Why clean pres for jazz and classical?

[C/G]

After reading a zillion threads on mic pres, whenever the topic of recording Jazz or Classical music appears, the main concensus is that "clean" pres like a Grace or Millenia ect. are the pres to use for an uncoloured representation of the captured sound.

Being a colour junky myself, I wonder about using mic pres with character for recording these sources. Is a Neve or an API really a bad choice for a string quartet or a jazz ensemble?

Back in the day were engineers at RCA Records using transformerless mic pres to record all classical or jazz recordings? I would tend to think not, since pres like an RCA BA-6A or Langevin AM16, Telefunken V72 ect. would be using quite a coloured circuit with transformers in and out, or tubes in the signal path, no?

Is this clean/transformerless dogma, a recent appearance in the recording world, like in the last 20 years?

I would assume so since back in the day the engineers would be using RCA ribbons, U47's, Coles 4038's ect, all of which are quite coloured in their representation of the recorded sound.

I am not doubting the trend of a clean transformerless signal path, but would like some insight on the aspect of clean vs. colour in the recording of these two styles I have mentioned, this is more to simply satisfy my curiosity.

Would a classical recording really be that bad or done on a big old Neve console?

[unseen hand]

i've wondered about this too. my favorite jazz records and classical recordings from the 50's and 60's certainly have interesting coloration to them. i've done some jazz recordings with api and old ribbon mics which in my opinion sounded fantastic. same goes for recording strings and solo classical piano.

[Brad Lunde]

I think its because the sound of the intrument is real and verifiable. A cello sounds like a cello in just about any room or environment.
Brad

[borau]

Yes, it's live and verifiable. But even recording with the most transparent mic and chain ever made. It's not going to be mistaken for being a real cello.
So I, IMVHO, prefer the "larger than life" approach of some of the more colored gear, to the "a lesser copy" approach of the clean stuff.

I have no more trouble identifying the sound of a B&K 4003 than a U47.

One of the nicest experiences I had was the response from a cello player after being recorded with an Sdelux E47/Mercury M72s/LA2a chain:
"Oh Gosh! I was planning to buy a new Cello, but I think I'm just going to buy that big microphone there instead"

She's cute, too.

[RKrizman]

I've produced a few choir recordings, sometimes using Millenias and Schoeps and B & K's, other times using Neve consoles, vintage LDC's, and so forth. The latter have always been more satisfying. It's a pain to get that clean signal line to cough up any mojo. Stacks of plugins and remixes and Manley tube gear later it still sounds like a middle quality choir in a church with mediocre acoustics (which is, of course, what it is).
No slam on the Millenias, btw, which are incredible preamps.

-R

[mattssons]

I think it´s down to conservative thinking...
In a way i understand it, if someone spends a billion dollars on an old italian stringy thingy they would like to think it sounds good just as it is, but i know thre´s just as much cheating going on in classical recording as in other styles.

I find that recording can never be like reality no matter how hard we try.

I would like to see some daring orchestra playing something else than 600 year old covers and dare to use more //compression so i can listen to that classical radiostation i always skip because all of the hiss Hell i might even buy the record! ..and i still find it strange when chamber music is played in large reverbant halls..

Ok i have to admit i have a Millenia and i love what it does´nt do to the signal but sometimes reality is just so boring..Toby

[fifthcircle]

Hey, as an engineer that deals mostly with classical, I ask that question all the time. My answer is to use color. It really depends on the color, though....

Some tube pres are just not fast enough to reproduce transients in the instruments. I do use mostly solid-state, but I love the sound of Neve, API, etc... and my "go-to" these days is the new Pacifica mic pre. I've also used the Vac Rac tube pres for a lot of my work.

I also regularly use ribbon mics, and tube mics. Heck, a Neumann UM57 makes a great main pair for an orchestra, provided you balance it with a mic that is a bit more full frequency for the rest of your sound (ie flanks). Ribbons make great classical guitar mics (provided you have quiet enough preamps).

Also think of it this way- Every recording is a lie. Period. It is completely subjective, but no microphone or microphone system works like our hearing does. As engineers, we need to decide which representation of the truth is the one we prefer.

There certainly is a place for Schoeps, B&K, Millennia, Grace, etc... I just find that I usually prefer the interest that using a bit of color in your signal chain generates in your recording.

I say- Bring on the Color!

--Ben

[mr.gefell]

Originally Posted by Colin Gaucher

After reading a zillion threads on mic pres, whenever the topic of recording Jazz or Classical music appears, the main concensus is that "clean" pres like a Grace or Millenia ect. are the pres to use for an uncoloured representation of the captured sound.

