[peter]

What is it about the violin, that you need many of them to get the orchestra
sound?

Is there a sound processor that makes a solo violin sound like many? It just
needs to create some slight pitch variations, some slight timing variation,
and different rate of vibrato.

[Scott Dorsey]

In article uLBYj.4216$Uf1.604@trndny08, peter wrote:
What is it about the violin, that you need many of them to get the orchestra
sound?

It's an instrument. All instruments are that way. You put a dozen horn
players together and it sounds very different than just one horn.

Is there a sound processor that makes a solo violin sound like many? It just
needs to create some slight pitch variations, some slight timing variation,
and different rate of vibrato.

Probably. You can double-track too. Funny thing, though, double tracking
doesn't make it sound like a coherent integral string section.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Don Pearce]

peter wrote:
What is it about the violin, that you need many of them to get the orchestra
sound?


Totally different thing. Think of a choir singing softly and a soloist
singing loudly.

Is there a sound processor that makes a solo violin sound like many? It just
needs to create some slight pitch variations, some slight timing variation,
and different rate of vibrato.



Yup. It is an effect called chorus. It shifts the pitch and timing of
the original sound, then drops it somewhere across a panned sound stage.
You can multiple-chorus to many locations and end up with something that
sounds almost entirely unlike a string section.

d

[[email protected]]

On Tue, 20 May 2008 15:03:54 GMT, "peter" wrote:

What is it about the violin, that you need many of them to get the orchestra
sound?

Is there a sound processor that makes a solo violin sound like many? It just
needs to create some slight pitch variations, some slight timing variation,
and different rate of vibrato.

Really great orchestras have the players with very good pitch and
timing so the are really virbratoing and tuning very precisely, but
every instrument has it's own voice and it's own placement in a large
space that is needed to fit an orchestra. The closest I've come to
faking it is to double track a string trio and and then backup their
parts with a good sounding string pad played by someome who can really
understand what the strings are doing.
But you might find the trio is charming and all you really need.
Here to you need a good space to record them in. Strings are difficult
to record in a confined space.
Close micing gives a lot of bow scraping. distance only works with
room for the sound to blossom. High ceilings are usually helpful.
That's my 2 kilobits.

[Mark]

Close micing gives a lot of bow scraping. distance only works with
room for the sound to blossom. High ceilings are usually helpful.
That's my 2 kilobits.

interesting...is that really true?

if so why?

why would the ratio of scrape sound to string sound change as you
change distance?

Mark

[Scott Dorsey]

Mark wrote:

Close micing gives a lot of bow scraping. distance only works with
room for the sound to blossom. High ceilings are usually helpful.
That's my 2 kilobits.

interesting...is that really true?

Of course.

if so why?

why would the ratio of scrape sound to string sound change as you
change distance?

Because all kinds of different sounds come out of the violin in different
directions. They all strike the room and bounce around and mix to become
a still different sound.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Arny Krueger]

"peter" wrote in message
news:uLBYj.4216$Uf1.604@trndny08

What is it about the violin, that you need many of them
to get the orchestra sound?

You don't need so many of them unless you want the sound of so many of them.

Is there a sound processor that makes a solo violin sound
like many?

That EFX is commonly called "chours".

It just needs to create some slight pitch
variations, some slight timing variation, and different
rate of vibrato.

That's all easy to do with fairly simple signal processing.

[[email protected]]

On Tue, 20 May 2008 11:36:59 -0700 (PDT), Mark
wrote:

Close micing gives a lot of bow scraping. distance only works with
room for the sound to blossom. High ceilings are usually helpful.
That's my 2 kilobits.

interesting...is that really true?

if so why?

The same reason close micing a voice gives more lipsmacks and breath
noise.
These sounds don't project and bounce off surfaces the same as the
tones your really after, but they are right in your face when close
miced and unlike a breath or lipsmack that may come between words the
bow noise is continous and can't be separated. Some players also tap
down with an audible noise on the fingerboard, which is also something
to avoid.
If your an electrc guitar player think of it as a noisey amp which
also works fine from a distance but can be downright ugly with a mic
stuck against it.
There is no substitute for good instruments, technique, and space.
You can find wonderful ambiance from a convolutions program, but you
can't really move the mic in vitual space, it really has to happen
when you record.

