Early Music Chamber concert recording report w/ clips

[andy_simpson]

In the course of my field testing program I rarely come across ideal circumstances of good musicians, good instruments & good accoustics.

In some of my recent posts around here & elsewhere I have been talking a lot about auditory masking & spectral balance and how this applies to 'depth'.

In reality, although most acoustic sources produce sound that well fulfils the spectral requirements for depth, it is less common to come across an acoustic which does the same thing to any commendable degree.

Last week I was recording an Early Music chamber concert as part of my field testing program in a gothic church in Eastern Poland.

On arrival at the venue it was immediately apparent that the acoustic was almost ideal in terms of spectral balance/decay.

In fact, on talking to the Monks who maintain the church, it turned out that the church was originally designed & built for music performance (though it is very unlikely that the architects had any academic notion of auditory masking).

The music itself was of the late 1600's and was performed by candle light to great effect. Also, I found it very interesting to see the players standing, which I thought gave a certain energy to the performance.

Clips from the concert here:

Ensemble
Ensemble with operatic vocal

Unfortunately I was too busy to take photos but the organiser & press were busy with their cameras so I will post photos when they arrive.

Andy

[summer_room]

Very nice indeed!
Please do tell your mic setup?
How was the soloist placed, center in front of the ensemble?

I would like a little more presence from the continuo-section, but maybe thats just me...

best regards - Jon

[Martin Kantola]

Good work Andy!!!

Martin

[Corran]

Andy, clips like these make me want to believe in your mics. It sounds beyond wonderful.

However at the same time I would still like to compare it to a well-placed ORTF and/or A-B pair in the same space!

Anyway, I am jealous of you Europeans and your cathedrals that you get to record in. I love gothic cathedrals and such and would love to record something in one one day.

[bove]

Sounds nice! I enjoyed listening to those singers. Thanks for posting.

[Roland]

Interestingly I like the "live" nature of the sound, however it sounds quite coloured in the midrange and (considering statements that Andy has made about his recording aims/philosophy) lacking in front to back depth.

Regards


Roland

[andy_simpson]

Originally Posted by summer_room

Very nice indeed!
Please do tell your mic setup?
How was the soloist placed, center in front of the ensemble?

I would like a little more presence from the continuo-section, but maybe thats just me...

best regards - Jon

Hi Jon,

The mics were parallel pair around 4-5m high above the audience (2nd row) about 10m behind the ensemble, looking downwards at an angle of around 40degrees from horizontal.

I'm expecting pictures any day, which will say more than any description I can give.

Were this other than a concert recording I might have done things differently with regards to the stage format, but this was out of my control.

Andy

[andy_simpson]

Originally Posted by Martin Kantola

Good work Andy!!!

Martin

Thanks Martin, did you try it on your big ribbons?

Andy

[andy_simpson]

Originally Posted by Corran

Andy, clips like these make me want to believe in your mics. It sounds beyond wonderful.

Then it was worth an 8 hour drive across Poland each way!

However at the same time I would still like to compare it to a well-placed ORTF and/or A-B pair in the same space!

Anyway, I am jealous of you Europeans and your cathedrals that you get to record in. I love gothic cathedrals and such and would love to record something in one one day.

Next time I'm there I plan to take an impulse response for convolution reverbs - I'll send you a copy.

Andy

[andy_simpson]

Originally Posted by Roland

Interestingly I like the "live" nature of the sound, however it sounds quite coloured in the midrange and (considering statements that Andy has made about his recording aims/philosophy) lacking in front to back depth.

Regards

Roland

What you describe as the 'live nature of the sound' is the product of the unique mechanical advantage of the Model A.

I'm not sure what you perceive as 'colouration' - perhaps you describe the acoustic/reverb of the venue?

Perhaps you are just used to the distortion of the conventional direct-radiator microphone in this range, which is missing in the Model A recording?

The recording matched the source well enough that I'd be willing to bet my car on it in a blind-test with the source.

Lacking in depth?! Perhaps you would have found the reality equally lacking?

In any case, both comments make me ask what you are monitoring on?

This should sound quite believable on your large PA rig (give or take a little adjustment to suit the rig/room). If you get the chance to try it I'd be very interested to hear your impressions.

Andy

[d_fu]

Andy,

Originally Posted by andy_simpson

Then it was worth an 8 hour drive across Poland each way!

Is Poland really that big or were the streets that bad...?

My first impression (on speakers and at a fairly low volume) was quite positive, except for the fact that I thought some of the voices lacked a touch of presence.

