Audiophile recording question for Bob Katz and others

[Russ (Al) Prat]

Some years ago someone sent me a paper you did on Depth and Imaging, Haas effect and the like.

I have often considered the possibilities of a 7.1 mic arrangement specifically designed for a well designed large room, for what would be today's equivalent of direct to disc recording. You and others have mentioned the Chesky recordings, and I (although I have limited access) have heard some stereo recordings that nearly produced a 7.1 listening experience on an audiophile system in a fairly normal living room. Also I read an article in Mix years ago, where a radical analog guy (he had an Indian type name) mentioned a mic (I think it was a Pearl) that gave a sensation of height as well as width. Although I can't imagine one microphone providing that kind of info, his statement and conviction regarding the CD format ("If I have a fine wine and you choose to drink it out of a plastic cup that's up to you") impressed me at the time. My Lord, now we've got hordes of people listening to 128 mp3 files and thinking it's great. Obviously a digital conspiracy. I know it's the song and not the technology, but for posterity's sake, at least, good songs deserve the best possible.

Anyway, is there, in your opinion, any future for live studio recordings? Other than professional integrity, I mean. My professional dream is to produce high quality recordings with documentary type footage for DVD (or its successor). The only way I can see this happening is if there is a market for it, since it's the numbers that give the orders ("son las cifras que mandan"... an Argentine expression) Maybe internationally there could be enough demand. Is there still an audiophile market in the US? RAP

[Studiodawg]

Because of a lack of content for the HD television format, there certainly is and will remain a market for superior audio tracks.

[DSD_Mastering]

I think you should also check out Ray Kimber's ISOMIKE recordings. It's about as "real" as you can get.

Regards,
Bruce

[andy_simpson]

Originally Posted by DSD_Mastering

I think you should also check out Ray Kimber's ISOMIKE recordings. It's about as "real" as you can get.

Regards,
Bruce

Do you have any more details on that?

Andy

[wyndrock]

Here's something: iso mike

[sonicdefault]

For a moment there... i dreamed with you...

Let me know when the audio holocaust is over, and I can come out of the shelter.



-SD

[mosrite]

Also I read an article in Mix years ago, where a radical analog guy (he had an Indian type name) mentioned a mic (I think it was a Pearl) that gave a sensation of height as well as width. Although I can't imagine one microphone providing that kind of info, his statement and conviction regarding the CD format ("If I have a fine wine and you choose to drink it out of a plastic cup that's up to you") impressed me at the time.

The guys name is Kavichandran Alexander and he runs Water Lily acoustics. He uses a lot of words and, at least to my ears, says very little. But my issue with him goes beyond that. He presents himself in such a way that his implication is that the 'medium' (in this case his recording methodology and it's consequences) is more important than the 'message' (the music itself). He elevates the recordist to the heights of artist and, in his case, poet. To me this is completely wrong. Recording is simply a technical craft that sometimes forces the practitioner to be creative. I believe Mr. Alexander might have lost sight of what his job actually is. Perhaps he is a frustrated musician?

Anyway more on topic: I have his recording of Mahlers 5th and it is okay but nothing more. You might also like to know that he has dumped his analogue recording on location and goes straight to the Tascam DVRA1000's I believe. So much for the 'plastic cup' issue then...

[Russ (Al) Prat]

Originally Posted by mosrite

The guys name is Kavichandran Alexander and he runs Water Lily acoustics. He uses a lot of words and, at least to my ears, says very little. But my issue with him goes beyond that. He presents himself in such a way that his implication is that the 'medium' (in this case his recording methodology and it's consequences) is more important than the 'message' (the music itself). He elevates the recordist to the heights of artist and, in his case, poet. To me this is completely wrong. Recording is simply a technical craft that sometimes forces the practitioner to be creative. I believe Mr. Alexander might have lost sight of what his job actually is. Perhaps he is a frustrated musician?

