Chesky DIY

[videoteque]

How do you create CDs as good sounding as those tagged as "audiophile"??

I am interested in instrumental music, little ensembles, jazz/folk and chamber music.

Thanks!

Without going very far, Ivo recordings sounds ALWAYS good!!!

[boojum]

I am new at this so I cram with books by Eargle and Bartlett. Both are knowledgeable, but Bartlett is more readable. Bartlett's new Recording Music on Location has about all you need in one book to get started. From what I have learned the really important thing is where those mics are. That is the secret. And it makes sense. If you have the time listen in different spots and put your mics where it sounds best.

More seasoned folks on this board will add better info than this, as they know more. I am on the beginning of the learning curve.

[Remoteness]

Check this Chesky thread out.

[videoteque]

Wow! Great thread!!! A lot to read and learn!!! thumbsup

As I understand it, the less mics (ideally a just a stereo pair) and the less processing tend to make better 3D records.

I named Chesky because it's famous, but is not the only one. It's a pity that most audiophile labels put out horrible music... A record is a combination of so many things, you need to have all done perfect to make a masterpiece!!!

[boojum]

Originally Posted by Remoteness

Check this Chesky thread out.

This is a very interesting thread in that it illustrates the two major camps: little or no editing vs all required. In the best of all possible worlds I could do it with a nicely placed ORTF setup. Maybe with Eargle's two flanking omni's. And I would get the concert, first shot. It is a dream.

I do not mind the little flubs, chair movements, coughs and so on. When a kid, lots of live classical concerts were on FM. I would chart an evening's listening from the NYT broadcast listings. And the squeaks, coughs and so on were there. To me it is a part of the "real deal." For others it is not.

In my limited recording experience I find that the artist is rarely really happy. Especially with same-day stuff. In a week or two they seem to calm down a bit and overlook their own humanity and small errors and are more able to accept the work as a whole.

My responsibility is to get the sound as good as I can in the room it is being played in. I have four good mics: two omnis and two cards and a pretty good recorder. I read Katz now that his book is out. These boards and the bits of wisdom, like what Steve has passed on, are invaluable to me. I am pretty old so I have to learn this as fast as I can. Just as with musicians, with us improvement is a function of practice. And if I can do the job with two well-placed mics, I will.

Cheers

[Roland]

Originally Posted by boojum

This is a very interesting thread in that it illustrates the two major camps: little or no editing vs all required. In the best of all possible worlds I could do it with a nicely placed ORTF setup. Maybe with Eargle's two flanking omni's. And I would get the concert, first shot. It is a dream.

I do not mind the little flubs, chair movements, coughs and so on. When a kid, lots of live classical concerts were on FM. I would chart an evening's listening from the NYT broadcast listings. And the squeaks, coughs and so on were there. To me it is a part of the "real deal." For others it is not.

In my limited recording experience I find that the artist is rarely really happy. Especially with same-day stuff. In a week or two they seem to calm down a bit and overlook their own humanity and small errors and are more able to accept the work as a whole.

My responsibility is to get the sound as good as I can in the room it is being played in. I have four good mics: two omnis and two cards and a pretty good recorder. I read Katz now that his book is out. These boards and the bits of wisdom, like what Steve has passed on, are invaluable to me. I am pretty old so I have to learn this as fast as I can. Just as with musicians, with us improvement is a function of practice. And if I can do the job with two well-placed mics, I will.

Cheers

I think that by and large we have wittnesed both the rise and the fall of the "audiophile" recording lables. Back in the "good ol days" there was no doubt that certain people who were particularly careful about equipment choices and the way they used that equipment made some remarkable recordings. Obvious examples are things like the Mercury/living presence stuff, and other stuff of the same ilk. There has always been a certain amount of so called audiophile stuff, whilst it was very purist wasn't really any good. IMHO most of the audiophile labels are not offering anything in terms of quality better than the general standards expected of good pro's. In a market where selling music at all has become a lot more difficult I don't see many of these labels surviving beyond being wealthy men's indulgences.

Regards


Roland

[boojum]

Originally Posted by Roland

I think that by and large we have wittnesed both the rise and the fall of the "audiophile" recording lables.
Roland

The thread is wandering here, but I wonder about what you wrote. I see a lot of hobby recordists getting good gear and going out and trying it the old minimalist way. No choice. It is hard to fill up a mic locker the way the pros do, and buy the boards and so on. An amateur like myself must content himself with a little good gear, a lot of luck and maybe some skill.

I liked the old live recordings with the minimalist approach. It rendered a true sense of space and ambiance. I value this more than the overly bright sound that is sometimes the result of spot mic'ing. And I cannot afford all that gear, either. YMMV

[David Spearritt]

There has always been a certain amount of so called audiophile stuff, whilst it was very purist wasn't really any good. IMHO most of the audiophile labels are not offering anything in terms of quality better than the general standards expected of good pro's. In a market where selling music at all has become a lot more difficult I don't see many of these labels surviving beyond being wealthy men's indulgences.

Indeed. I have purchased various Chesky and other audiophile recordings, and in general they are beautiful recordings of very ordinary performances. Some of the artists are simply not up to the standard of recording, let alone a CD issue. When compared with the majors, I cannot think of one "audiophile" recording in particular or label in general that would be preferred over the mainstream companies or artists, to have in ones collection to listen to. Most of these recordings are great for geeky demo purposes, and that's about it. They are not the choice for musical listening pleasure.

