[Scott Dorsey]

Angus Kerr wrote:
On Tuesday, October 6, 2015 at 1:16:13 AM UTC+2, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Listen to some of the DG classical recordings of the eighties, with aggre=
ssive
sectional miking, everything moving around all the time... does not sound=
very
much like an orchestra and nobody would make a recording like that today.
=20
I've got a couple of these, care to cite an example?

Best example EVER is to get one of the recordings from the 1950s von Karajan
recording of the complete Beethoven symphonies, then get the 1980s re-recording
of the same piece.

The performance is different, in some ways better and more subtle in the later
recordings, but the recording quality is just dramatically worse, with the
overall perspective of the orchestra changing whenever the engineers bring up
the solo spots. Which they do constantly. You just want to yell at someone
to leave them alone.

What is the perfect location in front of an orchestra for listening? I've h=
ad the privilege of conducting one, and the sound is pretty awesome from th=
e podium....

I like it farther back. At the conductor's podium, you get a lot of strings
and a lot of brass, but the percussion can disappear way in the back. But
if that's the perspective you like, that's fine.

But... if you want the strings to sound like a Barry Manilow record, that is
not so fine.

I've listened to a world class Orchestra in the 3rd row in a good hall, and=
I could hear everything, albeit in a more blended way.

Right, and the degree of blend is very much a matter of personal taste and it
is why we can have valid and reasonable discussions about perspective and
hall differences.

I've got an 80's recording of LSO with Sir Colin Davis ... listening to it =
with my eyes closed, I could hear him breathing and snorting - I liked that=
.

I don't like that, and I don't like Glenn Gould's sounds either, but what
I MOST HATE are squeaky chairs and squeaky podia. Paper rustling sounds
don't bother me half as much.

With orchestras though, I find close miking doesn't allow the sound of the =
instrument to develop as it should - as a violin player, I know that a lape=
l mike close to the bridge does not give a good sound - some screechiness, =
OK a LOT of screechiness and other sounds that should not be heard, like lo=
w frequency bumps on bow changes, white noise generated by the bow hairs be=
ing drawn across the string, etc., they are just not heard a few feet away.=
Plus then you have the added problem of balance of different player's soun=
d where a certain player becomes dominant and you don't get the 'section so=
und'.

I don't think it's possible to mike an orchestra just from spots and have it
sound realistic, although with modern technology (namely reverb and delay)
it's possible to rely a lot more on spots than was possible a decade or two
ago without having it all turn to mush and screech. This is important in
live broadcasts from locations where ambient and audience noise might be
high.
--scott


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

[None]

krissie krybaby @ dumb****sRus . shortbus. .edu wrote:
kissing-ass.jpg a little, are we, Neil?

Do you have a mouse in your pocket? I'll bet your hobby horse is
jealous. Is that post what you call a "good conversation"?

Have you started your own discussion group yet, where you can argue
with yourself?

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 10/6/2015 6:18 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
I don't like that, and I don't like Glenn Gould's sounds either, but what
I MOST HATE are squeaky chairs and squeaky podia. Paper rustling sounds
don't bother me half as much.

Ah, but now we have spectral editing to take out squeaky furniture.
Feedback, too (hopefully not with orchestras).

--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Angus Kerr]

On Wednesday, October 7, 2015 at 12:18:45 AM UTC+2, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Angus Kerr wrote:
Listen to some of the DG classical recordings of the eighties, with aggre=
ssive
sectional miking, everything moving around all the time... does not sound=
very
much like an orchestra and nobody would make a recording like that today.
=20
I've got a couple of these, care to cite an example?

Best example EVER is to get one of the recordings from the 1950s von Karajan
recording of the complete Beethoven symphonies, then get the 1980s re-recording
of the same piece.

The performance is different, in some ways better and more subtle in the later
recordings, but the recording quality is just dramatically worse, with the
overall perspective of the orchestra changing whenever the engineers bring up
the solo spots. Which they do constantly. You just want to yell at someone
to leave them alone.

I'm going to check. I liked the 60's recordings, the only real issue was the degree of tape hiss. But the sound was a lot easier on the ears than the early digital recordings..


I like it farther back. At the conductor's podium, you get a lot of strings
and a lot of brass, but the percussion can disappear way in the back. But
if that's the perspective you like, that's fine.


I've listened to a world class Orchestra in the 3rd row in a good hall, and=
I could hear everything, albeit in a more blended way.

Right, and the degree of blend is very much a matter of personal taste and it
is why we can have valid and reasonable discussions about perspective and
hall differences.

I've got an 80's recording of LSO with Sir Colin Davis ... listening to it =
with my eyes closed, I could hear him breathing and snorting - I liked that=
.

I don't like that, and I don't like Glenn Gould's sounds either, but what
I MOST HATE are squeaky chairs and squeaky podia. Paper rustling sounds
don't bother me half as much.

I'm chuckling here, because it really depends on what you want to define as an 'orchestra' - sonically. You can define it as the sounds produced only by the instruments, but you can also define it as the instruments, musicians, chairs, breath, conductors grunting etc. You also have a choice as to whether these 'alien' sounds are going to bug you or not. How far back you go eliminates some of this detail, which to me as a player, is part of what it means to be in an orchestra. Because an orchestra is a living, breathing thing.