Anyway more on topic: I have his recording of Mahlers 5th and it is okay but nothing more. You might also like to know that he has dumped his analogue recording on location and goes straight to the Tascam DVRA1000's I believe. So much for the 'plastic cup' issue then...

Yeah, that's the guy. I agree with you regarding the tendency for those of us on the technical side to sometimes over emhasize our role in the recording, although it takes an artist to properly record, mix and master, our art is nothing without the performer, and the performer is nothing without a good melody, etc. and on it goes. What about that microphone, though, have you ever heard the thing? My question centers mainly on the role of 5.1, 7.1, or however many point ones, in the audiophile world, are those formats taken seriously? I don't see top of the line speaker manufacturers pushing high end surround systems that much. Is that a consumer market only? I hate to rattle on, but I'm trying to get a grasp of how far this convergency thing is going to go, will it wind up with a USB plug in the back of our necks (so to speak) or will high quality stereo continue on for the next 5 years or so? For me, good stereo is always better than 5.1 for music, it sounds more genuine for some reason. But, I've been a little out of touch, and I'm trying to catch up. Thanks for your reply, and I appreciate the input. RAP

[Russ (Al) Prat]

Originally Posted by DSD_Mastering

I think you should also check out Ray Kimber's ISOMIKE recordings. It's about as "real" as you can get.

Regards,
Bruce

Bruce,

Thanks for the tip! This looks really good, can't wait to hear it! Loved the site, philosophy and all, it's pretty much what I was hoping to find. Give my regards to Pike Street! RAP

[David Rick]

Originally Posted by Russ (Al) Prat

For me, good stereo is always better than 5.1 for music, it sounds more genuine for some reason.

I'm going to disagree with this, but in the interest of avoiding thread drift, I'm going to start a new topic.

David L. Rick
Seventh String Recording

[andy_simpson]

Originally Posted by wyndrock

Here's something: iso mike

Thanks. I had a good look but didn't see much in the way of concept?

Also, I only saw mention of m150s.

Has anybody heard these iso-mike recordings? Stereo?

Andy

[Plush]

The mics Kavi Alexander talks about are from the Pearl MikrophonLaboratorium in Sweden. They are excellent mics. Here we find the Pearl CC-22 to be an especially fine mic.

Can't agree about recording person being a technician. The recording person is the one who controls the sound. That clearly brings the recording person into and past the realm of art and artist. Recording "simply a technical craft?" The prime reason this is not true is that if it was, the person would lose interest in this work pretty quickly.

The Mahler recordings are not Alexander's best work. Check his Indian music recordings on his label.

The audiophile perspective is a constantly changing one. With a new piece of gear comes a new revolution in sound. Of course that's garbage! And so are most of the maxims and accepted truths in audiophile-land. It's a total dead end.

[audiothings]

Also I read an article in Mix years ago, where a radical analog guy (he had an Indian type name) mentioned a mic (I think it was a Pearl) that gave a sensation of height as well as width.

as i understand, kavi currently uses pearl elm-b and elc-c microphones in blumlein and ortf configurations, respectively.

at the time of the mix article from years ago, he was using rectangular capsules from milab and electronics by tim de paravicini of EAR. here is probably the only internet discussion he has ever participated in.

milab and pearl (both swedish companies) are the only guys making condenser mics with rectangular capsules. rectangular capsules minimize reflections from above and below, i don't know if this would lead to an increased "sensation of height as well as width".



.02,

[d_fu]

Originally Posted by Plush

Check his Indian music recordings on his label.

Haven't heard the Mahler, but from my indian-music-needs-close-miking point of view, I don't find the Water Lily recordings very convincing, esp. with regard to Tabla sound.

As for height perception, I've gotten some of that in ambient recordings using the Clara baffle system, where rolling thunder really seemed to come from above you (with headphones). Don't use it much as a main mic for my recordings, though, mostly because I haven't really tested how well it will integrate with spot mics.