[peter]

Close micing gives a lot of bow scraping. distance only works with
room for the sound to blossom. High ceilings are usually helpful.
That's my 2 kilobits.

interesting...is that really true?

if so why?

why would the ratio of scrape sound to string sound change as you
change distance?

Perhaps the scraping sound is a point source which decreases at distance ^ 3
and the string is a line source (or area source because of the resonant
chamber) which decreases at distance ^2 or slower.

[Mark]

On May 20, 6:16*pm, "peter" wrote:
Close micing gives a lot of bow scraping. distance only works with
room for the sound to blossom. High ceilings are usually helpful.
That's my 2 kilobits.

interesting...is that really true?

if so why?

why would the ratio of scrape sound to string sound change as you
change distance?

Perhaps the scraping sound is a point source which decreases at distance ^ 3
and the string is a line source (or area source because of the resonant
chamber) which decreases at distance ^2 or slower.

I like it...that's a very good possibility..

The other comment about vocals i think is mostly due to the fact that
people speak louder when the mic is far and softer when it is close so
the mouth noises are more prominent when the mic is close and people
speak soft...

and Scotts commnet about the various angles of radiaion..OK that's
probably true but then you could get the same reduction in scrape
sound by placing the mic at the propoer angle away from the instrument
rather than at a greater distance...

I'll go for the 1/r^2 from a line source vs 1/r^3 from a point source
theory...I like it...... thanks

Mark

[Ron Capik]

Mark wrote:

On May 20, 6:16 pm, "peter" wrote:
Close micing gives a lot of bow scraping. distance only works with
room for the sound to blossom. High ceilings are usually helpful.
That's my 2 kilobits.

interesting...is that really true?

if so why?

why would the ratio of scrape sound to string sound change as you
change distance?

Perhaps the scraping sound is a point source which decreases at distance ^ 3
and the string is a line source (or area source because of the resonant
chamber) which decreases at distance ^2 or slower.

I like it...that's a very good possibility..

The other comment about vocals i think is mostly due to the fact that
people speak louder when the mic is far and softer when it is close so
the mouth noises are more prominent when the mic is close and people
speak soft...

and Scotts commnet about the various angles of radiaion..OK that's
probably true but then you could get the same reduction in scrape
sound by placing the mic at the propoer angle away from the instrument
rather than at a greater distance...

I'll go for the 1/r^2 from a line source vs 1/r^3 from a point source
theory...I like it...... thanks

Mark

The radiation angles and dispersion change from note to note,
thus there isn't any single "propoer angle away from the instrument."


Later...

Ron Capik
--

[Scott Dorsey]

Mark wrote:

The other comment about vocals i think is mostly due to the fact that
people speak louder when the mic is far and softer when it is close so
the mouth noises are more prominent when the mic is close and people
speak soft...

That's part of it... but if it's a basso or a baritone, a lot of the
sound is coming from the chest and not from the mouth.

But yes, the difference between singing and crooning is part of the
issue with close-miking vocals.

and Scotts commnet about the various angles of radiaion..OK that's
probably true but then you could get the same reduction in scrape
sound by placing the mic at the propoer angle away from the instrument
rather than at a greater distance...

Sure, but if you do that, you'll get a different unbalanced violin
sound. You can mike in different places to get different parts of
the sound, but you have to pull back to get the whole sound. And
multiple fiddles playing in the same room are different than one
fiddle overdubbed several times in the same room because of the room
interactions as well as the interaction between performers.

I'll go for the 1/r^2 from a line source vs 1/r^3 from a point source
theory...I like it...... thanks

A fiddle ain't even close to either a line or a point source. It is
the weirdest source you ever saw.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[[email protected]]

On Tue, 20 May 2008 23:28:37 GMT, Ron Capik
wrote:

The radiation angles and dispersion change from note to note,
thus there isn't any single "propoer angle away from the instrument."

Agreed. I've tried micing from the side of the fiddle or over the
fiddlers shoulder etc.. The results varied, but nothing sounds as good
as having some space especially a nice space as I said before the
sound seems to bloom. It spreads and fills the space.
I happen to also play fiddle and know many fiddle players others of
whom record and I hear the same complaint over and over about not
being able to get the fiddle to sound as sweet as it sounds to them
naturally. This is from someone whose ear is as close to the sound
hole as a mic. The difference is they also hear the whole room and
have another ear.
Hmmm.. maybe that could be a trick to try, set up two mics one to get
just room and another that is either omni or figure 8 to get a direct
sound off the fiddle.
Of course none of this solves your original question about an
orchestral sound, but it was a nice diversion.