I don't think it's possible to mike an orchestra just from spots and have it
sound realistic, although with modern technology (namely reverb and delay)
it's possible to rely a lot more on spots than was possible a decade or two
ago without having it all turn to mush and screech. This is important in
live broadcasts from locations where ambient and audience noise might be
high.

The places I've played where they generally have to mike (in outdoor locations, or when playing with a rock band), you have feedback issues, the sound is generally thin and there is a lot of bleed from other mikes, monitors and ambient noise, cause the mikes are so open. It's hard I would think, and I admit that I've never been on the console end, to NOT have a screechy sonic mush at the end of the the day. I mean, if I had a month of sundays and unlimited budget, I would spot mic a lot of individual instruments (specially woodwinds and brass) to get the bottom end I need, but then you would need hours of sound checking to balance everything and the strings - either you mic each desk and deal with the issue of cranked gain and leakage due to relative large distance mic to instrument, or a bridge mic on each instrument and a lot of eq and balancing to get the section to sound like a section. I'd rather play my violin and watch the sound engineers run around and sweat.

Also, if the sound engineer is doing this, he needs to understand an orchestra - exactly what each instrument's role in the overall orchestra is, what it sounds like and the difference between an oboe and a clarinet, a trumpet and a trombone. If he's been just doing rock bands, that orchestra is going to sound very strange.

Bottom line is, no amplification unless absolutely unavoidable.

-Angus.

[geoff]

On 7/10/2015 10:10 p.m., Angus Kerr wrote:

Bottom line is, no amplification unless absolutely unavoidable.

Which in any competent orchestra (or chamber group, or opera) totally
should be avoidable. Anything else is false.

geoff

[Frank Stearns]

Neil writes:

snips

How about "before and after"? w

You liked "before", and not so much "after"... so, your opinion is that
it got worse, which apparently differed from the opinion of the
mastering engineer. ;-)

I think you've touched on a big part of the issue.

Opinions are fine, even those differing from mine! But I'd like to deal with
"informed" opinions. To use my own color analogy from an earlier post, how can you
have an opinion about blue if you've never seen blue?

Maybe there's something in his process or chain (including room and monitors) that
doesn't render depth and dimension. So if it's not there, he doesn't know. Maybe
something in his system masks (or does not properly reproduce) distortion.

And the more insideous "cultural" aspect to this: maybe he's never really
experienced a wider variety of music that hasn't gone through electronics and
transducers, and as a reference has no idea what that's like.

Frank
Mobile Audio
--

[Frank Stearns]

Neil writes:

snips

Yes, I understood your meaning, and there is a multi-entendre in the use
of the term "gray" in the discussion. ;-) If I'm on track, I'd describe
the result as being "dulled" by the processing.

The point I was making is that there are just way too many variables,
even when those involved in the processing chain are removed. Speakers
are audibly different, rooms are audibly different, and even the same
speakers in the same room are audibly different when humidity and
atmospheric pressure changes. Even if one could make the hardware
perform the same, our ears don't under those conditions.

But, I do get your point, and all I can come up with is that you have to
be there to manage some of these variables.

Yes, the detailed points in your first para about variability are absolutely true.
And there are no doubt days or conditions (such as the nasty head cold I just picked
up) where I'm not going to hear the depth and distortion components quite as much
(if at all -- cough-cough, sneeze-sneeze).

But at this stage of the process, I'm going to lean in, head cocked, like the RCA
dog, looking for anything amiss. Because at some point, under some conditions, one
or more of the elements are going to be heard (or not heard) by many in the public.

A very few folks might identify what's wrong, while many more might not be as
musically interested (not knowing why) and simply move on.

On the other hand, really good sonics can contribute something in the way of
supporting a good performance -- and add a little gravity to listeners' interest.
The variables you note still exist, of course, but the overall trend set at this
point in the production process could be something good, or something not so good.

As far as being there; yes, sigh. It's a long, boring backstory as to why I could
not attend this session. But even that might not have precluded some or all of these
issues had something been odd about the room, the way he monitors, etc. I might have
been just as sucked in if I could not hear what I'm used to hearing in my room
(though likely hoping with a sinking heart things were okay as I was in his room).

My mileage certainly varied on this one!

Frank
Mobile Audio

[Frank Stearns]

geoff writes:

On 7/10/2015 2:15 a.m., Neil wrote:


I understand and mostly agree with what you're saying. However, "hall
realism" is also in flux, and the conventions have changed over the
decades to accommodate technology and taste. Otherwise, we wouldn't have
many solo violinists that could be heard over the orchestral
accompaniment. ;-)


Violin solos never used to have a problem being heard over orchestral
backings. Maybe now the orchestral backings are not being conducted in
order to play at a correct level in those spots. Or maybe they now feel
the need to be 'hyper-compressed' and maintain full loudness at all
times ?!!!

Yes. Here we have part of the "cultural" part of the problem.