[DSD_Mastering]

Originally Posted by andy_simpson

Has anybody heard these iso-mike recordings? Stereo?
Andy

I have a few of these recordings and listen back on the same system it was recorded on (EMM Labs).
These are amazing recordings and VERY dynamic. A few of the recordings neve hit a compressor. Graemme does the mastering and did a great job.
These have to be some of the most "natural" sounding recordings available.
Though I don't have the ISOMIKE array, I'm starting to take this approach in some of my symphonic recordings and have played them back to my fellow audiophiles at the Pacific Norwest Audio Society.

Regards,
Bruce

[dbssound1]

To comment on your original post, yes there will a market, but it will be a small one until people again remember that quality count's for something. I think that this will have more to do with a deliverable medium that is marketed properly. SACD and DVD-A were not failures due to the format's, but killed by bad marketing.

SACD could have gone through the roof, as it still could be played in a normal CD player, but Sony and others wanted $30 a disc. If they had dropped the price and not worried about how big their cars and houses were, we would all be living in surround paradise. They had the opportunity to stop producing CDs all together. They counted on the technology to sell the medium at a premium, but most consumers just don't care.

As to the ongoing argument of wether the engineer is an artist or merely a technician, it depends on your perspective. Define artist!!

Is a software developer that writes an elegant, even beautiful code an artist or a typist. Is the designer that uses that software to create a CD cover an artist? Or is the engineer who developed the microprocessor in the computer an artist. Perhaps the real art is word smithing in the liner notes. However none of these are important without the musician, and the musician needs an audience. Is it art if no one is there to hear it? This begs the question is the one who captures the performance an artist....

The answer to this (in my humble opinion) is we as engineers are artists, but just a different kind. Much as musicians and visual artists are both artists that work in different mediums, so are we. like many of the debates in this and other forums, we are trying to compare things as different as apples and sex!

[mosrite]

Can't agree about recording person being a technician. The recording person is the one who controls the sound. That clearly brings the recording person into and past the realm of art and artist. Recording "simply a technical craft?" The prime reason this is not true is that if it was, the person would lose interest in this work pretty quickly.

Im sure we could discuss this one until the cows come home but, to me, definitions themselves are not really the issue. The issue is when the recordist/producer is placing themselves in the spotlight more than the people creating the music that is being captured.

[Martin Kantola]

Originally Posted by mosrite

issue is when the recordist/producer is placing themselves in the spotlight more than the people creating the music that is being captured.

Agree with Plush on this one. It is not about being in the spotlight for me, it's about taking needed responsibility. Because we can easily mess up the art if we don't understand or care about it. And it goes a bit beyond turning pages of sheet music for a pianist...

Would love to discuss the Chesky recordings and how they were done. While I truly appreciate the craft of creating such a sense of depth and realism, sometimes I can't help feeling the music is suffering with the minimalist techniques. Depends on the track really. My thought is that until we can create even better recordings, we must realize the limitations of the record process, to avoid a situation where the musical message gets second priority.

In the early days they were able to create some very impressive recordings with one or a few microphones and lo-fi sound, because everybody seemed to work together (composer, arranger, musician, technician) to overcome the limitations.

As for producing stereo or surround recordings, it actually doesn't matter to me. But there is yet so much to learn about working with more than 2 speakers, tools and techniques need to be developed further.

Martin

[dbssound1]

Originally Posted by mosrite

Im sure we could discuss this one until the cows come home but, to me, definitions themselves are not really the issue. The issue is when the recordist/producer is placing themselves in the spotlight more than the people creating the music that is being captured.

In most instances, I don't feel this is the issue. The engineer and producers are different parts of the equation that result in the end product. They are not "more important" as the album will only be as good as the performance. The performance will only sound as good as the "performance" of the engineer.

Again, comparing different things. No good musicians, no good recordings. No good recordings, no product for the musicians.