Now on headphones (Beyer) and at higher volume, I'd tend to agree with Roland, I find the sound a bit coloured. There's a certain hig-mid range that sounds muffled, but higher up, I find the sound scratchy and not too pleasant. I also don't find the room to well captured, to be honest.

I can well imagine how the recording would have sounded with different microphone setups, and what I imagine does sound beter than this, I'm afraid..

The music is luverly, though.


Daniel

[Corran]

Originally Posted by andy_simpson

Next time I'm there I plan to take an impulse response for convolution reverbs - I'll send you a copy.

Yeah I'm holding you to this.

[mljung]

Originally Posted by andy_simpson

Hi Jon,

The mics were parallel pair around 4-5m high above the audience (2nd row) about 10m behind the ensemble, looking downwards at an angle of around 40degrees from horizontal.
Andy

Andy just curious about the setup: how far was the parallel pair apart?

***

I have only listened on headphones [hd580], so take this into account.
The sound reminds me a little bit of an old recording. The frequency balance seems a little uneven. Lo-mids are a little dominant without giving body to the sound, and it sounds as if there's some peak in the hi-freq region. It's apparent in the string sound and it's making sibilant parts of vocal parts in clip B jump out. Is this the room?
The louder passage at the end of clip B seems a little hazy or foggy, maybe a little compressed, as if the sound is not opening up with the higher level, somehow.
This could be both the performance [no drama here] the room, and the recording system.

I will look forward to hear some music with full frequency range and big dynamic changes like Mahler's 2nd or Stavinsky's "Sacre.." recorded by your system. Can it handle this force of sound with deep lows, twinkling highs, the physical impact of large scale brass and percussion!

Mads

PS: Just found the Tchaikovsky sound-clip, but since this seem to have been recorded in less that ideal acoustics, screwing the balance of the orchestra, this cannot convince me.
It's not a good demonstration recording.

[andy_simpson]

Originally Posted by d_fu

Is Poland really that big or were the streets that bad...?

Actually both!

My first impression (on speakers and at a fairly low volume) was quite positive, except for the fact that I thought some of the voices lacked a touch of presence.

Now on headphones (Beyer) and at higher volume, I'd tend to agree with Roland, I find the sound a bit coloured. There's a certain hig-mid range that sounds muffled, but higher up, I find the sound scratchy and not too pleasant. I also don't find the room to well captured, to be honest.

Considering the extent to which I have asserted my conviction that this would PASS A BLIND TEST WITH THE SOURCE I am somewhat at a loss as to what to make of these comments.

Were I to calibrate the microphones specifically for your speakers of choice and to suit your tastes & listening levels, no doubt the sound would be significantly different.

However, I can only really answer for these recordings according to direct comparison with the source, using properly spec'd speakers at equal listening levels.

Andy

[andy_simpson]

Originally Posted by mljung

Andy just curious about the setup: how far was the parallel pair apart?

***

I have only listened on headphones [hd580], so take this into account.

A significant caveat.

The sound reminds me a little bit of an old recording. The frequency balance seems a little uneven. Lo-mids are a little dominant without giving body to the sound, and it sounds as if there's some peak in the hi-freq region. It's apparent in the string sound and it's making sibilant parts of vocal parts in clip B jump out. Is this the room?
The louder passage at the end of clip B seems a little hazy or foggy, maybe a little compressed, as if the sound is not opening up with the higher level, somehow.
This could be both the performance [no drama here] the room, and the recording system.

I will look forward to hear some music with full frequency range and big dynamic changes like Mahler's 2nd or Stavinsky's "Sacre.." recorded by your system. Can it handle this force of sound with deep lows, twinkling highs, the physical impact of large scale brass and percussion!

Mads

PS: Just found the Tchaikovsky sound-clip, but since this seem to have been recorded in less that ideal acoustics, screwing the balance of the orchestra, this cannot convince me.
It's not a good demonstration recording.

It sounds like you are describing the response issues of the headphones you are using?

Again, were I to calibrate the recordings to suit your headphones it would be a futile exercise at best.

I recommend the use of these speakers:

K&H 0500
Strauss SE MF1
Meyer X10

& other speakers of this class.

Andy

[Corran]

Just a thought, Andy...

If you sent your recordings to a serious classical mastering house, would they be able to make your mix "translate" on any speakers?

I think that suggesting speakers specifically for your recordings is a little overboard. I personally find that these old Roland monitors I have access to at my place of work translate enough of this recording to be "awed" by the performance/room/recording. I don't know if they are driving it like you "want" but I'm happy with it. I think the criticisms are valid regardless of the speakers/headphones, insomuch as they can be coming from people here.