Last year, the Russian Ballet presented the timeless "Nutcracker" at the theater
where I do the occasional sound gig. Of course, business practicalities meant that
they could not travel with a full orchestra. But they did have a beautiful
orchestral recording; one of the better ones I've heard.

The system in that house is reasonably clean, and it can play quite loud -- and
that's where their young sound tech wanted it -- 105 to 108 dB, all the time, even
in the pianissimo parts.

Nice, bright kid, but I could not fully communicate to him the nature of this score
and how the music should be presented. Apparently, when the tracks were moved onto
their playback computer, they'd been normalized to 0, completely wrecking the
dynamics of that piece.

Finally, the local sponsers and house manager voiced their objections we got it down
to 90-95 dB. And that was it -- always 90-95. Sad.

Frank
Mobile Audio

--

[Neil[_9_]]

On 10/7/2015 7:21 AM, Frank Stearns wrote:
Neil writes:

snips

How about "before and after"? w

You liked "before", and not so much "after"... so, your opinion is that
it got worse, which apparently differed from the opinion of the
mastering engineer. ;-)

I think you've touched on a big part of the issue.

Opinions are fine, even those differing from mine! But I'd like to deal with
"informed" opinions. To use my own color analogy from an earlier post, how can you
have an opinion about blue if you've never seen blue?

It might be hard to discern which opinions are "informed"...

Maybe there's something in his process or chain (including room and monitors) that
doesn't render depth and dimension. So if it's not there, he doesn't know. Maybe
something in his system masks (or does not properly reproduce) distortion.

It's highly likely that the sound in his room differs from yours. That's
just the nature of all things audio. It's also possible that his system
de-emphasizes something that yours over-emphasizes, and/or vice versa.
But, in this case, you were able to identify the changes that occurred,
which is fortunate.

And the more insideous "cultural" aspect to this: maybe he's never really
experienced a wider variety of music that hasn't gone through electronics and
transducers, and as a reference has no idea what that's like.

I think that's unlikely. It could be that his experience is so broad
that he makes no assumptions about what someone wants or might think is
a good rendering of their material.

But, there's another factor that you alluded to that may make things
even more unclear. You're on one coast, he's on another, and it's for
sure that the musical preferences of the residents of those regions differ.

--
Best regards,

Neil

[Scott Dorsey]

Angus Kerr wrote:
=20
I don't like that, and I don't like Glenn Gould's sounds either, but what
I MOST HATE are squeaky chairs and squeaky podia. Paper rustling sounds
don't bother me half as much.
=20
I'm chuckling here, because it really depends on what you want to define as=
an 'orchestra' - sonically. You can define it as the sounds produced only =
by the instruments, but you can also define it as the instruments, musician=
s, chairs, breath, conductors grunting etc. You also have a choice as to wh=
ether these 'alien' sounds are going to bug you or not. How far back you go=
eliminates some of this detail, which to me as a player, is part of what i=
t means to be in an orchestra. Because an orchestra is a living, breathing =
thing.

Right, those are all part of the sounds. But... for the most part those
are sounds that the audience hears indistinctly if at all, even though they
might be very audible up at the podium.

So, figure that the recording should not exaggerate those sounds.

The places I've played where they generally have to mike (in outdoor locati=
ons, or when playing with a rock band), you have feedback issues, the sound=
is generally thin and there is a lot of bleed from other mikes, monitors a=
nd ambient noise, cause the mikes are so open. It's hard I would think, and=
I admit that I've never been on the console end, to NOT have a screechy so=
nic mush at the end of the the day. I mean, if I had a month of sundays and=
unlimited budget, I would spot mic a lot of individual instruments (specia=
lly woodwinds and brass) to get the bottom end I need, but then you would n=
eed hours of sound checking to balance everything and the strings - either =
you mic each desk and deal with the issue of cranked gain and leakage due t=
o relative large distance mic to instrument, or a bridge mic on each instru=
ment and a lot of eq and balancing to get the section to sound like a secti=
on. I'd rather play my violin and watch the sound engineers run around and =
sweat.

You need a better PA crew that actually knows about orchestras. Once you
add PA, the orchestra ceases to sound like a real orchestra at all, but
that doesn't mean that anyone should put up with those kind of problems.
It should be anything but thin... in fact the tendency is often to make it
sound like a film soundtrack with an exaggerated low end. Narrow notch
filters are the PA operator's best friend.

Also, if the sound engineer is doing this, he needs to understand an orches=
tra - exactly what each instrument's role in the overall orchestra is, what=
it sounds like and the difference between an oboe and a clarinet, a trumpe=
t and a trombone. If he's been just doing rock bands, that orchestra is goi=
ng to sound very strange.

Yes, and he needs to have a score in front of him and be following it so
that he knows what is going to be happening.

Bottom line is, no amplification unless absolutely unavoidable.

The problem is that for pops concerts, concerts in shopping malls, and other
outreach events, amplification becomes avoidable.