[mrsteaks]

Originally Posted by Plush

The audiophile perspective is a constantly changing one. With a new piece of gear comes a new revolution in sound. Of course that's garbage! And so are most of the maxims and accepted truths in audiophile-land. It's a total dead end.

I couldn't agree more! From one who was caught up in that nonsense for years....

[doorknocker]

Originally Posted by mosrite

Im sure we could discuss this one until the cows come home but, to me, definitions themselves are not really the issue. The issue is when the recordist/producer is placing themselves in the spotlight more than the people creating the music that is being captured.

That's surely not how the 'public at large' peceives it though. The Ry Cooder/V.M Bhatt recording on Waterlily for example is very popular, I know several people (who are definitely non-musicians withoput any knowledge of the technical aspects of music recording) that responded very favorably to this recording. Wait, I said 'recording' so I guess the people who actually do that must be quite important I guess.

[mosrite]

Agree with Plush on this one. It is not about being in the spotlight for me, it's about taking needed responsibility. Because we can easily mess up the art if we don't understand or care about it. And it goes a bit beyond turning pages of sheet music for a pianist...

Responsiblity does not require copious self promotion that in turn shifts the focus from the music and musicians and onto the recordist...in my opinion. I never suggested for a minute that ours is not an important job requiring skill, experience and creativity. On our heads be it if we screw up a recording, as every recording is a potential document.

They are not "more important" as the album will only be as good as the performance

Exactly. Which underlines my issue with producers/recordists almost implying that they are more important in sleevenotes, interviews and general exposure.

I feel this is particularly relevent to the kind of music we discuss here on this forum. In more studio orientated recording one could argue that production can almost make a song. Its a lot more about effect and manipulation which in turn places a lot more emphasis on a producer and their 'sound'.

That's surely not how the 'public at large' peceives it though. The Ry Cooder/V.M Bhatt recording on Waterlily for example is very popular, I know several people (who are definitely non-musicians withoput any knowledge of the technical aspects of music recording) that responded very favorably to this recording. Wait, I said 'recording' so I guess the people who actually do that must be quite important I guess.

I havn't seen the sleevenotes on that particular release so I cannot comment on how much focus is on the Water lily method and Mr. Alexanders philosophies. Are you suggesting that it is popular because it is a Water Lily recording? Perhaps you are right but I am sure the fact that Ry Cooder is involved has something to do with it's popularity too . Either way Im not quite sure what the point you're trying to make is.

I also never for a minute suggested that the people who make the recording are not important. I merely suggested that they were not themselves the 'artists.' Remember the art (in this context the music) exists without the recordist.

I think some folk like to believe that they are 'artists' themselves and if that makes them feel more content then fair play to them but perhaps I am a bit more reserved with the use of the word 'artist.' For example, I have never subsribed to the notion of sports men and women being 'artists' but many do.

[doorknocker]

Originally Posted by mosrite

Are you suggesting that it is popular because it is a Water Lily recording? Perhaps you are right but I am sure the fact that Ry Cooder is involved has something to do with it's popularity too . Either way Im not quite sure what the point you're trying to make is.

The point I'm trying to make is that it's a fantastic recording. I played this for people who are not-too familiar with Ry Cooder or V.M Bhatt and they were really impressed by the recording which I think has a lot to do with the way that it was captured in the room.

What I'm trying to day is that Mr. Alexander did something very right there and so I couldn't care less about his alleged self-promo. Anyway, I'll check the liner notes later today.

[Plush]

Yes, I agree with Mosrite. We engineers are not the artists, we are the capturers of the artist's output. In LA of course, and in pop music, the engineer attempts to move into the spotlight.

Arrogance and misplaced priorities are encountered in the studio and on location. Hopefully the number of times one sees it is limited.

[andy_simpson]

Originally Posted by mosrite

....but perhaps I am a bit more reserved with the use of the word 'artist.' For example, I have never subsribed to the notion of sports men and women being 'artists' but many do.

