audio
TEL: 508-543-0069
FAX: 508-543-9670
http://www.mercenary.com
Dave Martin
new level of press releases:
Placerville, CA
In a comparison with many of the finest compressors, noted mechanics did a
shoot out and found that the Millennia TCL-2 not only out-compressed the
opposition, but also drives an air hammer longer without recharging, spray
painted a 1963 Impala 4 door, and made what one mechanic called "A damn fine
cup of coffee - it made my Craftsman compressor look like a toy."
By the way, the TCL-2 is an amazing piece of work...
--
Dave Martin
Digital Media Associates, Inc.
Nashville, Tennessee
dave....@nashville.com
<johnl...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:87vp64$96d$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> Sorry folks. There is no article. As of today, it has been removed
> from Mackie's web site. It was actually two articles -- the first
> version that was released February 3, and then the second version that
> was revised and released on February 8. Today, February 10, neither
> version can be found. Gone.
>
> JL
johnl...@my-deja.com
> website (www.prorec.com) claiming its XDR mic pre beat many high-end
> pre's including the AMEK Neve 9098 and Telefunken V76M in several
> blindfold tests. It seems too good to be true, and even though
notable
> engineers were claimed to have participated in the tests, I find it
> hard to believe. What do you think? Here's the article:
Sorry folks. There is no article. As of today, it has been removed
from Mackie's web site. It was actually two articles -- the first
version that was released February 3, and then the second version that
was revised and released on February 8. Today, February 10, neither
version can be found. Gone.
JL
Scott Dorsey
I've never compared the XDR preamps. For all I know they _might_ actually
be better than a high-end preamp.
The thing is, though, that this "demonstration" does not prove it, and
putting words in people's mouths to make it appear that it does is actionable
in court.
It would, in fact, be most tragic if the XDR preamps actually did sound
as good as a high-end preamp, because after this snow job nobody serious
is ever going to believe it.
I really am amazed that Mackie would let something so blatant out of their
door.
Chuck Stockdale
"Dave Martin" <dave....@nashville.com> wrote:
>That's a shame, really - I was sort of hoping that it would lead to a whole
>new level of press releases:
>
>Placerville, CA
>In a comparison with many of the finest compressors, noted mechanics did a
>shoot out and found that the Millennia TCL-2 not only out-compressed the
>opposition, but also drives an air hammer longer without recharging, spray
>painted a 1963 Impala 4 door, and made what one mechanic called "A damn
fine
>cup of coffee - it made my Craftsman compressor look like a toy."
>
>By the way, the TCL-2 is an amazing piece of work...
>
>--
>Dave Martin
>Digital Media Associates, Inc.
>Nashville, Tennessee
>dave....@nashville.com
>
><johnl...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>news:87vp64$96d$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>> Sorry folks. There is no article. As of today, it has been removed
>> from Mackie's web site. It was actually two articles -- the first
>> version that was released February 3, and then the second version that
>> was revised and released on February 8. Today, February 10, neither
>> version can be found. Gone.
>>
>> JL
>>
>>
>> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>> Before you buy.
>
>
The intitial test in this post said it was to determine "best overall
transparency in a vocal recording". What kind of a test is this as an
overall mike pre? Full range recording of multiple sources would reveal
something COMPLETELY different. This is called a skewed test.
Obviously the Mackie engineers found ONE thing that the VLZ Pro could do
well and skewed the test around that. My experience with the VLZ series is
that it is difficult to get full base without EQ boost and then you get
distortion. It is grainy sounding as well. If you compare the VLZ with the
Aphex 107 tube pre, the Aphex transfers the source, especially base guitar
and kick drum with a much fuller, detailed, and accurate capability.
The mackie sounds thin in comparison.
harry evans
i just tracked 6 songs worth of drums through a mackie 1402. no eq or
compression just mic-mic pre-tape. they sounded pretty good. remember
people...
it's the guy...not the gear.
harry
Elizabeth Papapetrou
On 11-Feb-2000, Chuck Stockdale <zo...@ix.netcom.com@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> If you compare the VLZ with the
> Aphex 107 tube pre, the Aphex transfers the source, especially base guitar
> and kick drum with a much fuller, detailed, and accurate capability.
>
> The mackie sounds thin in comparison.
Was this the XDR version? It's important to make that clear as the XDR pres
are lots better than the standard VLZ pres.
Elizabeth
--
Remove NOSPAM from email address for personal
replies
vla...@yahoo.com
clear from the text only not so straithforward said. Whole story is
marketing bullshit.
2) I don't use mackie. It was too expensive for me so I bought
Behringer Eurodesk. Behringer claimed to be using better quolity parts
for their mic pre than their competition (can't remember exactly but
model of something 8xxxx instead of 6xxxx). Behringer pre's sound like
shit compared to Focusrite green I have in studio and like shitty shit
compared to Aphex Tubesence (I think) that was in the studio for a
while.
I presume Behringer quolity is close to original Mackie. Since Mackie
had two upgrades (VLZ and now this PRO) it should be better than
behringer. Question is how much better. Is it compleatly new technolgy
or just some tweaks on previous model? If first, miracle is possible.
If second, than not.
Thing propably works great under certain conditions but if you move
from there you're finished. Headroom is most important and that
headroom costs big money (Unless breakthrough technology was
discovered which I doubt).
3) Behringer desk is of great flexibillity, and I think you can not
get better value for money in "afordable" analog mixing desk world.
When I upgrade (soon) I will go for something digital.
4) Someone mentioned egos.
No, it's money. Some things simply sound better and cost a lot.
Some people with cheap equipment (sounding good "enough") are stealing
jobs from guys with expensive equipment, so "big" guys get mad cause
they lose money and their good sounding equipment is useless so they
lose more money so they get more mad and produce new expensive piece
of equipment to gain more customers that reduces price of used to be
big guy's gear which previous poor guys buy to steal more
customers.....
Than stranger comes to town. A guy with Windows PC and soundblaster
and everybody get pissed (Have you tried SF Acoustic Modeler?).
Nobody can steal from realy big studios with realy good equipment and
realy good engineers. There are jobs that can't be done for cheap
No ego. Just money.
--
Vladan L.
vla...@yahoo.com
<dave....@nashville.com> wrote:
>That's a shame, really - I was sort of hoping that it would lead to a whole
>new level of press releases:
>
>Placerville, CA
>In a comparison with many of the finest compressors, noted mechanics did a
>shoot out and found that the Millennia TCL-2 not only out-compressed the
>opposition, but also drives an air hammer longer without recharging, spray
>painted a 1963 Impala 4 door, and made what one mechanic called "A damn fine
>cup of coffee - it made my Craftsman compressor look like a toy."
>
He he he. Great.
vla...@yahoo.com
>I really am amazed that Mackie would let something so blatant out of their
>door.
>--scott
Hey, maby they have factories in third world and use children as
labour force.
Rick Knepper
> Hey guys, I just came across a press release from Mackie at the ProRec
> website (www.prorec.com) claiming its XDR mic pre beat many high-end
> pre's including the AMEK Neve 9098 and Telefunken V76M in several
> blindfold tests. It seems too good to be true, and even though notable
> engineers were claimed to have participated in the tests, I find it
> hard to believe. What do you think? Here's the article:
Disclaimer: I'm not trying to sell anything here.
I conducted the following preamp test to offer as a bonus CD to a Beatles
compilation (fully licensed) I am producing on another news group. I've been
attacked for my methology but I feel it's valid. Sorry, the CD is not for
sale but the following notes may shed some light.
The Participants:
1.) Millennia Media HV-3B
2.) Manley 40 db Tube Preamp
3.) Great River MP-2
4.) Benchmark MPS-420
5.) Neve 1272
6.) Mackie 1402 VLZ (XDR) Pro
The microphone:
Neumann M147 Tube Kondensator <g>
The Source:
Boss DR660 drum machine mono > Crate guitar amp
The Chain:
Neumann M147 > Preamps > Apogee PSX-100 UV22-16 bit > VS1680 MAS mode song
file (uncompressed 16 bit)
The Methology:
I chose the DR660 becuase I wanted a repeatable source that would also
provide a good spread of frequencies. I used the Crate guitar amp because I
didn't have any other playback device to take back into my vocal booth. I
was tempted to go direct but I wanted a microphone in the chain. The
microphone was positioned 2 feet back, slightly above, and pointed down
toward the cone. I recorded my first track with the Millennia and looking
for as high a level on the Apogee as possible without clipping and with an
eye toward the meters on my recorder too. I then attempted to match levels
as close as possible with each successive preamp.
The levels used as indicated by the control panel markings of each
respective preamp which produced equal levels at the recorder:
1.) Millennia Media - One o'clock (I still haven't figured out the db level
of this marking).
2.) Manley - 45 db with no attenuation
3.) Great River - 48 db
4.) Benchmark - a little past One o'clock
5.) Neve 1272 - 45 db and the attenuator backed off half a notch from full
output.
6.) Mackie - ported out the insert to avoid the mixer section, wide open,
level maxed out, 45 db, and I was still not able to get the level of the
Mackie up to that of the rest.
The Mackie was the last preamp tested so I was not aware of the level issue.
(I bought the unit and had not fired it up.) I was momentarily tempted to
readjust the rest of the preamps down to the Mackie's volume level but I
decided that I was not going to "dumb down" my other preamps just for the
Mackie. Leaving the test this way says as much about these preamps as would
equalizing the playing field. In life, the playing field is rarely level.
The results will be burned to CD and available as a free bonus to the
Beatles' CD compilation along with a copy of my new demo, still untitled as
of now, but should prove to be the funniest thing you'll hear (the day you
listen to it).
Hearing the results of this test will surprise some. It will take a degree
of concentration, at first, to discern the diffrences that are seemingly
more nuance than stark contrast. But, once the ear is acclimated to this
test, the differences become quickly recognizable.
Each recipient will have my permission to rip the Mic Preamp test CD tracks
to their respective recorders/PC for side by side comparisons or whatever
other tests you deem necessary. Be sure to use these tracks in bouncing
exepriments to see which tracks hold up better during 2nd, 3rd, & 4th
generation copies.
BTW, this test was originally NOT about the Mackie (as a focus).
--
Rick Knepper
Wasted Potential Productions
MicroComputer Support Services
Po Box 1461
Ft. Worth, TX 76101
817-239-9632 business hours
817-737-4002 after 6 PM
413-215-1267 eFax
Project Studio
CD Duplication - Budget Short Runs
PC Tech Support & Equipment Sales
http://www.wastedpotential.com
Erwin Timmerman
Rick Knepper wrote:
> Each recipient will have my permission to rip the Mic Preamp test CD tracks
> to their respective recorders/PC for side by side comparisons or whatever
> other tests you deem necessary.
Will they be available as MP3's?
;-) (!!!!)
Erwin Timmerman
David Satz
The way these newsgroups work, it seems impossible to attach
a reply directly to the message it's answering. I think as a result,
you've just answered a posting of mine, thinking that what I'd
written had been directed at you. Such was not the case; I was
replying to a post from Bill Sommerwerck. I was commenting
generally on an apparent thought process of many other people
in this newsgroup. I had no particular individuals in mind.
Anyway, I won't bore you by trying to analyze what I think you
must have thought I meant. But I do think that what I wrote was
far from "narrow minded." I mean, if I had said, "You've never
proved in a double-blind laboratory test that any two preamps
ever sound any different from one another whatsoever, and I
don't have to listen to any preamps that might be better than
the Mackies, and you can't make me!" then that would not only
have been narrow minded but also self defeating in a major way.
Basically, anyone who doesn't listen is not going to learn.
But in the meantime, with the particular uses I've been making
of the Mackie preamps, I haven't run into its "thinness" yet--a
quality which I associate with a lack of low-midrange response,
just to make sure we're talking about more or less the same thing.
On the other hand, I've only used the Mackie a few times so far.
These days when I record multi-mike I can often mix digitally,
and of course I prefer to do so.
--I have to admit I don't know what "grain" is at all. That may
sound like an appalling admission, but given the complete lack of
an agreed-upon definition for the term, I'm rather agnostic about
whether the people who use it actually mean the same thing as one
another when they do! I can't understand why it can't be at least
partially defined. (I guess that belongs in another thread.)
--I'd rather set aside your references to my supposed deafness and
drug use, since you probably thought that I was busy insulting you.
