Orchestral Recording Comparisons Now On-Line

[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,

[Geert van den Berg]

Really cool, to hear a comparison of this caliber!

[d_fu]

Very interesting... Will listen tomorrow.
Three wav files seem to be missing, the mixes for Goodwill, Daniel T., and Interlude.

Daniel

[aracu]

Wow, beautiful recordings! The multiple mics version
may have a more perfectly worked out mix of relative volumes
between the instruments and voices. The main pair version
has a ratio and quality of reverberation which gives the choir
and soloist a slightly haunting, ghostly, distant quality. That
puts the icing on the cake!

[rob99]

This is an awesome reference - thank you.

Question ...

Which micing style sounded closer to the "real thing" from an audience point of view?

Was the the mix mic setup a "better" creation than an actual audience point of hearing?

thanks

rob

[Remoteness]

John,

Thanks so much for posting these orchestral comparisons.

Very strong my man -- Keep up the good work!

[johnlagrou]

Thanks everyone for your kind comments. Someone e-mailed and asked for a stage layout diagram. I'll try to get that uploaded in the next week or so.

d fu: the missing wav files are now uploaded.

rob99 asks "Which micing style sounded closer to the "real thing" from an audience point of view? Was the the mix mic setup a "better" creation than an actual audience point of hearing?"

I think the two-mic program is closer to audience perspective, but the mixed multi-mic image (which went to CD) does have more "excitement" and sectional balance. Is one technique "better" than the other? i have my personal preference, but it's just an opinion. The responses so far have given about equal preference to both techniques.

JL

[T.RayBullard]

I like the two mic setup better. (and not just because my favorite omnis are used there ) but it just sounds more realistic to me. The more mics in the equation, the more equidistant things become...and the wider the margin of believability and unbelievability becomes...This is why I never use over 10-12 channels, though it is tempting.

[pkautzsch]

My first impressions after hearing "Amen", without having read any reply in this thread:

The 20-mic setup makes the choir too present and not spacious enough. The choir to me is not *behind* the orchestra, but somewhere embracing the violas.
Timpani could have a little more attack in this presence context.
Sounds quite wide and everything can be localized precisely - some things too precisely. Still some depth in there.

The 2-mic setup is less wide, could for my taste be a little wider (especially the strings). Choir is lots better, I think. A little more trumpet wouldn't be a bad thing though.

Alright, now I'm reading the thread.

I can't tell which I like better overall - both have their pros and cons.
As to "audience perspective": one must always keep in mind that normal audience not only hear, but also see what's going on on stage, and that they often hear what they see - their eyes direct their ears' attention. When listening to a CD you don't see anything, and therefore their attention can be directed by careful blending of spot mics. Not sure if it should, though.
It's not a matter of reality, but like T. Ray said, it's a matter of believability. I think both are "believable"...

[d_fu]

Still haven't found time to listen properly, but were the spot mics time-aligned?

Daniel

[aracu]

Originally Posted by T.RayBullard

it just sounds more realistic to me. The more mics in the equation, the more equidistant things become...and the wider the margin of believability and unbelievability becomes...

Interesting comments. It sounds more believable and natural to
me also, and less controlled (who is to say what a perfect mix is
anyway). The believability of it slightly enhances the "supernatural"
drama of the music, and illusion of being transported historically
to another culture/time period. Its a matter of finding the appropriate
recording approach for enhancing a particular piece of music.

[d_fu]

Originally Posted by johnlagrou

d fu: the missing wav files are now uploaded.

But there are no links to them on the web page...

Daniel

[T.RayBullard]

Originally Posted by pkautzsch

The 20-mic setup makes the choir too present and not spacious enough. The choir to me is not *behind* the orchestra, but somewhere embracing the violas.

exactly..and this is a problem I run into with throwing more mics in the mix, and why a lot of modern recordings dont appeal to me..

[d_fu]

John,

Sorry, I don't like the mixes very much... The stereo panorama is artificial and no longer an organic sound environment, especially (but not only) when listening with headphones. While pk is right that the main pair could be a bit wider (maybe the small AB was a touch too small there*), to my ears, the 2-track version is a good deal better overall...