I agree.

Sound Engineering is not an art, it is a science.

The sooner this idea of the engineer being an artist is debunked the better.

What is artistic, compression? EQ? Microphone choice? Microphone placement?

The field of acoustics is not an art.

The act of recording & reproduction is not mystical.

The industry is in a state of chaos because endless subjectivity is accepted.

Engineering is about problems & solutions.

Andy

[dbssound1]

Originally Posted by andy_simpson

I agree.

Sound Engineering is not an art, it is a science.

Again I ask the question, "WHAT IS ART".

Is a photographer an artist. By this line of thinking the answer is no. They are capturing an image of the subject they are photographing. Lighting, angle, depth of field are all scientifically quantitative measures, therefore are photographers merely technicians?

I am proud to be an artist. Let me be clear, in a recording I do not view myself as THE artist, nor would I want to be. I would also never try to or allow anyone else to promote me to a status level that would begin to rival the high art of the performance of my artists. This also does not mean that there needs to be any "Arrogance and misplaced priorities are encountered in the studio and on location" as Plush points out. My favorite musicians (and generally the better performing) do not exude arrogance and misplaced priorities. This is generally reserved for the unprepared and insecure...guess the same goes for engineers.

This does not take away the fact that I am an artist that studies my craft and uses not only technical data and a cookie cutter plan as to how a recording should be done, but uses intuition and creativity to achieve the best result.

Using the trade school mentality of recording works for some people. Not me.

To me, art is in the eye of the beholder, and I view fine recording as high art. It is no different than photography. 20 people can take a picture of the same object under the same light and only the one who has just the right angle a cm different than the others will be viewed over time as art.

I find it sad that there are engineers that view themselves as little more than a programmer typing code. We should all aspire to be artists in our own rite. That is what drive us to be better, learn, and create new techniques and ways to do our lowly menial task of recording.

For those that will misquote me or take this out of context I will say again to be clear, that we are not THE artists in the recording. We are not to be held up on some pedestal. We are the behind the scenes foundation that delivers the performance to listening audience. That does not mean we are not artists. If so, I want everyone who thinks that they are not to now switch to all the same uniform gear and all use the same equations and setup to place their microphones. Once you have done that please post the exact measurements and placement for every hall that we should all use so they can all be codified into the "So now your a recording engineer" training video to be viewed by all of us on the first day of work.

If that is what recording is about, count me out. I know that mentality doesn't work for some of you that have posted here too as you have stated in other threads that you like to use different gear for different colors much like an artists palette.

You say potato I say "man that potato tastes great, how did you prepare it?"!!!!

Sorry Russ for hijacking your post, but I think it was hijacked long ago.

All the best!!!

[doorknocker]

Originally Posted by mosrite

I havn't seen the sleevenotes on that particular release so I cannot comment on how much focus is on the Water lily method and Mr. Alexanders philosophies.

Well, you would be in for a surprise. I quickly checked 3 Water Lily releases I own: 'Gathering Rain Clouds' by V.M Bhatt has liner notes by some musicologist , pretty elaborate analysis of the ragas played on that release.

The aforementioned 'A meeting by the River' by Cooder/Bhatt has very interesting liner notes by K. Alexander that talk about the impact Cooder's 'Chicken Skin Music' had on the world music movement and the instrument that V.M Bhatt plays. (The 'Mohan Vina' lap slide guitar). The poems of Jelaluddin Rini are also discussed.

The third release I found is 'Bourbon + Rosewater', again a meeting of two slide guitar giants: V.M Bhatt and Jerry Douglas, plus Edgar Meyer on double bass. It's an incredible recording by the way, both musically and sonically. Again K. Alexander is responsible for the in-depth liner notes: This time, interesting connections are made between the Hawaiian origin of slide guitar in country music and its manifestation in India.

