[Keith.]

New Scientist 24 Jan.,this year in their feedback column has a paragraph on
this ,and this is a reference in Wikipedia.

a..
a.. ^ Duke Ellington and His Orchestra made some accidental stereo
recordings (a medley consisting of East St. Louis Toodle-o, Lot O' Fingers,
Black And Tan Fantasy), on February 3, 1932 for RCA Victor. It was a fairly
standard practice in that era to record using more than one microphone and
disc cutter. The various versions could be compared, to see which had the
best microphone positioning. It also allowed for safety masters in case
something happened to the original. Although the records are fairly rare, a
collector had both versions and noticed that while they appeared to be the
same performance, the sound mix was different on each. When the two
recordings were synchronized, it became stereo. The resulting recording is
available on the 22 cd set The Duke Ellington Centennial Edition.

Any further knowledge of this out there?

Keith.

[[email protected]]

This recording is widely available on a single CD that was released
a few years ago. It's not hard to find it on the internet with a
little bit of research.

There are some other examples of "found" stereo, including the
incredible remastering of the 1958 Newport concert (also Ellington),
and a Charlie Parker recording (a bit less impressive). The Ellington
examples are amazing.


Keith. wrote:
: New Scientist 24 Jan.,this year in their feedback column has a paragraph on
: this ,and this is a reference in Wikipedia.

: a..
: a.. ^ Duke Ellington and His Orchestra made some accidental stereo
: recordings (a medley consisting of East St. Louis Toodle-o, Lot O' Fingers,
: Black And Tan Fantasy), on February 3, 1932 for RCA Victor. It was a fairly
: standard practice in that era to record using more than one microphone and
: disc cutter. The various versions could be compared, to see which had the
: best microphone positioning. It also allowed for safety masters in case
: something happened to the original. Although the records are fairly rare, a
: collector had both versions and noticed that while they appeared to be the
: same performance, the sound mix was different on each. When the two
: recordings were synchronized, it became stereo. The resulting recording is
: available on the 22 cd set The Duke Ellington Centennial Edition.

: Any further knowledge of this out there?

: Keith.

[Chris Hornbeck]

On Wed, 4 Feb 2009 15:53:16 +1100, "Keith."
wrote:

New Scientist 24 Jan.,this year in their feedback column has a paragraph on
this ,and this is a reference in Wikipedia.

a..
a.. ^ Duke Ellington and His Orchestra made some accidental stereo
recordings (a medley consisting of East St. Louis Toodle-o, Lot O' Fingers,
Black And Tan Fantasy), on February 3, 1932 for RCA Victor. It was a fairly
standard practice in that era to record using more than one microphone and
disc cutter. The various versions could be compared, to see which had the
best microphone positioning. It also allowed for safety masters in case
something happened to the original. Although the records are fairly rare, a
collector had both versions and noticed that while they appeared to be the
same performance, the sound mix was different on each. When the two
recordings were synchronized, it became stereo. The resulting recording is
available on the 22 cd set The Duke Ellington Centennial Edition.

Any further knowledge of this out there?

All mono recordings have the stereo component hidden and folded
into them. In fact, I'm right this very moment listening to the
Schumann Op.18, "Arabeske". It's only 46 (or so) years (Kempff
on DGG - so shoot me) old, or is it almost two centuries old?

If you're questioning (*) What is the Meaning of "Stereo" I'm glad you
did. It's been a slow month on r.a.p, what with the weather, and then
the election, and then What Ever. Soooooo Last Week.

Arf. Much thanks, as always,
Chris Hornbeck

(*) And, of course you're not. But it's a long Winter. Entertainment
must be taken where found. Arf.




Much thanks,
Chris Hornbeck

[nebulax]

On Feb 4, 12:43*am, Chris Hornbeck
wrote:
On Wed, 4 Feb 2009 15:53:16 +1100, "Keith."
wrote:



New Scientist 24 Jan.,this year in their feedback column has a paragraph on
this ,and this is a reference in Wikipedia.

a..
a.. ^ Duke Ellington and His Orchestra made some accidental stereo
recordings (a medley consisting of East St. Louis Toodle-o, Lot O' Fingers,
Black And Tan Fantasy), on February 3, 1932 for RCA Victor. It was a fairly
standard practice in that era to record using more than one microphone and
disc cutter. The various versions could be compared, to see which had the
best microphone positioning. It also allowed for safety masters in case
something happened to the original. Although the records are fairly rare, a
collector had both versions and noticed that while they appeared to be the
same performance, the sound mix was different on each. When the two
recordings were synchronized, it became stereo. The resulting recording is
available on the 22 cd set The Duke Ellington Centennial Edition.