And there IS occasionally some opportunity where there might be a valid
aesthetic argument in favor of making it sound like a film soundtrack
rather than a real orchestra. I wrote an article about that in Recording
Magazine this past spring.
--scott

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

[Scott Dorsey]

geoff wrote:
On 7/10/2015 10:10 p.m., Angus Kerr wrote:

Bottom line is, no amplification unless absolutely unavoidable.

Which in any competent orchestra (or chamber group, or opera) totally
should be avoidable. Anything else is false.

It's not just the orchestra, it's the room. Take that chamber group out
of the chamber and put it into a stadium and unfortunately you are stuck
with amplification.

It won't sound like a chamber group in a proper room, but that is the
downside of transplanting groups into an alien environment.

insert here my usual bitch about the Royal Albert Hall
--scott


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

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

On 06-10-2015 23:07, Scott Dorsey wrote:

I've never heard a solo violinist who couldn't be heard over the orchestra;
it is the job of the composer and the conductor to make sure they can be
with no sound processing whatsoever.

I have, sadly, heard a lot of spotmiked soloists that sounded totally out
of perspective with the rest of the orchestra, though. But that is exactly
the sort of thing that you get when your goal is other than the hall reference.

I tend to refuse to spotmike a violin soloist, they are usually right
next to the main pair and will flounder naturally around over the left
part of the image all by themselves, a viola .. perhaps, but not
necessarily and a cello definitely, not for level, but for focus. It is
proper that it flounders around everywhere as it does in the hall, but
as listener I find it distracting in playback in a living room.

--scott

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Angus Kerr]

On Wednesday, October 7, 2015 at 3:18:29 PM UTC+2, Scott Dorsey wrote:
On 7/10/2015 10:10 p.m., Angus Kerr wrote:

Bottom line is, no amplification unless absolutely unavoidable.

Which in any competent orchestra (or chamber group, or opera) totally
should be avoidable. Anything else is false.

It's not just the orchestra, it's the room. Take that chamber group out
of the chamber and put it into a stadium and unfortunately you are stuck
with amplification.

It won't sound like a chamber group in a proper room, but that is the
downside of transplanting groups into an alien environment.

You have it bang on there. Which is why we who play in Orchestras like to play in halls and rooms, which is the correct habitat for an Orchestra. Although it is amazing how different acoustics affect brass and strings and orchestral balance. Reverberent like a church - brass can be overpowering; a school hall with a back curtain, and a dry acoustic, the strings tend to dominate with the brass being sucked into that curtain, although dry acoustics undermine a string players comfort that comes with the blanket of reverb. Proper concert hall gets this just right. Theatres tend to be too dry.

And PA speakers are so crass a reproduction medium for classical music imv.

I mean the richness of sound texture coming from an acoustic violin compared to the blaring reproduction through a PA horn.....

-Angus.

[Angus Kerr]

On Wednesday, October 7, 2015 at 3:15:53 PM UTC+2, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Angus Kerr wrote:
=20
I don't like that, and I don't like Glenn Gould's sounds either, but what
I MOST HATE are squeaky chairs and squeaky podia. Paper rustling sounds
don't bother me half as much.
=20
I'm chuckling here, because it really depends on what you want to define as=
an 'orchestra' - sonically. You can define it as the sounds produced only =
by the instruments, but you can also define it as the instruments, musician=
s, chairs, breath, conductors grunting etc. You also have a choice as to wh=
ether these 'alien' sounds are going to bug you or not. How far back you go=
eliminates some of this detail, which to me as a player, is part of what i=
t means to be in an orchestra. Because an orchestra is a living, breathing =
thing.

Right, those are all part of the sounds. But... for the most part those
are sounds that the audience hears indistinctly if at all, even though they
might be very audible up at the podium.

True

So, figure that the recording should not exaggerate those sounds.

Also true

The places I've played where they generally have to mike (in outdoor locati=
ons, or when playing with a rock band), you have feedback issues, the sound=
is generally thin and there is a lot of bleed from other mikes, monitors a=
nd ambient noise, cause the mikes are so open. It's hard I would think, and=
I admit that I've never been on the console end, to NOT have a screechy so=
nic mush at the end of the the day.


You need a better PA crew that actually knows about orchestras. Once you
add PA, the orchestra ceases to sound like a real orchestra at all, but
that doesn't mean that anyone should put up with those kind of problems.
It should be anything but thin... in fact the tendency is often to make it
sound like a film soundtrack with an exaggerated low end. Narrow notch
filters are the PA operator's best friend.

Also, if the sound engineer is doing this, he needs to understand an orches=
tra - exactly what each instrument's role in the overall orchestra is, what=
it sounds like and the difference between an oboe and a clarinet, a trumpe=
t and a trombone. If he's been just doing rock bands, that orchestra is goi=
ng to sound very strange.

Yes, and he needs to have a score in front of him and be following it so
that he knows what is going to be happening.

Hah! hah! ROTLF! Maybe in first world countries where an Orchestra is actually called an Orchestra, and not a 'band'. Where a cello is not referred to as a 'guitar'.