Being a colour junky myself, I wonder about using mic pres with character for recording these sources. Is a Neve or an API really a bad choice for a string quartet or a jazz ensemble?

Back in the day were engineers at RCA Records using transformerless mic pres to record all classical or jazz recordings? I would tend to think not, since pres like an RCA BA-6A or Langevin AM16, Telefunken V72 ect. would be using quite a coloured circuit with transformers in and out, or tubes in the signal path, no?

Is this clean/transformerless dogma, a recent appearance in the recording world, like in the last 20 years?

I would assume so since back in the day the engineers would be using RCA ribbons, U47's, Coles 4038's ect, all of which are quite coloured in their representation of the recorded sound.

I am not doubting the trend of a clean transformerless signal path, but would like some insight on the aspect of clean vs. colour in the recording of these two styles I have mentioned, this is more to simply satisfy my curiosity.

Would a classical recording really be that bad or done on a big old Neve console?

this is a good question, one aspect is that most cleaner and transformerless gear, have the same coloration at higher gain and most likely lower noise and distortion as well.

[Steve G]

I think the idea of "clean" recordings has been misrepresented a little. A clean recording can still have color. I think the term "clean", when you are talking about jazz and classical music, means clear, not over compressed, and not distorted. On all the jazz records I work on we have racks of Neve and API mic pre's. We record with as many old Neumann tube mics as we can get our hands on. It's all how you apply the color. Where do you put the mic, do you eq or compress? We are trying to capture the sound that the player has worked lifetime to achieve, in the most pleasing way possible.

Steve

[the1Hub]

like fithcirlce i spend most of my time recording classical music. there are some great reasons to "clean" gear. one from a technical stand point there are much larger shifts in dynamic range with classical music. have gear that has very low self noise yeilding a larger dynamic range is key to capturing a clean and honest sound. there are people that believe the most effective way to capture is to be as transprent as possible. think of it this way. a great musician spends most of thier life developing a signature sound. beyond just the notes that they play and the style of music, great musicians also focus on how they play each of those note to produce what is the most pleasing sound, to them for that song/performance/emotional state/night of the week/ect. so why would that musician want to be recorded in a way that alters thier tonality in a given performance? genrally they dont. by staying as transperent as possible you give the artist the best opertuninty to share thier vision of how that particular piece should sound. granted recording is far from a perfect science, you will always effect the sound in someway. but why not stay out of the way as much as possible.

but hey if it sound good it must be ok right.

[Reggie Love]

It's a very good question and has made me think, I can't say that I've bothered to question the current received wisdom on this until now. There are plenty of recordings made with colour in them but from the mobile engineers I know, this tends to mainly come from the mikes rather than the pres. There are some engineers out there who seems to work to the need for almost ruler striaght mike curves, but other who will use mikes with quite strongly sculpted curves when cpaturing the sound.

A friend of mine has been using ORTF resonably close with spaced far omnis to fill out the bass. These are mainly Neumann KM series mikes of various stripes with 170s for local reinforcement, although he is not above hiring MK2s for certain work. He records primarily classical brass and likes the results he gets. He recorded last year's UK Brass Band champions but has let me know that he is looking for a pair of clear pres perhaps with the option of a little character to add to his options.

So colour is certainly a consideration for him, although the units he is considering are all solid state designs famed for their rapid transient capture AFAIK.

[RKrizman]

As soon as you put a mic on something, no matter what the mic is, you're dealing with a limited, less-than-perfect, and yes, distorted, version of the original event. If you simply transfer that to tape with a totally transparent signal chain, then that's all you get.

Maybe you need some stuff in the chain to pump it back up to its original wonderfulness. And if you overshoot and make it better than the original, then it's not like the listener is going to get a face full of birdshot or anything.

-R

[borau]

Thats EXACTLY the way I think of it aswell.

I realise it's highly unscientific, but nevertheless, I think classical and jazz music gains enourmously from some of the same "sexiness" that we like on other sources.
It's all about having a real understanding of what is being presented musically and act accordingly. With affection, not a frequency response chart.

[klaukholm]

Originally Posted by mattssons

if someone spends a billion dollars on an old italian stringy thingy they would like to think it sounds good just as it is, but i know
I would like to see some daring orchestra playing something else than 600 year old covers and dare to use more //compression so i can listen to that classical radiostation i always skip because all of the hiss Hell i might even buy the record! ..and i still find it strange when chamber music is played in large reverbant halls..

Where do I start..

Firt of all no orchestras play 600 year old music. Modern orchestras have their reportoire from the baroque period and later, with the bulk of the reportoire stemming from the romantic to modern periods.