But my sense from both my musical and technical experience is
that people perceive sound quality in a highly individual manner.
Thus it surprises me when people here have such forceful opinions
that they feel free to insult one another. Apart from whether one
wants to insult other people or not (a matter of personal style), I
consider that an ignorant approach, in the sense that it ignores the
subjective nature of many aspects of hearing.
Again, that's not aimed at you, but just something I'm saying
because it can pertain to many disagreements about sound. I've
seen an awful lot of needless pissing contests in the few months
I've been active on this newsgroup. It doesn't advance the art.
--The one thing that you directly challenged in what I wrote was:
>> Sometimes you want to present a straightforward picture of
>> the way things are, but more often in this business you want to
>> present things in the most favorable light that would be credible.
Your reply was basically that you couldn't fathom what I meant by
"credible." But if you think of it from the standpoint of live classical
recording, then it should make at least some sense. Making a stereo
recording means perpetrating an illusion, one that a listener undergoes
willingly. But if you strain the listener's credulity, the suspension of
disbelief can be lost. A violin that sounds as big as Manhattan is
not credible; a voice with soupy reverb on it is not credible if it's
being accompanied by an overly dry sounding piano. In classical
recording, if you play technical tricks, you have to perform them in
a way that doesn't expose the method of the trick that you're playing.
That's just basic showmanship for magicians, no?
The esthetic in pop recording is rather different. There, letting your
techno-tricks be blatantly audible can sometimes express something
distinctive and worthwhile. But if every track on an album uses the
same engineering trick, the performers will sound formulaic, stuck in
a rut. Same thing with classical: if a recording is "tricky" sounding,
as people catch on, it will very soon sound dated and you won't be
able to use the same approach for future productions. So that forces
us to be reality-conscious, and to save our more extreme fantasies for
other aspects of life. It's a dirty job, but someone has to do it.
--Best regards
Mike Rivers
> The intitial test in this post said it was to determine "best overall
> transparency in a vocal recording".
>
> Obviously the Mackie engineers found ONE thing that the VLZ Pro could do
> well and skewed the test around that.
Mackie said they didn't have anything to do with this test. They
didn't commission it, it was the Nashville gang, and they claimed that
they just threw the Mackie in for laughs. But what Mackie apparently
didn't do rigorously enough was check the facts after the story was
submitted to them.
Back when the r.a.p. gang did a preamp shootout a couple of years ago
(The Boston Pre Party) there was desire by some to throw a Mackie into
the soup but due (at least in part) to a ground rule that a
manufacturer's representative needed to be present in order to get his
product included, it didn't make the show. Had the Nashville gang
done that, there would have been no question, or at least someone who
counts could be accountable and could explain what he though the
others were saying.
--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mri...@d-and-d.com)
Chuck Stockdale
mri...@d-and-d.com (Mike Rivers) wrote:
This is an exceptionally long post with a lot of follow ups. Must have
gotten some adrenalin and blood flowing. If the Mackie test was not
manufacturer influenced, then why was it such a narrow test of the mic pre?
Mackie sure embraced the article.
In all fairness and reply to someone earlier in this thread, I have not
tried the VLZ Pro series pre amps, I have the VLZ four and eight bus boards.
However, as a user/owner of Mackie products and Aphex as well, I feel a
responsibility to report my impressions of the Mackie pre amps as there are
many sincere people with limited budgets that can possibly only afford one
main pre amp for recording.
The specs on the VLZ Pro look good but let me quote form a review of the VLZ
pro mixer comparing the VLZ pre's with a GML 8304 pre,in the September 1999
issue of Sound on Sound magazine; " the Mackie boasts highly competent mic
stages which certainly compare favorably with anything provided in consoles
costing 10, 100, or even 1,000 times as much! In a straight comparison with
the GML, everyone who I bullied into listening confirmed that the noise and
distortion subjectively sounded the same, and no one could favor one over
the other on these grounds alone.
The mid and treble bands were equally similar, but identifiable differences
could be found at the bottom end. Although both mic amps measured virtually
identical in terms of their frequency response, the GML sounded somehow
warmer, and the bass better integrated with the mid and high frequency
regions. Instruments and voices had a greater solidity and a totally
natural, three dimensional image to them through the GML, which the Mackie
suggested but could not quite deliver. However, I should point out that it
took a considerable amount of listening and experimentation before we were
happy that these differences were real and repeatable-it really was that
close."
This article confirms what the initial article in this post said about" best
overall transparency in a vocal recording" this would be the "highly
competent mic stages that compare favorably with consoles,etc". But if you
are using the VLZ Pro as your only pre for tracking, you might find some
"incompetent" mic stages that render your recording thin.
My point is that the Mackie is undeniably a good pre amp for the money but
it should not be positioned in the marketing hype as a replacement for the
high end mic pre's mentioned in the test.
Bob Cain
Fletcher wrote:
>
>
> A "straight wire with gain" can not exist. First of all, principles of
> acoustics, namely the Haas effect and how the ear percieves closely
> reflected signals v. how a microphone percieves closely reflected
> signals prevents anything close to this from occuring. That's medicine
> and physics, not something I made up to piss you off...that's just a
> plain old unavoidable fact at this time in our existance. Perhaps in
> some far off century some Massenburgian genius of the future may figure
> out how to overcome this...but right here, right now, fuggedaboudit.
Fletcher, do you have a reference to this Haas effect? I've not heard
of it before. From your mention it sounds as if it applies to
microphones not wires with gain but I'd like to read about it.
>
> Natural, my friend, is in the ear
> of the beholder. If you tell me that a Mackie mic pre is as "natural"
> as a Millennia HV-3, or an Avalon, or a [your favorite
> "natural/neutral/transparent" mic-pre's name here]...you sir, are either
> deafer than a fence post, or on some medication I would really
> appreciate you sharing with me.
Am I up too late or does the first statement directly contradict the
second.
>
> Even then,
> > however, we ought to be conscientious about the degree
> > to which we are stretching the truth. As with politicians,
> > it can be dangerous if we start to believe our own lies.
> >
>
> No shit...the above is the most intelligent thing you said in the whole
> post...pity I had to wade through the prior manure to get to it...
Ah, things seem to be getting back to normal around here.
Bob
--
"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler."
A. Einstein
Fletcher
>
> Fletcher wrote:
> >
> >
> > A "straight wire with gain" can not exist. First of all, principles of
> > acoustics, namely the Haas effect and how the ear percieves closely
> > reflected signals v. how a microphone percieves closely reflected
> > signals prevents anything close to this from occuring. That's medicine
> > and physics, not something I made up to piss you off...that's just a
> > plain old unavoidable fact at this time in our existance. Perhaps in
> > some far off century some Massenburgian genius of the future may figure
> > out how to overcome this...but right here, right now, fuggedaboudit.
>
> of it before. From your mention it sounds as if it applies to
> microphones not wires with gain but I'd like to read about it.
Damn near any textbook on audio/acoustics will cover the principle.
It's multi-faceted, the portion I was referring to simply states that
the ear will percieve reflections of under 19ms as part of the original
signal and can/will affect the original signal as 'comb filtered',
reflections over 19ms are percieved by the human ear as reflections, but
not to a microphone, where it's all percieved as part of the original
signal.
The brain separates original source from room tone in an entirely
different manner than our friend Mr. Microphone...so until we can teach
Mr. Microphone how to separate these things..."nutrality" can not, will
not, shall not, occur. End of story...game over, thank you for
playing.
This is not to say that it is not in the classical recordists best
interest to obtain what they percieve as the best sound possible...but
to cloak the argument with the word 'neutrality' just makes me want to
vomit...nothing personal, just physics.
Yes, my statement was indeed based more on microphones than microphone
pre-amplifiers...but the whole [the recording] is *always* a sum of it's
parts [the performance, and the recording thereof]. If one of the parts
will not render the ability to achieve the goal, then the entire process
is flawed.
I just get tired of these guys that do classical shit getting their
panties in a bunch over 'neutrality'...which is a concept that sits on
the shelf next to Santa and Mr. E. Bunny. Basically, there is audio
that pleases the listener, there is audio that displeases the listener.
For these guys to tell me what I'm hearing is ridiculous...they might as
well tell me what to wear. To cloak that statement around the erzatz
concept of 'neutrality' is just an asinine defense for an unobtainable
concept.
They can enjoy it to their hearts content...even believe in it with all
their heart and soul...bully for them. I know it's going to break my
heart when my kids no longer *know* there's a Santa Claus...and I'm
sorry if I'm sticking a pin in the 'neutrality bubble'...but it doesn't
mean they have to take my word for it, and can enjoy the rest of their
days on this earth attempting to achieve it...I have arthritis, I've
found that when I stopped ignoring the facts, my life got better. If
these brothers want to go chasing 'neutrality', they should give Sancho
Panza a call so they have a riding buddy, and go for it. Don't let me
stand in anyone's way.
>
> >
> > Natural, my friend, is in the ear
> > of the beholder. If you tell me that a Mackie mic pre is as "natural"
> > as a Millennia HV-3, or an Avalon, or a [your favorite
> > "natural/neutral/transparent" mic-pre's name here]...you sir, are either
> > deafer than a fence post, or on some medication I would really
> > appreciate you sharing with me.
>
> Am I up too late or does the first statement directly contradict the
> second.
>
You were up too late. What I'm saying [I love clarifications] is that
each of these "natural" sounding mic pre's has it's own tone. That's a
direct contradiction of the concept of "natural". Unless we've figured
out a way to break some of the laws of physics...nutrality isn't going
to happen. I've broken a lot of laws in my days on this Earth...but I
just can't seem to break the laws of physics...wish I could, just ain't
managed it yet.
>
> "Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler."
>
> A. Einstein
I'm down with that...that Einsteen dude...he was pretty sharp for a dead
guy...
Anonymous
Mike Rivers wrote:
> zo...@ix.netcom.com@ix.netcom.com writes:
>
> > The intitial test in this post said it was to determine "best overall
> > transparency in a vocal recording".
> >
> > Obviously the Mackie engineers found ONE thing that the VLZ Pro could do
> > well and skewed the test around that.
>
> Mackie said they didn't have anything to do with this test. They
> didn't commission it, it was the Nashville gang, and they claimed that
> they just threw the Mackie in for laughs. But what Mackie apparently
> didn't do rigorously enough was check the facts after the story was
> submitted to them.
If this story was indeed submitted by one of the persons involved
in the test, one has to wonder, is Mackie also a victim in this thing?
I can see where someone with an evil sense of humor might have come up
with this specifically with the idea of, "This is so outrageous...
anyone can see this is faked... wonder if Mackie will buy it, bet they
will?"
Seems to me, it all comes down to, what is the origin of the article?
Did Mackie commission this "info," or were they at the receiving
end of the BS?
--
the artist formerly known as Bill
(not usually a Mackie defender)
Barry Blumenthal
<snip>
>Damn near any textbook on audio/acoustics will cover the principle. [Haas
effect]
>It's multi-faceted, the portion I was referring to simply states that
>the ear will percieve reflections of under 19ms as part of the original
>signal and can/will affect the original signal as 'comb filtered',
>reflections over 19ms are percieved by the human ear as reflections, but
>not to a microphone, where it's all percieved as part of the original
>signal.
First.... THANK YOU. I love clear, concise definitions.. much appreciated.
<snip>
>I just get tired of these guys that do classical shit getting their
>panties in a bunch over 'neutrality'...which is a concept that sits on
>the shelf next to Santa and Mr. E. Bunny.
I'm gonna get in trouble again....
> Basically, there is audio
>that pleases the listener, there is audio that displeases the listener.
Which may or may not correlate with as accurate a reproduction of the
original acoustic event as possible, depending upon ..
1. Whether or not the listener heard the actual original event
2. Whether or not the listener has heard similar actual original events.
3. Any and all possible changes in perception of the original event caused
by time passing, the listener's mood, environment, and a million other
variables.
>For these guys to tell me what I'm hearing is ridiculous...they might as
>well tell me what to wear.
Wouldn't dream of it.. either one of 'em.
>To cloak that statement around the erzatz
>concept of 'neutrality' is just an asinine defense for an unobtainable
>concept.
I'll agree.. complete and total "neutrality" is unattainable, like any other
from of perfection.