[Mark]

On May 20, 8:13*pm, wrote:
On Tue, 20 May 2008 23:28:37 GMT, Ron Capik
wrote:

The radiation angles and dispersion change from note to note,
thus there isn't any single "propoer angle away from the instrument."

Agreed. I've tried micing from the side of the fiddle or over the
fiddlers shoulder etc.. The results varied, but nothing sounds as good
as having some space especially a nice space as I said before the
sound seems to bloom. It spreads and fills the space.
I happen to also play fiddle and know many fiddle players others of
whom record and I hear the same complaint over and over about not
being able to get the fiddle to sound as sweet as it sounds to them
naturally. This is from someone whose ear is as close to the sound
hole as a mic. The difference is they also hear the whole room and
have another ear.
Hmmm.. maybe that could be a trick to try, set up two mics one to get
just room and another that is either omni or figure 8 to get a direct
sound off the fiddle.
Of course none of this solves your original question about an
orchestral sound, but it was a nice diversion.

I just want to add...

Some of the other technical discussions we have here are BS and better
off on an audiophool discussnion.

But this kind of discussion about the ART of recording is the
wonderfully good part of RAP. These kind of things can make a BIG
difference in a recording and are not easily measured or quantified.
These discussions are why I come here.


thanks
Mark

[[email protected]]

On Tue, 20 May 2008 17:48:06 -0700 (PDT), Mark
wrote:

But this kind of discussion about the ART of recording is the
wonderfully good part of RAP. These kind of things can make a BIG
difference in a recording and are not easily measured or quantified.
These discussions are why I come here.

My sentiments exactly. I'm so pleased if I could help.
I almost gave up on this forum when we got invaded by the spammers.
I've been here for years and have gotten great advise on gear
purchases and technique some times at the last minute before a
session.
It is always greatly appreciated hats off to Mike and The Pope, Scott,
David, Arnie and too many to name.

[Scott Fraser]

why would the ratio of scrape sound to string sound change as you change distance?

Because the violin is extremely efficient at projecting tone
throughout a performance space, & very inefficient at projecting bow
scrape beyond a few yards.

Scott Fraser

[Eeyore]

peter wrote:

What is it about the violin, that you need many of them to get the orchestra
sound?

Is there a sound processor that makes a solo violin sound like many? It just
needs to create some slight pitch variations, some slight timing variation,
and different rate of vibrato.

Speaking to my violinist neighbour recently, he told me that in an orchestra (or
even in a quartet) the violins do not play the same music, they play it in
different keys etc. This results in harmony which a solo violin cannot achieve.

Graham

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article ,
Eeyore wrote:

peter wrote:

What is it about the violin, that you need many of them to get the
orchestra
sound?

Is there a sound processor that makes a solo violin sound like many? It
just
needs to create some slight pitch variations, some slight timing variation,
and different rate of vibrato.

Speaking to my violinist neighbour recently, he told me that in an orchestra
(or
even in a quartet) the violins do not play the same music, they play it in
different keys etc. This results in harmony which a solo violin cannot
achieve.

Graham

Well, in most orchestral music, there are two violin parts: First Violin
and Second Violin. Sometimes those two parts, each played by multiple
players, are written in unison, sometimes in harmony (only in very
avant-garde literature would they be in different keys).

[[email protected]]

On Wed, 21 May 2008 07:06:03 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:

Speaking to my violinist neighbour recently, he told me that in an orchestra (or
even in a quartet) the violins do not play the same music, they play it in
different keys etc. This results in harmony which a solo violin cannot achieve.

Definately in a quartet, but in an orchestra there are whole sections
playing the same part.
Usually 1st Violins on a part, although occassionally each individual
of a pair on a music stand will play different parts. to divide 1st.
violins into two.
2nd violin section will have another part.
Violas another and so on for celli and basses.
It would be caos to have each player on a different part, but there
are new music pieces that call for the players to adlib or play a note
for 11 & 1/2 secs. or other wierd ****.

[Eeyore]

wrote:

On Wed, 21 May 2008 07:06:03 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:

Speaking to my violinist neighbour recently, he told me that in an orchestra (or
even in a quartet) the violins do not play the same music, they play it in
different keys etc. This results in harmony which a solo violin cannot achieve.