I find the "Child" quite a drastic example... In the mix, the sopranos have moved almost all the way to the left, and are somehow singing from outside the main ensemble. The men seem to stay where they are more or less. I also have the impression of the mix being a touch muffled, esp. in the middle of the stereo field - as if the sound was squeezed to the sides, leaving a bit of a hole in the middle...

Further contrary to your philosphy of using spots "gently and sparingly, like spice", the countertenor's spot mic is way too loud and in-your-face, in my opinion. There is also apparently an edit that's gone awry in the mixed track, which I hope did not end up on the CD... At about 34 seconds into the CountertenorMix file, on what I believe is a high C, there is a slight click, a sudden minute change of intonation, and a slight change of volume... This doesn't sound pleasant at all.
[EDIT: The mix/edit was not in John's hand, as he explains further down.]

The Interlude files seem to be different takes - they are off by about half a second in length...

Finally, I would prefer a touch more ambience there - even though I'm not particularly impressed with the ambience this "world-class recording space" offers. It may be great for symphony orchestra recordings, but this would have been better in a church... IMHO, as usual...

Hope you don't mind some rather frank opinions...

Best wishes,
Daniel

_________________
* I personally often use diffuse field omnis at about 60 cm, and spread out a bit further, at least 90 degrees

[d_fu]

Originally Posted by T.RayBullard

exactly..and this is a problem I run into with throwing more mics in the mix, and why a lot of modern recordings dont appeal to me..
__________________
I think it is wrong to make everything equidistant
from the listener with too many mics. The pasting-on effects end up like bad Photoshop work on graphics & photos - too unbelievable.-Tony Faulkner

I don't think this is has to be a general problems of multi-mic mixes. Spots can be used very sparingly, just to add a touch of presence / direct sound. And as far as "equidistant" is concerned, proper time-alignment takes care of that. If one really hears the spots in a recording, they are simply too loud - but that's not a problem of the general technique as such.

Daniel

[d_fu]

Originally Posted by pkautzsch

As to "audience perspective": one must always keep in mind that normal audience not only hear, but also see what's going on on stage, and that they often hear what they see - their eyes direct their ears' attention.

Precisely - furthermore, ears just hear differently than microphones do. They can "focus" on acoustic events that might lack presence in a minimalistic 2-mic recording. Spot mics do help when used appropriately.

Daniel

[Roland]

John has been kind enough to make these files available to us, but there seems to be a good deal of carping going on. There are many reasons for things going on in sessions that have a material effect on how the final product will sound/has to sound.

Whatever your personal likes or dislikes about the files the fact is that the recording is of a high professional standard as is expected at the top end of the industry and of someone of Johns experience and expertise. As John will tell you often in these sessions because they involve pro musicians costs are high and there isn't time to "f**k about with the sound" you get about 10 mins for a sound check and you have only that in order to deliver of the required standard. It's not necessarily about producing the best recording ever heard, thats not possible every time, the skill is producing consistently high standards.

Being that John and his company have been providing location recording services to the classical industry for a very good number of years at a very high level, he deserves to be treated with respect.

I know the experience of all those that think they can do better, and possibly on their day they can, but this job is about consistency. On a good day we can all be brilliant, possibly without trying. The measure is how you perform when things don't go right.


Roland tutt

[d_fu]

Roland, I'm assuming you are referring to my comments, at least partly.

Originally Posted by Roland

Whatever your personal likes or dislikes about the files the fact is that the recording is of a high professional standard as is expected at the top end of the industry and of someone of Johns experience and expertise.