Any further knowledge of this out there?

All mono recordings have the stereo component hidden and folded
into them. In fact, I'm right this very moment listening to the
Schumann Op.18, "Arabeske". It's only 46 (or so) years (Kempff
on DGG - so shoot me) old, or is it almost two centuries old?

If you're questioning (*) What is the Meaning of "Stereo" I'm glad you
did. It's been a slow month on r.a.p, what with the weather, and then
the election, and then What Ever. Soooooo Last Week.

Arf. Much thanks, as always,
Chris Hornbeck

(*) And, of course you're not. But it's a long Winter. Entertainment
must be taken where found. Arf.

Much thanks,
Chris Hornbeck


"All mono recordings have the stereo component hidden and folded into
them."

Huh? How about recordings that were originally made in mono with only
one mic?

-Neb

[Keith.]

wrote in message
...
This recording is widely available on a single CD that was released
a few years ago. It's not hard to find it on the internet with a
little bit of research.

I was more interested in the practice of keeping a safety master as well as
a master and then combining them in the 1930's to form a stereo image.
I could not locate information in any detail, the topic looked interesting
and that is why I threw it to the group and Chris, it has been a quiet
month.

Keith.

[Chris Hornbeck]

On Tue, 3 Feb 2009 21:56:10 -0800 (PST), nebulax
wrote:

"All mono recordings have the stereo component hidden and folded into
them."

Huh? How about recordings that were originally made in mono with only
one mic?

You may say "The sound of one hand clapping?" But I answer "The
rice paper is the test. When you can....." Well, you know the rest.

Arf. Much thanks, as always,
Chris Hornbeck

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On 04 Feb 2009 05:26:32 GMT,
wrote:

There are some other examples of "found" stereo, including the
incredible remastering of the 1958 Newport concert (also Ellington),
and a Charlie Parker recording (a bit less impressive). The Ellington
examples are amazing.

And one from Glenn Miller.
http://www.amazon.com/True-Stereo-Gl.../dp/B000002XQR

The customer comments are wonderfully over-the-top :-)

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Wed, 04 Feb 2009 05:43:28 GMT, Chris Hornbeck
wrote:

All mono recordings have the stereo component hidden and folded
into them.

Explain, please?

One microphone in front of a band, recorded to one track. Where's the
stereo?

[Ray Thomas[_2_]]

"Laurence Payne" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 04 Feb 2009 05:43:28 GMT, Chris Hornbeck
wrote:

All mono recordings have the stereo component hidden and folded
into them.

Explain, please?

One microphone in front of a band, recorded to one track. Where's the
stereo?

Aha...but there was another microphone in front of the same band, but at
some distance from the first mic, at the same time, recorded to another
track....and that track was lost or hidden for a few decades.
So it was a pair of lone mono tracks, just waiting to be serendipitously
reunited at some time in the future, and when married they all lived happily
ever after......

[Scott Dorsey]

nebulax wrote:
On Feb 4, 12:43=A0am, Chris Hornbeck
wrote:

"All mono recordings have the stereo component hidden and folded into
them."

Huh? How about recordings that were originally made in mono with only
one mic?

They're a single mono sample taken from a three-dimensional stereo soundfield.

A mono recording gives you the soundfield at a single point in space. Stereo
gives you the soundfield at two or three points in space. Sonic holography
gives you the soundfield at a whole bunch of points in space. Perfect
reproduction of the original wavefront is not possible, sadly.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Wed, 04 Feb 2009 12:31:04 GMT, "Ray Thomas"
wrote:

All mono recordings have the stereo component hidden and folded
into them.

Explain, please?

One microphone in front of a band, recorded to one track. Where's the
stereo?