Definately in a quartet, but in an orchestra there are whole sections
playing the same part.
Usually 1st Violins on a part, although occassionally each individual
of a pair on a music stand will play different parts. to divide 1st.
violins into two.
2nd violin section will have another part.
Violas another and so on for celli and basses.
It would be caos to have each player on a different part, but there
are new music pieces that call for the players to adlib or play a note
for 11 & 1/2 secs. or other wierd ****.

Sure, I didn't mean that. But it seems no-one had previously mentioned that separate
parts are being played.

Graham

[Eeyore]

Jenn wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
peter wrote:

What is it about the violin, that you need many of them to get the
orchestra sound?

Is there a sound processor that makes a solo violin sound like many? It
just needs to create some slight pitch variations, some slight timing
variation,
and different rate of vibrato.

Speaking to my violinist neighbour recently, he told me that in an orchestra
(or even in a quartet) the violins do not play the same music, they play it in
different keys etc. This results in harmony which a solo violin cannot
achieve.

Well, in most orchestral music, there are two violin parts: First Violin
and Second Violin. Sometimes those two parts, each played by multiple
players, are written in unison, sometimes in harmony (only in very
avant-garde literature would they be in different keys).

I defer to your superior knowledge in this regard. My main point was that all the
violins are not playing identical sheet music.

This was actually news to me. I hadn't known this previously.

Graham

[Anahata]

On Wed, 21 May 2008 17:39:30 +1000, Soundhaspriority wrote:

You forgot me.

Oh shame, how could we forget the buzzard?

--
Anahata
==//== 01638 720444
http://www.treewind.co.uk ==//== http://www.myspace.com/maryanahata

[Ralf R. Radermacher]

peter wrote:

What is it about the violin, that you need many of them to get the orchestra
sound?

In German, a violin is a "Geige" and a violinist is a "Geiger". No
wonder they invented the Geiger counter. And since so many Germans are
named Müller, there's even a special version - the Geiger Müller
counter. ;-)

Ralf

--
Ralf R. Radermacher - DL9KCG - Köln/Cologne, Germany
private homepage: http://www.fotoralf.de
manual cameras and photo galleries - updated Jan. 10, 2005
Contarex - Kiev 60 - Horizon 202 - P6 mount lenses

[Scott Dorsey]

Eeyore wrote:

Speaking to my violinist neighbour recently, he told me that in an orchestra (or
even in a quartet) the violins do not play the same music, they play it in
different keys etc. This results in harmony which a solo violin cannot achieve.

In a string quartet, all four performers have different parts.

In an orchestra, each violin section will have one part. First violins will
all play one part, second violins will all play another. It is very rare
that two first violin players will have different parts, unless it's an
Alban Berg piece or one of the violins is specifically used for a solo.
It does happen, though.
--scott

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

[jakdedert]

wrote:
On Tue, 20 May 2008 17:48:06 -0700 (PDT), Mark
wrote:

But this kind of discussion about the ART of recording is the
wonderfully good part of RAP. These kind of things can make a BIG
difference in a recording and are not easily measured or quantified.
These discussions are why I come here.

My sentiments exactly. I'm so pleased if I could help.
I almost gave up on this forum when we got invaded by the spammers.
I've been here for years and have gotten great advise on gear
purchases and technique some times at the last minute before a
session.
It is always greatly appreciated hats off to Mike and The Pope, Scott,
David, Arnie and too many to name.

To me, it just sounds like so much fiddling around until you get the
sound you like. G

jak

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On 21 May 2008 08:58:32 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

In a string quartet, all four performers have different parts.

In an orchestra, each violin section will have one part. First violins will
all play one part, second violins will all play another. It is very rare
that two first violin players will have different parts, unless it's an
Alban Berg piece or one of the violins is specifically used for a solo.
It does happen, though.

There's a little more to it than that.

In the symphony orchestra each violin section (First and Second)
normally read from the same parts. But both solo and divisi passages
are common.

In light music it's common to see scoring for Violins A, B and C.
String sections are smaller. There might not be any viola at all,
maybe one 'cello.

Violins often play LOTS of notes, frequently at great speed. Despite
the skill of professional players, absolute accuracy of intonation is
an impossible ideal. That's why one player to a part sounds good, if
rather thin. Two to a part just sound out of tune. Three or more
start sounding like a section.

