The Bricasti M7 = obsolescence of the good-sounding room?

[Vienna1897]

I've heard so many raves about the Bricasti M7 that a general question has been rolling around in my head: have we gotten to the point at which the quality of some post-production equipment is so high that acoustic musicians, struggling to find appropriate and available rooms for recording, can seriously consider recording in an acoustically neutral/dead space (much easier to find and access) and have the acoustic that's appropriate for the music added electronically? I've always been quite skeptical of this sort of thing, but the number of folks referring to the Bricasti with remarks like "I guarantee that nobody will hear the difference" piques my curiosity. Given the many sonic compromises that seem to be inherent in the digital domain and the distribution of digital recordings (as well as the vagaries of psycho-acoustics), I wonder if we've crossed a threshold of sorts.

Although I suppose said threshold-crossing would be in the ear of the beholder......

[studer58]

Adding ambience electronically is not a new thing, been around since the advent of Lexicon in a 'serious' way and long before that if you consider plates, springs, live chambers, etc. Of course predating all those were cathedrals, monasteries, caves, Grand Canyon etc.

So, can the convolving box replace the architecture ? Well maybe...especially if listeners have little or no exposure to the "real thing", they are much more likely to buy the facsimile experience as a credible substitute. In addition, if that credible substitute gives them 96.75% of the real thing minus 'real world interruptions' like buses, cars, aircraft, motorbikes, coughing audiences, birds nesting noisily in roofs, etc then the equation swings even more strongly in favour of the box.

What's more rarely mentioned is that acoustic players/singers in significant sized spaces actually play to that acoustic...it figures in their timing, phrasing in the sense that they pace their playing to the reverb. You have to be an audience member in said auditorium to experience it first hand tho ! Now if that recording is done in a dry acoustic, and the 'verb is added later, the performance will not have those micropauses inherent in the playing...because the musicians were not playing to/with the reverb of the room.

So there will be a subliminal, probably even noticeable, disjunct between the performance and the surrounding acoustic, because it was plastered on after the fact. This could be averted by having the musicians playing with cans on, and said reverb fed to them during the recording process....indeed that's pretty standard pop/rock studio practice. A lot of classically trained musicians are averse to that procedure though, and would rather hear their fellow musicians in the studio minus cans. Same goes for classically trained singers...the cans can remove much of the vital 'biofeedback' that comes from jaw movement, bone conduction etc... so they prefer to leave them off.

Thus, I suggest that while the 'convo in a box' verbs will give the audio tail of the big space, they can't/won't give you the performance that would have happened in same big space (unless cans were on the musicians during the recording) Discuss.

[JoeDeF]

Originally Posted by Vienna1897

I've heard so many raves about the Bricasti M7 that a general question has been rolling around in my head: have we gotten to the point at which the quality of some post-production equipment is so high that acoustic musicians, struggling to find appropriate and available rooms for recording, can seriously consider recording in an acoustically neutral/dead space (much easier to find and access) and have the acoustic that's appropriate for the music added electronically?

What is an acoustically neutral/dead space? I've never been in one.... Every space leaves its imprint on the recorded sound; there are always reflections in the real world (by which I mean, practically speaking, not in an anechoic chamber).

Most musical sources (let's call them instruments) typically radiate sound in irregular patterns, and mic(s) placed in a specific place will:

1) pick up the constructive/destructive interferences created by sounds emanating from different parts of the instrument (think a piano, or an acoustic guitar; why does the sound change, sometimes drastically, when you move a close microphone even a few centimeters?).

2) pick up the constructive/destructive interferences created by sounds partially reflected and partially absorbed by the environment, which will then constructively/destructively combine with the direct sound arriving simultaneously.

So, even if you, say, try to use extreme close micing in order to minimize the room sound, condition 1 (above) will cause you to get an unnaturally comb filtered signal. And, if you mic further away, condition 2 (above) will cause inevitable coloration.

I don't see any way around it.