Everything in a signal chain adds it's signature to the sound.. no escaping
that or arguing with it. As one of those [extreme bottom of the group, but
budding] guys that does "classical shit," I try to choose and purchase
equipment that adds as little change to the sound as I experienced it live
as possible. I use the word "neutral" at times to describe this quality in
equipment. I agree.. it doesn't exist in absolutes, only in degree.
I think there IS a difference in function of the recordist (I'm not going to
use the term "engineer".. I don't rate that, although Fletcher does) in
different genres. In "classical shit," I try to get on tape exactly what
the musicians put in the hall in such a way that it sounds most like that
performance when played back on a good home stereo system. I've never done
it, or come close, of course, but it's my goal. I don't know anything about
doing full-production rock work, but from reading thousands of posts here, I
get the feeling that rock engineers take great pride in knowing how to get
their own signature guitar tone(s), their own "sound" to a mix, and rightly
so... sounds like a ton of extremely demanding work. The term "neutral" in
that context IS meaningless... you go for what you hear in your head FIRST,
and create that internally-conceived sound using any means available. I go
for what I hear in the hall first, and try to remain as neutral as possible
in my depiction and REcreation of that sound.
>
>They can enjoy it to their hearts content...even believe in it with all
>their heart and soul...bully for them. I know it's going to break my
>heart when my kids no longer *know* there's a Santa Claus...
Hey, man, in my world Santa is definitely alive and kicking.. he just looks
different than he used to, and he's not exactly one guy anymore.
>and I'm
>sorry if I'm sticking a pin in the 'neutrality bubble'...
Nothing I can't fix with a little duct tape...
>>If
>these brothers want to go chasing 'neutrality', they should give Sancho
>Panza a call so they have a riding buddy, and go for it.
Got a number? What's he got for mics? <g>
>You were up too late. What I'm saying [I love clarifications] is that
>each of these "natural" sounding mic pre's has it's own tone. That's a
>direct contradiction of the concept of "natural".
Well, it's a contradiction of the concept of absolute neutrality. That
doesn't exist.... agreed. Wouldn't you say that some, however, color the
tone to a lesser degree than others? Or, in other words, are less unnatural
than others? And, if something is less unnatural, is it not then more
natural?
> . I've broken a lot of laws in my days on this Earth...but I
>just can't seem to break the laws of physics...wish I could, just ain't
>managed it yet.
You know what's REALLY getting me down? This dang 24 hours in a day thing.
I need more.
>
>
>>
>> "Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler."
>>
>> A. Einstein
>
>
>I'm down with that...that Einsteen dude...he was pretty sharp for a dead
>guy...
Yet more common ground... I love it.
Thanks for the thoughts, Fletcher... I hate it when you make me think!
Barry
--
Barry Blumenthal
Freelance Jazz Pianist/Educator/HouseholdFundUsurper
Chase Mills, NY
reply to... bar...@northnet.org or blum...@potsdam.edu
Bob Cain
>
>
> Damn near any textbook on audio/acoustics will cover the principle.
> the ear will percieve reflections of under 19ms as part of the original
> signal and can/will affect the original signal as 'comb filtered',
> reflections over 19ms are percieved by the human ear as reflections, but
> not to a microphone, where it's all percieved as part of the original
> signal.
Hi, Fletcher. Now I know what you refer to. I know it as the proximity
effect (yeah, double meaning.)
>
> The brain separates original source from room tone in an entirely
> different manner than our friend Mr. Microphone...so until we can teach
> Mr. Microphone how to separate these things..."nutrality" can not, will
> not, shall not, occur. End of story...game over, thank you for
> playing.
Yes, in brief it can be said that the microphone merely captures that
effect. What else could it do?
> This is not to say that it is not in the classical recordists best
> interest to obtain what they percieve as the best sound possible...but
> to cloak the argument with the word 'neutrality' just makes me want to
> vomit...nothing personal, just physics.
>
> I just get tired of these guys that do classical shit getting their
> panties in a bunch over 'neutrality'...which is a concept that sits on
> the shelf next to Santa and Mr. E. Bunny. Basically, there is audio
> that pleases the listener, there is audio that displeases the listener.
> For these guys to tell me what I'm hearing is ridiculous...they might as
> well tell me what to wear. To cloak that statement around the erzatz
> concept of 'neutrality' is just an asinine defense for an unobtainable
> concept.
I don't think I agree with you here. Classical is different I believe.
For most other genres the coloration given by the process at any of its
myriad levels is part of the brew that results in the perception of
pleasure and is quite plastic but with classical there is a desire to
reproduce with greater accuracy for historical reasons. You don't need
to change much before a Stradavarius (sp) loses its Stadavariusness and
I can't think of much in the popular domain other than voice which has
this stringent a demand on accuracy, or neutrality if you will.
Classical instruments are just more refined and held to a more generally
agreed upon standard than anything in pop. Even jazz instruments are
selected for their personality but in classical performance instrument
personality becomes a very subtle effect and its subtlety requires
greater accuracy of reproduction. Coltrane's unique mouthpiece setup
created an instrument rather than holding true to one and you have to go
considerably farther to fuck up the sound. Face it, his recordings suck
and you still know a Coltrane sax immediately on hearing it.
>
> Yes, my statement was indeed based more on microphones than microphone
> pre-amplifiers...but the whole [the recording] is *always* a sum of it's
> parts [the performance, and the recording thereof]. If one of the parts
> will not render the ability to achieve the goal, then the entire process
> is flawed.
Again I disagree because I think the Haas effect is more a consideration
of a hall or room or the objects in it than it is of either the mic or
the amplifier. The mic, merely because of its size, cannot have an
appreciable effect on this and almost any pre amp has a linear enough
group delay to pass the effect through unmodified.
>
> You were up too late. What I'm saying [I love clarifications] is that
> each of these "natural" sounding mic pre's has it's own tone. That's a
> direct contradiction of the concept of "natural". Unless we've figured
> out a way to break some of the laws of physics...nutrality isn't going
> to happen. I've broken a lot of laws in my days on this Earth...but I
> just can't seem to break the laws of physics...wish I could, just ain't
> managed it yet.
You are right in the domain you speak of but there are domains where
"its own tone" is a thing to avoid. To be sure they are few and far
between and I'm with you that you select a mic for what it does more
often than what it doesn't. That is the fun and the art of it and
something I hope to get good at before I get a whole lot older (actually
there isn't a _whole_ lot older for me to get. :-)
>
> >
> > "Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler."
> >
> > A. Einstein
>
> I'm down with that...that Einsteen dude...he was pretty sharp for a dead
> guy...
:-) :-) :-)
Bob
--
Fletcher
>
>
>
> > Basically, there is audio
> >that pleases the listener, there is audio that displeases the listener.
>
> Which may or may not correlate with as accurate a reproduction of the
> original acoustic event as possible, depending upon ..
>
> 1. Whether or not the listener heard the actual original event
> 2. Whether or not the listener has heard similar actual original events.
> 3. Any and all possible changes in perception of the original event caused
> by time passing, the listener's mood, environment, and a million other
> variables.
That's about as good a list as I've ever seen on this subject..
>
> >To cloak that statement around the erzatz
> >concept of 'neutrality' is just an asinine defense for an unobtainable
> >concept.
>
> I'll agree.. complete and total "neutrality" is unattainable, like any other
> from of perfection.
>
> Everything in a signal chain adds it's signature to the sound.. no escaping
> that or arguing with it. As one of those [extreme bottom of the group, but
> budding] guys that does "classical shit," I try to choose and purchase
> equipment that adds as little change to the sound as I experienced it live
> as possible. I use the word "neutral" at times to describe this quality in
> equipment. I agree.. it doesn't exist in absolutes, only in degree.
Exactly.
> In "classical shit," I try to get on tape exactly what
> the musicians put in the hall in such a way that it sounds most like that
> performance when played back on a good home stereo system. I've never done
> it, or come close, of course, but it's my goal.
And that's an excellent goal...just don't beat yourself up when you
can't achieve it. If you can create a believeable representation of
what the performers are putting out into the room, then you've done your
job. As far a nuetrality goes...it's an appropriate descriptive term
for stuff that enables you to do the best job of capturing the event as
possible...but all electronics, all microphones, all recording devices
have a tone which they impart that effects the final outcome. Some
impart a more distinct and recognizable tone, others impart less of a
tone...but they all have one.
I don't know anything about
> doing full-production rock work, but from reading thousands of posts here, I
> get the feeling that rock engineers take great pride in knowing how to get
> their own signature guitar tone(s), their own "sound" to a mix, and rightly
> so... sounds like a ton of extremely demanding work.
All engineers/recordists/equipment operators/etc. have a unique sound
unto themselves. We all hear things differently, we all have different
set of goals we are trying to achieve. There can be goals that seem to
be set upon in mass, but each person within that mass group will have a
slightly different variation of their interpretation of what it is to
achieve that goal.
Classical guys all strive for a similar thing, yet they all achieve it
with a degree of difference. LA engineers have a different sound than
NY engineers, who have a different sound than Nashville engineers or
engineers from London. These differences, while becoming more
homoginized still exist...they were really a bit more blatent
differences in times past.
The term "neutral" in
> that context IS meaningless... you go for what you hear in your head FIRST,
> and create that internally-conceived sound using any means available. I go
> for what I hear in the hall first, and try to remain as neutral as possible
> in my depiction and REcreation of that sound.
Right.
>
>
>
> Well, it's a contradiction of the concept of absolute neutrality. That
> doesn't exist.... agreed. Wouldn't you say that some, however, color the
> tone to a lesser degree than others? Or, in other words, are less unnatural
> than others? And, if something is less unnatural, is it not then more
> natural?
>
As a desriptive term...absolutely. All language is woefully inept for
the description of sound.
>
> You know what's REALLY getting me down? This dang 24 hours in a day thing.
> I need more.
They seem to be working on a solution to that...seems there's a day
every October that has 25 hours...
>
> Barry
> --
> Barry Blumenthal
> Freelance Jazz Pianist/Educator/HouseholdFundUsurper
> Chase Mills, NY
> reply to... bar...@northnet.org or blum...@potsdam.edu
--
Fletcher
>
>
> If this story was indeed submitted by one of the persons involved
> in the test, one has to wonder, is Mackie also a victim in this thing?
> I can see where someone with an evil sense of humor might have come up
> with this specifically with the idea of, "This is so outrageous...
> anyone can see this is faked... wonder if Mackie will buy it, bet they
> will?"
>
> Seems to me, it all comes down to, what is the origin of the article?
> Did Mackie commission this "info," or were they at the receiving
> end of the BS?
>
> --
> the artist formerly known as Bill
> (not usually a Mackie defender)
Bill [artist formerly known as Bill], et al. There was another party
with whom I've had corrspondence RE: the Mackie press
release...following was a response to an e-mail of his that highlighted
the 'misrepresntations' by Mackie...he also mentioned that the 'Press
Release' had been removed from their website, and intimated that the
author of that 'Press Release' had been "released" as well...seeing as
this was a private conversation, I didn't include what the sender had
sent to me, didn't know if I had his permission or not to include his
writings which were supposed to be private. However, I did give myself
permission to post my response...
Yeah...but the fact of the matter is that it was a *highly* effective
way to introduce a new product, and peak people's interest. If you
think they fired the person that wrote that, you're not very good at
this game. I'd have given who ever came up with that an extra week's
paid vacation...probably even have paid for them to go to Cancun or
something.
Here you have a bottom feeder trying to 'bitch slap' the biggest
motherfuckers on the tier. Yeah, you're gonna get your ass kicked,
yeah, you're going to spend a few days in the infirmary...but everybody
on the block knows your name, and that you don't have a problem going
after anybody at anytime.
What a product launch!! John...pull out a calculator, it's math time.
There are about 400 posts a day on rec.audio.pro, there were discussions
like this in smaller NG's...best I can figure, the "lurker to poster
ratio" on r.a.p. is about 60:1...so that's about 24,000 people that were
made aware of the new product...free of charge...on one NG alone. Who
the hell do you think put up the post making all these NG's aware of the
press release on all these NG's at the same time? Civilians?...I think
not.
Mackie products were discussed at length, there were threads like this
in half a dozen other NG's...I'd call that an extrememly sucessful
product launch. Gee, what an amazing coincidence that it came out
during NAMM. Dude, they [believe it or not] ripped a page out of the
'book of Fletcher' and ran with it.