Aha...but there was another microphone in front of the same band, but at
some distance from the first mic, at the same time, recorded to another
track....and that track was lost or hidden for a few decades.
So it was a pair of lone mono tracks, just waiting to be serendipitously
reunited at some time in the future, and when married they all lived happily
ever after......

indeed. but that wasn't my question.

[Richard Crowley]

"Chris Hornbeck" wrote...
All mono recordings have the stereo component hidden and folded
into them. In fact, I'm right this very moment listening to the
Schumann Op.18, "Arabeske". It's only 46 (or so) years (Kempff
on DGG - so shoot me) old, or is it almost two centuries old?

I still love my recordings of the complete organ works of J.S.Bach.
Performed by blind organist Helmut Walcha who played hundreds
of works from memory.) He actually recorded the complete works
twice for DGG/Archiv. Once in mono, and then again in stereo,
starting in the mid 1950s. I still remember my favorite black vinyl
from high-school days that said "from the earliest days of the
stereophony." (translated from the original German).

I remember as a kid marveling that the tape noise was below the
"room tone" of the cathedral even back in those early days. Very
impressive to someone who had only low-tech consumer gear to
play with at the time.

[Scott Dorsey]

Richard Crowley wrote:
"Chris Hornbeck" wrote...
All mono recordings have the stereo component hidden and folded
into them. In fact, I'm right this very moment listening to the
Schumann Op.18, "Arabeske". It's only 46 (or so) years (Kempff
on DGG - so shoot me) old, or is it almost two centuries old?

I still love my recordings of the complete organ works of J.S.Bach.
Performed by blind organist Helmut Walcha who played hundreds
of works from memory.) He actually recorded the complete works
twice for DGG/Archiv. Once in mono, and then again in stereo,
starting in the mid 1950s. I still remember my favorite black vinyl
from high-school days that said "from the earliest days of the
stereophony." (translated from the original German).

And which set sounded better?

I was always really annoyed that von Karajan's 1980s recordings of the
Beethoven symphonies sounded so much worse than his 1950s mono version...
there was just so much multimiking and editing going on in the later version
that it spoiled everything.

I remember as a kid marveling that the tape noise was below the
"room tone" of the cathedral even back in those early days. Very
impressive to someone who had only low-tech consumer gear to
play with at the time.

Full Track is a hell of a nice format, even today.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[hank alrich]

Laurence Payne wrote:

On Wed, 04 Feb 2009 05:43:28 GMT, Chris Hornbeck
wrote:

All mono recordings have the stereo component hidden and folded
into them.

Explain, please?

One microphone in front of a band, recorded to one track. Where's the
stereo?

Still thinking small, eh? g

--
ha
shut up and play your guitar

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Wed, 4 Feb 2009 08:55:15 -0800, "Richard Crowley"
wrote:

I remember as a kid marveling that the tape noise was below the
"room tone" of the cathedral even back in those early days. Very
impressive to someone who had only low-tech consumer gear to
play with at the time.

Though there can be a LOT of room tone in a cathedral :-)

[Arny Krueger]

"Laurence Payne" wrote in message

On Wed, 4 Feb 2009 08:55:15 -0800, "Richard Crowley"
wrote:

I remember as a kid marveling that the tape noise was
below the "room tone" of the cathedral even back in
those early days. Very impressive to someone who had
only low-tech consumer gear to play with at the time.

Though there can be a LOT of room tone in a cathedral :-)

Agreed.

[Ray Thomas[_2_]]

"Soundhaspriority" wrote in message
...

"Ray Thomas" wrote in message
...

"Laurence Payne" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 04 Feb 2009 05:43:28 GMT, Chris Hornbeck
wrote:

All mono recordings have the stereo component hidden and folded
into them.

Explain, please?

One microphone in front of a band, recorded to one track. Where's the
stereo?

Aha...but there was another microphone in front of the same band, but at
some distance from the first mic, at the same time, recorded to another
track....and that track was lost or hidden for a few decades.
So it was a pair of lone mono tracks, just waiting to be serendipitously
reunited at some time in the future, and when married they all lived
happily ever after......
Was this a case of resyncing a half second at a time?

Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511
Actually my reply was addressed to the original post, which raised the
issue of 2 simultaneous, spaced recordings of an Ellington session. Since
they were both recorded to disc cutters, you'd have to expect some sync
issues, for sure .....!
Ray

[nebulax]

On Feb 4, 9:36*am, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
nebulax wrote:
On Feb 4, 12:43=A0am, Chris Hornbeck
wrote:

"All mono recordings have the stereo component hidden and folded into
them."

Huh? How about recordings that were originally made in mono with only
one mic?

They're a single mono sample taken from a three-dimensional stereo soundfield.

A mono recording gives you the soundfield at a single point in space. *Stereo
gives you the soundfield at two or three points in space. *Sonic holography
gives you the soundfield at a whole bunch of points in space. *Perfect
reproduction of the original wavefront is not possible, sadly.
--scott


Ok, but by recording in mono you lose a lot of the spatial information
you would've had in stereo, right? When I hear mono albums, I can hear
how big the room is (or in the case of artificial reverb, how big it's
pretending to be), but I don't feel like I'm getting the sense of
depth and width like I would with stereo. Also, the speaker phenomenon
of 'imaging' seems kinda lost in mono, but then again maybe that has
more to do with the recording than the playback system.

-Neb

[Scott Dorsey]

nebulax wrote:
On Feb 4, 9:36=A0am, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

They're a single mono sample taken from a three-dimensional stereo soundf=
ield.

A mono recording gives you the soundfield at a single point in space. =A0=
Stereo
gives you the soundfield at two or three points in space. =A0Sonic hologr=
aphy
gives you the soundfield at a whole bunch of points in space. =A0Perfect
reproduction of the original wavefront is not possible, sadly.


Ok, but by recording in mono you lose a lot of the spatial information
you would've had in stereo, right? When I hear mono albums, I can hear
how big the room is (or in the case of artificial reverb, how big it's
pretending to be), but I don't feel like I'm getting the sense of
depth and width like I would with stereo.

Right. But, even with stereo you're losing a lot of the spatial information
in the original soundfield. Mono just loses more.

Also, the speaker phenomenon
of 'imaging' seems kinda lost in mono, but then again maybe that has
more to do with the recording than the playback system.

No, imaging is all about stereo, and it is the 99% of the difference between
a live performance and a mono recording. We have tonality down pretty well
with modern technology, but a convincing image isn't there. Stereo is a
big step toward it, but it's still pretty far away from the real thing.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Keith.]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Laurence Payne" wrote in message

On Wed, 4 Feb 2009 08:55:15 -0800, "Richard Crowley"
wrote:

I remember as a kid marveling that the tape noise was
below the "room tone" of the cathedral even back in
those early days. Very impressive to someone who had
only low-tech consumer gear to play with at the time.

Though there can be a LOT of room tone in a cathedral :-)

Agreed.

But exactly what is this 'room tone'?.I while back I started a thread on
this but it did not go far. I feel that most Cathedrals are near busy roads
and that this is low frequency rumble with overtones ........but it does
seem to be constant !.
The Acoustics group may know more.
This is off thread I know but the heat is starting to get to me.

Keith.

[Richard Crowley]

"Keith." wrote ...
"Arny Krueger" wrote ...
"Laurence Payne" wrote
"Richard Crowley" wrote:
I remember as a kid marveling that the tape noise was
below the "room tone" of the cathedral even back in
those early days. Very impressive to someone who had
only low-tech consumer gear to play with at the time.

Though there can be a LOT of room tone in a cathedral :-)

Agreed.

But exactly what is this 'room tone'?.I while back I started a thread on
this but it did not go far. I feel that most Cathedrals are near busy
roads and that this is low frequency rumble with overtones ........but it
does seem to be constant !.

And I was reminded of your thread when I wrote that. I offered my opinion
of the cause and variations, but IIRC there was no response.

The Acoustics group may know more.
This is off thread I know but the heat is starting to get to me.

Heat? Most snow here in PDX in the 30 years I've been up here.
Maybe Algore should have called it "Global Cooling".

[Keith.]

"Richard Crowley" wrote in message
. ..
"Keith." wrote ...
"Arny Krueger" wrote ...
"Laurence Payne" wrote
"Richard Crowley" wrote:
I remember as a kid marveling that the tape noise was
below the "room tone" of the cathedral even back in
those early days. Very impressive to someone who had
only low-tech consumer gear to play with at the time.