Anyway, my point is, until you can translate your recordings on any decent speaker around, I don't think it matters how good the recording is on your speakers. I don't even think it matters what the source actually sounded like, since I've been to plenty of "bad" performances and "bad" halls.

[matyas]

Originally Posted by Corran

Anyway, my point is, until you can translate your recordings on any decent speaker around, I don't think it matters how good the recording is on your speakers. I don't even think it matters what the source actually sounded like, since I've been to plenty of "bad" performances and "bad" halls.

Agreed.

[d_fu]

Originally Posted by andy_simpson

Considering the extent to which I have asserted my conviction that this would PASS A BLIND TEST WITH THE SOURCE I am somewhat at a loss as to what to make of these comments.

Since it's your thread, I hope you won't mind a hijack... How would you actually conduct such a blind test comparison with the source? IMHO this is technically impossible.

Were I to calibrate the microphones specifically for your speakers of choice and to suit your tastes & listening levels, no doubt the sound would be significantly different.

In fact, I very much doubt that, as you know... My speakers don't require music to be specifically calibrated to sound good..
And good recordings should not require specific speakers or levels to sound good IMHO. And while I haven't got K&H or Strauss speakers, I believe that what I've got is "properly spec'd" (whatever that means) and good/linear enough to determine a recording's basic charactersistics.

The sound is more pleasant on speakers, but last night's impression on headphones remains up to a point. Unfortunately, my Beyer DT880 Pro headphones are being serviced at the moment, I don't have them here.


Daniel

[andy_simpson]

Originally Posted by matyas

Agreed.

The idea of 'translation' is a nonsense, especially in this context.

At this level we are looking for 'perfect' sound but we are basing our subjective judgements on the speakers we use, via the equal loudness of our assessment.

Between the many speakers used for monitoring by the people who have viewed this thread there is likely a 30dB disparity in listening levels, a 30dB disparity in frequency response and a good portion of subjective taste.

These forums are full of wildly varying subjective assessments of recordings - this thread alone is evidence enough.

We can pick holes in any mastering job in the exact same way.

If I wished to create a recording to sound IDENTICAL on ALL playback systems I would reduce the bandwidth & dynamic range to that of a telephone.

The microphone is a tool - this is how I use it.

I make my comparison with the source.

Andy

PS - if anybody is interested enough you can find the .WAV files from the recording on my server here: clip A clip B, adjust the equalisation to your ideal and post the results with details of your monitoring setup.

These microphones are remarkable flexible due to the reduced mechanical distortion and you should find it easy to adjust without any artifacts.

[d_fu]

Originally Posted by andy_simpson

We can pick holes in any mastering job in the exact same way.

Sure we can, no doubt you find things in other people's recordings that don't please your ears. But you knew that you were subjecting yourself to the risk of potentially variant opinions when you posted these clips...

PS - if anybody is interested enough you can find the .WAV files from the recording on my server here: clip A clip B, adjust the equalisation to your ideal and post the results with details of your monitoring setup.

I could do that, but it would be beside the point. This recording's spectral characteristics is only part of why I feel a setup with different mics might have sounded better to my ears. I would have used my tools differently.

It's not at all a bad recording (which is also due to the quality of music to no small amount), I'm just not as enthusiastic about it as some others here.


Daniel

[rumleymusic]

I could do that, but it would be beside the point. This recording's spectral characteristics is only part of why I feel a setup with different mics might have sounded better to my ears. I would have used my tools differently.

It's not at all a bad recording (which is also due to the quality of music to no small amount), I'm just not as enthusiastic about it as some others here.

I am somewhat on the same page. The clips sound very good. There is a startling level of detail. Though the sound is lacking in a certain presence. I don't know if this has to do with the microphones or the position of the mics (which i suspect it was in the case of the rather muted orchestral Tchaikovsky) or even the source.

An audio comparison with other common classical recording mics (Schoeps/DPA/Josephson) on the same source would be very helpful.

[mljung]

Originally Posted by andy_simpson

A significant caveat.



It sounds like you are describing the response issues of the headphones you are using?

Again, were I to calibrate the recordings to suit your headphones it would be a futile exercise at best.

I recommend the use of these speakers:

K&H 0500
Strauss SE MF1
Meyer X10

& other speakers of this class.

Andy

I will check it on speakers soon and report back.

[NorseHorse]

What's that sound at :48 on the sample without vocals?

Not that it ruins everything... I just can't figure out what it is.