But there is no reason for not stating my opinion just because John is who and what he is (and which I don't doubt or criticize). Recordings from the "top end of the industry" are not sacrosanct. If John makes these clips public here, I'm sure he'll be professional enough to deal with a different opinion as exactly what it is - a different opinion, no more and no less. I don't think John needs your "protection"... He asked "Is one technique "better" than the other?"... What I'm pointing out is that in my opinion the mix is not ideal and may therefore not be perfectly suited for a general comparison of two recording approaches... I was thinking of posting similar comparisons from my collection of recordings, maybe others feel like doing the same. I have moved from simple ORTF setups (with maybe one spot mic for a soloist) to using more spots for winds, choirs, harpsichords, whatnot, even though I still don't use anywhere as many mics as many (radio) engineers do. Without having seen this particular setup, I don't think I'd use more than ten or twelve mics for a recording like this one. Come to think of it, even 20 is quite economical by radio standards... But that's just BTW...
An let's face it, there are recordings from the "top end of the industry" that some of us could have done better, had they been asked...

As John will tell you often in these sessions because they involve pro musicians costs are high and there isn't time to "f**k about with the sound" you get about 10 mins for a sound check and you have only that in order to deliver of the required standard. It's not necessarily about producing the best recording ever heard, thats not possible every time, the skill is producing consistently high standards.

I'm very well aware of that, and I've made plenty of (live) recordings without any soundcheck (walk in, see how the musicians are seated, set up mics) and still got great results... But I would think that in this case, this wasn't really an issue. Anyhow, this argument misses the whole point of this comparison entirely.

Being that John and his company have been providing location recording services to the classical industry for a very good number of years at a very high level, he deserves to be treated with respect.

Absolutely. And I think he will appreciate a different opinion more than servile flattery...

I know the experience of all those that think they can do better, and possibly on their day they can, but this job is about consistency. On a good day we can all be brilliant, possibly without trying. The measure is how you perform when things don't go right.

No doubt. Your point in this context being...? There is no reason to assume that "things didn't go right" during this production.

Daniel

[tnjazz]

Originally Posted by Roland

Being that John and his company have been providing location recording services to the classical industry for a very good number of years at a very high level, he deserves to be treated with respect.

I didn't find any of the comments to be disrespectful. I think we're all aware of Mr. LaGrou's credentials and I felt that all the points made were presented as constructive criticism. Wouldn't that be one of the primary reasons for posting such a comparison in the first place?

OK, I'm going back under my rock now.
Dirk

[pkautzsch]

This is not about thinking someone is better or worse than someone else. This is about taste or personal preference, and about opinions.
We all know about John's experience and skills, don't we. Thus I am sure John doesn't need anybody to defend him, or to stop users having differing opinions. Nobody else does either.
Waving fingers like a policeman is a moderator's job, not "normal" users'.

[Roland]

Maybe I wasn't being clear. Some of the comments posted further up the page were not an honest comparison of techniques, but critique of the recording. John is perfectly capable of defending himself, but if he does it comes off as him being defensive about what he does, I made the point that some of the comments were unecessary and not in the spirit of Johns original post.

Indeed some of the comments display a lack of knowledge of issues that concern commercial sessions.

Read into it what you will.

My concern is that many people, Knowledgeable people have posted helpful, interesting information often (as is the case here) requiring a fair input of their own personal time. When dissed by all and sundry they tend to stop offering information, or even worse posting. If you don't believe me take a look over PSW, its getting better now, but a couple of years back many of the good posters pulled out.

Back on topic I for one found this interesting on several levels, thanks for sharing John.

Regards


Roland

[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.

d fu is very perceptive - this material was recorded over two performance dates (Dec 17-18) so what you're probably hearing are two different readings of the same passage.

as for criticism and opinion, that's what chat rooms are for. i've never heard a perfect orchestral recording. when criticism is presented in a constructive manner, we all learn and grow.

i should also note that i've never experienced more technical difficulties on a remote recording than at this messiah performance. NO, i don't want to talk about it!! i still wince just thinking about it, yet we came away with a beautiful record.

so true about not having enough setup time on union remotes. we had 15 minutes of sound check to adjust gain on every mic, futz with mic positions, etc.. no time for adjusting the ensemble, talking with music director, etc.. -- just start recording. luckily, i already knew the hall and stage pretty well.