[Karl Winkler]

On May 21, 8:22 am, Laurence Payne wrote:
On 21 May 2008 08:58:32 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

In a string quartet, all four performers have different parts.

In an orchestra, each violin section will have one part. First violins will
all play one part, second violins will all play another. It is very rare
that two first violin players will have different parts, unless it's an
Alban Berg piece or one of the violins is specifically used for a solo.
It does happen, though.

There's a little more to it than that.

In the symphony orchestra each violin section (First and Second)
normally read from the same parts. But both solo and divisi passages
are common.

In light music it's common to see scoring for Violins A, B and C.
String sections are smaller. There might not be any viola at all,
maybe one 'cello.

Violins often play LOTS of notes, frequently at great speed. Despite
the skill of professional players, absolute accuracy of intonation is
an impossible ideal. That's why one player to a part sounds good, if
rather thin. Two to a part just sound out of tune. Three or more
start sounding like a section.

As a violin and viola player, I can attest to this. First off, let me
say that the collective wisdom (mostly) of this thread has the right
answers. The string sections of an orchestra are made up of violin 1,
violin 2, viola, cello and bass. Within each of those sections, parts
may be unison or divisi, and sometimes as many as four parts - even
for fairly standard symphonic works such as by Beethoven or Brahms.
Certainly for Sibelius, Dvorak, Mahler or Shostakovitch (just heard
the New Mexico Symphony perform his 5th Symphony last Friday.
Frightening, beautiful, powerful and sorrowful all at the same time).

And I agree that differences of timing, intonation, vibrato and
individual instrument voices all add to the whole of the "string
sound". Then, the room (hall), the interaction between players, and
how the conductor shapes the activities of the sections all play
important roles.

One thing that has not been brought up is that larger string sections
are needed to balance with the winds and brass. If you follow the
development of the orchestra over the centuries, you'll see that at
first, there were maybe six or eight in each violin section, four or
maybe six violas, same for celli, and then perhaps one or two bass.
The winds were made up of oboe, flute, bassoon, a trumpet or two, and
then only tympani for percussion.

By Beethoven's time, the strings had grown by 50 percent to offset the
addition of horns, trombones, more woodwinds, a greater role for the
tympani, etc. By the end of the 19th century, the orchestra was double
it's original size. Today, you commonly see 12 firsts, 12 seconds, 8
to 10 violas, 8 to 10 celli, 6 basses... to match wits with the tuba,
three trombones, three trumpets, four horns, bass drum, cymbals &
other percussion, three flutes, contrabassoon, etc.

So to some extent, the number of strings we see in a symphony is for
the simple reason of balance.

I must admit that today, it is much more difficult for me to be sure
that I'm hearing real strings. As recently as the early 1990s, I was
almost always certain. But the advances in sampler technology, string
libraries (which are originally real string sections), the skills of
the composers/scoring guys and the variety of ways that string sounds
(commercials, movies, games, TV scores, etc) can and are used has made
it nearly impossible to tell anymore. But I will say this - despite
these advances, I often hear VERY poor attempts at synthesizing real
instruments from time to time. When I hear those examples, I always
wonder "what they hell are they thinking" but it is probably a matter
of time, budget, and the talent or lack thereof of the involved
parties.

-Karl

[Scott Dorsey]

Karl Winkler wrote:

I must admit that today, it is much more difficult for me to be sure
that I'm hearing real strings. As recently as the early 1990s, I was
almost always certain. But the advances in sampler technology, string
libraries (which are originally real string sections), the skills of
the composers/scoring guys and the variety of ways that string sounds
(commercials, movies, games, TV scores, etc) can and are used has made
it nearly impossible to tell anymore. But I will say this - despite
these advances, I often hear VERY poor attempts at synthesizing real
instruments from time to time. When I hear those examples, I always
wonder "what they hell are they thinking" but it is probably a matter
of time, budget, and the talent or lack thereof of the involved
parties.

At the same time, though, bad mike technique can turn real string sections
into something that you'd swear was a cheap sampler. I have heard the
Virginia Symphony Pops, aided by sound reinforcement, sound like something
off a Barry Manilow record in a live concert. Very much unlike live strings.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Jason[_8_]]

On May 21, 8:39*am, Soundhaspriority wrote:
In article , "



wrote:
On Tue, 20 May 2008 17:48:06 -0700 (PDT), Mark
wrote:

But this kind of discussion about the ART of recording is the
wonderfully good part of RAP. *These kind of things can make a BIG
difference in a recording and are not easily measured or quantified.
These discussions are why I come here.

