Coloration for Classical Orchestra?

[madriaan]

This thread got a bit OT.

3rd&4thT, you don't seem to care very much for recording orchestras digitally. What A/D converters are you using for your recordings, and what kind of processing do you apply?

Thanks!!

M.

[3rd&4thT]

Originally Posted by madriaan

This thread got a bit OT.

3rd&4thT, you don't seem to care very much for recording orchestras digitally. What A/D converters are you using for your recordings, and what kind of processing do you apply?

Thanks!!

M.

Thank you for asking.

My career was heading in this direction, but other opportunities opened up first, and I wound up in a parallel but unrelated field.

As things turned out, I've had a ball doing the other thing. I only regret that I had to choose, instead of having two working lifetimes in which to pursue both.

My love for classical music and concern for its unique challenges has remained constant.

There is no question in my mind that the introduction of digital recording disoriented the entire industry for a while. Record companies reknowned for their reliability and sophistication suddenly released clumsy, poorly-judged recordings verging on the unlistenable.

Some clever people learned to deal with the new requirements, some did not, and meanwhile the basic financial model fell off a cliff, causing the entire field to implode.

As things stand now, I continue to hear live music regularly, and try to reconcile what I hear with what is recorded. On CDs, I hear a construct that can be satisfying on its own terms, but has little relationship with live tonal balance or impact. Though I have terrific respect for experiments along these lines, I don't believe it's simply a question of moving cubic volumes of air.

What concerns me is convention, paradigms that are agreed upon among producers and reviewers, that have little or nothing to do with the live classical experience.

I accept and even celebrate that recording is a separate art form. For example, I don't believe surround sound should be limited to the concert hall perspective. I think that rear channels should be fully exploited for a deliberately unreal experience. You can learn much about the music you love from breaking conventional rules about "orchestra here, back wall there" realism, and magazine critics who write otherwise are intellectually lazy, unwilling to engage with music in an unaccustomed way.

However, I am occasionally annoyed that some recording practitioners (nobody on this thread) claim that their results realistically resemble the concert hall or opera house experience, when they do nothing of the kind.

I think that the early criticism of digital as being "clinical" has been retired too quickly. After 25 years, the problem remains. Sometimes I hear too damn many inner voices. If I wanted to read a score, I'd read a score.

I can't believe that most composers expected that kind of analytical detail. Debussy said something quite negative about children who take their toys apart.

Finding language that describes a personal musical experience is not easy, and is prone to misinterpretation. I will plunge ahead nonetheless and say that when I hear a good orchestra in Carnegie, I hear an API-style midrange, and a Neve-ish kind of mid-bass. And I'm told that 90% of what I hear is reflected sound. Recordings reflecting this will be criticized as thick, opaque, bass-heavy, distant and lacking in detail.

A recording process that clarifies this combination of textures and perspectives may be deemed necessary for recording. But despite claims to the contrary, it is not realistic, and after a while, I get restless listening to it. Somehow I never forget the differences.

If I won the lottery tomorrow, I'd happily fund experiments in recording orchestras with the great mics of a previous generation or perhaps clones thereof, feeding "colored" preamps and converters, just out of curiosity.

Rock engineers get to do lunchbox preamp shootouts; I'd like to do the same with a full orchestra standing by. Wouldn't you?

I introduced this thread with the idea of finding out if others hear what I hear. Obviously, some do and some don't.

I'm happy to have given the subject an airing. Under the circumstances, that's all I can do.

Best,
3rd&4thT

[Roland]

[quote=3rd&4thT;2752103]Thank you for asking.

My career was heading in this direction, but other opportunities opened up first, and I wound up in a parallel but unrelated field.

As things turned out, I've had a ball doing the other thing. I only regret that I had to choose, instead of having two working lifetimes in which to pursue both.

My love for classical music and concern for its unique challenges has remained constant.

There is no question in my mind that the introduction of digital recording disoriented the entire industry for a while. Record companies renowned for their reliability and sophistication suddenly released clumsy, poorly-judged recordings verging on the unlistenable.

I think this is total cobblers, there are decent digital recordings going back to the early 70's when Dennon and a few others started experimenting with them, indeed I recently listened to some older recordings I made on relatively crude digital gear (PCM701's F1's) and I don't come away horrified, yes I'm sure that my current kit it superior, but the earlier stuff still delivered a good result.

Some clever people learned to deal with the new requirements, some did not, and meanwhile the basic financial model fell off a cliff, causing the entire field to implode.

The problems with the classical record industry are pretty much the same as with the pop/rock market, free/illegal downloads, saturated market, product (CD's) that doesn't deteriorate over time.

As things stand now, I continue to hear live music regularly, and try to reconcile what I hear with what is recorded. On CDs, I hear a construct that can be satisfying on its own terms, but has little relationship with live tonal balance or impact. Though I have terrific respect for experiments along these lines, I don't believe it's simply a question of moving cubic volumes of air.

I think it depends on the concert, venue, artist, recording company. I went to see the Montreal with Dutoit in London a few years ago and they sounded remarkably like their records.

What concerns me is convention, paradigms that are agreed upon among producers and reviewers, that have little or nothing to do with the live classical experience.

And what are these paradigms? I know idiot reviews and producers, but most people in the industry strive to produce good product. There is a pressure to over perfect recordings on the basis that they are listened to time and time again so come under far more scrutiny than a live performance, for me it's a balancing act. Recordings do have little to do with live performance (unless it's a live recording), they are "polished" performances for repeated listening. You want live buy your season ticket and support live music.

I accept and even celebrate that recording is a separate art form. For example, I don't believe surround sound should be limited to the concert hall perspective. I think that rear channels should be fully exploited for a deliberately unreal experience. You can learn much about the music you love from breaking conventional rules about "orchestra here, back wall there" realism, and magazine critics who write otherwise are intellectually lazy, unwilling to engage with music in an unaccustomed way.