[T.RayBullard]

I am very grateful for him posting this sort of thing, and I have thanked him via email for doing so. I was offering an opinion of what I thought was the better version. That seems to be the intent...discussing 2 mics vs 20 mics..which is EXACTLY what I was discussing. I didnt critique any mix, intonation, or placement issues. I was speaking strictly about the number of channels, and how it applies to my own experience. As long as people are tactful(and most were..not all, but most)..what is the issue? Now I personally felt that one group of the comments lacked tact and good judgement..but that seems to be a pattern with the particular poster not having a "rude and obnoxious" filter between the brain and fingers, not a group issue. 99% of the comments were to the point, in my opinion. Why dont you just call out Names, Roland? Who/what were you talking about?

This sort of thing SCREAMS for a critique/discussion, and that is what happened. Tony Faulkner himself or the Ghost of Thomas Edison could post a sample here and itd still get critiques. to expect otherwise is unrealistic.


Thanks again, John.

[d_fu]

Originally Posted by johnlagrou

as for criticism and opinion, that's what chat rooms are for. i've never heard a perfect orchestral recording. when criticism is presented in a constructive manner, we all learn and grow.

I hope you've taken my comments as just that...

i should also note that i've never experienced more technical difficulties on a remote recording than at this messiah performance. NO, i don't want to talk about it!! i still wince just thinking about it, yet we came away with a beautiful record.

Then I take back my earlier comment... Let's hear some of it (if it's not indiscreet), it'll help you get over it...

so true about not having enough setup time on union remotes. we had 15 minutes of sound check to adjust gain on every mic, futz with mic positions, etc.. no time for adjusting the ensemble, talking with music director, etc.. -- just start recording. luckily, i already knew the hall and stage pretty well.

Whew... I know how it is, but I'm surprised that such a prduction would get the recordists into a siituation like this... Mistakes are more likely to happen when things get hectic.

[d_fu]

Originally Posted by T.RayBullard

I am very grateful for him posting this sort of thing, and I have thanked him via email for doing so.

How kind of you. And yes, this is definitely a very interesting topic and contribution.

I was offering an opinion of what I thought was the better version. That seems to be the intent...discussing 2 mics vs 20 mics..which is EXACTLY what I was discussing. I didnt critique any mix, intonation, or placement issues. I was speaking strictly about the number of channels, and how it applies to my own experience.

You fail to get the point. You can not compare 2 mics with 20 mics without taking into account the quality of the mix. Not every 20-mic-mix will sound exactly like this one. This can not be the ultimate one-and-only such comparison, others may produce entirely different results, even to your ears. The fact that you (like me, BTW) prefer the 2-mic version in this case can not be a general statement about 2 vs. 20. Or maybe it is for you, but then you're generally biased towards 2 mics (I say this without any criticism, it's a perfectly neutral statement)
I take it one step further, saying that as it is, I prefer this stereo version to this particular mix, and I believe I have good reasons for doing so. I think a different mix would have sounded better, closer to what the AB mic delivers. And in that case I would have probably preferred the mix.
Oh, and you also can not compare 2 with 20 without taking into account the (undisputed) quality of the 2-mic version. Still, IMHO (and pk's), the stereo base of the main AB could have been a wee bit wider. I'm sure John knows what he's doing and why, but as you also like to say, there's no gospel truth and no fixed rules. Therefore I am free to think I would have done it otherwise, and to state that here... I'm sure John won't mind.
As for my comments on the mix, since John did not do it, there is no way I could have insulted him with my comments, is there...? And I don't think he needs your "protection", either.

I was also in no way criticizing intonation... You either fail to understand what I said, failed to hear it, or simply were trying to find something else to hold against me. It is obvious that there's an edit, and it wasn't very carefully done (again, not John's doing). Maybe there was no strict need to point it out, but it affects the quality of the mix.

but that seems to be a pattern with the particular poster not having a "rude and obnoxious" filter between the brain and fingers, not a group issue.

Why dont you just call out Names, Teddy? Who/what were you talking about? I don't really think you are in a position to make such comments, considering... Well, you know. Remember the "gestapo" comment the other day? And think again whether you should talk about "rude and obnoxious"

99% of the comments were to the point, in my opinion.