My sentiments exactly. I'm so pleased if I could help.
I almost gave up on this forum when we got invaded by the spammers.
I've been here for years and have gotten great advise on gear
purchases and technique some times at the last minute before a
session.
It is always greatly appreciated hats off to Mike and The Pope, Scott,
David, Arnie and too many to name.

You forgot me.

Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511

Because it sounds better! ) (Or at least you can't hear the ones
out of tune.)

[Karl Winkler]

On May 21, 9:11 am, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
Karl Winkler wrote:



I must admit that today, it is much more difficult for me to be sure
that I'm hearing real strings. As recently as the early 1990s, I was
almost always certain. But the advances in sampler technology, string
libraries (which are originally real string sections), the skills of
the composers/scoring guys and the variety of ways that string sounds
(commercials, movies, games, TV scores, etc) can and are used has made
it nearly impossible to tell anymore. But I will say this - despite
these advances, I often hear VERY poor attempts at synthesizing real
instruments from time to time. When I hear those examples, I always
wonder "what they hell are they thinking" but it is probably a matter
of time, budget, and the talent or lack thereof of the involved
parties.

At the same time, though, bad mike technique can turn real string sections
into something that you'd swear was a cheap sampler. I have heard the
Virginia Symphony Pops, aided by sound reinforcement, sound like something
off a Barry Manilow record in a live concert. Very much unlike live strings.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Absolutely. Often times this is because of the use of contact mics. As
has been pointed out (probably by you) earlier in this thread, mic
position makes a big difference. And so does mixing. Adding sound
reinforcement to an orchestra is no trivial matter, especially if you
want it to sound good.

-Karl

[John Williamson]

Jason wrote:
On May 21, 8:39 am, Soundhaspriority wrote:
In article , "



wrote:
On Tue, 20 May 2008 17:48:06 -0700 (PDT), Mark
wrote:
But this kind of discussion about the ART of recording is the
wonderfully good part of RAP. These kind of things can make a BIG
difference in a recording and are not easily measured or quantified.
These discussions are why I come here.
My sentiments exactly. I'm so pleased if I could help.
I almost gave up on this forum when we got invaded by the spammers.
I've been here for years and have gotten great advise on gear
purchases and technique some times at the last minute before a
session.
It is always greatly appreciated hats off to Mike and The Pope, Scott,
David, Arnie and too many to name.
You forgot me.

Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511

Because it sounds better! ) (Or at least you can't hear the ones
out of tune.)

Speak for yourself. Most conductors I've spoken to can. ;-)

--

Tciao for Now!

John.

[[email protected]]

On Wed, 21 May 2008 23:57:18 +0100, John Williamson
wrote:

Speak for yourself. Most conductors I've spoken to can. ;-)

Same here, it's scary when they point the finger and announce second
violins 4th desk that is a g flat in the 144th bar not a g natural.
With all that's going on to hear a single 1/8 note from one player and
identify who seems like a feat of magic.

[jakdedert]

wrote:
On Wed, 21 May 2008 23:57:18 +0100, John Williamson
wrote:

Speak for yourself. Most conductors I've spoken to can. ;-)

Same here, it's scary when they point the finger and announce second
violins 4th desk that is a g flat in the 144th bar not a g natural.
With all that's going on to hear a single 1/8 note from one player and
identify who seems like a feat of magic.

It's why they make the big bucks....

jak

[Frank Stearns]

Karl Winkler writes:

On May 21, 9:11 am, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
Karl Winkler wrote:


snips

At the same time, though, bad mike technique can turn real string sections
into something that you'd swear was a cheap sampler. I have heard the
Virginia Symphony Pops, aided by sound reinforcement, sound like something
off a Barry Manilow record in a live concert. Very much unlike live strings.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Absolutely. Often times this is because of the use of contact mics. As
has been pointed out (probably by you) earlier in this thread, mic
position makes a big difference. And so does mixing. Adding sound
reinforcement to an orchestra is no trivial matter, especially if you
want it to sound good.

With all respect to our PA brethren, many of them just don't get it when it
comes to R E I N F O R C E M E N T vs. PA. The sonic balance of the PA system
matters not one bit; it seems squeezing out that last 1/4 dB of gain before feedback
that matters most to them.

But there's a better way...