A paragraph ago you were lamenting the lack of parity between live performance and records now you want experimental surround? People have played around with this sort of thing, interesting it is, for about 15 mins, after a while it becomes quite tiring and detracts from the music, ultimately that's what it's about.

However, I am occasionally annoyed that some recording practitioners (nobody on this thread) claim that their results realistically resemble the concert hall or opera house experience, when they do nothing of the kind.

Maybe not to others on the thread, but most of us will tell our client that we believe we can accurately capture their performance, it's marketing, it's what the client wants to hear and ultimately they know to within what limits we are talking about.

I think that the early criticism of digital as being "clinical" has been retired too quickly. After 25 years, the problem remains. Sometimes I hear too damn many inner voices. If I wanted to read a score, I'd read a score.
I can't believe that most composers expected that kind of analytical detail. Debussy said something quite negative about children who take their toys apart.

How is it too clinical? The sound I get off my mic's is very, very close if not indistinguishable to the sound coming back off my Pyramix. Nobody talks about the sound being sterile off the mics, sounds the same off the digital recorder, I suspect that off a good 1/2" machine it should retain almost the same detail (albeit always a slight change of sound from analogue machine).

I think you are slightly misquoting Debussy in that he was referring to musical analysis, rather than indulging in the pure beauty of a piece.

Finding language that describes a personal musical experience is not easy, and is prone to misinterpretation. I will plunge ahead nonetheless and say that when I hear a good orchestra in Carnegie, I hear an API-style midrange, and a Neve-ish kind of mid-bass. And I'm told that 90% of what I hear is reflected sound. Recordings reflecting this will be criticized as thick, opaque, bass-heavy, distant and lacking in detail.

A recording process that clarifies this combination of textures and perspectives may be deemed necessary for recording. But despite claims to the contrary, it is not realistic, and after a while, I get restless listening to it. Somehow I never forget the differences.

When I listen to live orchestra's playing it sounds nothing like Neve/API or alike to me, personally I think it sounds like 20-90 musicians playing instruments in a acoustic (be it bad or good). Again the hall, where you sit, the performance will all have a bearing on the sound you hear. Sometimes a recording in a listening position can work, but there are good technical reasons why this isn't often the case, the recordings that Andy have placed here demonstrate both what can/is good about this arrangement as well as why it doesn't always work balance wise.
If I won the lottery tomorrow, I'd happily fund experiments in recording orchestras with the great mics of a previous generation or perhaps clones thereof, feeding "colored" preamps and converters, just out of curiosity.

Rock engineers get to do lunchbox preamp shootouts; I'd like to do the same with a full orchestra standing by. Wouldn't you?

I introduced this thread with the idea of finding out if others hear what I hear. Obviously, some do and some don't.

I'm happy to have given the subject an airing. Under the circumstances, that's all I can do.

Best,
3rd&4thT

Well people have done shootouts, plus many of us, over the years have used a good deal of varied kit, for example a good friend of mine does quite a lot of reviews for a well known industry magazine and several times we have rigged additional kit that was in for review and made comparisons. Obviously with the expense of working with orchestra's it isn't really feasible to conduct clinical trials, however as an experienced engineer it doesn't take long to get to grips with new kit and find out if it's up for much. Again personally I'm not "religious" about the gear I use and have achieved similar results with a wide range of kit, often the performance and the space make the largest difference.

Regards



Roland

[3rd&4thT]

Originally Posted by Roland

I think this is total cobblers...I'm sure that my current kit it superior, but the earlier stuff still delivered a good result.

You're talking about your work, and I'm talking about the industry (a recurrent problem and an impediment to communication throughout the thread). You obviously have forgotten that transitional time when RCA's classicals had no bottom, Decca's had no top and EMI's had neither. CBS's were hyped to the point of pain, and even poor, recessive, bland Philips was turning out harsh, shallow product as well. The evidence of this troubled time is all there in their superbudget reissues.

I have already mentioned that DG found it necessary to pull all their classical engineers from North America and Europe into conference to figure out why their multi-miking suddenly sounded terrible and what they needed to do differently.

The result was one CD, Sinopoli's Schumann Second with the VPO, that was made in the Grosser Musikvereinsaal with two mics. It sounded wonderful. They never did it again.

CBS also experimented with minimal miking in Vienna and Amsterdam. But that didn't last long either.

Originally Posted by Roland

A paragraph ago you were lamenting the lack of parity between live performance and records now you want experimental surround? People have played around with this sort of thing, interesting it is, for about 15 mins, after a while it becomes quite tiring and detracts from the music, ultimately that's what it's about.

No contradiction at all. Bad stereo is what tires me. I see surround as a new and different way of relating to the music. For example, I found Anthony Newman's surround Brandenburgs endlessly revelatory. It's tiring only if you try to force some connection to live music. It is an abstract art. For me, surround detracts only when poorly executed.

My complaint is with stereo recordings that claim realism and miss. It's a question of function and purpose. Different goal, different path.

Surround has been strangled by lazy critics. Anybody can extract ambiance channels and steer them to the rear. We're supposed to marvel at that? Jimmy Lock told me he considered that a wasted opportunity, and I agree with him.

Originally Posted by Roland

I think you are slightly misquoting Debussy in that he was referring to musical analysis, rather than indulging in the pure beauty of a piece.

You may be right, or perhaps not. Either way, I think it also has to do with so much that is written that is meant to be blended, and should be in any recording which claims realism.

Because we have no visual cues while listening, several major label producers have informed me that the more inner voices the production clarified, the better you were doing your job. For a while it even turned into a contest among them, topping the competition's last recording of X with even more strands. "Oooooh, he missed the last desk viola figure in the tutti, I'll show him." I think that on the basis of the resultant recordings it was a false virtue.

Roland, I've never heard your work, but I have every reason to believe it's exemplary. I'm sure you excel at your job and turn out fine recordings.

That being said, you haven't a clue what I'm talking about and probably never will. I know what I hear, and I'm conscious of what I'm missing. Some others agree, you don't. I'm content to let it rest there.