Being no friend of fixed rules yourself, why do you think it is wise to limit comments "to the point" exclusively. This is a discussion board, remember?
You wrongly assume that criticizing a recording or a mix amounts to criticizing the engineer personally. Maybe that's how you do this, but I don't. There is nothing to be read between the lines when I make a comment on the mix or even the recording. It's just my personal opinion. I don't really expect you to understand my point, much less agree, but I wanted to say it anyhow....


Daniel

[d_fu]

Originally Posted by Roland

Indeed some of the comments display a lack of knowledge of issues that concern commercial sessions.

Have to agree with Teddy here, why dont you just call out Names, Roland? Who/what were you talking about?

My concern is that many people, Knowledgeable people have posted helpful, interesting information often (as is the case here) requiring a fair input of their own personal time. When dissed by all and sundry they tend to stop offering information, or even worse posting.

I know what you mean, but I don't see it as a potential problem here... Mind that John didn't even tell us which one of the two he personally preferred... So while you are worried that some comments might annoy him (like mine on the mix/edit), maybe it isn't so... Maybe he prefers the stereo version, maybe he would have mixed it differently. Whether or not he'll tell us is up to him entirely, of course.

Back on topic I for one found this interesting on several levels, thanks for sharing John.

Would be keen on hearing your comments, Roland.

Daniel

[pkautzsch]

Parts of this post will be slightly OT. Sorry for that.

Generally:
I don't think personal attacks are good. Best would probably be to just discuss sound, not people here. Unfortunately, the internet is very susceptible to misunderstandings (which was part of a thesis I've been writing the last months for "backup" day job opportunities). Thus many things that are not meant as attacks are understood as such. If we all kept that in mind when reading internet discussions, many unpleasant situations could be avoided.

Roland,
I now see what you intended. Sorry if I over-reacted a bit - I wrote that with exactly the same thoughts about great people stopping posting in forums in the back of my head, since I have seen people disappear from boards because of others' seemingy police-ish attitude.
I agree with d_fu and T. Ray: call out names, please.

John,
am I right in thinking that no-time-to-set-up gigs need a higher number of people setting up many mics in 10 minutes in contrast to one or two people taking 2 hours to set up a main pair with maybe a few spots?

T. Ray,
we all are thankful for John's posting this link. And I think this thread *is* about which version we like better, and why. But we cannot generalize from just one pair of recordings. We'd need lots more. There *are* many recordings with more than a main pair (or triplet - think Decca) which sound great and not equidistant at all.
Please, call out names, too. Who is being obnoxious "all the time"?

d_fu,
if John would have told us in the beginning which version he liked better, we all would have been biassed by that. We're all biassed anyway, but this way we're only biassed in our own ways. I think this is good for discussion.

[d_fu]

Originally Posted by pkautzsch

d_fu,
if John would have told us in the beginning which version he liked better, we all would have been biassed by that. We're all biassed anyway, but this way we're only biassed in our own ways. I think this is good for discussion.

Absolutely. But I also have a feeling that he chooses not to state his opinion publicly, which is perfectly alright...

[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

[T.RayBullard]

I can generalize any way that I wish, but I am not generalizing from one set of recordings. Multi micd recordings have a different overall signature than minimal micd ones. 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..


as for the other thing, Daniel knows I am talking about him. Maybe it is a german thing, this sort of superior vibe, this lack of tact and overall arrogance(but I SERIOUSLY doubt it is a german thing, as I have many german friends who are kind and humble.)..and it just rubs me the wrong way(and others , who have discussed it with me privately.) It isnt a manner of getting lost in translation either...

and FWIW, the Gestapo does not refer only to Germans..it can mean any group of people who are oppressing another group...(nor does **** refer only to Germans either..it has come to represent a catch all phrase for dickheads)

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

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

Originally Posted by pkautzsch

T. Ray,
we all are thankful for John's posting this link. And I think this thread *is* about which version we like better, and why. But we cannot generalize from just one pair of recordings. We'd need lots more. There *are* many recordings with more than a main pair (or triplet - think Decca) which sound great and not equidistant at all.
Please, call out names, too. Who is being obnoxious "all the time"?