Orchestral Recording Comparisons Now On-Line

[T.RayBullard]

You didnt answer the question, Roland..who were you talking about?

Originally Posted by Roland

Often the mics are set up prior to the session, rough levels are set, some known's and variables are taken into account.

Band comes in, tunes, passage for test is chosen, passage is run, quick listen back. Adjustments that the engineer producer want are noted to be made, comments from the conductor and maybe a couple of principle players are taken into account.

Mics are moved, (worst case scenario, though rare, changed) quick check (are the issues addressed?) If not quick fixes invoked.

Whole process around 10-15 mins usually, 20 mins absolute max as this is eating into session time.

Take one, tapes rolling!


Thats how it is for me.

Regards


Roland

[d_fu]

Originally Posted by T.RayBullard

That is just a fact. I dont like hearing a bunch of soloists, I like the *ensemble* feel .(this partly because I dont do "sessions" and refuse to. I am ALL live) My signature says it all, the words came from a wise man..

Not all multi-mic recordings sound like "a bunch of soloists". And I've commented on your signature before. I think it is a bit too generalized and does not take things like time alignment into account. Or even the fact that spots can be used "sparingly, like spice", without changing the overall feel of a recording.

anyway...mix aside, I like the overall vibe of the 2 mics vs the other..

So do I, but that is mostly due to the mix as such... And even though you may not want to admit it, I'm sure the quality (as a neutral term) of the mix influences your preference, too.

and FWIW, the Gestapo does not refer only to Germans.

So what. It is a very inappropriate, tasteless and rude comment. This choice of words speaks volumes about you, chum...

if you come off like a rude jackass, youll probably get treated like one...that is all I can say.

Well, well... I really don't think you of all people are in a position to give yourself the "elder statesman" airs here... Won't say more.

Sorry for being OT.

PS: Why do you fully quote Roland's message above, which has absolutely nothing to do with your question (which I'd also like answered, BTW)?

[d_fu]

John,

I think I've made it clear that I quite appreciate your contribution and find the topic very interesting. I'm sure you do not need the help of Mr. Bullard to realize that my comments were in no way personal.

[apply Oxford accent here] However.... [/Oxford]

Originally Posted by johnlagrou

Without stating a preference either way, I should note that editing and mixing were done elsewhere. I had no artistic control after the recording sessions, nor can I describe what mixing techniques were used, other than obvious pans, levels, and verbs.

With all due respect, this statement of yours makes me ponder whether this particular recording is ideally suited for such a comparison, as I've said before. Not primarily because I am personally not very fond of this mix, but because I think such a comparison would be best if both recording and mix were under one person's (or team's) artistic control. Maybe you would have come up with a different mix of this recording.
This would ensure that a recording engineer who chooses to make a multi-mic recording will make a mix that sounds good to his ears, which could then be compared to the sound of just the main mic.

But somehow even this is not really the mother of all 2 vs. 20 comparisons... I assume that if you (or anyone) were to make a pure stereo recording under different curcumstances (i.e. with more time to set up...), you would possibly use another setup/position for the main pair than what you'd use with a multi-mic setup in mind (even though you say that ideally 80% of the overall sound is the main pair).

What I'm trying to say is that maybe just muting the spots on a given multichannel recording mix isn't a fully valid comparison of two fundamentally different approaches to recording (which is what T.R.B seems to think).

Are there others who would contribute similar samples (I will, if others do..)? Main pair vs. your own mix? Or has anyone got examples of parallel recordings, one optimized for 2 mic, one for multichannel?


Daniel

[Roland]

Originally Posted by d_fu

John,

I think I've made it clear that I quite appreciate your contribution and find the topic very interesting. I'm sure you do not need the help of Mr. Bullard to realize that my comments were in no way personal.

[apply Oxford accent here] However.... [/Oxford]



With all due respect, this statement of yours makes me ponder whether this particular recording is ideally suited for such a comparison, as I've said before. Not primarily because I am personally not very fond of this mix, but because I think such a comparison would be best if both recording and mix were under one person's (or team's) artistic control. Maybe you would have come up with a different mix of this recording.
This would ensure that a recording engineer who chooses to make a multi-mic recording will make a mix that sounds good to his ears, which could then be compared to the sound of just the main mic.

But somehow even this is not really the mother of all 2 vs. 20 comparisons... I assume that if you (or anyone) were to make a pure stereo recording under different curcumstances (i.e. with more time to set up...), you would possibly use another setup/position for the main pair than what you'd use with a multi-mic setup in mind (even though you say that ideally 80% of the overall sound is the main pair).