That doesn't mean I don't try to do exactly what you are suggesting; it just means that I have to be honest with myself about the compromised quality of the results.

[Tim Abraham]

No convo (or algo) I've ever tried sounds anything like a pair of 67's, 4038's or any other room mics that I use when I record a drums kit (for example) in a great drum room.

Even if I treat the Altiverb/TL Space/Lexi/etc like I do to real room mic setups (compression, distortion, eq, transient designer), they just don't work well for me.

I either suck at getting reverbs to sound like real room mics, or else I've recorded and/or mixed too many drum kits in real spaces to be satisfied with the emulations.

[Rolo 46]

I have never heard a true rendition of a limestone cathedral reverb
Its a black velvet texture unknown to machine and chip.

[The Listener]

You could get something useful with Flux Ircam Tools Spat and Verb, too... very realistic, but needs a lot of tweaking, while recording in a nice space - you just put the mics where it sounds good and you have it all perfectly...

Anyway, ECM albums all sound wonderfully 3D and atmospheric with really rich and beautiful reverbs and nice tone of instruments and I was really surprised when I read that they are very into close micing and using artificial reverbs later and they are doing this for years already.

[butterfly]

What's more rarely mentioned is that acoustic players/singers in significant sized spaces actually play to that acoustic...it figures in their timing, phrasing in the sense that they pace their playing to the reverb. You have to be an audience member in said auditorium to experience it first hand tho ! Now if that recording is done in a dry acoustic, and the 'verb is added later, the performance will not have those micropauses inherent in the playing...because the musicians were not playing to/with the reverb of the room.

So there will be a subliminal, probably even noticeable, disjunct between the performance and the surrounding acoustic, because it was plastered on after the fact. This could be averted by having the musicians playing with cans on, and said reverb fed to them during the recording process....indeed that's pretty standard pop/rock studio practice. A lot of classically trained musicians are averse to that procedure though, and would rather hear their fellow musicians in the studio minus cans. Same goes for classically trained singers...the cans can remove much of the vital 'biofeedback' that comes from jaw movement, bone conduction etc... so they prefer to leave them off.

Thus, I suggest that while the 'convo in a box' verbs will give the audio tail of the big space, they can't/won't give you the performance that would have happened in same big space (unless cans were on the musicians during the recording) Discuss.

......succinctly put.......that's it in essence. I own a Bricasti and it excells at rooms... I have found one can synthesise pretty convincing room mics on a drum kit if the origonalls stink and likewise glue an electric band performance that was all overdubs but where it falls short , as studer 58 pointed out and this is not the Bricasti at fault, is trying to recreate the sound of accoustic musicians playing "into" a beautiful room.....classical piano and voice or indeed any other instrument. However if it's say a close miced vocal recorded with that " intent" it can really work wonders on the overall vibe and emotive impact of the performance.

[Douglas Whates]

Originally Posted by The Listener

Anyway, ECM albums all sound wonderfully 3D and atmospheric with really rich and beautiful reverbs and nice tone of instruments and I was really surprised when I read that they are very into close micing and using artificial reverbs later and they are doing this for years already.

Yes, but more and more I feel this ECM reverb is becoming very hackneyed. I used to really like that synthetic-reverb they use, but it's beginning to aggravate and even, in some cases, takes away rather than adds to the music.

[Jim Williams]

Originally Posted by JoeDeF

What is an acoustically neutral/dead space? I've never been in one....

Ever been outside? Only the ground reflects. That can also be adjusted a bit too.

There will probably not be a substitute for the finest spaces for some time, but that M7 is about a close as you can get.

What it can do on a dry recording done outdoors is simply amazing. What it's done in craphole clubs like Catalina's Jazz club in Hollywood is more impressive. It can turn a box into a concert hall. Nothing else comes close.

There are two kinds of studios in this world, those that use the M7 and those that do not. I would prefer you not use one, that makes my stuff sound better.