Do something totally bizarre and outrageous that get's the free press
moving. Bada fucking bing...no matter how "civilized" you think you
are, no mtter how much you tell yourself you don't want to see it, you
still slow down to look for mangled bodies when there's an accident on
the highway. I sat there, like a moron, and spent my time and energy
promoting their fucking product, and didn't even realize I was hoist by
my own petard for a couple of days.
The only possible thing I got out of it was by attacking their
'methodology', I may have added another notch to the 'credibility belt',
but on the whole, all I did was plug their new unit. Somedays you're
the bug, somedays you're the windshield...it was an outstanding example
of how to launch a product.
Couple that with the EAW merger...I think they may be on the road to
saving that company. They still have some big problems inside...but at
least somebody steering the boat is starting to think. A Rose is not
necessarily a flower, and it's odor may attract more attention if it's
not a flower. Best part of the whole thing...if they have to, they can
use a 'scapegoat' for any credibility control [they won't have to, but
the option exists]...in the meanwhile, they hit their target audience
smack dab in the middle of the forehead with a single bullet.
Fletcher
>
>
> Fletcher wrote:
> >
> >
> > Damn near any textbook on audio/acoustics will cover the principle.
> > It's multi-faceted, the portion I was referring to simply states that
> > the ear will percieve reflections of under 19ms as part of the original
> > signal and can/will affect the original signal as 'comb filtered',
> > reflections over 19ms are percieved by the human ear as reflections, but
> > not to a microphone, where it's all percieved as part of the original
> > signal.
>
> Hi, Fletcher. Now I know what you refer to. I know it as the proximity
> effect (yeah, double meaning.)
No, the 'proximity effect' is different. That one states [casually,
it's been a while since I had these things memorized] that the closer
you get to the source with a cardioid mic, the more bottom you get.
>
> >
> > The brain separates original source from room tone in an entirely
> > different manner than our friend Mr. Microphone...so until we can teach
> > Mr. Microphone how to separate these things..."nutrality" can not, will
> > not, shall not, occur. End of story...game over, thank you for
> > playing.
>
> Yes, in brief it can be said that the microphone merely captures that
> effect. What else could it do?
Nothing...but that's why you can not achieve "accuracy/transparency" in
recording. You can make as close a representation as you have skills
and tools to accomplish...but the actual brass ring ain't coming off
this carousel. Not in the near future.
>
>
> I don't think I agree with you here. Classical is different I believe.
> For most other genres the coloration given by the process at any of its
> myriad levels is part of the brew that results in the perception of
> pleasure and is quite plastic but with classical there is a desire to
> reproduce with greater accuracy for historical reasons.
Key word in that sentence..."desire".
You don't need
> to change much before a Stradavarius (sp) loses its Stadavariusness and
> I can't think of much in the popular domain other than voice which has
> this stringent a demand on accuracy, or neutrality if you will.
You can achieve a damn good representation of "the player", "in the
hall", "with a 'Strad'" [I play 'Clue' alot with my kids...I couldn't
resist the 'Clue' phrasing...sorry]...but that's all it's going to be is
a damn good representation. And that representation is going to sound
different at my house than it will at your house...which will sound
different from the original hall in which it was recorded.
John Lennon once said that 'God is a concept by which we measure our
pain'...similar to chasing the windmill of absolute nuetrality in the
performance of equipment and recording of events. Don't get me wrong,
I'm not arguing that some equipment isn't a world better suited to the
task than other equipment. Nor am I arguing that since it can't be
achieved, you shouldn't still attempt to achieve it. The fact of the
matter is that it can't be achieved, but that doesn't mean you can't
make some wonderfully moving recordings.
My friend Adam Abeshouse is up for a grammy this year for 'Producer of
the year-Classical'. He works so hard, and his work is *so* good that
I'm very glad that he has achieved this honor [this is one of the few
catagories I feel is actually judged on merit, not sales figures and
politics]. I think he'll be the first to tell you that it's impossible
to achieve *absolute* neutrality. We've spoken about this several
times, if for no other reason than for me to attempt to learn his goals
and desires in an attempt to assist him to collect the hardware he
desires for the task at hand.
> Classical instruments are just more refined and held to a more generally
> agreed upon standard than anything in pop. Even jazz instruments are
> selected for their personality but in classical performance instrument
> personality becomes a very subtle effect and its subtlety requires
> greater accuracy of reproduction. Coltrane's unique mouthpiece setup
> created an instrument rather than holding true to one and you have to go
> considerably farther to fuck up the sound. Face it, his recordings suck
> and you still know a Coltrane sax immediately on hearing it.
>
See, I don't think the recordings of Coltrane suck. Perhaps it's
because the music transends the medium of delivery...for me at any rate.
Nor do I think that 'classical instruments are more refined'. Right
tool for the job and what not. It would be damn difficult to make a
'Trip-Hop' record with an orchestra...and just as difficult to produce a
symphonic composition with a bunch of loops and samplers. Right tool
for the job and all that crap. Kinda like trying to use metric wrenches
on a '45 Knucklehead...you can kinda get away with it sometimes...but
they're never right [except 14mm does correlate to 9/16" pretty well...I
think that's the near interchangable one].
You can do the classical 'elitist' crap all you like...there is no more
validity to the genre than the 'Backstreet Boys'...it's just
entertainment. What entertains you probably won't entertain my
daughters. What entertains my daughters will more than likely annoy
you, or at the very least bore you into a near comatose state. What
entertains me could kill you [ulcer permitting, I still enjoy a good
round of liquor and drugs]. What entertains you might bore the shit out
of me.
>
> Again I disagree because I think the Haas effect is more a consideration
> of a hall or room or the objects in it than it is of either the mic or
> the amplifier. The mic, merely because of its size, cannot have an
> appreciable effect on this and almost any pre amp has a linear enough
> group delay to pass the effect through unmodified.
I must have missed that day at bullshit school. As the placement of a
microphone is accomplished...it will record the real and reflected
signals of the hall. Period. No ands, ifs or buts. Some halls sound
better than other halls, some have the ability for mic placement events
that minimize the short reflection effects of the Haas effect, but
unless you're planning on recording in an anechoic chamber in the near
future [if you've ever been inside of one of those...it's a *very*
unsettling experience...half an Edgar Allen Poe thing...I kept hearing
my damned heart beat and wanted to make it stop...it was only my
tinnitus that really made it bearable], you will be recording the real
as well as the reflected signal, in a balance that the brain will
separate differently than a microphone. I don't make the damn rules...I
just live with them and work around them as best I can.
>
> You are right in the domain you speak of but there are domains where
> "its own tone" is a thing to avoid. To be sure they are few and far
> between and I'm with you that you select a mic for what it does more
> often than what it doesn't. That is the fun and the art of it and
> something I hope to get good at before I get a whole lot older (actually
> there isn't a _whole_ lot older for me to get. :-)
>
Unfortunately, "its own tone" can't be avoided. We can attempt, plot,
scheme, work, strive and attempt some more...but the actual ability to
avoid it only comes with the price of a ticket [to see the show live and
in person]. I sincerely hope that you achieve a representation of an
event that pleases you...as far accuracy goes, it's unattainable with
the tools of today, who knows what they'll be able to figure out with
computer technology in the future...a computer that works more like the
human brain. I think some of that has been explored in some 'Sci-fi'
movies...like "Terminator II" for example...
William Sommerwerck
> ...the ear will percieve reflections of under 19ms as part of the original
> signal and can/will affect the original signal as 'comb filtered', reflections
> over 19ms are percieved by the human ear as reflections, but not to a
> microphone, where it's all percieved as part of the original signal.
>
> The brain separates original source from room tone in an entirely different
> manner than our friend Mr. Microphone... so until we can teach Mr. Microphone
> how to separate these things..."neutrality" can not, will
> not, shall not, occur. End of story...game over, thank you for playing.
Sorry to destroy your illusions, but the "education" has already occurred. It's
called the SoundField mic. When SoundField recordings are played through an
Ambisonic decoder and four or more speakers, the comb-filtering effects you
describe do not occur. (I'm not talking theory; I've made such recordings.)
Of course, it's not my fault the recording industry is too stupid to use
SoundField recording. In any case, studio recordings are often made with one mic
per performer or instrument, in a relatively dead environment -- another way to
minimize combing effects.
> This is not to say that it is not in the classical recordists best interest to
> obtain what they percieve as the best sound possible...but to cloak the
> argument with the word 'neutrality' just makes me want to vomit... nothing
> personal, just physics.
> Yes, my statement was indeed based more on microphones than microphone
> pre-amplifiers...but the whole [the recording] is *always* a sum of it's parts
> [the performance, and the recording thereof]. If one of the parts will not
> render the ability to achieve the goal, then the entire process is flawed.
In other words, it's okay to use a highly colored mic preamp if the mic (or
micing technique) is less than perfect)? I think NOT.
> I just get tired of these guys that do classical shit getting their panties in
> a bunch over 'neutrality'...which is a concept that sits on the shelf next to
> Santa and Mr. E. Bunny. Basically, there is audio that pleases the listener,
> there is audio that displeases the listener. For these guys to tell me what
> I'm hearing is ridiculous... they might as well tell me what to wear. To cloak
> that statement around the erzatz concept of 'neutrality' is just an asinine
> defense for an unobtainable concept.
The word "ersatz" means "artificial" or "substitute." You're using it
incorrectly.
You're absolutely correct in one respect -- even simply miced recordings (such
as ORTF or Blumlein *) show severe colorations, partly because of the acoustic
effects you described. However, I find them much more "honest" than the
multi-miced, over-processed atrocities I hear so often. And, in any case,
micing-induced colorations are no excuse for using audibly flawed mics or mic
preamps.
As long as we're on this, here's something that will get a lot of digiphobes'
underwear tied in a knot. One of the common complaints is that digital sounds
"cold." This might be partly "true," but a good chunk of analog's warmth is
simply due to the low-frequency rolloff of analog tape decks and the resulting
phase shift and transient errors. Simply miced recordings also have a noticeable
"coolness" (for reasons I don't understand); combining the two can produce a
recording that many people find musically unpleasing.
*Blumlein micing is generally superior, because it suppresses many reflections
in the fusion region.
hank alrich
> Again I disagree because I think the Haas effect is more a consideration
> of a hall or room or the objects in it than it is of either the mic or
> the amplifier
The "Haas effect" is an observation that multipath information received
within a certain time frame will not submit to determination of the
relative locations of the individual sources contributing to said
information, i.e., that direct and reflected information will not be
separable by our perceptive apparatus unless spread over a larger
timeframe.
--
hank - secret mountain
Note: the rec.audio.pro FAQ is at http://recordist.com/rap-faq/current
Read it and reap!
Barry Blumenthal
> Classical instruments are just more refined and held to a more generally
> agreed upon standard than anything in pop. Even jazz instruments are
> selected for their personality but in classical performance instrument
> personality becomes a very subtle effect and its subtlety requires
> greater accuracy of reproduction. Coltrane's unique mouthpiece setup
> created an instrument rather than holding true to one and you have to go
> considerably farther to fuck up the sound. Face it, his recordings suck
> and you still know a Coltrane sax immediately on hearing it.
>
I clipped the above from Fletcher's reply to Bob Cain, whose original post I
never saw... thank you, ISP, Sweety.. having a great time searching for
posts that don't seem to make it to me... That's OK, is it alright if, since
I'm only getting about 2/3 of the post, I only pay HALF MY FREAKIN' BILL
next month?~!?!?!!??
OK, back to our regularly scheduled programming...
Bob... hello.. good morning... are we awake? GOOD!! Guess what.. Coltrane
sounds like Coltrane on any flippin' sax he plays, any reed, any mouthpiece,
any ligature.. instantly.. one note, it's JOHN! End of story. If it was
his setup, you know how many guys would go out and buy his sound? How come
Monk and Bill Evans have completely different tones on the same piano!??!?
Clue.... where does music come from?
I replied to Fletcher's original post on this topic, too, but after reading
his reply, we are, as usual, in practically complete agreement anyway, after
the semantic difficulties are surmounted. Bob, you're pretty off base in
the paragraph above. Are you telling me you can't tell the Philadelphia
Orchestra's sound under Ormandy even when it's played from an old scratched
up record on a less-than turntable setup? You can't pick out Zuckerman from
Oistrakh unless the sound quality is pristine? Renee Fleming sounds like
Dawn Upshaw on anything but top shelf recordings on great equipment? It's
not subtle, Bob. It's just different, and it depends on what you listen to.