Sound technician following the score? Maybe in Germany yes. I don't know a single sound engineer who can read music, let alone know the instruments of the Orchestra. Not in our world of cheapest sound companies who did the band last week and the orchestra this week. At the time we as the Orchestra didn't have a choice, the sound company was hired for a series of concerts by the venue, and we were just one event.


The problem is that for pops concerts, concerts in shopping malls, and other
outreach events, amplification becomes avoidable.

And then the fun starts!

And there IS occasionally some opportunity where there might be a valid
aesthetic argument in favor of making it sound like a film soundtrack
rather than a real orchestra. I wrote an article about that in Recording
Magazine this past spring.
--scott

Will look it up.

-Angus.

[geoff]

On 8/10/2015 2:18 a.m., Scott Dorsey wrote:
geoff wrote:
On 7/10/2015 10:10 p.m., Angus Kerr wrote:

Bottom line is, no amplification unless absolutely unavoidable.

Which in any competent orchestra (or chamber group, or opera) totally
should be avoidable. Anything else is false.

It's not just the orchestra, it's the room. Take that chamber group out
of the chamber and put it into a stadium and unfortunately you are stuck
with amplification.

It won't sound like a chamber group in a proper room, but that is the
downside of transplanting groups into an alien environment.

Take the group out of the chamber and it's no longer a chamber group !

In a stadium (etc) and amplified, otherwise acoustic ensembles become a
different form of entertainment.

geoff

[Scott Dorsey]

geoff wrote:
On 8/10/2015 2:18 a.m., Scott Dorsey wrote:

It won't sound like a chamber group in a proper room, but that is the
downside of transplanting groups into an alien environment.

Take the group out of the chamber and it's no longer a chamber group !

In a stadium (etc) and amplified, otherwise acoustic ensembles become a
different form of entertainment.

Yes, precisely!

Maybe it's a pops orchestra now, no longer a symphony.

And as Mike notes, this isn't just a problem with classical music, it
becomes a huge issue for acoustic folk music.
--scott

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

[Angus Kerr]

On Thursday, October 8, 2015 at 1:25:17 AM UTC+2, Scott Dorsey wrote:

-snip-

And as Mike notes, this isn't just a problem with classical music, it
becomes a huge issue for acoustic folk music.
--scott

The acoustic guys I know who do festivals etc where they need amplification all have some kind of pick-up installed. I've got one on my acoustic violin, acoustic guitars have inbuilt pickups, and even acoustic basses use pickups. Of course, the sound you get is a sort of electronic / woody / nasally / screechy direct sound that really sounds nothing like the acoustic instrument at all and requires a lot of EQ to sound halfway decent. Like we've mentioned before, acoustic instruments and rooms need to go together.

It's a pity really, because I am quite fond of bluegrass music, it would be a shame that this genre is dying out because of difficulties engineering a performance on a big stage requiring miking and amplification. I suppose it eventually will morph into an amplified version where electric guitars, pickups etc. are used, but then it's kind of something else.

-Angus.

[Trevor]

On 8/10/2015 6:17 PM, Angus Kerr wrote:
wrote:

-snip-
It's a pity really, because I am quite fond of bluegrass music, it
would be a shame that this genre is dying out because of difficulties
engineering a performance on a big stage requiring miking and
amplification. I suppose it eventually will morph into an amplified
version where electric guitars, pickups etc. are used, but then it's
kind of something else.

Still see a few bluegrass bands using one mic. They have to know what
they are doing for that to work of course.

Trevor.

[Frank Stearns]

Neil writes:

On 10/7/2015 7:21 AM, Frank Stearns wrote:
Neil writes:

snips

How about "before and after"? w

You liked "before", and not so much "after"... so, your opinion is that
it got worse, which apparently differed from the opinion of the
mastering engineer. ;-)

I think you've touched on a big part of the issue.

Opinions are fine, even those differing from mine! But I'd like to deal with
"informed" opinions. To use my own color analogy from an earlier post, how can you
have an opinion about blue if you've never seen blue?

It might be hard to discern which opinions are "informed"...

Sure. But we'd hope things such as "crunchy or not crunchy" would be fairly
self-evident. And if you (mastering guy) like "crunchy" for something other than
punk or metal, why do you like that?


Maybe there's something in his process or chain (including room and monitors) that
doesn't render depth and dimension. So if it's not there, he doesn't know. Maybe
something in his system masks (or does not properly reproduce) distortion.

It's highly likely that the sound in his room differs from yours. That's
just the nature of all things audio. It's also possible that his system
de-emphasizes something that yours over-emphasizes, and/or vice versa.

Of course. And I've heard some monitor systems and rooms that would drive me crazy
to use, but the results of the work in those places sounded great in my room.

But, in this case, you were able to identify the changes that occurred,
which is fortunate.

And the more insideous "cultural" aspect to this: maybe he's never really
experienced a wider variety of music that hasn't gone through electronics and
transducers, and as a reference has no idea what that's like.

I think that's unlikely. It could be that his experience is so broad
that he makes no assumptions about what someone wants or might think is
a good rendering of their material.

Maybe. But I have the funny feeling his experience is actually fairly narrow -- at
least when it comes to a "direct" dealing with music. Perhaps his experience is
broad, but only within the smaller universe of sound through transducers and
electronics. He perhaps has never been to a live, unamplified event.