3rd&4thT

[Roland]

Originally Posted by 3rd&4thT

You're talking about your work, and I'm talking about the industry (a recurrent problem and an impediment to communication throughout the thread). You obviously have forgotten that transitional time when RCA's classicals had no bottom, Decca's had no top and EMI's had neither. CBS's were hyped to the point of pain, and even poor, recessive, bland Philips was turning out harsh, shallow product as well. The evidence of this troubled time is all there in their superbudget reissues.

I have already mentioned that DG found it necessary to pull all their classical engineers from North America and Europe into conference to figure out why their multi-miking suddenly sounded terrible and what they needed to do differently.

I don't know of all these "transitional" recordings you are talking about, certainly I'd be interested if you can name some, particularly Decca and EMI. All companies have at times done less than stellar recordings, there are a number of reasons for this (artists, venues, one off experiments with new mic's and techniques, etc). Although DG like most companies experimented), to my knowledge they used fairly much the same techniques for a good number of years until they bit the bullet with the complete digital chain and went the Yamaha, Sennheiser route in the mid/late 80's.

The result was one CD, Sinopoli's Schumann Second with the VPO, that was made in the Grosser Musikvereinsaal with two mics. It sounded wonderful. They never did it again.

CBS also experimented with minimal miking in Vienna and Amsterdam. But that didn't last long either.

Most classical recording projects are reasonably minimalistic in terms of miking, Decca use five across the front (Decca tree plus outriggers) then quite usually only another 2-3. For opera and complex works more would need to be employed, things like harp don't carry well on recordings.

No contradiction at all. Bad stereo is what tires me. I see surround as a new and different way of relating to the music. For example, I found Anthony Newman's surround Brandenburgs endlessly revelatory. It's tiring only if you try to force some connection to live music. It is an abstract art. For me, surround detracts only when poorly executed.

My complaint is with stereo recordings that claim realism and miss. It's a question of function and purpose. Different goal, different path.

Surround has been strangled by lazy critics. Anybody can extract ambiance channels and steer them to the rear. We're supposed to marvel at that? Jimmy Lock told me he considered that a wasted opportunity, and I agree with him.

So you want realism from stereo recordings (but only if they claim it), recordings that that offer "immersion" effects in surround are just plain boring? You can't see the contradiction in your own stance here?

You may be right, or perhaps not. Either way, I think it also has to do with so much that is written that is meant to be blended, and should be in any recording which claims realism.

Please explain what you are talking about here, this doesn't make any real sense.

Because we have no visual cues while listening, several major label producers have informed me that the more inner voices the production clarified, the better you were doing your job. For a while it even turned into a contest among them, topping the competition's last recording of X with even more strands. "Oooooh, he missed the last desk viola figure in the tutti, I'll show him." I think that on the basis of the resultant recordings it was a false virtue.

Of course you have to "help" in recordings, as mentioned above things like harps don't often carry well in large acoustics and can end up sounding thin and distant, so it is common to add a tiny bit of spot mic to add a little bit of presence and warmth. Detail, strand, competition? So this is what we are all missing. I suspect you've been told something anecdotally that you are putting far too much weight on, I can assure you that most producers when recording on location are far more preoccupied with other things than to spend their time eeking out "strand detail" to outdo their industry competitors.

Roland, I've never heard your work, but I have every reason to believe it's exemplary. I'm sure you excel at your job and turn out fine recordings.

That being said, you haven't a clue what I'm talking about and probably never will. I know what I hear, and I'm conscious of what I'm missing. Some others agree, you don't. I'm content to let it rest there.

3rd&4thT

I'm always willing to have amateur audiophiles "enlighten" me as to why I don't know my job or industry. My personal experience of people who claim to hear all the things that I can't (different sonic results on cables, wooden cones to stand their gear on etc) often they don't put up, or when offered even simple acoustic tests/problems can't identify basics like phase, comb filtering, obvious response problems.

With your obvious knowledge of analogue recordings vs digital, perhaps you can post a sample of one of your analogue recordings that demonstrates the warmth that all digital recordings lack?


Regards



Roland

[3rd&4thT]

Originally Posted by Roland

I don't know of all these "transitional" recordings you are talking about, certainly I'd be interested if you can name some, particularly Decca and EMI.

Decca - Dohnanyi's Mendelssohn Scotch Symphony and others of the same vintage
EMI - Previn Debussy Images, and others of the same vintage
RCA - Anything from Dallas with Mata

Now some of these have been remastered in reissue. I'm talking about the original issues, from the late 1970's and early 80's. Funny, others have heard problems with early digital. Maybe you like that sound.

Originally Posted by Roland

All companies have at times done less than stellar recordings, there are a number of reasons for this (artists, venues, one off experiments with new mic's and techniques, etc).

Although DG like most companies experimented), to my knowledge they used fairly much the same techniques for a good number of years until they bit the bullet with the complete digital chain and went the Yamaha, Sennheiser route in the mid/late 80's.

DG's maintained a stable image until the late 70s early 80s when the spotlighting ran amuck, probably under the influence of Karajan and his intrusive remixing. The change was much noted, and not much admired.

Originally Posted by Roland

Most classical recording projects are reasonably minimalistic in terms of miking, Decca use five across the front (Decca tree plus outriggers) then quite usually only another 2-3. For opera and complex works more would need to be employed, things like harp don't carry well on recordings.

This very much varied according to the style of music. They might have added only 2-3 for Mozart, or if it were Mahler or Strauss they might have added a lot more. Decca was perfectly capable of putting spot mics on each tympani to "speed up" the recording (saw that one in Chicago). And Decca sometimes reseated the harps right beside the conductor's podium to speed up their attack and directly hit one of the side mics in the tree.

Originally Posted by Roland

So you want realism from stereo recordings (but only if they claim it), recordings that that offer "immersion" effects in surround are just plain boring? You can't see the contradiction in your own stance here?