Compression

The use of compression sort of reduces a great orchestra to ..well ... a lesser one as dynamics are a very large part of the sound of an orchestra. It is arguably the main way of creating shape in these styles. Take that away and you have .... boring.

Radio simply is simply not a very good medium for classical music.

If you find it strange that chamber music is played in reverberant halls, then I recommend you go listen to a group like the Tokyo Quartet in a concert hall of some quality. It is a very unique sonic experience.

Trust me, you do not want to hear the clasical reportoire in dry acoustics.

Have you ever sat next to a montagnana cello played by someone like truls mörk?
Trust me, it is a level of sonic excellence that you will never forget.

I get the feeling that you have never heard a good classical group play. PM me and I can get you some tickets to a concert I am playing week 8 - the danish national radio orchestra with sara chang and temirkanov.
You may change your mind about what we do.

kjetil

[borau]

Originally Posted by klaukholm

Have you ever sat next to a montagnana cello played by someone like truls mörk?
Trust me, it is a level of sonic excellence that you will never forget.

I have actually had that very honour, and you are quite right.

[RKrizman]

Originally Posted by klaukholm

Have you ever sat next to a montagnana cello played by someone like truls mörk?
Trust me, it is a level of sonic excellence that you will never forget.

I get the feeling that you have never heard a good classical group play. PM me and I can get you some tickets to a concert I am playing week 8 - the danish national radio orchestra with sara chang and temirkanov.
You may change your mind about what we do.

kjetil

Nobody's doubting the validity of the concert hall experience. But when you're listening to that 3 square foot cello soundboard, along with all the other string instrument sounding boards, vibrating tubes, and what not, coming out of a small box about a millionth the size of the concert hall you might want to have a trick or two up your sleeve to help you create a convincing illusion.

A straight wire with gain doesn't mean that you're somehow sucking that cello into your home speakers with some sort of electronic capillary action.

-R

[wwittman]

a great mic pre is great for anything.
a mic pre that isn't great for everything just isn't a great mic pre.
use only great mic pres.


it can be made more complicated than that, usually for marketing reasons, but that's really all there is to it.

[borau]

William,

You have made that point pretty clear. And for the most part I agree with you.
But you have to agree that if you place a Massenburg and a V72 side by side, they do sound quite differently, and for that reason can also be considered to be objects of artistic choices.
Specially for such sensitive tasks(and otherwise very clean and short recordings paths)as classical recording.
And I for one does not think there exists such a thing as a "transparent recording", so it becomes an issue of artistic choice.

Still there seem to be a clear trend towards fast, noiseless preamps in this sort of recording. Which for me atleast, suggests that there exists some sort of consensus that these are closer to the real deal than other designs. Which is a valid and interresting question, that raises more issues regarding the whole chain. And myths surrounding "transparency"

However, I agree that in general, mic-pres is getting ridicously much attention.

[wwittman]

I agree they are differenbt.
I agree it's a question of personal "artistic choice".

I DON'T think that one is suitable for one type of music and another not.

[fifthcircle]

I see 2 different definitions of "Clean" going on here.... I don't think anybody would even debate the need for a relatively low noise floor. To me that is a non-issue. A sennheiser condenser may have a lower noise floor than a vintage Neumann, but I don't think that people would really care much about either...

99% of the musicians I work with care only about the final sound of the product. I get people coming to me saying that my work has a lot more excitement than [insert name]. The difference was that I used large diaphragm mics, tube mics, etc... wheras the other person was a lot more traditional in their approach (super transparent signal chain). Like Rick said, the moment your sound hits the microphone, it is transformed. The question becomes figuring out the way to work with that transformation of sound in a way that pleases us and our clients.

--Ben

PS just saw the Tokyo String Quartet in one of the better halls here in LA a couple weeks back. It was nice to see a concert for a change, but also the sound they created was sublime. Then Sabine Meyer, one of the great German clarinetists, played the Mozart Quintet with them... Heaven....

[klaukholm]

I still remember the farewell concert of the former primarius Peter Oundjian in Stude concert hall at Rice U. One of my favourite 3 musical experiences ever. They were actually crying on stage in sadness of their farewell to Peter.
That sound - I will never forget
I also like Sabines Weber recordings a lot - great sound as well.

kjetil

[Jim vanBergen]

Allow me to chime in a few thoughts:

Most classical recordings that I have worked on required a great number of matched microphones and preamps that were set to extremely specific heights, positions, directions, and settings...and then recorded to two mix and multitrack recording for what was eventually HUNDREDS of edits between takes to try and capture a 'perfect' interpretation of a specific piece.

the Jazz pieces I work on often utilize many identical channels of preamplifiers and matched pairs of mics again, and THEN include the Neve, API, Telefunken, or other specific tube pre's with very specific tube or vintage mics.