I'll show my own ignorance here...I can't tell the difference between a lot
of the heavy rock band out there now.. it all sounds like distorted walls of
cranked amps, open fifths on the guitars, and at least one person screaming.
Guess what.. you know why I can't tell the difference? I don't listen to
it.. my ears aren't educated in the subtleties of THAT genre. They're
there, I just don't know what to listen for 'cause I don't listen to it...
Do I personally feel that Brahms, Beethoven, Bach, Shostakovich, Bartok,
Delius, Machaut, Josquin, Mozart, Haydn, and brethren have created music and
art of much higher caliber, intricacy, and general worth to mankind than
David Lee Roth, the Beatles, Led Zeppelin, Twisted Sister, Metallica
(somebody explain that album they did recently (w/ .. who was it.. the St.
Louis Sympony maybe?) behind them to me... one of my students brought it
in, digging it 'cause of the orchestra. Heck, I couldn't hear the orchestra
most of the time. I kept thinkin'.. man, those 90 guys are putting a
keyboard player out of work), and the rest of the past few decades'
contributions to rock? You bet your sweet bippie I do... if that makes me
an elitist, so be it. Fletcher and I went 'round on that one a while back,
too, and it's cool. We all cherish what we know, what we love, and that
which we've devoted our lives to. Listening to the surprising yet seemingly
inevitable harmonies and melodies of the Barber Adagio unfold at a snail's
pace will always thrill me and move more than the fastest, loudest, even
most sincerely-felt rock music... I've studied it, analyzed it, arranged it,
conducted it, performed it, and I still can't listen to it w/out leaving the
rest of the world behind for 9 minutes or so. Hey, that's me... I feel the
same way about Bill Evan's performance of Young and Foolish on "Everybody
Digs Bill Evans".... slays me everytime. There's a lot of stuff outside of
the classical (I hate that term... "legit" works better for me, even as a ja
zz player.. I've never bought into that attitude that calling "legit"
"legit" somehow indicates that jazz ain't legit... it is... it's just called
jazz) and jazz idioms that I love and listen to regularly.. Sting, Bob
Marley, isolated periods in Gino Vanelli's career, a few Steely Dan albums,
Michael Franks, Tom Waits, Zappa, blah blah blah.. I love and respect all
those cats. They aren't Brahms. Neither am I. I'm not even them yet.
<shaking head>
sorry... don't know what started that line of thought...
I guess what I meant to say was...wait, I gotta quote you again, Bob...
> Classical instruments are just more refined and held to a more generally
> agreed upon standard than anything in pop.
If that's the case, why does pop music sound way more homogeneous to me than
"classical" music? I can get behind you pretty much on the "more refined"
clause, I guess, although I'm sure I'll catch it for saying so... since
legit music is, for the large part, completely notated and demands that the
players execute extremely specific and occasionally technically demanding
sequences of notes, articulations, phrasings, dynamics, and timbres w/out
any choice in the matter other than interpretation, whereas most pop, jazz,
rock, etc., performers have more freedom to play within their limits or
their sphere of comfort, then yes, legit music does call for a more refined
technique. However, the ability to immediately AND spontaneously create a
sound through your horn of choice, be it piano, sax, trumpet, guitar,
whatever, as it appears in your inner ear is no less of a skill. I know
plenty of excellent jazz players who, after studying, practicing, and
listening to legit literature, can play in that idiom quite well w/in a year
or two, assuming of course that they had a good command of their instrument
in the first place. I certainly can not say the same of legit players
attempting to make a foray into the jazz world. I've worked with excellent
legit players, much better than myself, trying to introduce them into the
world of real-time composition (some call it jazz), and guess what...
real-time theory and inner ear don't come easy.. if ever, to some.
As far as the "more generally agreed upon standard"... no way. Heck, we
can't even agree on what A to tune to!! Hogwood/original instruments, or
Ormandy Bach transcriptions? Agreed upon standard? I think not.
O' course, it's late, I'm in my fourth week of bronchitis, I feel like crap,
I'm crabby, and I've just spent four frustrating hours trying to "master" an
orchestral recording with a completely stuffed head. You're probably a
great guy... sorry if I came on strong... me go now...
g'night..
peace.
2DJVENGAC
> > I just get tired of these guys that do classical shit getting their panties in
> > a bunch over 'neutrality'...which is a concept that sits on the shelf next to
> > Santa and Mr. E. Bunny. Basically, there is audio that pleases the listener,
> > there is audio that displeases the listener. For these guys to tell me what
> > I'm hearing is ridiculous... they might as well tell me what to wear. To cloak
> > that statement around the erzatz concept of 'neutrality' is just an asinine
> > defense for an unobtainable concept.
>
>
> The word "ersatz" means "artificial" or "substitute." You're using it
> incorrectly.
well, in a word, -no-, he's not.
Fletcher's use is dead on, as 'ersatz' does indeed mean, specifically,
an overwhelmingly INFERIOR (at best) substitute... so much so that it
borders on 'non-existant' a'la The Emporer's New Clothes. To describe
something as simply a neutral or equivalent 'substitute' the word
might've been 'surrogate'... but the intent was (dare i presume to put
meanings to the man;s words) for something of the consitancy and
durability of phlogiston and so 'ersatz' it was and nicely so.
Monte P McGuire
Barry Blumenthal <bar...@northnet.org> wrote:
>I think there IS a difference in function of the recordist (I'm not going to
>use the term "engineer".. I don't rate that, although Fletcher does) in
>different genres. In "classical shit," I try to get on tape exactly what
>the musicians put in the hall in such a way that it sounds most like that
>performance when played back on a good home stereo system. I've never done
>it, or come close, of course, but it's my goal.
Here's an interesting take to this approach. Most of the time, as a
member of the audience at an acoustic concert, I find that if I close
my eyes and listen intently, I'll almost always hear something that
would be pretty much unacceptable if it were translated literally to a
recording. The tonal balance is usually odd, the imaging is vague and
random and the balance of the instruments is sometimes less than
ideal. This has happened all the time for me even at world class
halls like Symphony Hall in Boston with a fine orchestra.
Probably because of this, most recordists who do this sort of
documentary treatment bother to place the mikes so that the recording
is a more flattering and 'acceptable' recording of that event.
But, the question I pose is why can't you just put a dummy head in one
of the paying seats in the hall and track it directly, without
monitoring it? Think about it: if you know your electronics and such
are capturing the sound one would hear in that seat accurately (or at
least as good as you can muster), why would anyone bother to monitor
the recording at all? One would merely want to optimize levels and
just print what you'd get - that would indeed be extremely accurate.
The point I'm making is that even those who overtly strive for
accuracy decide to place their mikes in places that produce the most
flattering presentation of what they think the event should sound
like. I'm not saying this approach is bad at all, but I'm merely
pointing out that if accuracy was the only issue at hand, nothing but
a priori mike positioning, basic level monitoring and other tech
housekeeping tasks would be needed to make such a recording.
Monitoring would be unneccessary, yet we all do it in that context!!
I'd like to think that this proves that even the 'documentary
approach' recordists try to make a recording that is actually quite
different (and better, according to their own definition) than that
which would be heard if you attended the show as a member of the
audience.
Given this perspective, it seems clear that neutrality and accuracy
become something that no professional recordist actually tries to
achieve...
Food for thought...
Monte McGuire
mcg...@world.std.com
Monte P McGuire
William Sommerwerck <will...@nwlink.com> wrote:
>Sorry to destroy your illusions, but the "education" has already
>occurred. It's called the SoundField mic. When SoundField recordings
>are played through an Ambisonic decoder and four or more speakers, the
>comb-filtering effects you describe do not occur. (I'm not talking
>theory; I've made such recordings.)
>
>Of course, it's not my fault the recording industry is too stupid to
>use SoundField recording. In any case, studio recordings are often
>made with one mic per performer or instrument, in a relatively dead
>environment -- another way to minimize combing effects.
The Soundfield mike will not produce a stereo signal that has any time
differences in the left and right channels; it records only intensity
vs. angular position. Your ears in a hall will pick this up. I
personally think this flaw makes it unable to accurately capture some
of the stuff I hear (and like) in a hall.
Even spaced mikes and spaced speakers don't seem to recreate a sound
field that behaves like the sound field that existed in the hall.
Just move your head while listening to playback and it's different
than if you moved your head the same way in the hall...
The problem of deciding what constitutes an accurate 'capturing' and
reproduction of what sound was in a hall is by no means solved!
Regards,
Monte McGuire
mcg...@world.std.com
Bob Cain
Fletcher wrote:
>
> > Yes, in brief it can be said that the microphone merely captures that
> > effect. What else could it do?
>
> Nothing...but that's why you can not achieve "accuracy/transparency" in
> recording. You can make as close a representation as you have skills
> and tools to accomplish...but the actual brass ring ain't coming off
> this carousel. Not in the near future.
Well, we can come pretty damned close by trading off directivity. A
tiny omni doesn't quite yet achieve the acoustic equivalent of the
Hiesenberg indeterminacy principle but close enough for most practical
purposes. Of course when you start tuning for directivity that all goes
to hell so it is pretty academic.
As a kid in about fourth grade I became despondant when I discovered via
thought experiment that no matter how close I came to measuring
something there were still points between my measurement and the real
value but I survived and became a scientist despite my dispair of ever
really accomplishing anything.
>
> Key word in that sentence..."desire".
Hell, that's the key word in my life.
>
>
> My friend Adam Abeshouse is up for a grammy this year for 'Producer of
> the year-Classical'. He works so hard, and his work is *so* good that
> I'm very glad that he has achieved this honor [this is one of the few
> catagories I feel is actually judged on merit, not sales figures and
> politics]. I think he'll be the first to tell you that it's impossible
> to achieve *absolute* neutrality. We've spoken about this several
> times, if for no other reason than for me to attempt to learn his goals
> and desires in an attempt to assist him to collect the hardware he
> desires for the task at hand.
Could we agree that we are gradually moving toward the perceptual
limit? I personally don't doubt the possiblity of moving beyond it. As
I've already indicated, however, I do not consider that the art of
making things people want to listen to. The one big thing that will
become possible at that limit, however, is absolute freedom in
accomplishing the real goal. I know you are skeptical as hell of
processes that aren't the result of physical mechanics but I have more
faith in our virtual capabilities.
>
> See, I don't think the recordings of Coltrane suck. Perhaps it's
> because the music transends the medium of delivery...for me at any rate.
I think we are saying the same thing here.
> Nor do I think that 'classical instruments are more refined'.
I mean that in the sense that a formula race car is more refined or
maybe the word is "defined."
> Right
> tool for the job and what not. It would be damn difficult to make a
> 'Trip-Hop' record with an orchestra...and just as difficult to produce a
> symphonic composition with a bunch of loops and samplers. Right tool
> for the job and all that crap. Kinda like trying to use metric wrenches
> on a '45 Knucklehead...you can kinda get away with it sometimes...but
> they're never right [except 14mm does correlate to 9/16" pretty well...I
> think that's the near interchangable one].
Damn. I'm afraid we are agreeing again and just don't want to stop
arguing. :-)
>
> You can do the classical 'elitist' crap all you like...there is no more
> validity to the genre than the 'Backstreet Boys'...it's just
> entertainment.
Ah, Ah. Don't put words in my mouth. I don't know from validity. No
such thing in music.
> >
> > Again I disagree because I think the Haas effect is more a consideration
> > of a hall or room or the objects in it than it is of either the mic or
> > the amplifier. The mic, merely because of its size, cannot have an
> > appreciable effect on this and almost any pre amp has a linear enough
> > group delay to pass the effect through unmodified.
>
> I must have missed that day at bullshit school. As the placement of a
> microphone is accomplished...it will record the real and reflected
> signals of the hall.
We've got to stop agreeing like this. If placement isn't a
"consideration of a hall or room or the objects in it" then what is it?
It is just not a property of a mic per se. It's where you come in.