No, there is no contradiction at all. Stereo is claimed by purists to be faithful to reality, and surround is claimed to be gimmicky. For me, stereo's limitations often destroy reality. OTOH surround is a totally different experience playing by different rules, producing different results to be absorbed differently. In visual terms, stereo is usually representational and reportorial, surround at its best is abstract and conceptual. You might as well complain that painting and sculpture are contradictory. In fact, you can value both.

Originally Posted by Roland

Detail, strand, competition? So this is what we are all missing. I suspect you've been told something anecdotally that you are putting far too much weight on,

Nonsense. I have not denigrated your life experience, don't denigrate mine. I know these people, I've listened to their work, I stand by every word.

Originally Posted by Roland

I can assure you that most producers when recording on location are far more preoccupied with other things than to spend their time eeking out "strand detail" to outdo their industry competitors.

On location, perhaps. When they get back to the studio to remix a multichannel recording, they may have different priorities. Again, assume I know what I'm talking about and we'll all get along much better.

Originally Posted by Roland

'm always willing to have amateur audiophiles "enlighten" me as to why I don't know my job or industry.

Now you are on very thin ice. This thread was never about you, and you have been unable to read it in any other way. I have paid my rent entirely with my own recordings for a good long time, but I am always willing to have snide prima donnas explain to me why their perceptions are valid and everybody else is wrong.

Originally Posted by Roland

My personal experience of people who claim to hear all the things that I can't (different sonic results on cables, wooden cones to stand their gear on etc) often they don't put up, or when offered even simple acoustic tests/problems can't identify basics like phase, comb filtering, obvious response problems.

Well, that's all very interesting, but I am not those people and never have been. Your assumptions about me are sloppy, uninformed and irrelevant.

Originally Posted by Roland

With your obvious knowledge of analogue recordings vs digital, perhaps you can post a sample of one of your analogue recordings that demonstrates the warmth that all digital recordings lack?

Not all digital recordings, but many. Put words in my mouth and it's easy to win arguments.

Nobody's reading any more, Roland. Let it go.

3rd&4thT

[d_fu]

Originally Posted by 3rd&4thT

Nobody's reading any more, Roland. Let it go.

No need for that - I'm reading, and I'm sure others are, too.

Originally Posted by 3rd&4thT

You obviously have forgotten that transitional time when RCA's classicals had no bottom, Decca's had no top and EMI's had neither. CBS's were hyped to the point of pain, and even poor, recessive, bland Philips was turning out harsh, shallow product as well. The evidence of this troubled time is all there in their superbudget reissues.

May I ask whether (and if so, why) you think that this would be a direct result of the transition to digital recording media? Also, which period are you referring to?

I have already mentioned that DG found it necessary to pull all their classical engineers from North America and Europe into conference to figure out why their multi-miking suddenly sounded terrible and what they needed to do differently.The result was one CD, Sinopoli's Schumann Second with the VPO, that was made in the Grosser Musikvereinsaal with two mics. It sounded wonderful. They never did it again.

This would indicate that the problem they found was not Digital per se, but the mic setups.

Originally Posted by 3rd&4thT

Decca - Dohnanyi's Mendelssohn Scotch Symphony and others of the same vintage
EMI - Previn Debussy Images, and others of the same vintage
RCA - Anything from Dallas with Mata

Could you name a few more specific recordings, mostly Decca? Would you count any of the OSM/Dutoit recordings among these? While these do sound different compared to each other, I don't recall any that lacked top end (and , being a somewhat of a fan of Charles Dutoit, I have a lot of these recordings from 1980 until he left Montréal).

As for DG, I'd also like to know which period of time you are referring to. Have you heard Mahler's Fifth by Sinopoli? What would you think of this one? Or Bernstein's/Abbado's Mahler recordings (the earlier ones, in the case of Abbado, before Berlin).

I also can't think of any Philips CD in my collection that I'd consider "harsh and shallow". Have you heard the Bach and Telemann oboe concertos with Holliger? Or Vivaldi's bassoon concertos with Thunemann? These sound marvellous IMHO...

Originally Posted by Roland

My personal experience of people who claim to hear all the things that I can't (different sonic results on cables, wooden cones to stand their gear on etc) often they don't put up, or when offered even simple acoustic tests/problems can't identify basics like phase, comb filtering, obvious response problems.

Now ain't that the truth... thumbsup
I've heard obvious problems of this kind in recordings that were praised as the ultimate audiophile experience in the press - I sometimes wonder what some of these audiophiles actually do hear in a recording.

Daniel

[Roland]

3rd&4thT, I'd like to set the record straight a little. Your posts and the tone of your posts inferred a lot and made several extravagant claims that you have at best only backed up with your own anecdotal evidence. Going to concerts in Carnegie hall and then trying to compare that with a recording is never going to be the same experience. Further more your posts tend to infer that digital is clinical and that analogue is better, you've said as much in your previous posts. I think it is fair to say that the majority of engineers I know and have met (and that's a lot) wouldn't agree with you.

You talk about multitrack location recordings being remixed back at base, but this is also rarely the case, to my knowledge most of Decca's work was direct to two track almost right up to the closure of the Decca recording centre. Granted many opera's are multitracked and have been historically over the last 20 years, much of that is to do with the need to adjust balance for singers. A good friend of mine was CBS's head producer in Europe and they used X86's direct to two track for a lot of work.

You further inferred that you were hearing something that all these people doing this work couldn't hear and to cap it all your best description of a live concert sound was a reference to a couple of fairly coloured mic amps (namely the Neve and the API) in my personal view a terrible analogy to live musicians playing in an real acoustic.

I've been in the industry 29 years, people like Plush, Steve remote and alike more than that. I'm a believer that everyone is welcome to an opinion, however if they state it with the vigor that you do in a pro forum I think it is fair comment to ask you to back it up, all I've seen is innuendo and little real fact.

The CD's you mentioned above may or may not be lacking in treble or bass, but there could be any number of reasons for this none of which relate to the fact they are digital recordings. The most problems I've heard about early digital recordings were reliability of the kit, the rest of the job was the same. As I've stated over many years, I've heard some great recordings made with what I would regard as too many mic's and some great recordings made with a pair, often the really decisive factor is the talent and the acoustic, in classical recording terms there is little you can do if the players are making a bad or thin, weedy sound in front of the mics except possibly limit the damage.