The Millenia, Grace Earthworks, or similar preamps are VERY consistent in their specifications from one unit to another along its entire range of amplification and from one unit to another. If you are a lover of vintage (1073 or other) preamps, you will find they vary greatly from one unit to another. The problem is that the really wonderful pieces of vintage gear we use (and lust for) vary greatly from piece to piece and are not consistent over the course of a day, let alone several days, so the tone for a given moment is not exactly the same. How many U47s or 251s sound exactly the same on any given day?

Mr. Gefell makes an excellent observation, which I would like to champion:

"one aspect is that most cleaner and transformerless gear, have the same coloration at higher gain and most likely lower noise and distortion as well."

Now you start to see why producers and engineers who work on some jazz and classical projects demand certain gear, and why some studios can cater to orchestral work.

I hope this helps add some light to this discussion, instead of only adding mindless banter. Cheers!

JvB

[Samc]

I always thought that originally, designers aimed to design microphones and pre amps than captured sound as faithfully as possible. The "color" (or distortion really) was actually the result of flaws and limits in the design, construction, components or any combination of these reasons. This new phenomena of buying a pre because of its color is really just well......a new phenomena, a byproduct of the digital era of recording.

Like William said; a good pre is a good pre, and every good pre can be used to record any type of music.

[pkautzsch]

As my first message in Gearslutz, I'd like to add that most classical recordings HAVE BEEN filtered and processed in some way. And of course they need to be filtered and also "compressed" (i.e. soft parts made a little louder for the consumer in his living room where he can't turn the volume up to original orchestra levels).
The idea about "clean" recording is: If the microphone doesn't colour the sound, and if the pre doesn't colour it either, then we are able to use the EQ for just EXACTLY the coloration we want.
Using mics that slightly color what they are receiving saves me a lot of EQing
My favourites: solid state pres (not even the most expensive but rather MOTU, Audient, Mackie stuff), Neumann KM183, KM184, Schoeps MK2, 4, 21 - and for timpani some cheap and strongly colouring Oktava which is just THE best mic for timpani or anything else people can beat on in a classical orchestra.

[tenor39]

Most classical recordings that I have worked on required a great number of matched microphones and preamps that were set to extremely specific heights, positions, directions, and settings...and then recorded to two mix and multitrack recording for what was eventually HUNDREDS of edits between takes to try and capture a 'perfect' interpretation of a specific piece.

This is exactly the problem with most classical recordings of the last 25 years. In the attempt to make the "perfect" performance you end up taking the life and coherance out of the music. Mutiple mic's (we're talking 20+), edits, manipulations, etc. It seems that many have forgotten the old rule in home ownership: location, location, location. Spend more time placing fewer mic's in better locations. I'd rather have a peformance that wasn't technically perfect, but that had energy and life to it.

My take on mic's and pre's is to "do no harm". While some may prefer a colored sound, once it's layed down you can't take it back. Mess with it in mixdown if you desire. That's not to say that there is a "perfect" mic or pre, but strive for accuracy first. Of course, your milage may vary.

[klaukholm]

The problem, I believe, is in part one of economy. Orchestras do generally not take the time to find the sound. Typically we use 30 minutes on the first day. Yesterday we did a film score where the solution to this was an AEA decca tree equipped with a 4006 (black grid), MK2H and MK2S. Record all nine and decide later.

The other issue is the extent to which lesser orchestras record. An orchestra like Philadelphia and Berlin can do it all in one or two takes if they did a concert on the program that week, or if it is a standard reportoire piece.

[fifthcircle]

Originally Posted by tenor39

This is exactly the problem with most classical recordings of the last 25 years. In the attempt to make the "perfect" performance you end up taking the life and coherance out of the music. Mutiple mic's (we're talking 20+), edits, manipulations, etc. It seems that many have forgotten the old rule in home ownership: location, location, location. Spend more time placing fewer mic's in better locations. I'd rather have a peformance that wasn't technically perfect, but that had energy and life to it.

My take on mic's and pre's is to "do no harm". While some may prefer a colored sound, once it's layed down you can't take it back. Mess with it in mixdown if you desire. That's not to say that there is a "perfect" mic or pre, but strive for accuracy first. Of course, your milage may vary.