Ultimately it confirms that the artist and musical ability are still way more important than any recording gear or technique, thank goodness!

[videoteque]

Ultimately it confirms that the artist and musical ability are still way more important than any recording gear or technique, thank goodness!

Yes but it would be really nice to combine them, great music talent with great recording talent.

Why audiophile records sound better?? Why music in audiophile records is worse?? (musicians tired to play after six hours choosing where to place the mic????? )

[Roland]

Originally Posted by videoteque

Yes but it would be really nice to combine them, great music talent with great recording talent.

Why audiophile records sound better?? Why music in audiophile records is worse?? (musicians tired to play after six hours choosing where to place the mic????? )

I recorded a record for a string quartet about 2 years ago, their previous release was an "audiophile" recording with a highly specialized single point microphone and technique. The kit used was extremely good and considerable time was invested in mic position. I know this as a friend of mine reviewed the session for a well known recording magazine at the time. After concluding the session we settled down to the edits and my client bought along a copy of the previous CD they had done, on listening it did indeed sound good quality, but on comparing it to the current project my client prefered the sound we obtained for him. Equipment wise I like to think that we are well equipped (Pyramix, DPA, Sennheiser, quality mic amps etc) however all our equipment is fairly proprietry, although high end. Yes, keeping musicians hanging around rather than recording can be counter productive, yes, using simple microphone techniques where possible can give a better perspective. For me a lot comes down to striking a balance between all the various factors that you come across on a session. A single soundfield mic in the right position, in the right room, with the right artist can sound wonderful, but there are times where although this will produce a fantastic quality recording the balance will just not work, this is when the real pro's earn their money and do what is necessary to get the result. It's worth remembering that there are some wonderful quality recordings done by some of the majors like Decca and DG, Phillips etc, does that mean they are not audiophile?

Regards to all


Roland

[Roland]

Just after closing off the above post I remembered about some of the Reference recordings done by Dr Johnson? They were considered by many to be "audiophile" recordings, however I read an interview about a session that he did in Watford Town Hall a few years ago and from my recollection he was using about the same number of microphones as Decca usually did. A fair amount of the equipment he had modified himself, I believe that most of his spot mics were AKG451's (although in fairness modified) IMHO not one of the best microphones for this purpose.

Regards



Roland

[videoteque]

"audiophile" unfortunately is linked to expensive and unique. I can buy the most expensive mic in the world, pass over with my car and have an "expensive" item, that would react to sound in a really "unique" way, it doesn't mean it will be musical at all...

Every line of thought has something positive!!!

[David Spearritt]

It's worth remembering that there are some wonderful quality recordings done by some of the majors like Decca and DG, Phillips etc, does that mean they are not audiophile?

Yes, most of my "demo" recordings are from the major labels, some wonderful Decca, DG, EMI, and yes I consider these to be much more audiophile than the Chesky or RR (Dr Keith Johnson) recordings I have. The Keith Johnson are of particularly high standard though, I think he gets a superb orchestral sound. its just that the Minnesotas don't come close to the Berliners on EMI.

[videoteque]

What mics would you add to this minimalist setup:

Korg MR1000 (DSD recorder)
DAV Preamps

Do you think is a good starting point to make good records?? (chamber music, acoustic jazz, folk)

[hughesmr]

Originally Posted by videoteque

What mics would you add to this minimalist setup:

Korg MR1000 (DSD recorder)
DAV Preamps

Do you think is a good starting point to make good records?? (chamber music, acoustic jazz, folk)

This is exactly what I am using on my 2-ch remotes now. Yes, it's a great starting point. And finishing point! DAV isn't clincial clean (a la Millennia or Earthworks) but it is very musical.

Add a pr of Schoeps CMC6-MK21 and you'll be happy. DPA 4006TL are winners too.

[MBishopSFX]

Originally Posted by videoteque

What mics would you add to this minimalist setup:

Korg MR1000 (DSD recorder)
DAV Preamps

Do you think is a good starting point to make good records?? (chamber music, acoustic jazz, folk)

That's a great starting point, especially the MR-1000. I'd try the Benchmark mic preamps as a light portable set, too, Add the Schoeps as noted above or Sennheiser MKH-series mics and you'll have a great-sounding kit.

BTW, check out these headphones. Perfect for location work under almost any conditions - and they're a good match for the MR-1000. High Noise Headset

The debate above about "audiophile" labels having terrible music and/or simply being a rich man's indulgence is a bit odd. I'd like to think that the label I work for, which has been called an "audiophile" label by some, produces some pretty great performances by great musicians. At nearly 60 annual releases worldwide, most with top-tier musicians you'd all know, this is certainly not a vanity label. We used to distribute Chesky, BTW.

[Sinewave]

Most of these recordings are great for geeky demo purposes, and that's about it. They are not the choice for musical listening pleasure.

That is a bit of a Harsh thing to say , they obviously have a market that wants or prefer this type of performances.

Some of the artists are simply not up to the standard of recording, let alone a CD issue.

I seem to remember they recording some top class 'Musicians' . If they might have one Knock on their recording style is that sometimes their CD releases of certain performances might seem a bit dull or off axis sounding, the same performance on an SACD disc would sound completely different especially heard on a great playback system.

[videoteque]

Thanks for the suggestions!

I was more thinking about LDC mics which have different patterns, so I can try different stereo techniques??