Regards


Roland

[d_fu]

Originally Posted by Roland

The most problems I've heard about early digital recordings were reliability of the kit, the rest of the job was the same

One thing I do recall reading back in those days (mostly in HiFi magazines, as I wasn't actively recording then) is that recordings/masterings were approached a bit differently because certain characteristics of vinyl no longer had to be taken into account (crosstalk etc.), and that some of this appears to have been overcompensated or so, leading to recordings that didn't quite sound the way ye aulde analog LP sounded.

Don't know any details, though, since I've never had to deal with recording for vinyl... Got any insight on that, Roland?


Daniel

[Plush]

The polarized views here sound like the discussions in hi-fi magazines of the early digital age. The high and mighty HP from "The Absolute Sound" hated early digital and the magazine still today fetishizes the LP. They also villified DG for having too many mics even though not a one of the writers knew anything about recording other than having attended a session.

The British press, harkening to obtain "the closest approach to the original sound" vilified
some recordings and praised others that we later know to have been done at 14 bit with an F1 set-up.

It seems that many of these complaints turned out to be centered around engineering that still was working the same way one worked for LP's. As an alternative complaint, I think critics got it right when they complained of cold digital sound.

I, for one, still believe that some digital sound needs taming and I do this by mixing in an all analog chain heavy with transformers and tubes. Another trick to tame digititus is just to roll off everything above 18K with an equalizer.

Other digital recordings I 've done came out great with little adjustment. Of course the reason they came out well is because of the performance and the acoustic in which they were recorded.

One correction from Roland's good post. i have been professionally active in recording since 1981, so 27 years. Before that I was a hobbyist and a hi-fi freak.

Any hint of opinion about recording from hi-fi freak fringe writers is fully discounted here now as pretty much garbage. It always was garbage---it's just that we only realize it now. They are only guessing. They do all of us a disservice.

[sonare]

Originally Posted by d_fu

No need for that - I'm reading, and I'm sure others are, too.

Yes, I would say the audience is GROWING! The burning question on my mind is the identity of "3rdand4th T"? The rest of us have come out previously (and our websites go even further). So, please, step out from behind the curtain!

Rich

[Roland]

Originally Posted by d_fu

One thing I do recall reading back in those days (mostly in HiFi magazines, as I wasn't actively recording then) is that recordings/masterings were approached a bit differently because certain characteristics of vinyl no longer had to be taken into account (crosstalk etc.), and that some of this appears to have been overcompensated or so, leading to recordings that didn't quite sound the way ye aulde analog LP sounded.

Don't know any details, though, since I've never had to deal with recording for vinyl... Got any insight on that, Roland?


Daniel

Not a lot of experience with vinyl, although I've attended cutting sessions many years ago. One thing you learned straight away was that although often a little eq was done much was for the protection of the cutter head (bass filter straight it) compression of course as it allowed for greater apparent level at the same times as protecting the cutting head. Although great cutting engineers produced good sounding vinyl I got the feeling that much of what they did was done for technical reasons more than for tweaking your master. CD has given the mastering engineer a lot more freedom, however this has been abused, partially due to the loudness wars by some of those same mastering engineers, more often than not by those recording. Often people assume that it's at the mastering stage things get squashed silly and blame mastering engineers for it, however, a lot of masters are deliverd to the mastering room already with ruler flat dynamics. Good CD's played on a great system can sound wonderful, too often (IMHO) digital gets blamed for poor engineering/production and performance. If some people can make it sound good it can't be the system.

Regards


Roland

[d_fu]

Originally Posted by Roland

Good CD's played on a great system can sound wonderful, too often (IMHO) digital gets blamed for poor engineering/production and performance. If some people can make it sound good it can't be the system.

I'd say that pretty much sums it up...

[3rd&4thT]

Originally Posted by d_fu

No need for that - I'm reading, and I'm sure others are, too.

Yes, the way drivers slow down to look at an auto accident on the other side of the highway. Ugh.

Originally Posted by d_fu

May I ask whether (and if so, why) you think that this would be a direct result of the transition to digital recording media? Also, which period are you referring to?

Yes, I believe that there were an awful lot of bad recordings coming from good people, not because digital is "bad" per se but because the process forced adjustments in recording technique. This has happened at every major changeover in recording history.

Originally Posted by d_fu

This would indicate that the problem they found was not Digital per se, but the mic setups.

I think mic setups and mixing conventions were a major portion of it, but the new technology did not spring forth fully formed. I think you'd be pretty unhappy today if you were stuck with an entire unmodified 1982 recording chain. Digital recording has improved over time.

Originally Posted by d_fu

Could you name a few more specific recordings, mostly Decca?

I tend not to hold onto CDs that annoy the hell out of me, so those that I mentioned are the few that stick unpleasantly in memory. I don't maintain a library of failed recordings, it would serve no purpose.

Originally Posted by d_fu

As for DG, I'd also like to know which period of time you are referring to. Or Bernstein's/Abbado's Mahler recordings (the earlier ones, in the case of Abbado, before Berlin).

I find the Abbado Chicago recordings a bit close in. If you mic everything that closely, then add a wash of hall reverb, you are still too close to the instruments. This is my taste, YMMV. Some of the Abbado performances are really good, though. However, I have no tolerance for late Bernstein. I find the smeared emotions offputting.

Originally Posted by d_fu

I also can't think of any Philips CD in my collection that I'd consider "harsh and shallow".

Philips made marvelous recordings in the 1970's, then forgot everything they knew. Their original philosophy was radically non-interventionist. While Decca's engineers sometimes rebalanced every two bars, Philips traditionally might boost a woodwind spot three times in ten minutes. Then with the introduction of new technology, there was noticeable increase in spotlighting, and their solo piano recordings went from smooth to raucous. Famously, the Ozawa Gurrelieder was entirely spot-mic'd, the basic mic tracks unused in the mix.