I agree completely it is the most important thing to get the mics in the right place. However, as klaukholm said, that isn't always possible. I've been in plenty of situations where my sound check is the warmup of musicians. From the first note of the session we're doing takes. Makes the process rather difficult and that much more important to have an idea of the sound you want before you place a mic as well as knowing your rig.

Now, about the color comment... Yes, do no harm, but what is harm to the sound as it relates to a preamp? Fast transient response? Harmonic Distortion (even harmonic distortion tends to give us that tube sound that many like)? etc... I find that the majority of my clients prefer the sound I get when I use so-called "colored" gear. The majority of my clients love the sounds of tubes and such... Is that doing harm to the sound? And as I asked earlier.... What is accuracy in recording- all mics lie in one way or another...

--Ben

[tenor39]

The problem, I believe, is in part one of economy. Orchestras do generally not take the time to find the sound. Typically we use 30 minutes on the first day. Yesterday we did a film score ...

Most orchestras that I record want me to "find the sound", even to the extent of putting the extra time in the musician's contracts. I'm not talking about hours, here. Yes, you can place more mic's than you'll need, but the way most film scores are done these days leads to a flat, 2-dimensional sound that, even when manipulated for surround, sounds like 5-channel mono, with various instruments coming from behind me.tutt As an engineer and producer I have a say in the layout of the ensemble, even to the point of stopping the record to move things around. To me this is a "pay me know or pay me later" issue. Do you really think everything can be fixed in post? I'd rather spend some extra time at the beginning to save myself and my client time, money, and headaches, along with providing the best possible sound.

Now, about the color comment... Yes, do no harm, but what is harm to the sound as it relates to a preamp? Fast transient response? Harmonic Distortion (even harmonic distortion tends to give us that tube sound that many like)? etc... I find that the majority of my clients prefer the sound I get when I use so-called "colored" gear. The majority of my clients love the sounds of tubes and such... Is that doing harm to the sound? And as I asked earlier.... What is accuracy in recording- all mics lie in one way or another...

This goes to a personal philosophy I have concerning recording. I have listened to many microphones in the last 20 years and decided that transparency and truthfulness were the most important factors for me. I have on occasion sent potential clients elsewhere if they wanted a "pop" version of classical or jazz. If you want the "tube" sound run the mix through a tube based summer, mixer, compressor, etc. In my experience you can add all of this to taste later in the process, but if it comes in that way you're stuck with it. I understand what you mean about certain client preferences. I've had a few describe my sound as "too real". Well, that's what I'm all about. If you want the recording to sound like Ricky Martin go somewhere else.

The other issue is the extent to which lesser orchestras record. An orchestra like Philadelphia and Berlin can do it all in one or two takes if they did a concert on the program that week, or if it is a standard reportoire piece.

Yes, better groups are generally less problematic, but this isn't always so. I remember being involved in a record with the Chicago Symphony that was the nit-pick from hell! Over 4 hours to do a 12 minute piece, and the end result still wasn't that good because of the edits, which were sometimes one note long! I always make sure the music director/conductor knows that we have limited time and to come prepared. This goes for any ensemble, large or small. I also try to arrange to do the record right after a performance, tour, season, etc. I refuse to become involved in projects that don't adhere to most of these principles, as they end up costing me time, money, and stress that I don't need. Just my $.02.

[klaukholm]

I would be careful about trying to rearrange the setup of an orchestra unless it is done by talking with the conductor ahead of time and have the order go from him.
Moving takes a lot of time, and is often very unpopular in higher end orchestras. If you change the setup of an orchestra, the timing and pitch cues come from different places for the different sections and takes a day or two to get used to at a minimum. Often you sit the way you sit in order to optimize the sound of that particular group in that particular space. Vienna sits in an operasetup on stage for reasons of comfort as that is what they are used to from the pit. Move those guys into a regular setup and they will fire your ass even if your name is Barenboim.

kjetil

[tenor39]

Of course, kjetil, I consult the director. I'm not talking about major shifts of position, here, rather modest, small movements to firm things up. I will, however, suggest more radical changes IF the record venue is not the same as the home auditorium. I am a musician myself and know about "comfort zones", and the desire of musicians to hear the other sections. It's a fine line of boundaries that you have to walk with most groups. If you don't they will cause you no end of grief. You have to do this no matter what their name is. I'd rather be fired for trying to do my job right, than letting someone set conditions that will lead to a bad record, editing hell, and ultimately a dissatisfied client. I have done this with more than a few "big names" with pretty good success. I always feel them out for this before hand, not taking the gig if it looks like more trouble than it's worth. Sound like you've had a few bad experiences with this. I did, too, until I stopped letting myself be run over for the sake of getting the job. Not worth it, IMHO.