[Plush]

Heresy I say, heresy.

Good acoustics are over 50% of the sound of a recording, so no, we will never reach a day where we can do it with a box.

Heresy.

[sonare]

No one seems to remember the SOURCE of these sounds-- the musicians. And anyone who maintains that playing in a superb room doesn't enhance the performance simply has not been fortunate enough to have experienced it.

I can only speak with classical projects in mind (which I tend to enhance a little with Altiverb so that the recorded acoustic sounds like what you remember the room being like) but if the room where you record isn't at least decent-- you won't get much of recording or a performance.

To my ear the Bricasti actually sounds TOO good. And as with pipe organs vs digital organs-- you can hear a difference, and it usually has to do with the digital being too "perfect." There are other factors which are not relevant to this topic-- but the bottom line is that the real thing IS the reality.

Rich

[Vienna1897]

I'm still inclined to think that the acoustical complexity of a good-sounding room can't be electronically duplicated to an extent that I would find satisfying, but I don't have the sort of certitude I used to have that the technology won't reach that point. And the influence that beliefs can have on our perceptions is very hard to escape (Orwell's maxim - "To see what is in front of one's nose needs a constant struggle" - has always seemed quite sapient to me).

There was a fascinating double-blind study done recently by a team of French and American scientists that compared some of what we commonly believe to be the finest violins in existence - violins made by Stradivari and Guarneri 300 years ago during what's considered the Golden Age of Violin Making - with good quality new instruments. Here's an excerpt from the opening paragraph of the study paper (I'll attach the full thing for those who are interested):


Most violinists believe that instruments by Stradivari and Guarneri “del Gesu” are tonally superior to other violins—and to new violins in particular. Many mechanical and acoustical factors have been proposed to account for this superiority; however, the fundamental premise of tonal superiority has not yet been properly investigated. Player’s judgments about a Stradivari’s sound may be biased by the violin’s extraordinary monetary value and historical importance, but no studies designed to preclude such biasing factors have yet been published. We asked 21 experienced violinists to compare violins by Stradivari and Guarneri del Gesu with high-quality new instruments. The resulting preferences were based on the violinists’ individual experiences of playing the instruments under double-blind conditions in a room with relatively dry acoustics. We found that (i) the most-preferred violin was new; (ii) the least-preferred was by Stradivari; (iii) there was scant correlation between an instrument’s age and monetary value and its perceived quality; and (iv) most players seemed unable to tell whether their most-preferred instrument was new or old. These results present a striking challenge to conventional wisdom.

I can guarantee that most serious string players would consider findings like these quite hard to believe. Instruments made by Amati, Stradivari, Guarneri, Guadagnini, et al have been looked upon as examples of a sort of structural-acoustical genius that most likely would never be reproduced. Every material and structural element of these instruments has been studied for centuries in the greatest detail and with the widest variety of available means. And it's important to note that this was an apples to apples comparison, in the sense that the great old violins were being compared to very high-quality new ones.

I think that listening to a classical music recording is such an inherently different experience from listening to a live classical music performance that one's expectations are extremely different in each instance. Recording is still, when all is said and done, an artificial construct, and I've never heard a recording in which I couldn't point out the myriad ways in which I was hearing things I'd never hear in sitting in the best seat of the hall, whether it's a flute solo in the lower register that usually inaudible, or clearly discerning the pitches in soft pizzicati, or a horn section that magically blends well with the bassoons yet holds its own with the rest of the brass section, or a baroque violinist whose small, relatively slack-tensioned instrument is engulfing a cathedral with sound, and on and on. Perhaps finding a result that is truly satisfying is a more realistic goal than chasing more abstract concepts such as accuracy, fidelity, etc., which imply an objectivity that is at least questionable.

Discussing sound is a bit like discussing religion, isn't it?