Not that we're dealing with live acoustic sound while mastering a project, but that
such experience gives him auditory context as an engineer. I often tell young
engineers that they really should seek out such live events just to experience what
"real" sound is like with absolutely nothing other than a little air between one's
ears and the instruments/voices. And they should attend such events periodically to
"cleanse" their auditory perception.

But, there's another factor that you alluded to that may make things
even more unclear. You're on one coast, he's on another, and it's for
sure that the musical preferences of the residents of those regions differ.

Ironically, the project before this one was mastered in NYC, and it was fine (but
the project itself had been tracked in several studios all over the country). This
current house is on the West coast, but then so is the composer and arranger -- same
city, in fact. (That's one of the reasons why we used this guy.)

I know what you mean by a west v. east coast "sound", but given the small world
nature of our modern times I think that's less of a factor than it used to be.

Frank
Mobile Audio
--

[[email protected]]

Frank Stearns wrote:

"self-evident. And if you (mastering guy) like "crunchy" for something other than
punk or metal, why do you like that?"

Who said the engineer likes it?? They're just doing what the
client is paying them. And loud/clipped/crunched is what is
in demand nowadays.

[Frank Stearns]

(Scott Dorsey) writes:

geoff wrote:
On 8/10/2015 2:18 a.m., Scott Dorsey wrote:

It won't sound like a chamber group in a proper room, but that is the
downside of transplanting groups into an alien environment.

Take the group out of the chamber and it's no longer a chamber group !

In a stadium (etc) and amplified, otherwise acoustic ensembles become a
different form of entertainment.

Yes, precisely!

Maybe it's a pops orchestra now, no longer a symphony.

And as Mike notes, this isn't just a problem with classical music, it
becomes a huge issue for acoustic folk music.

But along with better-than-SM58 for microphones and a cleaner system, there are a
couple of "secrets" that can mitigate those PA problem(s).

First, turn it down. Get that folk act down from the 100+ dB range and into the mid
or high 80 dB range.

Second, related to that, use "corrective" compression. That is, dynamics are
exaggerated by close-mic'ing; so dial in a gentle ratio/knee with the appropriate
time constants to make the voices/instruments sound more natural.

(And this touches on my often-repeated suggestion to young engineers -- get thee to
live, unamplified events so that you have a reference concept of what acoustic sound
is like. One need not exactly mimic that sound when mixing PA, but at least you know
what it is.)

YMMV.

Frank
Mobile Audio
--

[Frank Stearns]

writes:

Frank Stearns wrote:

"self-evident. And if you (mastering guy) like "crunchy" for something other than
punk or metal, why do you like that?"

Who said the engineer likes it?? They're just doing what the
client is paying them. And loud/clipped/crunched is what is
in demand nowadays.

In this case, the clients were with me -- once they heard the difference.

And, at least on paper, this mastering guy was also all for keeping it clean -- but
he apparently never heard the difference, for whatever reason.

But he also seemed to be in auto pilot mode, probably for the reasons you note. Once
the 3-band comp/limiter was removed from the analog side, my ears stopped bleeding
quite as much. And I'm with Scott -- that's the kind of processing perhaps better
done in the digital domain, assuming it's even needed. And for this project, it
certainly was not.

Frank
Mobile Audio
--

[Scott Dorsey]

Angus Kerr wrote:
The acoustic guys I know who do festivals etc where they need amplification=
all have some kind of pick-up installed. I've got one on my acoustic violi=
n, acoustic guitars have inbuilt pickups, and even acoustic basses use pick=
ups. Of course, the sound you get is a sort of electronic / woody / nasally=
/ screechy direct sound that really sounds nothing like the acoustic instr=
ument at all and requires a lot of EQ to sound halfway decent. Like we've m=
entioned before, acoustic instruments and rooms need to go together.

People use pickups because they don't feed back easily. That is the only good
thing about them, and the only reason they get used.

At festivals I spend a lot of my time trying to convince musicians to use a
441 instead of their pickup. Many of them are convinced that the pickup
sounds better, because someone told them that. Some of them can't stand still
enough to use a close mike, though.

It's a pity really, because I am quite fond of bluegrass music, it would be=
a shame that this genre is dying out because of difficulties engineering a=
performance on a big stage requiring miking and amplification. I suppose i=
t eventually will morph into an amplified version where electric guitars, p=
ickups etc. are used, but then it's kind of something else.

The bluegrass people have recently taken to having PA done with a single mike
for the whole ensemble, and performers moving around to balance themselves.
This works brilliantly in a good acoustic where the performers can hear one
another well and have practiced their moves. It works very poorly when there
is a major slap echo from the roof and side of a tent and the performers are
really not sure where they are supposed to be.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Neil[_9_]]

On 10/8/2015 7:54 AM, Frank Stearns wrote:
Neil writes:
(snips)
It's highly likely that the sound in his room differs from yours. That's
just the nature of all things audio. It's also possible that his system
de-emphasizes something that yours over-emphasizes, and/or vice versa.