Originally Posted by d_fu

I've heard obvious problems of this kind in recordings that were praised as the ultimate audiophile experience in the press - I sometimes wonder what some of these audiophiles actually do hear in a recording.

Daniel

I agree with you. I have no love for the tweak press, they are misleading at best and annoying at worst. I read that stuff only at gunpoint and avoid the personalities involved. Thank God my life didn't take me in that direction.

Best,
3rd&4thT

[3rd&4thT]

Originally Posted by Roland

Going to concerts in Carnegie hall and then trying to compare that with a recording is never going to be the same experience.

Ah, we agree.

Originally Posted by Roland

Further more your posts tend to infer that digital is clinical and that analogue is better, you've said as much in your previous posts. I think it is fair to say that the majority of engineers I know and have met (and that's a lot) wouldn't agree with you.

I have never doubted your professional bona fides. The purpose of the thread was to question standard practice. I think the sonic paradigm that the classical business follows can bear re-examination without bringing down the Foundations of Western Civilization.

Let me repeat: I don't think digital is evil. I find it a mixed blessing. Some things it does well, somethings it does less well and some things it does not at all.

I agree that most engineers would not want to go back to unreliable tubes and reels of tape. What is more interesting is that a few actually do.

Originally Posted by Roland

You talk about multitrack location recordings being remixed back at base, but this is also rarely the case, to my knowledge most of Decca's work was direct to two track almost right up to the closure of the Decca recording centre.

Again, I agree about Decca. I found it astounding that major projects were being done direct into battered two-track machines, but they knew what they were doing (mostly). Other companies, however, increased the number of tracks as soon as they could.

Starting in the late 1960's, when 8- then 16-track machines became commonplace, orchestral sessions in the States were often mixed quite actively. For example, any number of Bernstein's CBS recordings suffered from fairly coarse gain-riding in their initial LP release, though John McClure has cleaned them up somewhat for CD.

Originally Posted by Roland

A good friend of mine was CBS's head producer in Europe and they used X86's direct to two track for a lot of work.

Indeed, the memorable Mercury's and RCA's that you dissed at the beginning of the thread were recorded two and three track. However, since union sessions cost much more in the States than in the UK, simple economics lead as quickly as possible to multi-tracks and much greater reliance on "fix it in the mix." A bad clarinet solo could be replaced without holding the whole orchestra hostage to the clock.

Originally Posted by Roland

to cap it all your best description of a live concert sound was a reference to a couple of fairly coloured mic amps (namely the Neve and the API) in my personal view a terrible analogy to live musicians playing in an real acoustic.

Well, we'll just have to agree to disagree, then. We already know that no two people hear in exactly the same way, just as no two people see color in the same way. I don't see either of us budging, and I can live with that. I hope you can, too.

Originally Posted by Roland

I've been in the industry 29 years, people like Plush, Steve remote and alike more than that. I'm a believer that everyone is welcome to an opinion, however if they state it with the vigor that you do in a pro forum I think it is fair comment to ask you to back it up, all I've seen is innuendo and little real fact.

I could just as easily ask you to back up your position. I always write vigorously, why bother otherwise? However, you confuse opinion and innuendo; they are not the same thing. This is an intangible business we're discussing, by definition unquantifiable. If it could be reduced to simple numbers, it would have been fixed by now.

Furthermore, your dismissing my facts doesn't mean I haven't produced them. It just means you haven't accepted them.

BTW, Plush has consistently maintained a strong appreciation of analog recording, so I welcome his mention with analog warmth.

And Gearslutz would probably collapse without all the discussion of vintage gear and color. If all were well in the digital realm, we wouldn't need to fetishize Neumann's and Neve's.

Originally Posted by Roland

The CD's you mentioned above may or may not be lacking in treble or bass, but there could be any number of reasons for this none of which relate to the fact they are digital recordings. The most problems I've heard about early digital recordings were reliability of the kit, the rest of the job was the same.

The rest of the job may have been executed the same way, but the results were suddenly different.

In another post, you have mentioned terrible LP mastering compromises. EMI apprentice engineers were required to spend six months mastering LPs so they'd know what would happen to their tapes when they graduated to session work.

However, mastered for CD rather than LP, session tapes sounded quite different. It should have been unalloyed improvement, but was not. This was known, this was heard, and was acknowledged by people within the business, not just the contemptible tweak press.

These are real facts, whether you accept them or not.

And the bad results all happened at the same time across the business, which does point to a technological change requiring modification of procedure.

Saying "I hear nothing wrong, this is the way I do this, this is the way I've always done this, and this is the only way to do this" is not terribly illuminating. It tends to shut down thought rather than encourage it.

Originally Posted by Roland

As I've stated over many years, I've heard some great recordings made with what I would regard as too many mic's and some great recordings made with a pair, often the really decisive factor is the talent and the acoustic, in classical recording terms there is little you can do if the players are making a bad or thin, weedy sound in front of the mics except possibly limit the damage.

Not a bad credo at all. Ears is ears and you do the best you can whatever the circumstances.

But the tools do change occasionally, and that requires recalibration.

3rd&4thT

[klaukholm]

Originally Posted by 3rd&4thT

A bad clarinet solo could be replaced without holding the whole orchestra hostage to the clock.

3rd&4thT

In no way does multitracking allow you to replace the sound of an instrument.
This would be obvious to anyone who has actually partaken in a professional classical recording session.

The only way to replace the clarinet solo is to replace the clarinettist and start over....


As far as the clock is concerned, the orchestra will be hired for a given number of hours. If a producer chooses to use a lot of time on one problematic passage, he or she will have less time to spend on other parts of the session. This is a large component of the art of producing. The orchestra is not hostage to the clock, the producer is. The orchestra will get up and leave precisely at 14:30 if that is when the session is scheduled to end.

[3rd&4thT]

Originally Posted by klaukholm

In no way does multitracking allow you to replace the sound of an instrument.
This would be obvious to anyone who has actually partaken in a professional classical recording session.