[Plush]

Hello Vienna,

I read with interest you response above. Yes, certainly, making a recording IS a distinct art form separate from offering a "document" of a performance. In listening to a "documentary" or "photographic" recording, the listener expects to hear what they heard in a good seat in a concert hall. This is the way recording practice started out when recording equipment first became available.

Now, years later and still with shifting priorities of recording aesthetic, we hear all types of classical recordings, the best of them mostly, a pure creation---a fantasy as compared to the documentary style. I like these fantastical recordings.

I studied rhetoric and I learned then that analogy is the weakest form of argument (where argument equals an attempt to persuade). So, too, your violin test example has little to do with acoustics or with engineer's beliefs about halls.

In fact, with perception about the halls we are at the opposite pole and away from the violin tests. They couldn't hear the difference in the fiddles and we easily hear the difference between halls because they are actually different and obvious. There is no need to "convince" ourselves of what we are hearing.

Decca Records chose recording dates and times based on when certain halls were available. So, too, does BIS Records, Harmonia Mundi, ECM, Jordi Savall and Alia-Vox Records etc.

You can find the most famous recording people in the world at their happiest and proudest when they are giving you a play back and they tell you that the gorgeous recording you're hearing has no added reverb.

[johnsound]

There are already four other threads about the violin test; please can we not turn this into another one?

Thanks,

John

[Uncle Russ]

Interesting discussion. It seems to involve two issues:

1. How the engineer wants his recording to sound. (Some prefer natural reverb, others may find an excellent synthetic reverb acceptable, and many combine decent acoustics with a synthetic.)

2. How the performance varies in the recording environment.

The first is a matter of taste. The second merits discussion because, as a performing musician, the terrific halls I've played in tended to inspire me.

[iain_m]

Originally Posted by The Listener

Anyway, ECM albums all sound wonderfully 3D and atmospheric with really rich and beautiful reverbs and nice tone of instruments and I was really surprised when I read that they are very into close micing and using artificial reverbs later and they are doing this for years already.

I'd be interested to hear more about this - do you have a link?

[AB3]

Good point. But assuming the human race continues for thousands of years, humans will find a way to make the boxes less perfect.

How long have digital reverbs been around? 50 years? Some here are alluding that a box will never replicate some live rooms - I am sure that a thousand years ago they said that people could not have a radio or tv as well.

Originally Posted by sonare

No one seems to remember the SOURCE of these sounds-- the musicians. And anyone who maintains that playing in a superb room doesn't enhance the performance simply has not been fortunate enough to have experienced it.

I can only speak with classical projects in mind (which I tend to enhance a little with Altiverb so that the recorded acoustic sounds like what you remember the room being like) but if the room where you record isn't at least decent-- you won't get much of recording or a performance.

To my ear the Bricasti actually sounds TOO good. And as with pipe organs vs digital organs-- you can hear a difference, and it usually has to do with the digital being too "perfect." There are other factors which are not relevant to this topic-- but the bottom line is that the real thing IS the reality.

Rich

[nkf]

When I listen to (classical) music recordings with 'real room' acoustics, it sounds sometimes like a wrong setup room simulation (of a box) to me. There is an obsession with naturalness which is purely ideological. It can work practically but sometimes it doesn't.
Heresy is a good thing ... Art and music is as non-natural as Tuperware or a database. Culture is the antipod of nature, it's technology based and driven. Better a good artificial room than a bad recorded good 'natural' room.

[The Listener]

Originally Posted by iain_m

I'd be interested to hear more about this - do you have a link?

Yes, of course I can give you at least one link, Google for more - it is commonly known.