Though there can be a LOT of room tone in a cathedral :-)

Agreed.

But exactly what is this 'room tone'?.I while back I started a thread on
this but it did not go far. I feel that most Cathedrals are near busy
roads and that this is low frequency rumble with overtones ........but it
does seem to be constant !.

And I was reminded of your thread when I wrote that. I offered my opinion
of the cause and variations, but IIRC there was no response.

The Acoustics group may know more.
This is off thread I know but the heat is starting to get to me.

Heat? Most snow here in PDX in the 30 years I've been up here.
Maybe Algore should have called it "Global Cooling".


Yes, and I remember your answer



"I believe it is the normal "room tone" that you would hear anywhere,
but it is modified by the "infinite and complex acoustics" of the very
large space with very convoluted and hard reflective surfaces."

Seemed to sum it up pretty well and I could not think of anything else
intelligent to add.
It is not easy to answer,might do some searching. This "room tone" is not
unpleasant but constant and would limit the use of broadcast compression
where it would be needed e.g choirs and soloists.

I have heard of the "Gore-effect" ....whenever he gives a speech,the
temperature drops!

Keith.

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Wed, 4 Feb 2009 18:13:56 -0500, "Soundhaspriority"
wrote:

Was this a case of resyncing a half second at a time?

More a case of software being available that could analyze and
continuously synch the two recordings well enough for stereo
information to emerge.

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Wed, 4 Feb 2009 17:55:51 -0800 (PST), nebulax
wrote:

Ok, but by recording in mono you lose a lot of the spatial information
you would've had in stereo, right? When I hear mono albums, I can hear
how big the room is (or in the case of artificial reverb, how big it's
pretending to be), but I don't feel like I'm getting the sense of
depth and width like I would with stereo. Also, the speaker phenomenon
of 'imaging' seems kinda lost in mono, but then again maybe that has
more to do with the recording than the playback system.

All the things you describe are simply descriptions of what stereo
*is*.

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On 4 Feb 2009 21:03:47 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

No, imaging is all about stereo, and it is the 99% of the difference between
a live performance and a mono recording. We have tonality down pretty well
with modern technology, but a convincing image isn't there. Stereo is a
big step toward it, but it's still pretty far away from the real thing.

Not that many (if any) of the audience at a live performance
experience much of an image, especially if amplification is involved.
There isn't often a chance to sit in optimum position to a live
performance, in a good acoustic. Even more dramatically, to be INSIDE
that performance. A good recording can offer an experience only
previously available to actual members of the orchestra! That can be
something very special. (Or in a bad hall, very frustrating :-)

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Thu, 5 Feb 2009 13:48:46 +1100, "Keith."
wrote:

But exactly what is this 'room tone'?.I while back I started a thread on
this but it did not go far. I feel that most Cathedrals are near busy roads
and that this is low frequency rumble with overtones ........but it does
seem to be constant !.
The Acoustics group may know more.
This is off thread I know but the heat is starting to get to me.

I wonder if there is a cathedral somewhere with no machinery of any
sort running, away from roads and aircraft where this can be tested?

Are there references from pre-mechanical ages to the silence of a
great building being an *audible* silence? Of course in those days it
might have been less likely than now to find such a building
completely empty!

[Arny Krueger]

"Keith." wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Laurence Payne" wrote in
message
On Wed, 4 Feb 2009 08:55:15 -0800, "Richard Crowley"
wrote:

I remember as a kid marveling that the tape noise was
below the "room tone" of the cathedral even back in
those early days. Very impressive to someone who had
only low-tech consumer gear to play with at the time.

Though there can be a LOT of room tone in a cathedral
:-)

Agreed.

But exactly what is this 'room tone'?.

I don't know for sure because it has been a long time since I was in one.

I while back I
started a thread on this but it did not go far. I feel
that most Cathedrals are near busy roads and that this is
low frequency rumble with overtones ........but it does
seem to be constant !.

I duuno. Are hi-Q resonances and long reverberation times keeping short term
but frequent noises alive?