The only way to replace the clarinet solo is to replace the clarinettist and start over....

Actually, it did happen on a Levine Mahler symphony for RCA in the early 70's, so don't be so sure what's obvious, who's a professional and what's the only way to do something. Speak for yourself, but recognize that other professionals may work differently.

Originally Posted by klaukholm

The orchestra is not hostage to the clock, the producer is. The orchestra will get up and leave precisely at 14:30 if that is when the session is scheduled to end.

The recording itself is hostage to the clock, and there can be many compromises. One such method is to feed many spot mics to multi-track recording, so you can manipulate the results later. I'm reminded of the second stereo Ormandy Pines of Rome for CBS, in which each movement was recorded in a different hall for scheduling and financial reasons. They actually got away with it, because the recording itself was so close the hall barely participates in the sound.

Personally I'm horrified by that. It may not be perfect or even advisable, but it's not impossible either.

3rd&4thT

[madriaan]

Plush, sorry if you've posted this before, but which tube mic pre do you like using for recording classical music? Quite a few of the tube mic pre's I've used on acoustic material had terrific tone, but were just a little too noisy (unfortunately).

All the best,

M.

[Plush]

For many years I have used an EAR tube mic amp. That's the Tim de Paravicini design from Cambridge UK. It is very clean and there is no noise.

Also I use the Thermionic Culture Earlybird 1.2 and the Presonus ADL 600.

The Thermionic Culture mic amps are my new favorite mic amps. I started using them in April 2008. Phat sound, clean with ultimate headroom to render the most dense and loudest passages with ease. Massive bass drum (grand casse) hits don't even make this mic amp breathe hard.

ADL 600 is a laudable mic amp again with no noise. This mic amp adds sparkle and a laudable tone to the pick-ups.

As to this thread, all I can say is, "So What?"

Personally I advise orchestra recording people to pursue the ideal sound in their head without outside influence. Move closer and closer to the sound you hear in your imagination.

My set-up is a combo plate of old and new. Analog processing and tubes are an essential for me here. I have had other visiting engineers laugh at my set up when they see it. They believe that it should be more modern or cleaner or something. They want to see certain name brands of equipment present in the set-up. To me, they have read too many magazines.

On a recent Bruckner 7, I was paid 4 times my regular fee (already quite high) because I decided that the sound was so good that I would not release the tapes until I was paid out Chuck Berry style. (This was for a big name orchestra.)

I advise all here to do the same.

[klaukholm]

Originally Posted by 3rd&4thT

Actually, it did happen on a Levine Mahler symphony for RCA in the early 70's, so don't be so sure what's obvious, who's a professional and what's the only way to do something. Speak for yourself, but recognize that other professionals may work differently.

3rd&4thT

If that happened and a orchestrally accompanied clarinet solo in a Mahler symphony was overdubbed, it would surely be a a great story to tell and a recording I would love to hear.

Which mahler symphpony?
Which movement and which solo?
Who was the engineer?

What is your name and where did you learn of this?

I am thinking of all the clarinet parts in the mahlers, and I cannot think of a section that would be overdubbable unless the solo laid out in the initial recording.

One of the first orchestral discs I worked on, we had to record the orchestral accompaniment and put the solo on top later for about 32 bars of artificial harmonics. This can be easy if the soloist lays out, depending on the music of course.
doing it on top of a
(this was in 1996 ...that is how young I am in comparisom to the more venerable producer/engineers here)

[klaukholm]

Originally Posted by 3rd&4thT

so don't be so sure what's obvious, who's a professional and what's the only way to do something. Speak for yourself, but recognize that other professionals may work differently.

3rd&4thT

I would love to have that trick up my sleeve, please enlighten me as to how this was achieved and the precise place on the disc where it was done so I can hear the result.

It would be easier to determine who is the professional or not if we knew who everyone were.

[Plush]

So What?

The "T-bagger" must be unmasked.

He writes well and I'm interested to hear more hearsay, but we cannot adjudicate his "so called facts" without verification.

Homeland security wants to know.

[klaukholm]

SÄPO wants to know as well (the all dreaded secret swedish agency)

[madriaan]

Plush, thanks for the info. There's certainly a lot to be said for the vast headroom and engaging tone of a well designed tube pre. I like the EAR a lot! Some of my favorite lead voc tracks were recorded using this pre! I will check out the other ones you listed. I've also heard good things about the DW Fearn, Hamptone mic pre's, but I've never personally auditioned those. I'm not sure they're in the same league/as quiet, etc. Anybody have any experience with these?

Best Regards,

M.

[Roland]

Originally Posted by Plush

So What?

The "T-bagger" must be unmasked.

He writes well and I'm interested to hear more hearsay, but we cannot adjudicate his "so called facts" without verification.

Homeland security wants to know.

Interestingly our "T-bagger" quoted this above:

My career was heading in this direction, but other opportunities opened up first, and I wound up in a parallel but unrelated field.

As things turned out, I've had a ball doing the other thing. I only regret that I had to choose, instead of having two working lifetimes in which to pursue both.

My love for classical music and concern for its unique challenges has remained constant.

He has gone very quiet since several people have suggested he put up/shut up, or at least identifies himself. It did occur to me that with the eloquence he uses to express himself that his parallel field might just be journalism, possible a record reviewer/critic, that would explain his knowledge of recorded classical repertoire and the hearsay, recording myths/misunderstanding of what really goes on during sessions.

Hey for all I know he might be such a high up in the industry recording engineer/producer, that to post his name in here would immediately have him spammed with emails from the likes of every gearslut on the forums.

He may be a celebrity and to post his name might expose him, his family and all his friends to danger from terrorists and kidnappers.

Then again he might be just a tosser trying to start a flame thread.

Regards to all



Roland

[matyas]

Originally Posted by Plush

quipment present in the set-up. To me, they have read too many magazines.