Step 1. Turn it the F**K down -- this alone cures many, many ills throughout the
system. And for acoustic group reinforcment, 90-95 dB average SPL should be fine
(that's still pretty loud) - you really don't need 105+. That 10 dB can turn
sack cloth into silk.

Step 2. Take some time to balance the system sonically. In the old days about 10% of
my work was PA mixing; 90% studio -- while some techniques were different I aimed
for the same kind of sound.

People asked why the sound was so good. Step 1 was paramount, but also taking the
time to make the underlying system sound like good monitors in a good control room
was also a trick. Couldn't always get there based on the gear supplied/time limits
but that was the goal. And when that could be done it was great, even with modest
PA gear.

These days I generally cringe when I see a PA system, and reach for my earplugs.
Sigh. Can't think of the last time I heard a good PA (heard some good mixes at a
Bluegrass festival but it was 100-105+); worked with some guys this past weekend who
I think did a good reinforcement job but I was off to the side recording and doing a
live tv mix; couldn't really pay attention to the house sound. No one complained, so
that's something, given that the audience was mainly used to purely acoustic
settings.

Frank Stearns
Mobile Audio
--

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article ,
jakdedert wrote:

wrote:
On Wed, 21 May 2008 23:57:18 +0100, John Williamson
wrote:

Speak for yourself. Most conductors I've spoken to can. ;-)

Same here, it's scary when they point the finger and announce second
violins 4th desk that is a g flat in the 144th bar not a g natural.
With all that's going on to hear a single 1/8 note from one player and
identify who seems like a feat of magic.

It's why they make the big bucks....

jak

Well, a few do. Then there's me...
;-) (moderate bucks. I'm lucky)

[Jason[_8_]]

Speak for yourself. Most conductors I've spoken to can. ;-)

:-) (I trust you know that was meant to be a joke....)

Best,

Jason

[Richard Webb]

To: Frank Stearns
Frank Stearns wrote:
position makes a big difference. And so does mixing. Adding sound
reinforcement to an orchestra is no trivial matter, especially if you
want it to sound good.

And there are some that practice the art whether well. A fellow iirc in
Colorado discussed his techniques for this in alt.audio.pro.live-sound last
summer. OUTdoor amphitheater. NOT having heard his work, from the descriptions
he gave I think that you scott or I would like to listen to the results.

FS With all respect to our PA brethren, many of them just don't get it
FS when it comes to R E I N F O R C E M E N T vs. PA. The sonic
FS balance of the PA system matters not one bit; it seems squeezing out
FS that last 1/4 dB of gain before feedback
FS that matters most to them.

WOuld have to agree, and they're saddled with two problems, and hence their
mindset as noted by you above.

FIrst, many of these guys have never listened to music that didn't require
amplification. All of their musical experience is with electric guitars basses
and drum kits.

this brings us to rpoblem number two: People who don't understand the physics
at all, don't understand how their microphone works and won't learn to handle
it properly. Hence, poor or nonexistent mic technique coupled with expecting
the repeal of the laws of physics.

FS But there's a better way...

FS Step 1. Turn it the F**K down -- this alone cures many, many ills
FS throughout the system. And for acoustic group reinforcment, 90-95 dB
FS average SPL should be fine (that's still pretty loud) - you really
FS don't need 105+. That 10 dB can turn sack cloth into silk.

Goes back to problem no. 1 I mention above. THey're not used to thinking of
reinforcement as what it actually is.

FS Step 2. Take some time to balance the system sonically.

To do that, you have to know what to listen for. YOu also have to take the
*time* and not just paint by the numbers.


Regards,
Richard
USE elspider at bellsouth dot net to email ...
.... GOOGLE AIDS AND ABETS SPAMMERS!
--- timEd 1.10.y2k+
* Origin: Radio REscue net operations BBS (1:116/901)
--- Synchronet 3.15a-Win32 NewsLink 1.85
* Derby City Online - Louisville, KY - telnet://derbycitybbs.com

[Scott Fraser]

With all respect to our PA brethren, many of them just don't get it when it comes to *R E I N F O R C E M E N T *vs. PA. *The sonic balance of the PA system matters not one bit; it seems squeezing out that last 1/4 dB of gain before feedback that matters most to them.

The real issue is that only a tiny fraction of all PA mixers have even
the slightest familiarity with acoustic instruments, much less
classical music & the culture it exists within. Beyond that, though, a
good engineer should be able to work successfully with unfamiliar
music. The sad reality is that most PA engineers simply aren't very
good, regardless of the genre they work within.