What I'm trying to say is that maybe just muting the spots on a given multichannel recording mix isn't a fully valid comparison of two fundamentally different approaches to recording (which is what T.R.B seems to think).

Are there others who would contribute similar samples (I will, if others do..)? Main pair vs. your own mix? Or has anyone got examples of parallel recordings, one optimized for 2 mic, one for multichannel?


Daniel

Danniel, I think you are missing the point. If the mix was perfect with just the two mic's, adding the others would be detrimental. If the mix was better with all the spots in then juwst listening to the two mics would also be detrimental.

It is unlikely that you could put up a demo where both were given equal weight, possibly because there really wouldn't be much point. Spot mics are not put up just as a "technique", they are used as a necessary evil.

Any session using just a pair, potentially has an advantaqe, every old timer in here knows that, but what they also know and you seem to be missing is that there are reasons why the spots are needed. You commented on the Counter-Tenor being too present on one take, however, it is entirely likely that this could have been insisted on by the artist or producer or just necessary to balance him with the rest of the artists.

For many years there have been the recording outfits that "only do the single mic, purist thing". In my experience often the music suffers, and few of these recordings stand the test of time on artistic merit.

You mentioned about time aligning spots. not many people do that and there are many reason why it can cause more problems than it solves, suffice to say that Teddy's favourite Tony Faulkner took part in a listening test for Studio Sound many years ago where they compared spot's without time alignment and with and all present were suprised when they prefered the non timed version.

Teddy you mention prefering older recordings, but short of going back to the 50's most classical records have had a good deal of spot micing since the 60's. Often Everest and Living stereo are held up as great examples of the past, and for their time they were, but now they are all remastered and you can compare them with the best modern releases they do show their age.


Regards ro all


Roland

[d_fu]

Originally Posted by Roland

Danniel, I think you are missing the point.

I don't think so, but I believe you've misunderstood some of what I said.

If the mix was perfect with just the two mic's, adding the others would be detrimental. If the mix was better with all the spots in then juwst listening to the two mics would also be detrimental.

Just my point, really. That's why I said just muting spots on a given multi-mic mix isn't really an ideal way to compare fundamentally different methods. The main mic setup for a purist recording is likely to be different from that of one with spots. Of course, in live recordings, you're not always as flexible as you'd like to be. But what does your above statement mean in the context of this comparison? What's your opinion on the two versions?

It is unlikely that you could put up a demo where both were given equal weight, possibly because there really wouldn't be much point. Spot mics are not put up just as a "technique", they are used as a necessary evil.

I totally agree... What makes you think I don't? But then, setting up loads and loads of spots is a technique, of course, it always depends on the music and what it's for... An orchestra recording for a film score will be heavily close-miked. The same applies to mic setups for TV broadcasts of classical music, which are far more close-up and mixed together than the same would be on a CD, taking into account the poor quality of many TV sets' speakers.

Any session using just a pair, potentially has an advantaqe, every old timer in here knows that, but what they also know and you seem to be missing is that there are reasons why the spots are needed.

I'm afraid I have no idea why you think I am missing that fact... I do use spot mics, and I know why I do so... And I use them as sparingly as I can, but as much as is required to please my ears.

You commented on the Counter-Tenor being too present on one take, however, it is entirely likely that this could have been insisted on by the artist or producer or just necessary to balance him with the rest of the artists.

Of course I know it's not accidental (apart from maybe that edit), I'm sure someone must have liked it the way it sounds. All I said is that I thought the voice was too loud and up front in this mix, and hence I much prefer the two-track version in this case (taking me back to the point that with a different mix, things would be different). My wife, who is a classical singer, agreed wholeheartedly, by the way... I wonder why you keep interpreting the exact opposite of what I was saying into my comments... Have you actually listened to the clip I was referring to? Do you have an opinion of your own about it or do you just think you need to protect John and the mix (which isn't his) from my opinions?

For many years there have been the recording outfits that "only do the single mic, purist thing". In my experience often the music suffers, and few of these recordings stand the test of time on artistic merit.

My opinion exactly. Even Denon, who recorded this entire cycle of Mahler symphonies in Frankfurt (Inbal) in the late eighties, did use spots on some recordings, in spite of advertising these recordings as pure one-point stereo...

Teddy's favourite Tony Faulkner took part in a listening test for Studio Sound many years ago where they compared spots without time alignment and with and all present were suprised when they prefered the non timed version.

I've not tried this double-blind, but I've always preferred time-aligned...
Somewhat embarassingly, I did for a certain period deliver recordings where I thought I had delayed the spots, but in fact hadn't (due to a little bug in Samplitude)... Should have checked.