But don't understand this like I am advocating this approach - I'm just saying - it can work wonderfully. But a great recording in a great room is something even more special and also some newer ECM releases are like that...

btw - I just listened to a wonderful older recording of David Hykes Harmonic Choir - "Hearing Solar Winds" (not ECM related) and since it is bordering on New Age music (albeit the most possible creative and artistically fulfilling version of this genre) I thought it was some artificial reverb - "wow, what a nice reverb they got", I thought - but when I checked on the technical aspects I realized it was recorded in Thoronet Abbey in France. / David Hykes & The Harmonic Choir - Arc Descents - YouTube

ECM:

The ECM Story

"Technically speaking, Jan Erik Kongshaug uses close miking : "According to the instrument, the microphone is placed at around 10 to 50 cm away (10 for a bass, 50 for a saxophone or a trumpet for example). I like Neumann mikes (U87 or the new M149), and Schoeps are very good too. I don't play much with ambience mikes : I have so many room simulators, reverbs and everything in my racks that I prefer creating the room sound afterwards".

But the new series sound even better and I am sure they recorded those Arvo Pärt albums in natural acoustics - actually I just checked quickly - yes, they did: Arvo Pärt - Zwei Wiegenlieder (fragment from "Sounds and Silence") - YouTube

Enjoy!

[boojum]

McGill is still doing much research in artificial reverb. They released a series called the "Virtual Haydn" wherein they recreated several real spaces artificially: Virtual Haydn - reviews

Saying this cannot be done successfully is like saying that if God intended man to fly he would have given him wings.

[Jim Williams]

I would suggest everyone reponding say whether they have/used the M7 before their opinions on it.

That way we know whether you're talking out yer a** or not.

[The Listener]

Originally Posted by boojum

McGill is still doing much research in artificial reverb. They released a series called the "Virtual Haydn" wherein they recreated several real spaces artificially: Virtual Haydn - reviews

Saying this cannot be done successfully is like saying that if God intended man to fly he would have given him wings.

The day you will spread your "God-given" wings, take off the ground and fly several thousand miles by your own body you will realize that sitting in an airplane or even in a balloon is just not the same experience.

Using flying suit can probably come close, but then again - you cannot take off and land with it... so it is not the same again.

Actually what you said is a perfect analogy for artificial reverb - it can be done, but it is not quite the same as acoustic music in real space.

[Bob Olhsson]

Originally Posted by sonare

No one seems to remember the SOURCE of these sounds-- the musicians. And anyone who maintains that playing in a superb room doesn't enhance the performance simply has not been fortunate enough to have experienced it.

I can only speak with classical projects in mind ...

Let me assure you the same is true of pop music and even vocal overdubs. I'd rather do drums in a living room than vocals!

[MichaelPatrick]

I get the pleasure to work in some nice rooms and I also have a Bricasti M7. Here's my aesthetic production philosophy:

What mics to use is a decision of art.
Where to place the mics is a decision of art.
When to use artificial reverb is a decision of art.
How to use artificial reverb is a decision of art.
All of the recording arts deserve experimentation and continuous improvement so that recordists will always have plenty of skill and options to offer their clients.

Good musicians expect good recordists to have aesthetic sensibilities, technical mastery, and all the tools and techniques needed to capture their performance and present it in playback.

Technical purism can be important to a performer. When it is, it must be delivered. When it is not, artificial reverb and other production techniques can be artfully applied to achieve fantastic results.

[The Listener]

Btw - I stumbled upon this thread and in that post you hear an attempt to make a completely real sounding space with M7:

http://www.gearslutz.com/board/3723149-post6.html

Probably it is possible to do it better, to "embed" the voice in the space more, but it is rather typical for artificial reverberation that it sounds sort of "pasted on" the signal rather than the "dry" signal being part of the same physical media - air... , completely embedded with all the infinity of random sound clues coming from all directions.

Compare how a similar source (female voice singing Hildegard von Bingen music) sounds in real space:

Karen Clark, contralto, performs Hildegard von Bingen by Triple Spiral Productions - YouTube

As much as I like quality "reverberators", I think it is really not the same as real room.

While I have yet to use the M7, I could do some nice things with the Flux Ircam Verb, maybe the most life like I ever heard and I did already hear and use Lexicon PCM bundle, Lexicon 480, PCM91, TC3000, TC VSS3, Virsyn Reflect 2 and tried almost all the plug-ins that claimed extraordinary quality. Flux Verb is the only that really lived up to the hype. Many others are useful for FX kind of use and pop music - also great UAD and Nebula plates...