Of course. And I've heard some monitor systems and rooms that would drive me crazy
to use, but the results of the work in those places sounded great in my room.

One "old school" technique is to use monitors that overemphasize typical
problem areas.

But, in this case, you were able to identify the changes that occurred,
which is fortunate.

And the more insideous "cultural" aspect to this: maybe he's never really
experienced a wider variety of music that hasn't gone through electronics and
transducers, and as a reference has no idea what that's like.

I think that's unlikely. It could be that his experience is so broad
that he makes no assumptions about what someone wants or might think is
a good rendering of their material.

Maybe. But I have the funny feeling his experience is actually fairly narrow -- at
least when it comes to a "direct" dealing with music. Perhaps his experience is
broad, but only within the smaller universe of sound through transducers and
electronics. He perhaps has never been to a live, unamplified event.

Not that we're dealing with live acoustic sound while mastering a project, but that
such experience gives him auditory context as an engineer. I often tell young
engineers that they really should seek out such live events just to experience what
"real" sound is like with absolutely nothing other than a little air between one's
ears and the instruments/voices. And they should attend such events periodically to
"cleanse" their auditory perception.

Something else is going on if they haven't experienced live acoustic
instruments. Even my grandchildren have extensive experience with more
than one genre of music under those circumstances.

But, there's another factor that you alluded to that may make things
even more unclear. You're on one coast, he's on another, and it's for
sure that the musical preferences of the residents of those regions differ.

Ironically, the project before this one was mastered in NYC, and it was fine (but
the project itself had been tracked in several studios all over the country). This
current house is on the West coast, but then so is the composer and arranger -- same
city, in fact. (That's one of the reasons why we used this guy.)

There would be a completely different set of parameters for mastering a
multi-track project that was recorded in a number of different rooms.

I know what you mean by a west v. east coast "sound", but given the small world
nature of our modern times I think that's less of a factor than it used to be.

Perhaps they are less than before, but I still think they're pretty
different.
--
Best regards,

Neil

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 10/8/2015 3:17 AM, Angus Kerr wrote:
The acoustic guys I know who do festivals etc where they need
amplification all have some kind of pick-up installed. I've got one
on my acoustic violin, acoustic guitars have inbuilt pickups, and
even acoustic basses use pickups. Of course, the sound you get is a
sort of electronic / woody / nasally / screechy direct sound that
really sounds nothing like the acoustic instrument at all and
requires a lot of EQ to sound halfway decent.

I have a hard time improving the sound of a pickup on acoustic guitar.
Seems like the only substantial frequency content is what you want to
get rid of. Violin pickups can be OK, particularly for rowdy music.
Thing is that the acoustic guitar with pickup has a sound that's become
part of certain kinds of music, but what works for a singer-songwriter
isn't going to work for the rhythm guitarist in a bluegrass or old time
string band.

It's a pity really, because I am quite fond of bluegrass music, it
would be a shame that this genre is dying out because of difficulties
engineering a performance on a big stage requiring miking and
amplification.

Oh, there's plenty of that. Bluegrass, at least in the USA, is doing
just fine. But what you hear on the big stages at festivals doesn't
sound like back porch music any more. Though, to be realistic, bluegrass
was always commercial music, it's just that in the early days of the
Grand Old Opry, there was one mic on stage and a live audience of about
200-300 people. I haven't heard a show in the latest version of the
Ryman auditorium, but I'll bet it sounds pretty good and they at least
make sure that everybody who uses a pickup has one that sounds OK. Or
they just put the pickup in the monitors and use a real mic on the
instrument.



--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Angus Kerr]

On Thursday, October 8, 2015 at 6:15:22 PM UTC+2, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 10/8/2015 3:17 AM, Angus Kerr wrote:
Of course, the sound you get is a
sort of electronic / woody / nasally / screechy direct sound that
really sounds nothing like the acoustic instrument at all and
requires a lot of EQ to sound halfway decent.

I have a hard time improving the sound of a pickup on acoustic guitar.
Seems like the only substantial frequency content is what you want to
get rid of. Violin pickups can be OK, particularly for rowdy music.

The one's I've used / heard deliver a violin-like sound. One particular guy I know has a pickup with a woody midrangy honky sound with a muffled top end that doesn't sound particularly nice on it's own, but overpowers my electric violin with a barbera pickup and built in preamp that delivers subtlely, warmth and airy top end with no honk. His cuts through plenty - and does not play nice with mine. $5 piece of piezo junk. sigh I've taken to putting a cheap pickup on my acoustic violin when I do gigs with him, this seems to compliment his pickup and play in the same sonic space. I have to check the eq settings on the desk though, the engineers tend to use the hf shelf to get rid of the honk and shriek, instead of the parametric, which at least leaves some tops behind. But that pickup cuts through a rowdy band plenty, like you said.

My point really being, that pickups don't really sound like the instrument, it's something else, and you lose the acoustic quality of the sound. Even the acoustic guitar pickups - which are not too bad.