Daniel

[T.RayBullard]

Originally Posted by Roland

Teddy you mention prefering older recordings, but short of going back to the 50's most classical records have had a good deal of spot micing since the 60's. Often Everest and Living stereo are held up as great examples of the past, and for their time they were, but now they are all remastered and you can compare them with the best modern releases they do show their age.


Regards ro all


Roland

Yes, I mention older recordings, and I also use spot mics, but what I dont like is hearing projects that go overboard with throwing mics up....when a live concert is micd like a film score, well., itll show.

[Yannick]

In Daniels defense, I too do not see the point in this comparison.

One would need a perfectly balanced recording with just the main pair (which is not the case here) and a multimic version that was conceived as a multimic session.

For my personal taste : the multimic samples have no depth. The main mic samples have balance problems (one can't always understand the text ?). As a recording I find both versions quite good, but not perfect enough to do this comparison.

Concerning spot mics : we always delay them. Usually we do this during the production, as beforehand there is no time. The sound always improves a lot after the delays have been set. Most of the time, we even delay the solo mic if there is one.

Out of curiosity : why is the experimental main mic (SF24) not posted ? I whish I could compare this one to the AB main mic ...

[FilmDingo]

Originally Posted by Yannick

Out of curiosity : why is the experimental main mic (SF24) not posted ? I whish I could compare this one to the AB main mic ...

Given it's different location and pickup, that would be a very interesting thing to hear, I'm interested toothumbsup but I'm not sure it was even placed where it might stand up on it's own as a recording. I'm curious.

[johnlagrou]

Yannick: RE: SF24 - as is often our experience with Blumlein on orchestra, by the time you've backed up far enough to capture the entire ensemble in the proper angle of acceptance, you're too far away. While I love the SF12/24 and have used it successfully on a number of recordings, especially concert- and big-bands, it was presenting too much hall and not enough source. Alas, I don't think we've ever found an orchestral Blumlein technique that made us happy. I know others have had better luck with this, so maybe it's highly venue and program dependent.

[adamcal]

I liked the multimic mix, the clarity of the voices appealed to me, why does the choir HAVE to sound like its behind the orchestra, whats wrong with hearing them like your closer to them.

if it was just a choir performing without an orchestra you wouldn't leave a huge space of nothing pretending there was an orchestra there. the multi mic mix sounds like they (orchestra/choir) are equally featured.

perhaps I'm a bit too rock n roll.

[pkautzsch]

adamcal, when recording choir only, you don't have anything in front of it. It's not about having the choir far away, it's about not having choir and orchestra in the same place. In a concert, the choir typically *is* behind the orchestra, and this "reality" is what I think one should start with. Same thing with bassdrum and bass, or bass and guitars, or lead and backing vocals.

[Yannick]

Actually, that is my main issue with this test.

The main pair (to me) sounds too close to the string section. This implies the choir will be out of balance with the orchestro. So you HAVE to use spots etc etc...

I whish I could hear the SF24 or other main pair that was too far away ...

[T.RayBullard]

I think people may be reading far far too much into this, and looking for something that isnt there.John is more experienced than a lot of us here, and I am sure that had he intended it to be "strictly scientific" it would have been exact...I mean for ****'s sake..He did us all a favor, and all people can do is find fault. This same nonsense happens ANYTIME someone posts some sort of clip. Damn annoying. If you are certain you can do better, do it!!!. but to drone on and on like a yapping dog...well it gets old. Take it for what it is, and let the man be. I guess Larsfarm is gone..someone has to take up his slack. Post your own work! Let IT get ripped apart.

Thanks John.

[pkautzsch]

This is a discussion board, so I think it's OK to discuss things here. Nobody is just tactlessly finding "fault" (BTW I've not seen any thread in which only fault was found in clips posted!), except in the discussion about discussion. This thread is about opinions and different approaches. I think it would be wrong just to say, "wow, great clips!" without any comment. It is appropriate to say why someone likes or dislikes something. This is what most posters are doing here.
It would not be appropriate to just say "cool" or "rubbish" without specifying why.

As to the "Amen" clips: After listening again, I think the main difference is the panning (and the choir), but I can't actually find a big difference in the orchestra's balance.

[adamcal]

"and this "reality" is what I think one should start with"

I understand in a perfect purist world, a 2 mic recording of an orchestra would be close to human with 2 ears sitting there listening.

however how far exactly do you want to take this reality, because reality is overrated IMHO.

lets say the orchestra is unbalanced in itself, in sections the wind players played too soft, the trumpeter over-blew a note, or a wrong note, or indeed the whole performance wasn't great, a baby cried in the audience, the soloist turned away, a stand fell over etc.

with up to hundreds of mistake making humans involved, reality is not all that.