[Arny Krueger]

"Laurence Payne" wrote in message

On Thu, 5 Feb 2009 13:48:46 +1100, "Keith."
wrote:

But exactly what is this 'room tone'?.I while back I
started a thread on this but it did not go far. I feel
that most Cathedrals are near busy roads and that this
is low frequency rumble with overtones ........but it
does seem to be constant !.
The Acoustics group may know more.
This is off thread I know but the heat is starting to
get to me.

I wonder if there is a cathedral somewhere with no
machinery of any sort running, away from roads and
aircraft where this can be tested?

Are there references from pre-mechanical ages to the
silence of a great building being an *audible* silence?
Of course in those days it might have been less likely
than now to find such a building completely empty!

If it helps, I can tell you that the noise levels dozens of miles from any
machinery or roads can be surprisingly high. Wind + trees.

[Mike Rivers]

Keith. wrote:

But exactly what is this 'room tone'?.

I think that "room tone" may be an obsolete term, at least in its
original context.
It used to be the reverberation of what you were recording, which you
could hear
above the level of any natural or man-made noise. This includes hum and
tape
hiss, which used to be sufficient to mask wind and traffic noise.

Today, the noise generated by the recording chain is (or at least can
be) negligible
so we can hear reverberation decay down to a lower level, causing the
"room tone" to
compete with noises that we could ignore if we let our brains do the
work, but which
become obvious when we try to hear them.



--
If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach
me he
double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers
)

[Adrian Tuddenham[_2_]]

Laurence Payne wrote:

On 4 Feb 2009 21:03:47 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

No, imaging is all about stereo, and it is the 99% of the difference between
a live performance and a mono recording. We have tonality down pretty well
with modern technology, but a convincing image isn't there. Stereo is a
big step toward it, but it's still pretty far away from the real thing.

Not that many (if any) of the audience at a live performance
experience much of an image, especially if amplification is involved.
There isn't often a chance to sit in optimum position to a live
performance, in a good acoustic. Even more dramatically, to be INSIDE
that performance. A good recording can offer an experience only
previously available to actual members of the orchestra! That can be
something very special. (Or in a bad hall, very frustrating :-)

I was inside an Aeolian organ a couple of weeks ago, completing some
repairs, when the owner turend it on and played a roll of "Zampa
Overture" - now that *was* an experience.


http://www.paulmorrismusic.co.uk/Vie...ame=Aeolian%20
Organ%20Opus%201458


--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

[Richard Crowley]

"Mike Rivers" wrote ...
Keith. wrote:
But exactly what is this 'room tone'?.

I think that "room tone" may be an obsolete term, at least in its original
context.

"Room tone" is a vital concept for production sound people
on feature films and subsequently for the remix engineers.
A recordist who doesn't capture at least 15-30 seconds of
room tone at each setup just isn't doing his/her job. And not
as easy as it sounds as it requires the cast and crew to remain
silent and stationary for the duration.

[Scott Dorsey]

Laurence Payne wrote:
On 4 Feb 2009 21:03:47 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

No, imaging is all about stereo, and it is the 99% of the difference between
a live performance and a mono recording. We have tonality down pretty well
with modern technology, but a convincing image isn't there. Stereo is a
big step toward it, but it's still pretty far away from the real thing.

Not that many (if any) of the audience at a live performance
experience much of an image, especially if amplification is involved.

Skipping the issue of amplification, which is a whole other can of worms,
this is absolutely correct.

The thing is, the audience DOES hear an image, but it's a pretty narrow one
in most cases, and it's created by the room. Too many stereo recordings
create exaggerated effects that are very much unlike anything you would hear
in a real concert.

There isn't often a chance to sit in optimum position to a live
performance, in a good acoustic. Even more dramatically, to be INSIDE
that performance. A good recording can offer an experience only
previously available to actual members of the orchestra! That can be
something very special. (Or in a bad hall, very frustrating :-)

I don't want to be inside the performance, I want it to sound like it
sounds from the front of the balcony in the center. Certainly no more
forward than the conductor's platform (and that's way too close).
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Mike Rivers]

Richard Crowley wrote:

"Room tone" is a vital concept for production sound people
on feature films and subsequently for the remix engineers.