But to achieve acoustic realism needed for classical and some other styles... I don't know...

But hey - M7 users - post examples what can be done...

But I fear you would have a hard time convincing classical musicians to try and perform in a dry room...

[aracu]

Originally Posted by JoeDeF

What is an acoustically neutral/dead space? I've never been in one.... Every space leaves its imprint on the recorded sound; there are always reflections in the real world (by which I mean, practically speaking, not in an anechoic chamber).

You can create a very clean, clear sounding space with no noticable reflections, by placing thick layers of bonded acoustical cotton to the cieling and walls. This type of room treatment also makes the room much more soundproof to external sounds.

[fifthcircle]

Originally Posted by MichaelPatrick

I get the pleasure to work in some nice rooms and I also have a Bricasti M7. Here's my aesthetic production philosophy:

What mics to use is a decision of art.
Where to place the mics is a decision of art.
When to use artificial reverb is a decision of art.
How to use artificial reverb is a decision of art.
All of the recording arts deserve experimentation and continuous improvement so that recordists will always have plenty of skill and options to offer their clients.

Good musicians expect good recordists to have aesthetic sensibilities, technical mastery, and all the tools and techniques needed to capture their performance and present it in playback.

Technical purism can be important to a performer. When it is, it must be delivered. When it is not, artificial reverb and other production techniques can be artfully applied to achieve fantastic results.

Michael-

Well said...

I've said it again and again. All recordings lie. The question is what lie is it that we like and which do we want to present? Even transparency is an approximation- this is why the Schoeps brand of transparent is different than DPA which is different than sennheiser, etc... Same can be said of Preamps (substitute Grace, Millennia, Gordon, etc...) The artistry of an engineer is making those choices of tonality.

Tonality functions as both mics as well as interpretation of room. Perhaps I'm in the wrong city, but here in LA, there are precious few rooms that are worth micing. Most of them have some sort of glaring flaw that gets in the way of wanting to use it for a recording. I'll make a blended sound with the forces I can control and if we need more, I won't hesitate to use a digital reverb- in most cases, that reverb is my Bricasti.

I think there is always a place for a good sounding room, but there is also a place for the best quality digital reverbs.

I, too, would love to see who on this thread has actually used one. Comments such as "it sounds too good" to me sound like personal reasoning as to why you shouldn't own one. I mean, we're in the business of making things sound good, right? There is also a lot of talking out the figurative butts on gearslutz whenever certain pieces come up in discussion. The Bricasti is one of those pieces. You can almost sound intelligent talking about it because there is so much information out there.

--Ben

[Jim Williams]

Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson

I'd rather do drums in a living room than vocals!

That really depends on the living room. Some are boxes like in 3+2 tract houses. Some are expansive, mine has 12 to 15 foot ceilings, not typical. I've been in some that would rival the best studios, also not typical.

[Jim Williams]

Originally Posted by The Listener

Btw - I stumbled upon this thread and in that post you hear an attempt to make a completely real sounding space with M7:

http://www.gearslutz.com/board/3723149-post6.html

Probably it is possible to do it better, to "embed" the voice in the space more, but it is rather typical for artificial reverberation that it sounds sort of "pasted on" the signal rather than the "dry" signal being part of the same physical media -

The application effects results too. If the M7 is run digital I/O into a DAW, it does sound flat to me too. Everything does, that's what ITB mixing does.

Run it analog into a very good console and it wraps around your head, completely different.

[bee]

Originally Posted by Jim Williams

The application effects results too. If the M7 is run digital I/O into a DAW, it does sound flat to me too. Everything does, that's what ITB mixing does.

Run it analog into a very good console and it wraps around your head, completely different.

I'm curious if other Bricasti owners feel the same, any other Bricasti owners care to coment?