The big time pro orchestral sessions I've seen (movies/major labels) have hundreds of edits, automation moves, extra artificial reverb, every trick in the smoke and mirrors book!

A performance is once only, the recording will live on forever and played again and again (you hope). I say do whatever it takes to get it as good as can be.
(according to the producer, conductor, composer, whoever is paying)

and if we take reality to the extreme, don't even record orchestras, if you ever want to hear one, go buy a ticket.

Just listening through speakers/wire/mics/disc's/ you have already removed reality.

[Roland]

Originally Posted by pkautzsch

This is a discussion board, so I think it's OK to discuss things here. Nobody is just tactlessly finding "fault" (BTW I've not seen any thread in which only fault was found in clips posted!), except in the discussion about discussion. This thread is about opinions and different approaches. I think it would be wrong just to say, "wow, great clips!" without any comment. It is appropriate to say why someone likes or dislikes something. This is what most posters are doing here.
It would not be appropriate to just say "cool" or "rubbish" without specifying why.

As to the "Amen" clips: After listening again, I think the main difference is the panning (and the choir), but I can't actually find a big difference in the orchestra's balance.

I dissagree.

My first argument with this thread was that it was going that way. What I am hearing is the same "amateur shit" that I have seen many times before. There are a lot of aspects to being a "pro" in this business, one of them is knowing what you are doing, and whatever you or anyone else thinks about this recording, it was carried out by someone that knows that. I hear all the well I could do better than that voices and the truth is that they might be able to, but it is unlikely.

As I said before, producing a good recording in great conditions, with great artists, isn't a problem. Getting a professional result when everything is going wrong is what makes the mark.

Outside of the audio there are a whole range of other issues that become important on sessions, I know a couple of good recording engineers that have trouble getting gigs because of personality/attitude problems.

Roland

[David Spearritt]

Originally Posted by adamcal

"and this "reality" is what I think one should start with"

I understand in a perfect purist world, a 2 mic recording of an orchestra would be close to human with 2 ears sitting there listening.

No, a 2 mic recording that is close to human ears is recorded ONLY with a dummy head and ONLY listened through headphones and is called Binaural.

Normal stereo recording involves capturing two widely spaced loudspeaker signals from two or more microphones, and has NOTHING to do with ears or ear spacing.

[d_fu]

Roland,

Originally Posted by Roland

What I am hearing is the same "amateur shit" that I have seen many times before.

Once again, would you be willing to tell us which postings exactly you are referring to? While I'm no full-time professional recording engineer with a job at Polyhymnia or wome such place, I don't see myself as just a taping amateur, either.

There are a lot of aspects to being a "pro" in this business, one of them is knowing what you are doing, and whatever you or anyone else thinks about this recording, it was carried out by someone that knows that.

No doubt. But knowing what one is doing is still subjective. Not all recording engineers who "know what they are doing" will come up with the same results or techniques. There is no ultimate truth in recording that you will attain when you "know what you are doing", is there? I can only speak for myself, and if I say I would have done it differently (mostly the mix, not the recording), I am not claiming that the result would have been "better" according to the internationally standardized ISO rating for "recording quality". It means I would have done it differently, to please my own ears more, and for specific reasons.

As I said before, producing a good recording in great conditions, with great artists, isn't a problem. Getting a professional result when everything is going wrong is what makes the mark.

This is a good point, and I personally believe I'm fairly good at it , but it's just not the point of this comparison at all. While John said the recording was difficult (and he still got it done fine), there is no reason to believe that there was any particular problem during the mix. And apart from a minor comment on the main pair, I've only comented on the mix quality-wise. And I've only stated an opinion. Why do you seem to be so afraid of opinions? Why haven't you told us yours? Do you like this mix?

Best,
Daniel

[pkautzsch]

Originally Posted by adamcal

I understand in a perfect purist world, a 2 mic recording of an orchestra would be close to human with 2 ears sitting there listening.

d_fu and others already have commented on this, so I don't need to repeat what they said. I may add, however, that I have seen and heard commercial (broadcast) recordings with just two Straus packets. These included a perfectly balanced orchestra in a perfect room.

Originally Posted by adamcal

however how far exactly do you want to take this reality, because reality is overrated IMHO.