On a recent Bruckner 7, I was paid 4 times my regular fee (already quite high) because I decided that the sound was so good that I would not release the tapes until I was paid out Chuck Berry style.

Wow, Plush, that's pretty cool. Is this for a commercial release? I have your Lieberson disc, and really like the sound, so I'm curious to hear this, especially being a huge fan of Bruckner 7.

Anyway, back to the subject at hand, I've been pretty surprised lately at which classical releases from the '80s and '90s hold up sonically and which don't. For example, with regard to DG, one of my favorite discs from the '80s holds up and one doesn't. The one that does is John Eliot Gardiner's Orfeo. I've had this disc for almost 20 years and I still think it sounds great. I have no idea about the recording process on this one, but it does have DDD label on the back, and it sounds plenty "warm", even euphonic, to my ears. The one that doesn't is Abbado's Mahler 3. I still love the performance, but it's marred by all the general complaints people have about 80's digital: the strings sound thin, it generally sounds "cold" and things just sound a little "off" in some way. I think DG's Ring with Levine sounds good, as does Domingo's Tannhaeuser. Late Karajan has been criticized, but I do think his late Bruckner 7 (there's that piece again) sounds good too.
I'm still shocked by how good Nimbus's Wunderhorn and Klagende Lied sound. On the other hand, Salonen's Turangalila (on CBS/Sony) doesn't hold up.

Now, back to the OP: Most of the recordings brought up are from the 80s and 90s. What about some of the recent recordings? What about DSD and high-resolution PCM? I've been very encouraged by many of the recent recordings I've heard - some have been of the more "neutral" variety, while others have been more colored. Harmonia Mundi, Telarc, PentaTone, and many other labels have been releasing excellent discs, in my estimation at least.

[ISedlacek]

Originally Posted by Plush

The Thermionic Culture mic amps are my new favorite mic amps. I started using them in April 2008. Phat sound, clean with ultimate headroom to render the most dense and loudest passages with ease. Massive bass drum (grand casse) hits don't even make this mic amp breathe hard.

It is very great preamp. At the recent choir recording I made a direct ABC shot Earlybird- Forssell - Millennia with choir singing the same passage. Only later I found that in that time pressure I have not noticed that by mistake there was an EQ section engaged in Earlybird with some small settings ... :((( So the ABC was not 100% clean ABC, but still said something ... It was very hard to say whether I prefered Forssell or Earlybird. Forssell sounded more natural and relaxed, Earlybird more "sweet" and liquid ...I slightly tended to prefer Forssell, but it depends. Millennia ... ok, I better shut down

[d_fu]

Originally Posted by matyas

The one that does is John Eliot Gardiner's Orfeo. I've had this disc for almost 20 years and I still think it sounds great. I have no idea about the recording process on this one, but it does have DDD label on the back, and it sounds plenty "warm", even euphonic, to my ears. The one that doesn't is Abbado's Mahler 3. I still love the performance, but it's marred by all the general complaints people have about 80's digital: the strings sound thin, it generally sounds "cold" and things just sound a little "off" in some way.

While I agree with you on the Gardiner, I don't think the Abbado recording is all that bad, at least not in my living room... Sounds quite "Mahleresque" to me... Jessye Norman's voice is a tad distant, maybe.

The overall sound is more pleasant to me than e.g. CBS' 1982 Mahler VI with Maazel, also with the Vienna PO... This sounds rather narrow and not very pleasant to me. Main mic was a Soundfield. They recorded VII two years later with B&K 4003, haven't compared yet.

Daniel

[andy_simpson]

Originally Posted by d_fu

Bass and treble sensitivity at low levels.

Equal loudness is not a simple case of 'bass & treble sensitivity' at 'low levels' - rather a varying spectral sensitivity at any level.

As can be seen in the graphs, it is rather more complicated and this kind of generalisation is misleading.

Ineresting reading indeed. However, I'd think that most speakers' nonlinearities are greater than those between different SPLs described here.

If that were the case we would be in far worse trouble!

Also, these curves were determined with sine tones - can they really be used to judge complex (musical) signals,

This is certainly a valid question, but since the equal loudness graphs are simply illustrative rather than absolute, it's not a significant problem as far as I'm concerned.

....complex (musical) signals, which don't usually feature all frequencies in equal SPL levels...

That is the point I have been trying to make!

The equal loudness curves show how loud each frequency is perceived to be according to the actual loudness.

That this is different for any particular frequency component of any particular instrument at any particular time in a piece of music is the point!

In changing the gain (SPL) of any particular instrument, the perceived effects will be different according to the loudness (& accent) of the notes and different according to the spectral register & timbre of the notes.

All the instruments suffer differing effects of an SPL gain change and this is why the balance changes.

Also, the ear apparently adapts to different volumes as well as to different speakers. How else would you be able to recognize a voice on any shitty speaker?

Yes, the brain is able to perform feats of pattern recognition despite enormous distortion - but this is not the point.

Or how else would I recognize the typical sound of the ride cymbal in the beginning of "Take Five" in an instant on my car stereo, at low volume?

The brain is capable of recognising these things despite gross distortion, but in this case you are talking about a sound that is decidely not mistakeable for a real source.

Usually, my microphones are not right where the audience is - so where should I measure "correct" SPL? In the audience position, regardless of the mics' position, or where the mics are?

This is still a question of taste, but I would chose a position where you consider a good sound is heard by the audience.

But I don't think I've ever had a recording where I really thought playback SPL was an issue.

This is probably because you are not directly comparing the recording to the source - which is perfectly valid, providing you are not interested in whether the recording is 'natural' or 'accurate' or 'realistic'.

Andy

[joelpatterson]

Originally Posted by andy_simpson

...I would chose a position where you consider a good sound is heard by the audience...

Except that you're not asking your playback system to re-create the sound that was 'heard by the audience,' you're asking it to re-create the sound that was 'happening at the sound source.'

In both cases, the 'audience' is sitting back listening. In the first case, the violins and trumpets are 'making' the sound, in the second case the speakers are. This is not just a matter of semantics.