>Period. No ands, ifs or buts. Some halls sound
> better than other halls, some have the ability for mic placement events
> that minimize the short reflection effects of the Haas effect, but
> unless you're planning on recording in an anechoic chamber in the near
> future [if you've ever been inside of one of those...it's a *very*
> unsettling experience...half an Edgar Allen Poe thing...I kept hearing
> my damned heart beat and wanted to make it stop...it was only my
> tinnitus that really made it bearable],
I didn't even know I had titunitis 'til then. I found it more than
unsettling. I wanted to run.
you will be recording the real
> as well as the reflected signal, in a balance that the brain will
> separate differently than a microphone.
I was trying in my obscure way to say just that. The mic doesn't
separate them at all.
> I don't make the damn rules...I
> just live with them and work around them as best I can.
No, you manipulate them as best you can and I hear you are pretty good
at it.
Peace,
Bob Cain
Barry Blumenthal wrote:
>
>
> I clipped the above from Fletcher's reply to Bob Cain, whose original post I
> never saw... thank you, ISP, Sweety.. having a great time searching for
> posts that don't seem to make it to me... That's OK, is it alright if, since
> I'm only getting about 2/3 of the post, I only pay HALF MY FREAKIN' BILL
> next month?~!?!?!!??
It didn't make it to my own server so the fault is probably with my ISP.
>
> Bob... hello.. good morning... are we awake? GOOD!! Guess what.. Coltrane
> sounds like Coltrane on any flippin' sax he plays, any reed, any mouthpiece,
> any ligature.. instantly.. one note, it's JOHN! End of story. If it was
> his setup, you know how many guys would go out and buy his sound?
Not true. Not true. He worried himself to near distraction with the
properties of his reed and mouthpiece. The sound he got was not just
his from his head and heart it had technical components too. That
doesn't mean that anyone else could get his sound from his setup though.
> How come
> Monk and Bill Evans have completely different tones on the same piano!??!?
> Clue.... where does music come from?
How come McCoy Tyner had his own man retune his piano here this Monday
night between sets and between shows? (It was an awesome solo recital
by the way.)
> I replied to Fletcher's original post on this topic, too, but after reading
> his reply, we are, as usual, in practically complete agreement anyway, after
> the semantic difficulties are surmounted. Bob, you're pretty off base in
> the paragraph above. Are you telling me you can't tell the Philadelphia
> Orchestra's sound under Ormandy even when it's played from an old scratched
> up record on a less-than turntable setup? You can't pick out Zuckerman from
> Oistrakh unless the sound quality is pristine? Renee Fleming sounds like
> Dawn Upshaw on anything but top shelf recordings on great equipment? It's
> not subtle, Bob. It's just different, and it depends on what you listen to.
Darn. I don't think I said any of these things but it was late and I'll
double check.
I found the rest of what you had to say of great interest and admit
that, no, I most likely could not make the distinctions you describe
because I am not sufficiently educated but for the most part your points
were beside my point and I'm losing track of what my point was.
BTW, are you the Barry that made an "Open appeal"? I attempted to
respond to that but it went to the wrong person.
Fletcher
>
>
> Sorry to destroy your illusions, but the "education" has already occurred. It's
> called the SoundField mic. When SoundField recordings are played through an
> Ambisonic decoder and four or more speakers, the comb-filtering effects you
> describe do not occur. (I'm not talking theory; I've made such recordings.)
>
Been there, done that, returned the unit...neat effect, not pragmatic
for the job I had intended...if I ever make a Pink Floyd record it'll be
directly on my list of things to hire. As far as it deciding the
difference between direct and reflected signal...no. Not with an
"Ambisonic decoder", not with a "Dick Tracy decoder ring"...not without
something about the size of the mainframe system at NORAD, and someone
who spends a few years creating a program are you doing that this week.
You may have made recordings like that, but its *not* the same as
sitting in Row H, Seat 14. Go ahead and do the "I'm a recording god,
and you all should follow me to the audio promised land" schtick again
if you'd like...and I'm sure the recordings sound lovely, but there is
no way on God's grey Earth that you have achieved a "Row H, Seat 14
being there" experience.
What all this horseshit has to do with the title of this thread is
beyond me. If you used the XDR mic amp with your Soundfield...well
bully for you, and I hope [truly, no sarcasm, no bullshit] that you
enjoy it. If you try hard enough, you can convince yourself of damn
near anything. If you say it loud enough and long enough you can
convince other people as well [learned that one from a guy named Joseph
Goebels]. Enjoy the work you do, and the tools you use to achieve the
results.
I will do the same, which shall be different, but no less pleasing [to
me].
Fletcher
>
>
> And no, I don't own any Mackie stuff - far prefer A&H.
>
> 'cheerio arsehole'
>
> Morgan.
> http://www.recordplayer.com/
Hey Morgan you back again? What? Did the push up bra and chaps start
to chafe?
Barry Blumenthal
below..
Bob Cain wrote in message <38A69864...@znet.com>...
>> Bob... hello.. good morning... are we awake? GOOD!! Guess what..
Coltrane
>> sounds like Coltrane on any flippin' sax he plays, any reed, any
mouthpiece,
>> any ligature.. instantly.. one note, it's JOHN! End of story. If it was
>> his setup, you know how many guys would go out and buy his sound?
>
>Not true. Not true. He worried himself to near distraction with the
>properties of his reed and mouthpiece. The sound he got was not just
>his from his head and heart it had technical components too. That
>doesn't mean that anyone else could get his sound from his setup though.
What you're saying is true, but is not mutually exclusive to what I'm
saying. Sax players and other musicians choose their setups, fuss with
their reeds, try different strings, mouthpiece cup depths, shapes, rim
widths, fingerboard and neck widths, ad nauseum, to facilitate getting the
sound they are after, not to create the sound in the first place. The audio
analogy, of course, is that Massenburg will still sound like Massenburg, or
pretty dang close to it, on my cheapo Mackie board and middle of the road
DAW because he has a solid concept of what he's going after, and I'll still
sound like me given all the best recording gear in the world.. a clue or two
maybe, but still searching and trying to find "it," and I'm not even close
yet. Sure, Coltrane was a reed fanatic... doesn't mean he wouldn't sound
like Coltrane on a bad reed day or on un unfamiliar mouthpiece.. he'd just
have a more difficult time getting out the sound he wanted. Maybe he
couldn't produce exactly what he'd hoped for, but you can bet the bank you
could tell it was John from anyone else.
>
>
>> How come
>> Monk and Bill Evans have completely different tones on the same
piano!??!?
>> Clue.... where does music come from?
>
>How come McCoy Tyner had his own man retune his piano here this Monday
>night between sets and between shows? (It was an awesome solo recital
>by the way.)
I'm sure it was. I didn't really dig the last two McCoy albums I picked up,
although I loved his stuff back in the 50s-70s. He has his own man retune
the piano, (I haven't talked to McCoy lately... OK, ever.. <g>.... so this
is educated conjecture on my part) because he trusts him and it removes a
variable in his performances.. same piano tech in each venue results in same
temperament, etc. You can't always count on a great piano, great tuning,
and a great tech. If you bring along your tech, at least you've got two of
those three variables licked.
>
>> I replied to Fletcher's original post on this topic, too, but after
reading
>> his reply, we are, as usual, in practically complete agreement anyway,
after
>> the semantic difficulties are surmounted. Bob, you're pretty off base in
>> the paragraph above. Are you telling me you can't tell the Philadelphia
>> Orchestra's sound under Ormandy even when it's played from an old
scratched
>> up record on a less-than turntable setup? You can't pick out Zuckerman
from
>> Oistrakh unless the sound quality is pristine? Renee Fleming sounds like
>> Dawn Upshaw on anything but top shelf recordings on great equipment?
It's
>> not subtle, Bob. It's just different, and it depends on what you listen
to.
>
>Darn. I don't think I said any of these things but it was late and I'll
>double check.
I admit I went off on you way too hard there. The quote I was aiming that
at was...
<you wrote>
>in classical performance instrument
> personality becomes a very subtle effect and its subtlety requires
> greater accuracy of reproduction.
I was just trying to point out that you can still tell the "classical"
artist and personalities apart on even poor recordings if you are familiar
with the music and artist in the first place. Same point I made about
Coltrane's setup, if you think about it. Great equipment makes it easier
and usually more enjoyable, but saying that classical music "requires" a
greater accuracy of reproduction.. I dunno... even I'M not quite that
elitist...<g>. I've listened to great works played back on Symphonic
all-in-one vinyl-eating monsters, and enjoyed every tinny, harsh, pop-ridden
distorted minute of it. I'd make the statement "BENEFITS from greater
accuracy of reproduction" because it truly is more of a REproduction,
generally, than a PROduction as are pop and rock musics.
>
>I found the rest of what you had to say of great interest and admit
>that, no, I most likely could not make the distinctions you describe
>because I am not sufficiently educated but for the most part your points
>were beside my point and I'm losing track of what my point was.
Hey, at least you had one to start. I'll try that next time.. <Barry makes
a note to himself.. "have a POINT next time">
>Peace,
>
>Bob
Peace all around. Sorry for the antagonistic tone of the first post... I'm
feeling much better now.. <g>
Scott Dorsey
>Sorry to destroy your illusions, but the "education" has already occurred. It's
>called the SoundField mic. When SoundField recordings are played through an
>Ambisonic decoder and four or more speakers, the comb-filtering effects you
>describe do not occur. (I'm not talking theory; I've made such recordings.)
The SoundField is nice, but it doesn't eliminate the problem.
The Soundfield gets not only intensity of sound at a particular point, but
also direction, and it actually does a pretty good job of sensing direction
in all three axes.
The problem is that a perfect soundfield can't be reconstructed from a sample
made at a single point. In order to have a clean and enveloping soundfield,
you need to be able to reproduce the shape of the wavefronts as well, in
a three-dimensional field, and this means making an infinite number of samples
in a sphere around the listener. (This is called "acoustic holography" and
somewhat crude examples have been shown at AES shows. The Penn State guys
have been doing some nice work in ths field.)
>Of course, it's not my fault the recording industry is too stupid to use
>SoundField recording. In any case, studio recordings are often made with one mic
>per performer or instrument, in a relatively dead environment -- another way to
>minimize combing effects.
Personally, I don't like the effect when the SoundField output is converted
down to stereo; it is lacking in depth when compared with a near-coincident
design, because it basically turns into a swanky coincident pair in the process
of converting the signal down. And since we're all forced to release in
stereo, my goal is to get the best possible soundfield GIVEN THE CONSTRAINTS
OF STEREO REPRODUCTION. Maybe 5.1 will change things, I dunno.
In any case, comb filtering is an unfortunately natural thing, and you can
go into a lot of halls and hear comb filtering effects due to reflections
close to the performers. Acoustic miking doesn't solve that, although it
reduces the number of places where it can happen.
>> This is not to say that it is not in the classical recordists best interest to
>> obtain what they percieve as the best sound possible...but to cloak the
>> argument with the word 'neutrality' just makes me want to vomit... nothing
>> personal, just physics.
>
>> Yes, my statement was indeed based more on microphones than microphone
>> pre-amplifiers...but the whole [the recording] is *always* a sum of it's parts
>> [the performance, and the recording thereof]. If one of the parts will not
>> render the ability to achieve the goal, then the entire process is flawed.
>
>In other words, it's okay to use a highly colored mic preamp if the mic (or
>micing technique) is less than perfect)? I think NOT.
I dunno. If you have a mike which has too much high end, using a preamp
which reduces the high end is probably a good thing. In a perfect world,
it's best to have a system with no colorations at all, but having colorations
that cancel one another out is the next best thing.
If I waited until my recording chain was completely transparent before
making any recordings, I would not be delivering product and I would not
be getting paid. This would mean I would be out on the streets, and not
making any recordings at all.
Everything is less than perfect. This is the real world. We don't have
any Platonic ideals here, just mikes with uneven impulse response, cables
that are reactive, and preamps with noise. It's like that. If you don't
like this, take it up with a minister, not with an engineer.
>> I just get tired of these guys that do classical shit getting their panties in
>> a bunch over 'neutrality'...which is a concept that sits on the shelf next to
>> Santa and Mr. E. Bunny. Basically, there is audio that pleases the listener,
>> there is audio that displeases the listener. For these guys to tell me what
>> I'm hearing is ridiculous... they might as well tell me what to wear. To cloak
>> that statement around the erzatz concept of 'neutrality' is just an asinine
>> defense for an unobtainable concept.