There's absolutely nothing in these notes that even would hint at self-promotion by K. Alexander, in fact these liner notes are extremely interesting and factual.

All three of these releases also list the gear used, which is basically the same throughout: Custom EAR mics, preamps and recorders. All analog recording on Scotch tape.

I got a few other Water Lily CDs and I wouldn't be surprised if they paint a similar picture...

Whatever bugged you so much about Mr. Alexander surely can't be found in the booklets of these recordings I have. Again, they speak through the music and are among the best 'natural' recordings I've ever heard.

[Russ (Al) Prat]

Sorry Russ for hijacking your post, but I think it was hijacked long ago.

Hey no problem hijacking my post, this is the kind of discussion where I can learn a lot. These academic questions about what is art, and are engineers artists can go on forever, they have a saying here in Brazil, "don't argue about politics, religion, or taste" which virtually eliminates most subject for argument!

I think the definition for art of any kind is determined by the inspiration factor, coming up with a new approach, new melody, new recording technique, etc., grabbing out of "thin air" the solution to a problem, or an answer for a situation. So some engineers are artists, others aren't, and so on and so forth for almost every field. It takes all kinds for the whole thing to work.

If I may however, ask the question one more time regarding the market for audiophile type recording. Is this something that can sell enough to pay for the time it takes to produce in this manner? Is it only a playground for the rich?

When I first started engineering in a commercial facility, a samba production, I had the cavaquinho player waxing eloquent about the sound I got on his instrument, and the producer screaming in my ear for taking too much time! The producer knew the song would sell with or without a good sounding cavaquinho and of course, he got his way. Oops, gotta answer the phone. Thanks everybody for your input! RAP

[andy_simpson]

Originally Posted by dbssound1

Is a photographer an artist. By this line of thinking the answer is no. They are capturing an image of the subject they are photographing. Lighting, angle, depth of field are all scientifically quantitative measures, therefore are photographers merely technicians?

I think the musicians would be rather worried if they thought that their engineer considered himself an artist.

Also, as I said before, the very act of considering Sound Engineering as an art has thrown the field into the chaos of subjective stagnancy that we now know.

The great steps in this field (mostly in the pre-1950s) were not made with the idea that this is an art.

The great steps were taken as Engineering solutions to Engineering problems.

Andy

[mohthom]

Andy . . . I have to unreservedly, whole-heartedly, one-hundred-and-ten-percent disagree.

My clients trust me BECAUSE I'm an artist. There's two reasons, one of them a little facetious;

1. Recording is an art, not a science - therefore I MUST be an artist!

2. Many of my clients recommend me and come back because I have an understanding of music. I don't mean I can bash out a I-IV-Ic-V-I sequence or something like (well . . . I can, but it's not where I'm going . . . ) - they trust that, as a producer/engineer, I know what their intent is compositionally. As an accomplished performer, I have a fair idea of how people want to sound (and think they sound) - and am able to compensate (for the difference between perception and reality) with my placements and amplitudes. My artistic credits are equal (if not superior) to my technical credits, and performers tend to feel more comfortable when you're able to speak to them on a level. I know only one other recordist who is able to do this (a Tonnmeister graduate and jazz specialist), and it seems to work well for us.

Music CAN be written by computers - but would you want them to?

The technical side of playing the violin, for example, is a science. By putting your fingers in a certain, finely specified, place you are able to reproduce the music required from a set of instructions on paper in front of you. The art comes in how you decide to act upon those instructions. Normally my instruction from clients is 'Record this, and make us sound good.' Try telling a violinist that they should 'play this and make it sound good' and ask them to do it without putting any artistic input into it.

And, for good measure, I don't think all engineers are merely scientists either - please don't try and tell me there's no beauty in the sound of a Rupert Neve designed preamp, or that there's no soul in many buildings put up by civil engineers. Andy, are your microphones made with any artistry, or are they merely 'engineered?'

MohThoM