Reality, for me, is the starting point. The end result of a recording can never be "the real thing" whatever that means - I think we all know that. What we can achieve, however, is the listeners' impression of something similar to sitting in a concert - just without the negative aspects like babies crying or stands being knocked over. Like T. Ray said before (or maybe in another thread, I might be confusing threads here), it's about believability. And I don't believe that a choir is standing right between the strings, and in front of woodwinds (how should the woodwind players then keep contact with the conductor?)

Originally Posted by adamcal

with up to hundreds of mistake making humans involved, reality is not all that.
The big time pro orchestral sessions I've seen (movies/major labels) have hundreds of edits, automation moves, extra artificial reverb, every trick in the smoke and mirrors book!

Now this is about how to get a result that is believable. Lots of options there, also depending on the artists and their interpretation of a piece.
An oratorio live recording is different from a film score.

Originally Posted by adamcal

and if we take reality to the extreme, don't even record orchestras, if you ever want to hear one, go buy a ticket.
Just listening through speakers/wire/mics/disc's/ you have already removed reality.

We shouldn't record anything then. No orchestras, no bands, and we should not do techno or hiphop stuff at all, since all these are not "real" (meaning: produced acoustically without electronic devices or loudspeakers or other technical equipment) - heck, we wouldn't even be allowed to use musical instruments which, in the beginning, were intended as a replacement for the human voice in situations where the human voice wasn't strong enough. This discussion can go on forever, but I hope it will not in this thread.

[ampmeister]

Onno Scholtze, balancing engineer with Philips Classics, has made many live recordings with a 2 Mic set up. I think his favorite mics were B&K.
http://www.wuwei.nl

[studer58]

Originally Posted by johnlagrou

Hi All,

Compare simultaneous 2-mic versus 20-mic orchestral recording, HERE

Audio samples are available in both MP3 and full 44.1/16 WAV formats

Enjoy,

I'm reviving a very old thread (and risk dredging up a boatload of old controversies: the purist vs multi-miking one in particular...)
However, my intention is not to give life support to that issue, but to ask if anyone has details abouth the Denon - One Point technique, which featured quite strongly in their releases in the 80's. I believe it uses a 50cm AB spaced omni pair (usually B+K's with diffuse field noses), and there was a Jecklin article (in German I recall) which throws a bit more light on the subject. Does anyone here have more detail on the One Point method ? Maybe it was just a roadside marker of 'optimal purist technique' those decades ago, and Denon felt they had to glorify/signify it with a catchy name....or is there more to it than that ? I've seen a few One Point sampler CD's going for king's ransom prices on eBay, and was wondering if I was missing out on something new and groundbreaking...or not ? BTW the new link to the 2 mic vs multi mic Millenia Media comparison is here: Millennia Tutorial: Large Ensemble Listening Test

[studer58]

If it helps any, I've located the Jecklin paper, and you'll see the Denon technique referred to at the top of page 30... http://www.mdw.ac.at/I101/iea/tm/scr...03mikrofon.pdf

Maybe this is the last word on the topic (apart from how to find the 'optimum spot' in placing it !), but if there are any forum members with a good command of German, maybe they would care to translate for readers the final sentence which refers to '45 and 60 degrees' ?

[timlloyd]

Thanks for reviving this, it's been an interesting listen so far. I'm preferring the stereo pair examples which, apart from requiring some level-matching just sound more balanced and "realistic" to me. There are some sections of the multi-mic examples that sound quite "off" to my ears ... the beginning of "Glory" for example.

[oldeanalogueguy]

Originally Posted by johnlagrou

Hi All,

Compare simultaneous 2-mic versus 20-mic orchestral recording, HERE

Audio samples are available in both MP3 and full 44.1/16 WAV formats

Enjoy,

what was the two mike set up?

AB XY MS NOS ORTF jecklin yada yada
how far from the performers
what mikes ???????????

[rumleymusic]

They were Josephson C617's in a close AB spacing. If i remember, around 40-45 cm. Mics placed a couple feet in front of the ensemble. The list is there with all the details

[oldeanalogueguy]

Originally Posted by rumleymusic

They were Josephson C617's in a close AB spacing. If i remember, around 40-45 cm. Mics placed a couple feet in front of the ensemble. The list is there with all the details

Thanks.

Would liek to see comparisons with XY and MS.

[audibell]

Originally Posted by studer58

...translate for readers the final sentence which refers to '45 and 60 degrees' ?

Usual it is, that the opening angle (SA?) is between 45degs and 60 degs.

I don't think this refers to any angling of the mics but the resultant Stereo Angle, quite narrow as befits a "one point" array.

The KFM - Kugel von Schoeps - schoeps sphere looks interesting, too.