Sorry, different kind of "room tone." I call that "ambiance" and it
definitely includes things like air conditioner rumble, traffic noise,
coughs, and foot shuffling. Very important when putting together
a program of a live concert recording. Sometimes you need that
to cover up or smooth through an edit.


--
If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach
me he
double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers
)

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On 5 Feb 2009 10:21:02 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

There isn't often a chance to sit in optimum position to a live
performance, in a good acoustic. Even more dramatically, to be INSIDE
that performance. A good recording can offer an experience only
previously available to actual members of the orchestra! That can be
something very special. (Or in a bad hall, very frustrating :-)

I don't want to be inside the performance, I want it to sound like it
sounds from the front of the balcony in the center. Certainly no more
forward than the conductor's platform (and that's way too close).

It's worth trying once - there's a very special magic. Whether it
would work for someone not involved in creating the performance
though....I don't know. It's great being a musician! (sometimes:-)

[hank alrich]

Adrian Tuddenham wrote:

I was inside an Aeolian organ a couple of weeks ago, completing some
repairs, when the owner turend it on and played a roll of "Zampa
Overture" - now that *was* an experience.


http://www.paulmorrismusic.co.uk/Vie...ame=Aeolian%20
Organ%20Opus%201458

Wow! What a gorgeous musical apparatus!

--
ha
shut up and play your guitar

[Adrian Tuddenham[_2_]]

hank alrich wrote:

Adrian Tuddenham wrote:

I was inside an Aeolian organ a couple of weeks ago, completing some
repairs, when the owner turend it on and played a roll of "Zampa
Overture" - now that *was* an experience.


http://www.paulmorrismusic.co.uk/Vie...ame=Aeolian%20
Organ%20Opus%201458

Wow! What a gorgeous musical apparatus!

It sounds fantastic - especially when you are inside it !


--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

[Keith.]

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
...
Keith. wrote:

But exactly what is this 'room tone'?.

I think that "room tone" may be an obsolete term, at least in its original
context.
It used to be the reverberation of what you were recording, which you
could hear
above the level of any natural or man-made noise. This includes hum and
tape
hiss, which used to be sufficient to mask wind and traffic noise.

Today, the noise generated by the recording chain is (or at least can be)
negligible
so we can hear reverberation decay down to a lower level, causing the
"room tone" to
compete with noises that we could ignore if we let our brains do the work,
but which
become obvious when we try to hear them.

I agree that the recording chain is not really contributing to generating
this sound.
To describe it is sounds like constant low level A/C noise or fans but I
don't think it is.
It is not unpleasant, in fact, playing a favorite CD, it is heard as the
clock starts and before the performance begins and there is an emotional
feeling of anticipation as if you are entering this new audio world........I
still get this feeling when I play a vinyl and hear surface noise,but not
when I hear tape hiss.
Thanks to all for your thoughts.

Keith.

[nebulax]

On Feb 5, 8:56*am, "Richard Crowley" wrote:
"Mike Rivers" *wrote ...

Keith. wrote:
But exactly what is this 'room tone'?.

I think that "room tone" may be an obsolete term, at least in its original
context.

"Room tone" is a vital concept for production sound people
on feature films and subsequently for the remix engineers.
A recordist who doesn't capture at least 15-30 seconds of
room tone at each setup just isn't doing his/her job. And not
as easy as it sounds as it requires the cast and crew to remain
silent and stationary for the duration.


Actually, in today's digital editing age, you don't necessarily *have
to* record that much room tone anymore, with some editors even making
loops out of mere seconds of sound from between takes. In fact, even
if you try to call for room tone, some directors will just tell you to
"move on", and not to bother with it at all. Unfortunately, this sort
of treatment is par for the course for the poor downtrodden location
film sound man! :-)

-Neb

[Richard Crowley]

"nebulax wrote ...
Actually, in today's digital editing age, you don't necessarily *have
to* record that much room tone anymore, with some editors even making
loops out of mere seconds of sound from between takes.

Indeed, I've done that myself, and not just on film/video tracks.

In fact, even
if you try to call for room tone, some directors will just tell you to
"move on", and not to bother with it at all. Unfortunately, this sort
of treatment is par for the course for the poor downtrodden location
film sound man! :-)

http://filmsound.org/production-sound/openletter.htm