Now, here I am going to disagree strongly with Fletcher, because in the
classical world we _do_ have a standard for neutrality, which you don't
in the rest of the industry. I can open up the door of the booth and walk
out into the balcony and listen. That's my reference. Now, my goal is
to have the recording reproduce that exactly. I can't do it, but I can
try. A system which is neutral does it better than a system which isn't,
but of course the coloration of a system is the _sum_ of the coloration
of all the elements.
The classical guys come from a tradition of reproducing sound, not producing
new sounds, and it's a totally different philosophy of working. Neither one
is a bad philosophy, and they both have their place. But there needs to be
more understanding between the two camps.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Carlo Hoskins
> On Thu, 10 Feb 2000 21:27:41 -0400, Fletcher <Flet...@mercenary.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Perhaps in some far off century some Massenburgian genius of the future may figure
> >out how to overcome this...but right here, right now, fuggedaboudit.
>
> Considering your uptight and o.t.t. stance on all things Mackie,
> doesn't it strike you as a bit odd that Massenburg Design Works makes
> plug-ins for the d8b?
Of *all* the things you *might* have contributed to this thread...
> And what's with the 'manure' bit - trying to be polite now when you
> slag people off? ;-) I still don't understand why you feel the need to
> get personal with everybody just because they see (hear) things
> differently to you.
I still don't understand why you feel the need to try to "get him back" for it. At
this point, could you please do us all (or, at least, me) a favor and simply accept
the possibility that you will *never* understand him? Either you have a boner for him
or an undying vendetta -- I'm not sure which. He's got his way of conducting himself
in public, and you've got yours. He's got his way of contributing substantive
postings to this newsgroup, and you've got your way posting these little irritating
jabs because...oh, I don't know...you're a prude and can't seem to let things go?
Know that to many on this group you're becoming much like a mosquito that's in serious
need of being squashed into an amorphous pulp...very irritating. Maybe that's a role
in which you find some bizarre solace. To each his own. When you've got something to
say about audio, by all means, say it. If, on the other hand, your sole purpose in a
post is to somehow get back at him, could you refrain for, say, the next couple of
decades hopefully left to me? Hmmm? Please? Or, as he might ask, "Pretty
please...with sugar on top...would you shut the fuck up?"
>
> And no, I don't own any Mackie stuff - far prefer A&H.
And yes, he has earned the right to be himself and say what he thinks...in whatever
way he chooses. (I thought I'd add that since I know just how your simple mind works
and can infer your very thoughts).
>
>
> 'cheerio arsehole'
Fuck off, shitface.
>
>
> Morgan.
> http://www.recordplayer.com/
Scott Dorsey
>
>The point I'm making is that even those who overtly strive for
>accuracy decide to place their mikes in places that produce the most
>flattering presentation of what they think the event should sound
>like. I'm not saying this approach is bad at all, but I'm merely
>pointing out that if accuracy was the only issue at hand, nothing but
>a priori mike positioning, basic level monitoring and other tech
>housekeeping tasks would be needed to make such a recording.
This is absolutely true. But, I don't see how this is any different than
people wanting to sit in the good seats. We put the microphones up to
record what Westminster Records used to call "The Best Seat in the House."
You pay more money to sit in the better orchestra seats. I don't see any
difference here.
And if you are hearing comb filtering in Boston's symphony hall, get out
of the loge. It's worse on the righthand side near the middle, too. If
you have to be up there, get far left near the wall. Don't ask me why.
>I'd like to think that this proves that even the 'documentary
>approach' recordists try to make a recording that is actually quite
>different (and better, according to their own definition) than that
>which would be heard if you attended the show as a member of the
>audience.
Well, if I _could_ attend the show suspended thirty feet in the air
over row M, twelve feet to the left of center, I would. But the theatre
riggers take a dim view of this kind of thing.
>Given this perspective, it seems clear that neutrality and accuracy
>become something that no professional recordist actually tries to
>achieve...
Well, sometimes the warts are what make a good recording. I always liked
those Geiseking Beethoven recordings where you could hear anti-aircraft
fire in the distance....
Fletcher
> >> that statement around the erzatz concept of 'neutrality' is just an asinine
> >> defense for an unobtainable concept.
>
> Now, here I am going to disagree strongly with Fletcher, because in the
> classical world we _do_ have a standard for neutrality, which you don't
> in the rest of the industry. I can open up the door of the booth and walk
> out into the balcony and listen. That's my reference. Now, my goal is
> to have the recording reproduce that exactly. I can't do it, but I can
> try. A system which is neutral does it better than a system which isn't,
> but of course the coloration of a system is the _sum_ of the coloration
> of all the elements.
>
Unfortunately Scott...much like Bob Cain said I was agreeing with
him...I'm saying you & I are in agreement here. Sorry.
Barry Blumenthal
Monte P McGuire wrote in message ...
>Here's an interesting take to this approach. Most of the time, as a
>member of the audience at an acoustic concert, I find that if I close
>my eyes and listen intently, I'll almost always hear something that
>would be pretty much unacceptable if it were translated literally to a
>recording. The tonal balance is usually odd, the imaging is vague and
>random and the balance of the instruments is sometimes less than
>ideal. This has happened all the time for me even at world class
>halls like Symphony Hall in Boston with a fine orchestra.
Imaging, at least in my experience, is the one are where most of us fool
ourselves, and I agree with Monte there; I'm always amazed at how
amalgamated mid- to large ensembles become in most halls. One usually gets
a sense of massed left to right, but the pinpoint imaging many strive for in
recordings is rarely heard live. Tonal balance and balance between sections
of the orchestra certainly does change from hall to hall, and from seat to
seat w/in any given hall, and good conductors and ensembles usually work to
tailor their performances to fit the needs of their current venue.
>
>Probably because of this, most recordists who do this sort of
>documentary treatment bother to place the mikes so that the recording
>is a more flattering and 'acceptable' recording of that event.
I at least try to capture the sound as it occurs in the hall where I think
it sounds best. I do NOT try to improve upon what is heard in the hall... I
don't see that as my job or even my right... That's the conductor's and the
musician's job. I realize that that's personal preference, and probably not
industry standard. I walk across both lines too frequently, so I'm coming
at recording still from more of the musician's perspective than a
recordist's.
>
>But, the question I pose is why can't you just put a dummy head in one
>of the paying seats in the hall and track it directly, without
>monitoring it?
To a certain extent, that's almost exactly what I do, except I use a Jecklin
setup instead of a dummy head, and I place it higher than any seat in the
house by a long shot because I've got to get the mics away from the
audience. When attending concerts, I'm one of those people who likes to sit
pretty forward in the hall and get a much stronger ratio of direct to
reflected sound than most. In those seats, you usually end up with some
front to back balance problems when listening to an ensemble that "goes
deep" on stage, but the clarity and impact seem greater to me, and I love
the immediacy of being close to the performers. I tend to err towards that
side with my micing, too... my recordings tend to be a bit less awash in
hall sound than most commercial releases, and reflect a more forward seating
in the hall. I do raise the mics quite a bit to correct the front-to-back
balance problem, and here's where I guess I AM crossing over from the
"accurate reproduction as heard by the listener" goal... no listener is
suspended 10 - 20 feet back from the orchestra and 10 feet above it. A
meager defense.. "AS heard by the listener..".. let's change that to "as
PERCEIVED by the listener." Our ears are pretty selective.. for some
reason, we don't seem to notice little Suzy squirming and crinkling paper
next to us while Uncle Finster is coughing across the aisle during the
performance LIVE near as much as our mics to, AND as much as we do during
playback. I don't PERCEIVE audience noise live as strongly as I do on
recordings. There's no way I could put my mics right where my head would be
in a great hall seat, and think that it's an accurate reproduction of what I
heard, because my attention would be focused on the sounds on stage, not
next to me. Mics don't have any specific conscious attention focus (pattern
issues aside). I don't monitor because I'm usually playing in the
orchestra.
>Think about it: if you know your electronics and such
>are capturing the sound one would hear in that seat accurately (or at
>least as good as you can muster), why would anyone bother to monitor
>the recording at all? One would merely want to optimize levels and
>just print what you'd get - that would indeed be extremely accurate.
That's pretty much exactly what I do.
>
>The point I'm making is that even those who overtly strive for
>accuracy decide to place their mikes in places that produce the most
>flattering presentation of what they think the event should sound
>like.
Change the word "should" to "did" and I think we've got a deal, although I'm
still hedging on "flattering." If flattery is telling the truth without
bringing undue attention to negative aspects, then I'm with you.
>I'm not saying this approach is bad at all, but I'm merely
>pointing out that if accuracy was the only issue at hand, nothing but
>a priori mike positioning, basic level monitoring and other tech
>housekeeping tasks would be needed to make such a recording.
>Monitoring would be unneccessary, yet we all do it in that context!!
Again, Monte, you ARE describing my approach.
>
>I'd like to think that this proves that even the 'documentary
>approach' recordists try to make a recording that is actually quite
>different (and better, according to their own definition) than that
>which would be heard if you attended the show as a member of the
>audience.
Better than in most seats in the house, yes. Better than the best seat?
Aside from the audience noise issues, no... at least, it's not what I'm
going for. I can't capture a sound that's better than the sound that exists
originally. I might be able to CREATE one that some people like better, but
that's not capturing or recording, that's creating. I leave that to the
musicians.
>
>Given this perspective, it seems clear that neutrality and accuracy
>become something that no professional recordist actually tries to
>achieve...
Well, I'm not a full-time professional recordist, so I guess I'm outside
that last statement... <phew>.. <g>...I don't know, Monte.. if I'm not
shooting for an accurate representation of the performance, what AM I
shooting for... am I the Monet of recording? Giving future listeners my
impression of the performance? I guess there's no avoiding that EFFECT, of
course... it's all about perception... but I'm not TRYING to do that. I'm
TRYING to be neutral and accurate.
>
>
>Food for thought...
I'm not hungry... <g>.. and I've got another headache.
Scott Dorsey
>
>Unfortunately Scott...much like Bob Cain said I was agreeing with
>him...I'm saying you & I are in agreement here. Sorry.
Christ, what do I have to do to get flamed around here anyway?
Even Fletcher is making nice.
hank alrich
> Fletcher <Flet...@mercenary.com> wrote:
> >
> >Unfortunately Scott...much like Bob Cain said I was agreeing with
> >him...I'm saying you & I are in agreement here. Sorry.
>
> Christ, what do I have to do to get flamed around here anyway?
> Even Fletcher is making nice.
You stupid shit. You couldn't start a fuckin' flame war even if your
pansy gas water heater was flamed out and you were freezing your
pathetic ass off in a fractured porcelain clawfoot bathtub, dreaming
about trying to get your idiotic fuckin' Eyetaleyun motorsickle started
so you could drive to Florida and go to Full Sail to try to learn how to
really record stuff using more than the two lame-ass tracks you can
barely muster, you hopeless fool.
There, Scott, feel better now?
--
hank alrich * secret__mountain
audio recording * music production * sound reinforcement
"If laughter is the best medicine let's take a double dose"
Dave Martin
--
Dave Martin
Digital Media Associates, Inc.
Nashville, Tennessee
dave....@nashville.com
Scott Dorsey <klu...@netcom.com> wrote in message
news:8872v1$ias$1...@nntp2.atl.mindspring.net...
> Fletcher <Flet...@mercenary.com> wrote:
> >
> >Unfortunately Scott...much like Bob Cain said I was agreeing with
> >him...I'm saying you & I are in agreement here. Sorry.
>
> Christ, what do I have to do to get flamed around here anyway?
> Even Fletcher is making nice.
William Sommerwerck
> William Sommerwerck <will...@nwlink.com> wrote:
> >Sorry to destroy your illusions, but the "education" has already occurred. It's
> >called the SoundField mic. When SoundField recordings are played through an
> >Ambisonic decoder and four or more speakers, the comb-filtering effects you
> >describe do not occur. (I'm not talking theory; I've made such recordings.)
>
> The SoundField is nice, but it doesn't eliminate the problem.
I wish we had the time to discuss this at length, but I honestly believe the
SoundField does eliminate the problem. Perhaps you and I can get on the phone,
discuss it, and then maybe post some intelligent comments.
> Personally, I don't like the effect when the SoundField output is converted down to
> stereo; it is lacking in depth when compared with a near-coincident design, because
> it basically turns into a swanky coincident pair in the process of converting the
> signal down. And since we're all forced to release in stereo, my goal is to get
> the best possible soundfield GIVEN THE CONSTRAINTS OF STEREO REPRODUCTION. Maybe
> 5.1 will change things, I dunno.