I would far rather prefer mics (as a listener). But that also limits your movement on stage, and tends to make the player feel trapped and uncomfortable. It does with me, so as a player I prefer a pickup which allows me to roam around.

Thing is that the acoustic guitar with pickup has a sound that's become
part of certain kinds of music, but what works for a singer-songwriter
isn't going to work for the rhythm guitarist in a bluegrass or old time
string band.

Gotcha. Then you are going to have to scoop the eq...

[Rick Ruskin]

On Thu, 8 Oct 2015 12:15:13 -0400, Mike Rivers
wrote:


I have a hard time improving the sound of a pickup on acoustic guitar.
Seems like the only substantial frequency content is what you want to
get rid of. Violin pickups can be OK, particularly for rowdy music.
Thing is that the acoustic guitar with pickup has a sound that's become
part of certain kinds of music, but what works for a singer-songwriter
isn't going to work for the rhythm guitarist in a bluegrass or old time
string band.


The K&K Pure Mini sounds quite natural if installed properly. Most
other systems do sound pretty bad.


Rick Ruskin
Lion Dog Music- Seattle WA
http://liondogmusic.com

[Trevor]

On 9/10/2015 12:41 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
The bluegrass people have recently taken to having PA done with a single mike
for the whole ensemble, and performers moving around to balance themselves.

"Recently"! If you call the 1940's recent I guess :-)

Trevor

[Scott Dorsey]

In article , Trevor wrote:
On 9/10/2015 12:41 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
The bluegrass people have recently taken to having PA done with a single mike
for the whole ensemble, and performers moving around to balance themselves.

"Recently"! If you call the 1940's recent I guess :-)

It's really been only in the last 10 years that the single mike thing
has come back into style.
--scott


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

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 10/9/2015 10:37 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
It's really been only in the last 10 years that the single mike thing
has come back into style.

Time flies like arrows (fruit flies like bananas). Bluegrass bands using
1 mic re-emerged nearly 20 years ago, and by 10 years ago they started
drifting back to multiple mics. There are still a few holdouts that
freak out the stage and sound crews at festivals, but they do just fine
in rowdy bars where bluegrass really should be played. .

--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[geoff]

On 10/10/2015 9:19 a.m., Mike Rivers wrote:
On 10/9/2015 10:37 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
It's really been only in the last 10 years that the single mike thing
has come back into style.

Time flies like arrows (fruit flies like bananas). Bluegrass bands using
1 mic re-emerged nearly 20 years ago, and by 10 years ago they started
drifting back to multiple mics. There are still a few holdouts that
freak out the stage and sound crews at festivals, but they do just fine
in rowdy bars where bluegrass really should be played. .



I thought that was just for quaint TV moments....

geoff

[Nil[_2_]]

On 10 Oct 2015, geoff wrote in
rec.audio.pro:

On 10/10/2015 9:19 a.m., Mike Rivers wrote:

Time flies like arrows (fruit flies like bananas). Bluegrass
bands using 1 mic re-emerged nearly 20 years ago, and by 10 years
ago they started drifting back to multiple mics. There are still
a few holdouts that freak out the stage and sound crews at
festivals, but they do just fine in rowdy bars where bluegrass
really should be played. .

I thought that was just for quaint TV moments....

I think some of it is a showmanship move. And it's effective - it
impresses me, at least! It helps visually highlight a soloist. It also
tells me that they are good at listening to each other, in order to
satisfactorily self-mix.

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

Bluegrass
bands using 1 mic re-emerged nearly 20 years ago, and by 10 years
ago they started drifting back to multiple mics. There are still
a few holdouts that freak out the stage and sound crews at
festivals, but they do just fine in rowdy bars where bluegrass
really should be played. .

On 10/10/2015 2:03 PM, Nil wrote:
I think some of it is a showmanship move. And it's effective - it
impresses me, at least! It helps visually highlight a soloist. It also
tells me that they are good at listening to each other, in order to
satisfactorily self-mix.

When I was going to bars to hear bluegrass bands in the 1960s, mostly
they had two mics, one at vocal height and one lower for the
instruments. The first "revival" band I saw that used one mic was Doyle
Lawson in the early 1990s. He's old enough to have seen bands working
with one mic because that's all they had, though the rest of his band
members at the time were perhaps 20 years younger.

Their setup (they brought it with them) was an Audio Technica 4050 mic
on a stand that they used a tape measure for to get it at the right
height, a Mackie mixer as a mic preamp, and a Sabine feedback
eliminator. They also had a small amplifier fed by a pickup on the
upright bass so they could hear it on stage. No other monitors. \

As they were getting set up, one of the band members gave a little
lecture about what they were about to do (make some feedback and let the
Sabine notch out the frequencies). He also talked a little about how
bands used to sing around one microphone but got away from it as PA
systems got more complicated and it took too much time to set up.

I talked with him about the setup a little afterwards, and what Doyle
said was that while they liked the showmanship, they had to rehearse for
about six months before they were happy with the sound they were
getting. Also, and most important, he said that they decided to go with
one mic because they were playing larger festivals and the sound that
they were getting both in the house and on stage was so bad that they
knew they could do better.


--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com