Scott Fraser

[Arny Krueger]

"Frank Stearns" wrote in
message
acquisition

With all respect to our PA brethren, many of them just don't get it when
it
comes to R E I N F O R C E M E N T vs. PA. The sonic
balance of the PA system matters not one bit; it seems
squeezing out that last 1/4 dB of gain before feedback
that matters most to them.

It's often not either sonic balance/or gain before feedback.

Gain before feedback helps put the console op in charge of sonic balance.

Here's why.

Most people end up mixing a collection of electronic and acoustical
instruments. The electronic instruments are easy, they are very resistant
feedback. The acoustical instruments vary all over the map, including the
vocalists. You often end up with some acoustical sources that won't be heard
even in the first row unless amplfied, while others can be heard pretty well
in the back row without any amplification at all.

Then you have the effects of the room. Often rooms have tremendously
non-flat response. Often that non-flat response varies throughout the room.
A well designed sound system may have far better sonic balance throughout
the room than the room itself.

Given that most voices and instruments cover limited frequency ranges,
simply adjusting their relative levels can have beneficial effects on sonic
balance in the room. However, to effectively adjust the level of a source,
your sound system has to have significant amounts of stable gain in that
frequency range.

Then of course you have the obvious boundary condition of maximum gain
before feedback. You can't turn the gain up more than that. Furthermore
system response starts going to blazes a fair number of dB before the system
starts singing on its own. Getting back to feedback theory - positive
feedback increases, not decreases variations in system response.

But there's a better way...

Step 1. Turn it the F**K down -- this alone cures many,
many ills throughout the system.

Agreed with the caveat that if you can't turn anything up, you're not in
control.

And for acoustic group
reinforcment, 90-95 dB average SPL should be fine (that's
still pretty loud) - you really don't need 105+. That 10
dB can turn sack cloth into silk.

Again agreed, but.

What do you do if you have to get balanced sound in a small room with loud
instruments in the ensemble, such as those drums over there? Rule of
thumb - you the sound guy aren't in control until the sum of live sound and
amplified sound is so many dB *more* than the loudest acoustical instrument.

I routinely work with a medium-sized pipe organ - almost 10,000 pipes,
lowest rank 16', and powered by a 10 horsepower electric motor. I think it
can do 100+ dB at the back of the room without trying. How loud does the
piano have to be to be heard when they are playing together? What is the sum
of the two when they are balanced?

Step 2. Take some time to balance the system sonically.
In the old days about 10% of my work was PA mixing; 90%
studio -- while some techniques were different I aimed
for the same kind of sound.

Right now I'm doing 70%+ live sound.

The really nasty thing about live sound is that you only get one shot.
There's no undo or redo command.

Rehearsals are nice but I can hardly remember the last one because it was
months and months ago.

I've mixed over 400 live sound gigs and had about 3 real rehearsals.

Furthermore, performers never sing at the same levels when there is an
audience, and never the same for two performances in a row.

People asked why the sound was so good. Step 1 was
paramount, but also taking the time to make the
underlying system sound like good monitors in a good
control room was also a trick.

Agreed.

Thing is, monitors only need to sound good where you sit. A live sound
system needs to sound good all over the room.

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Thu, 22 May 2008 12:16:04 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

What do you do if you have to get balanced sound in a small room with loud
instruments in the ensemble, such as those drums over there? Rule of
thumb - you the sound guy aren't in control until the sum of live sound and
amplified sound is so many dB *more* than the loudest acoustical instrument.

You've got a problem. But you can't solve it. Only the musicians can
solve it by choosing instruments, playing technique, musical styles
appropriate to the size of the room and the audience. I believe you
often work in a church situation. It sounds like you're doubly ****ed
by the managerial decision to use inexpert performers and
inappropriate musical styles in the name of inclusion.


I routinely work with a medium-sized pipe organ - almost 10,000 pipes,
lowest rank 16', and powered by a 10 horsepower electric motor. I think it
can do 100+ dB at the back of the room without trying. How loud does the
piano have to be to be heard when they are playing together? What is the sum
of the two when they are balanced?

A well-designed church organ is capable of 100dB but it's also capable
of accompaning a single boy treble. And it's often played by a
competent musician. You shouldn't need to mic the piano.