If the SoundField outputs were transmitted separately, then the listener could choose
the format. In any case, our goal is to get away from conventional stereo -- at least
at home, and when listening "seriously." DVD Audio (and perhaps SACD) could allow
recordings to be made in a "component-audio" format that would allow listeners to
hear them with whatever presentation they liked, using whatever equipment they had. I
suggested this two years ago, but nobody wants to listen.
> >In other words, it's okay to use a highly colored mic preamp if the mic (or
> >micing technique) is less than perfect)? I think NOT.
>
> If I waited until my recording chain was completely transparent before making any
> recordings, I would not be delivering product and I would not be getting paid. This
> would mean I would be out on the streets, and not making any recordings at all.
But that isn't what I said. Colorations in one part of the recording chain do not
justify colorations elsewhere -- unless they are complimentary.
> Everything is less than perfect. This is the real world. We don't have any Platonic
> ideals here, just mikes with uneven impulse response, cables that are reactive, and
> preamps with noise. It's like that. If you don't like this, take it up with a
> minister, not with an engineer.
If you accept this as necessary and unchangeable, then it will never change.
> The classical guys come from a tradition of reproducing sound, not producing new
> sounds, and it's a totally different philosophy of working. Neither one is a bad
> philosophy, and they both have their place. But there needs to be more
> understanding between the two camps.
The "classical" engineer has no trouble accepting the fact that a recording can be
whatever the performer and engineer want it to be. What steams my hide is that too
many engineers feel a recording isn't any good unless it's been run through 73
electronic stages, and the life has been EQ'd and compressed out of it. Simplicity
can be a virture, regardless of what type of music you're recording.
ScotFraser
In article <7ZimOMY2DEN7Jb...@4ax.com>, Morgan wrote:
<<'cheerio arsehole'>>
Man, that's a seriously tiny orifice. Kinda interferes with normal (and
presumaby abnormal) butt functions.
Scott Fraser
johnl...@my-deja.com
mcg...@world.std.com (Monte P McGuire) wrote:
> Here's an interesting take to this approach. Most of the time, as a
> member of the audience at an acoustic concert, I find that if I close
> my eyes and listen intently, I'll almost always hear something that
> would be pretty much unacceptable if it were translated literally to a
> recording. The tonal balance is usually odd, the imaging is vague and
> random and the balance of the instruments is sometimes less than
> ideal. This has happened all the time for me even at world class
> halls like Symphony Hall in Boston with a fine orchestra.
Hi Monte. Hope all is well with you. Great thread.
You're right of course, to some extent. Though my experience in the
Boston Hall with orch and choir was something I'll always remember -- as
close to standing in the conductor's position as I've ever experienced
while sitting in a hall.
Ultimately, this is the spot where the goose bumps grow. I've stood
there with conductor untold times during rehearsals and never tire of
the experience; that wall of gorgeous sound, that shimmer and visceral
impact, the incredible dynamic range, a character of individual players
that's rarely heard in the seats, the sense of air and space.. it's all
there, and that's what I want on record.
An element (among many elements) that's missing -- I think someone
brought this up earlier -- is that a recording takes a snapshot.
Listening to music in real-time acoustic space is often accompanied by
head movement, offering fantastic "reality cues" that static recording
and reproduction cannot. Maybe better surround techniques will help
improve on this, but so far i've heard nothing that even comes close to
achieving the illusion.
> Probably because of this, most recordists who do this sort of
> documentary treatment bother to place the mikes so that the recording
> is a more flattering and 'acceptable' recording of that event.
>
> But, the question I pose is why can't you just put a dummy head in one
> of the paying seats in the hall and track it directly, without
> monitoring it? Think about it: if you know your electronics and such
> are capturing the sound one would hear in that seat accurately (or at
> least as good as you can muster), why would anyone bother to monitor
> the recording at all? One would merely want to optimize levels and
> just print what you'd get - that would indeed be extremely accurate.
>
> The point I'm making is that even those who overtly strive for
> accuracy decide to place their mikes in places that produce the most
> flattering presentation of what they think the event should sound
> like. I'm not saying this approach is bad at all, but I'm merely
> pointing out that if accuracy was the only issue at hand, nothing but
> a priori mike positioning, basic level monitoring and other tech
> housekeeping tasks would be needed to make such a recording.
> Monitoring would be unneccessary, yet we all do it in that context!!
Oh if only the variables were that simple! Finding a great mic position
is the first step -- and a step which a number of recordists simply
abandon in favor of multiple mic arrays. You'll be hard pressed to find
a feature film these days which doesn't have mics stuck all over the
floor -- read impact, flavor, and immediacy (not accuracy).
Once an engineer/producer decides on a relatively "purist" 2- or 3-mic
(or 5-mic surround, etc..) recording, and once the "sweet spot" is
thought to be located, then the real fun begins. Drag out all the
microphones, dummy heads, Ambi rigs, Decca flys, Blumlein sticks, APE's,
bars, J-disks, and everything else in the case. Hang around there for
half your life adjusting and experimenting with every variation of
technique one can imagine. Ultimately make some pretty good recordings.
But as for the purist's ultimate mission of "accuracy" -- capturing that
sense of being in the concert hall -- it remains an elusive event for
every one of us. The recording/playback chain variables are too great,
and too limited.
> I'd like to think that this proves that even the 'documentary
> approach' recordists try to make a recording that is actually quite
> different (and better, according to their own definition) than that
> which would be heard if you attended the show as a member of the
> audience.
>
> Given this perspective, it seems clear that neutrality and accuracy
> become something that no professional recordist actually tries to
> achieve...
Try, yes. Always. Achieve? This thread is just another reminder of how
limited audio recording really is.
John La Grou,
Millennia Music & Media Systems
http://www.mil-media.com/services.html
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
ProRec
"Barry Blumenthal" <bar...@northnet.org> wrote:
<snip>
> I'll agree.. complete and total "neutrality" is unattainable, like
any other
> from of perfection.
>
> Everything in a signal chain adds it's signature to the sound.. no
escaping
> that or arguing with it. As one of those [extreme bottom of the
group, but
> budding] guys that does "classical shit," I try to choose and purchase
> equipment that adds as little change to the sound as I experienced it
live
> as possible. I use the word "neutral" at times to describe this
quality in
> equipment. I agree.. it doesn't exist in absolutes, only in degree.
>
> I think there IS a difference in function of the recordist (I'm not
going to
> use the term "engineer".. I don't rate that, although Fletcher does)
in
> different genres. In "classical shit," I try to get on tape exactly
what
> the musicians put in the hall in such a way that it sounds most like
that
> performance when played back on a good home stereo system. I've
never done
> it, or come close, of course, but it's my goal. I don't know
anything about
> doing full-production rock work, but from reading thousands of posts
here, I
> get the feeling that rock engineers take great pride in knowing how
to get
> their own signature guitar tone(s), their own "sound" to a mix, and
rightly
> so... sounds like a ton of extremely demanding work. The
term "neutral" in
> that context IS meaningless... you go for what you hear in your head
FIRST,
> and create that internally-conceived sound using any means
available. I go
> for what I hear in the hall first, and try to remain as neutral as
possible
> in my depiction and REcreation of that sound.
I have to agree with Fletch on this one.
You characterize rock recording as "the producer / engineer hears a
sound in his head and goes for it." That's a poor characterization
(its much more iterative than that) but let's run with it.
In rock recording, the "sound in my head" doesn't just come straight
out of nowhere. No matter how far-out the effect, mixing technique, or
sound source, the reason it ends up in the mix is because it belongs
there from the point of view of the band AND the song. As whacky as
many rock mixes are, it's never as easy as "just spin the dial and
print whatever effect pops up."
The band's sound and the sonic landscape suggested by a given song
create a subjective ideal. That's where the "sound in my head" comes
from.
Now let's look at classical recording.
Question: when you listen to a live symphony performance, where do
you "hear" it?
Answer: in your head.
When seen from this point of view, classical and rock recording utilize
exactly the same approach. The palette of acceptable sounds and
tonality is different, but its the same thing: however you acquire it,
you "own" a subjective ideal, and you "go for it" using "any means
possible." In my case (rock recording) I use all manner of amps,
compressors, wierdass mics, whathaveyou, to achieve my goals. In your
case, you perceive that "simpler is better" (agreed) and use the "ruler-
flat mics into straight-wire-with-gain preamps" to achieve your goals.
However, if (this is a big IF but go with it for a minute) there
existed a magic reverb box that truly re-created the sound of a
performance environment *far* more convincingly than any combination of
mics (we're talking jaw-dropping realism), BUT you had to feed it an
extremely dry signal in order to make the effect convincing, I bet
you'd figure out how to get a dry sound on tape, and use the box.
--
Rip Rowan
ProRec Editor
http://www.prorec.com
Rob Reedijk
: Scott Dorsey <klu...@netcom.com> wrote:
: > Fletcher <Flet...@mercenary.com> wrote:
: > >
: > >Unfortunately Scott...much like Bob Cain said I was agreeing with
: > >him...I'm saying you & I are in agreement here. Sorry.
: >
: > Christ, what do I have to do to get flamed around here anyway?
: > Even Fletcher is making nice.
: You stupid shit. You couldn't start a fuckin' flame war even if your
: pansy gas water heater was flamed out and you were freezing your
: pathetic ass off in a fractured porcelain clawfoot bathtub, dreaming
: about trying to get your idiotic fuckin' Eyetaleyun motorsickle started
: so you could drive to Florida and go to Full Sail to try to learn how to
: really record stuff using more than the two lame-ass tracks you can
: barely muster, you hopeless fool.
: There, Scott, feel better now?
Almost turning into a classic Monty Python sketch.
Rob R.
Ici Radio Canada.
s...@randomc.com
>On Sun, 13 Feb 2000 19:42:20 -0600, "Dave Martin"
><dave....@nashville.com> wrote:
>
>>You could explain how east coast barbecue is the best in the world...
>
Texas BBQ beats them all hands down. I'm not a Texan by the way.
Steve
Dave Martin
<s...@randomc.com> wrote in message
news:889v56$35j$2...@zrtph05m.us.nortel.com...
search Deja News)
--
Dave Martin
DMA, Inc.
Nashville, Tennessee
dave....@nashville.com
Fletcher
> The rock engineer
> takes that raw material and works his magic towards CREATION of his original
> goal.. the sound he has preconceived internally. He may or may not alter
> his preconception of what sound works best as the process evolves, but it
> begins with a preconception. Like I said, I have no practical experience
> here, so I'm more than willing to admit it if I'm off base with this
> description of the process.
>
In my particular case, you give way too much credit. If the sound isn't
coming out of the players hands/amplifier/instrument, I'm pretty much
fucked. I don't do magic, I do recording. I can't do card tricks
either.
What I can do is work with the players, the arrangement, the tones in
the room and try to get them all to work and play nice together...but
magic...no can do. The "creation" occurs with the musician, with their
touch, feel, grasp, tone. I, like any other piece of equipment have a
sound. I hear things a certain way, I will use the tools I feel are
appropriate to capture the tone/performance that the musician is giving
me...but that ain't magic, it's often a lack of skill, it's sometimes a
benefit to the project, but it ain't no magic...not by a longshot.
Mike Clayton
walk...@thegrid.net (hank alrich) wrote:
> Scott Dorsey <klu...@netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > Fletcher <Flet...@mercenary.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >Unfortunately Scott...much like Bob Cain said I was agreeing with
> > >him...I'm saying you & I are in agreement here. Sorry.
> >
> > Christ, what do I have to do to get flamed around here anyway?
> > Even Fletcher is making nice.
>
> You stupid shit. You couldn't start a fuckin' flame war even if your
> pansy gas water heater was flamed out and you were freezing your
> pathetic ass off in a fractured porcelain clawfoot bathtub, dreaming
> about trying to get your idiotic fuckin' Eyetaleyun motorsickle started
> so you could drive to Florida and go to Full Sail to try to learn how to
> really record stuff using more than the two lame-ass tracks you can
> barely muster, you hopeless fool.
>
> There, Scott, feel better now?
Jeez Hank, is Lanis not back from Auckland yet?!
--
Mike Clayton
Language Labs
University of Canterbury, NZ